COMBATING SOIL COMPACTION

COMBATING SOIL COMPACTION

Anyone farming in Northern= N.Y. knows that avoiding soil compacti= on is easier said than done. Soils = become compacted after field operations occur when the soil is too wet, or in more formal terms, in a “plastic state.” This is defined by the water content at which a soil changes from a semi-solid to a plastic state, where soil easily deforms when force is applied. Compaction problems can persist = for several years after the initial event and can be difficult to correct, so preventing compaction is the key. Compaction can increase bulk density, pre= vent root growth, decrease aeration, increase erosion and runoff, and decrease yields.

&= nbsp;

The obvious way to avoid compaction is to stay off wet fields. This sou= nds good in theory, but is much harder to manage in reality. At the Institute, = we manure corn fields and plow in the fall to minimize compaction. Harvesting = is a different story. Last fall we harvested corn silage about two weeks later t= han normal — both soils and corn had a hard time drying out and we could hardly avoid some compaction while harvesting the last of the corn.

&= nbsp;

Soil t= exture influences compaction because finer-textured soils dry more slowly and stay= in the plastic state longer than coarser-textured soils. Use the “ball test” as a rough guide to determine if it’s too wet for field operations. Take a handful of soil from the lower plow layer and squeeze it into a ball. If it forms a ball easily and doesn’t crumble when squee= zed it’s probably too wet. Once a soil is compacted (e.g., >300 psi), = many of the large pores (macropores) needed for adeq= uate water and air flow are destroyed, and once dried, the soil becomes much den= ser than before compaction occurred. =

Increasing organic matter through manure, cover crops, and/or reduced tillage can also help manage compaction by promoting better aggregation and thus improved drainage/aeration. A cover crop can also help dry out fields = in the spring by mining soil water. Improving drainage will also decrease the = time that soils are in a compactable state, so use drainage where needed and maintain existing tiles.

Controlled traffic on fields also helps minimize compaction. When opera= ting on sensitive ground, try to use wider tires and consider dropping tire pressure. When subsoils get compacted, deep til= lage is generally required, but make sure the soil is not too wet when you do it (fall is preferred). Diagnosi= ng compaction isn’t always as obvious as seeing ruts in the field, and compaction is likely stealing yield in places we don’t even suspect.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

— Eric Youn= g, young@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER: RECORDS SHOULD GUIDE DECISION TO OPERATE

What criterion does your dairy farm use to decide to perform abomasal omentoplexy to cure a cow with a displaced abomasum? In many cases producers and veterinari= ans are guilty of relying on short term memory of the past three cases and not using all of the information that could be gleaned from complete recordkeep= ing.

In our practice, after each surgery, a staff member calls the farm 2 or= 3 days following surgery and gets a report for the surgeon on:

4&nb= sp; How much and what type of feed the cow is consuming,

4&nb= sp; How much milk she is producing, and

4&nb= sp; Whether she died or was sent to slaughter.

Going back four months, for the last 320 cases from which we got feedback, we lea= rned that:

4&nb= sp; 15 farms lost or sold cows shortly after surgery

4&nb= sp; 37 cows were lost or sold shortly after surgery

4&nb= sp; 5 farms suffered the most with the loss of 22 animals

These records were useful because we can proceed with surgery on the vast majorit= y of farms with stronger confidence of a successful outcome. And this info= rmation led us to undertake transition cow management workups on the farms that are suffering poor surgery recovery rate.

Of course, most of the cows that did not recover did not have a DA as t= he only cause of their problems. Many were complicated with type II ketos= is and Fatty Liver Syndrome and/or metritis-perito= nitis. By keeping long term records of the outcome, the producer can predict the outc= ome of surgery on future complicated DA cases.

For fa= rms that perform their own procedures to correct DA’s, record keeping of this = type is necessary to monitor technique proficiency and case selection. Don’= ;t rely on short-term memory to guide the decision to operate.

Note: Please contact Dr. Henderson before reprinting this article.<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN'>

— Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterin= ary Associates, Inc.

Hugamoo@comcast.net

CORN FUNGICIDES

One of the advant= ages of doing as much travelling as I do speaking at farmer meetings is learning how various technologies are being used both within and outside of the Northeast. For instance, BMR = corn hybrids appear to be yielding much more competitively under irrigation than under dryland conditions, comparable to their dual-purpose hybrids — this according to a couple of farmers who irrigate. Since so little silage corn in the Northeast is irrigated I didn’t learn this until heading south and west.

&= nbsp;

A fairly new technology is “over the top” corn fungicides, = not the tiny amount applied with seed treatments. I don’t know much about these fungicides (Headline and Quilt are the main ones) and when I don̵= 7;t know what I’m talking about I tend to be conservative in my comments. Most of the time, anyway. A few years ago, we wanted to get some experience = at Miner Institute with a late postemergence appli= cation of Headline, but there simply wasn’t any ground application equipment that could apply it when the corn was five feet high, which was the approxi= mate recommended growth stage. Headline has since received a “Special Local Needs” label in N.Y= . State permitting ae= rial application, which is the most practical way to get the job done. Headline = was already registered in N.Y. for ground applications.

&= nbsp;

Experi= ence in Pennsylvania wit= h postemergence applications of fungicides has been inconsistent, possibly because of a hybrid effect. Conditions that seem to favor an economical response include high-yielding fields with poor genetic resistance to leaf diseases, including Northern corn leaf blight. Anything = that results in more surface corn debris would also increase the chances of an economical response. This includes corn after corn, no= till corn and harvest of the previous corn crop for grain.

&= nbsp;

— E.T.

JOHNE’S DISEASE AND FORAGE CROPS

Controlling Johne’s disease is one of the Farm Rep= ort topics suggested by our readers. I’ll leave it to the veterinarians f= or suggestions as to how to control it within the dairy herd, but there are st= eps you can take in managing forages that can slow its spread. You will find a = more complete discussion of this topic on our website under this “Outreach” link:

&= nbsp;

http:/= /www.whminer.org/Outreach/Johnes%20Disease%20and%20Manure%20Management.pdf<= o:p>

The pathogen causing Johne’s disease = is a tough bug that’s resistant to heat, cold, sunlight, and most other environmental conditions. What it apparently is not resistant to, however, are the conditions present during and aft= er fermentation of forage crop silages. Two Japanese studies found that the MAP pathogen (the one causing Johne’s disease= ) was completely killed in well-fermented alfalfa silage. Either low pH or high acidity—conditions present in good quality silage—killed MAP. T= he researchers were able to recover 100% of the MAP in dry hay, and a consider= able amount of the pathogen in higher DM silage that had lower acid levels and therefore a higher pH).

The Japanese research consisted of two laboratory studies using a pure = form of MAP, not the pathogens recovered from a dairy cow. Therefore, Miner Institute started a more practical study using MAP from a “super shed= der” (Johne’s disease infected) cow and alfalfa-grass silage from the Institute farm. The results weren’t qui= te as compelling as the laboratory studies, but the initial study found that ensiling for 30 days killed 97% of the MAP.

Based = on these studies, unless your herd is confirmed to be 100% Johne’s free you should consider following these guidelines:

Johne’s is a slow developing disease, so your primary goal should be to protect calves and heifers. Dry = hay from fields receiving livestock manure during the current growing season sh= ould not be fed to calves or young heif= ers. This probably includes baleage since it’s= often ensiled at a higher DM, and this may result in lower acidity and higher pH.= To be safe, don’t feed any forage manured du= ring the growing season, either hay or silage= , to calves or young heifers.

Don’t pasture calves (and avoid pasturing any dairy animals) on pastures or hay fields that were manured during the current growing season. If you wan= t to manure this land, do so in the fall after the pasture season is over.<= /o:p>

If you manure hay crop fields harvested during that growing season, ensile the forage at dry matter levels that will encourage proper fermentation (generally 30-40% DM) and confirm t= his by pH test. If at all possible, feed this silage to cows, not young heifers. The safest option is not to make any dry= hay from fields manured during that growing season.=

— Ev Thomas= , Thomas@whminer.com

&nb= sp;

FLEXITARIANS

No, a flexitarian isn’t a Unitarian who believes in exercise, but yet another consumer group identified by the foods its adherents choose to eat. Most people are = omnivores, eating meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, dairy products, etc. Our ancestors = were primarily carnivores, turning to plants for food only when game was short or their aim was bad. (“Vegetarian” is reportedly an old American Indian word meaning “Does not hunt well.”) Vegetarians won’t e= at meat but are OK with eggs and dairy products. Vegans are the true fo= od extremists, eating fruits, nuts and vegetables but no animal products whatsoever. (Speaking of vegans, PETA recently offered to buy the jail in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Macomb County, Michigan a new freezer to replace its worn-out one if it would replace the meat sandwiches served inmates with vegan meals. The sheriff refused, citing the high cost of vegan food.)

Recently some veg= etarians have grown weary of noshing down on tofu and veggie burgers while watching their omnivorous friends tie into a juicy steak. Having eaten a veggie burg= er (only once, when the Miner Institute cafeteria ran out of hamburgers), I can understand why:= A veggie burger is best consumed with an approximately equal amount of condim= ents because the taste of mustard or catsup is preferable to the taste of the ve= ggie burger. Flexitarians are former vegetari= ans who have decided that it’s not the meat that’s offensive, but t= he way the critters were managed from manger to meathook<= /span>. So grass-fed and certified organic meat is OK, feedlot-produced meat is not= . Flexitarian may be a strange-sounding word, but perha= ps preferable to the more accurate but decidedly oxymoronic alternative: Meat-eating vegetarian.

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

ARE DAIRY FARMING AND ANIMAL WELFARE COMPATIBLE?

Note= : The following originally ran as an “In My Opinion” in the Feb. 6, 2= 010 Press Republican.

A recent ABC Nightline segment (Disturbing Reality of Dairy Land, 1/27/10) indicted dairy cattle management practices as abusive and incompatible with animal well-being. Increasingly, issues of food animal welfare are rarely o= ut of the media spotlight. Animal welfare, along with environmental impacts of farming and food safety, are highly visible agricultural issues that cross-cut societal concerns so the media interest= is not surprising. What is disheartening is the often biased reporting and lac= k of recognition of the science that supports many agricultural practices. Since very few Americans are directly involved in farming, biased reporting may easily instill distrust of contemporary agriculture, whereas true education= is an arduous and lengthy process.

&= nbsp;

In the= ABC segment the primary expert was a spokesperson for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – demonstrably a biased source of information regarding livestock management. A quick perusal of their web site reveals a vegetarian agenda. The segment questioned several common aspects of dairy management, but pilloried two dairy management practices in particular: tail docking and dehorning. An undercover investigation revealed what appeared t= o be instances of animal abuse on a dairy farm in New York State. But, no attempt was made to explain the reasons for these practices and the implication was that many modern management practices result in needless pa= in and distress to the cow. Furthermore, the viewer might well conclude that d= airy farmers themselves really do not care about their animals’ well-being= .

&= nbsp;

Tail d= ocking of all cows is practiced on approximately 15% of dairy farms in an attempt = to keep the cows as well as the milker clean, ther= eby producing higher quality milk. Disadvantages for the cow include pain at the time of the procedure and impaired fly swatting ability (no small matter if you’re a cow). Published research finds no consistent benefit (J. Dairy Sci. 2001. 84:84-87) on cow cleanliness or milk quality. In addit= ion, recent research indicates that some cows with docked tails may suffer phant= om limb pain (J. Dairy Sci. 2006. 89:3047-3051). Hence, the dairy indus= try does need to reconsider whether tail docking is a desirable practice, and in fact the American Veterinary Medical Association does not support tail dock= ing. An alternative
approach practiced on dairy farms is simply trimming the tail switch thereby avoiding the potential for pain. Unfortunately, none of this fundamental information was examined in the ABC story and an educational moment was squandered.

&= nbsp;

Unlike tail docking, dehorning is ubiquitous in the dairy industry and = for good reason: reduced risk of injury to herd mates and farmers handling the cows. The well-being of calves being dehorned has been of great concern to researchers, farmers, and the general public alike. Researchers have assess= ed how to reduce pain associated with dehorning by using local anesthetics suc= h as lidocaine that mitigate initial pain and stress responses in the animal being dehorned (J. Dairy Sci. 2007. 90:4232-4239). = As a result, the use of analgesics and anesthetics is becoming increasingly comm= on on dairy farms. Interestingly, the ABC segment did not mention this trend toward improved animal welfare on-farm.

&= nbsp;

More generally, facilities and management practices that accommodate the cow’s natural behavioral requirements invariably enhance their well-being, productivity, and health. Accumulating scientific evidence demonstrates that ensuring cow well-being also enhances farm profitability. Animal welfare assessment prog= rams have been developed and cutting-edge dairy farms are beginning to implement these programs to document that their management practices do not impair the welfare of the cattle on their farm.

Taking an isolated instance of animal abuse on one farm and tarring an entire industry by association is misleading. The news segment ended with a riff on the well-known line “Got Milk?” The HSUS spokesperson a= dded “Got Ethics?” Questioning the ethics of the entire dairy indust= ry stymies real progress on animal welfare issues within the industry and the genuine education of society. Instead, we must focus on research-based farm management practices that promote animal well-being as well as farm profitability.

&= nbsp;

In my opinion, th= e answer to the question posed in the title of this article is emphatically “yes”: dairy farming and animal welfare are entirely compatible= and we must engage society with research rather than rhetoric.

— Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM

Things have been relatively quiet in the barn this month. I hesitate to write that; as soon = as the Farm Report goes to print we’ll probably have something exciting happen! We have been discussing haylage changes in our Friday farm meetings as we get close to the end of the 2009 inventory. =

&= nbsp;

Anothe= r topic of discussion has been dry and transition cow management; this is such an important part of a successful lactation!&= nbsp; We record cow bodyweights during the dry period; cows get weighed at dry-off, when they move to close-up, and immediately after they freshen. We have assembled the recent= data into a couple different graphs in Excel to help us evaluate our dry cow program. Are the cows gaining= too much weight, losing weight, can we see any patterns that we can tie back to management or nutritional changes. The bodyweight changes can also be used = to flag potential problem cows after they freshen.

&= nbsp;

We purchased a used blood analyzer machine several months ago from a veterinarian’s office that was upgrading their equipment. Although it= can analyze blood samples for a host of different concentrations, we have been using it to look at calcium levels in our fresh cows – for management purposes, not as an official research project. Blood is drawn from the fresh cow 2-12 hours after calving and because the machine is on-farm, we are abl= e to have results very quickly (1–1½ hours). We have been using the results for managing individual cows and for tracking patterns in our dry c= ows as we change rations. Although milk fever incidence is very minimal on the farm, we’ve used test results to identify several cows with subclinic= al milk fever. The cows appeared sluggish or “off”, but didn’= ;t have the classic milk fever symptoms. They were treated with a bottle of calcium subcutaneously and didn’t seem to miss a beat after that.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; — Anna Pape, pape@whminer.com

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; — Steve Couture, couture@whminer.com

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

I’ve been s= peaking at a number of meetings in southern Pennsylvania this winter, and there often are Amish and Mennonite farmers in the audienc= e as well as what are called “English” farmers regardless of their nationality. If you’re not Amish or Mennonite, you’re English e= ven if your name is Pulaski. It’s important to know your audience, but especially so in this case because of the tremendous differences in how the several types farm. Amish farmers don’t use electricity or tractors, = and typically have tie stall operations with upright silos. Mennonite sects vary considerably in their daily life and farming practices, including some that= are almost as strict as the Amish. Although tractors with steel wheels are requ= ired in some Mennonite communities, most Mennonite farmers use modern farm technology. I’ve figured out an easy way to determine the audience at meetings: I check out the coat rack, particularly the hat rack. Straw hat = =3D Amish; black hat =3D Mennonite; seed/feed company cap =3D English.

Down here it’s easy to remember which side Virginia was on during the Civil War (= or as it’s sometimes known here, “The War of Northern Aggression̶= 1;). One of the major roads in Rich= mond is the Jefferson Davis Hig= hway, and on the Friday before the M. L. King holiday, state and local offices we= re closed in observance of Jackson-Lee Day.

Virginia has long since expended its annual snow removal budget as well as its emergency highway repair funds. Potholes abound on local and state roads, some seemingly deep enough to swa= llow a VW Beetle. One local church billboard read: “If you’ve been praying for snow — please stop!” Richmond is a city of churches, with ma= ny hundreds in the greater metro area. Lots of different denominations of cour= se but mostly Baptist, including the one we attend. Full-immersion Baptists are fine folks, though perhaps a few were held under water a bit too long.=

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; — E.T.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FR= OM
THE BOVINE GENOME?

After a six year endeavor the Bovine Genome Project was completed in 2009 through= the efforts of over 300 scientists from 25 countries. A female Hereford cow served as the genetic sour= ce for the project, and her genome was compared with that of other cattle breeds. = The researchers determined that the bovine genome consists of 3 billion base pa= irs and 22,000 genes. So what does this mean? Well, DNA contains the genetic co= de in cells, and the genetic code is determined by the sequence of four nucleobases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), = and thymine (T). In the DNA molecule, two strands of nucle= obases form, and these strands are bound together to form the helical structure of= DNA illustrated in the diagram below. Bond formation between strands is such th= at A only binds to T, and C only binds to G. An AT and CG= bond are termed a “base pair” (see diagram below). A gene is a region within the DNA strand that corresponds to a unit of inheritance. The gene is why you can select for certain traits within your herd and have those traits expressed in subsequent generations. In the bovine, we now know that there = are 22,000 places within the genome that determine a cow’s genetic make-u= p. I know it’s a little confusing, but I hope I haven’t lost you yet because it gets way more exciting.

&= nbsp;

So why should we care about the bovine genome project? Once the complet= e genomic sequence of a species is determined, researchers can identify differences in individual sequences among animals within a species. These differences allow for identification of genetic sequences that code for increased milk production, improved reproductive performance, improved feed efficiency, et= c. Identification of the genetic sequences that provide for these traits can eventually be used to guide breeding programs. This application is still ye= ars away, but the possibility now exists.

Are there applications of the bovine genome project beyond agriculture? Yes. Lemay et al. (2009) reported on implications of the bovine genome for human nutrition and research (reference below). The authors indicated that comparative genomics of the bovine genome will allow for identification of milk- and lactation-related genes across all mammalian genomes that have be= en sequenced. Studying the evolution of milk synthesis across species can prov= ide information about nutrition because milk is the only food that has uniquely evolved to specifically nourish the mammal it’s intended to feed.

Because milk is synthesized to meet the nutrient requirements of the in= fant at the expense of the mother, individuals within a species that produce more nourishing milk are more likely to have offspring that survive and thrive. = Therefore, those genes are passed along generation after generation. Milk also has nutritional functions beyond providing the infant with nutrients. Lemay et = al. (2009) identified five unifying nutritional functions of milk:

4&nb= sp; Supplies all of the essential nutrients for the growi= ng infant.

4&nb= sp; Provides a mixture of biomolecul= es in complex structures.

4&nb= sp; Provides protective molecules to fight off harmful organisms and guide the development of the immune system.=

4&nb= sp; Contains indigestible complex sugars that promote a subset of protective bacteria in the infant’s gut.<= /p>

4&nb= sp; Contains components that regulate infant development.=

With the knowledge obtained from the bovine genome project, not only ca= n we enhance agricultural practices, but we can improve our understanding of hum= an nutrition and the role of milk in the evolution of a species. Something to ponder the next time you’re milking your cows.

— Sarah Bou= cher, boucher@whminer.com

Ref= erence: Lemay, D. G., M. Rijnkels, and J. B. German. 2009. Lessons from the bo= vine genome: Implications for human nutrition and research. J. Nutr. 139:1271-1272.

HOW BIG ARE MINER INSTITUTE’S COWS?

In February we measured the body weight and wither height of our lactating cow= s. I was curious about the size of our cows and how that related to the ability = of cows to properly use our Calan broadbent feeding system. The Calan system is set for a h= erd having an average wither height of 56 inches. We enrolled a cow in the study that was 1854 pounds and 60 inches high at the withers. This cow was big en= ough to eat out of bins assigned to other cows by reaching over the barricade fo= rmed by the bin door. She was removed from the study.

It turns out that our lactating cows at Miner Institute vary greatly in size (Figure 1.). Body weight ranged from 1059 to 2316 pounds and averaged = 1528 pounds. Wither height ranged from 50.5 to 63.5 inches and averaged 56.9 inc= hes. From this data we learned that the average sized cow at the Institute will = work well in the Calan system. However, we will need= to exclude some of the very short and very tall cows.

The data has generated some interesting discussion about why we have so much variation in cow size across the herd and within lactation number. The easy explanation is genetics, nutrition, and morbidity in early life. We wi= ll continue to discuss these factors and the impact that the variation has on management practices. I’ll share some of our thoughts in a future Farm Report article.

&= nbsp;

= &nb= sp; = R= 12; Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

= &nb= sp;

2009 NNY CORN GRAIN TRIAL RESULTS

Cornell University has released the results of its 2009 corn grain trials planted in Northern N.Y., available at: http://www.nnyagdev.org/_fieldcrops.htm#Corn

&= nbsp;

The se= veral trials planted in the North Country aver= aged between 184 and 202 bu/acre= . Most remarkable perhaps are the results of the medium-early trial planted i= n Sackets Harbor (near Watertown). There were 24 hybrids from 8 seed companies in the trial, and the lowest= yielding hybrid was 181 bu/= acre. (The highest was 220.) This suggests that all seed companies sell corn hybr= ids with the potential for very high grain yield; low yields are usually= due to something other than genetics. This would include late planting, lousy w= eed control, low plant population, poor soil drainage, etc.

&= nbsp;

Northern N.Y. farmers should note that these trials are the result= of their “hard-earned tax dollars at work”. Without public support there wouldn’t be any unbiased source of comparative yield data. Each year Cornell University plants, harvests, analy= zes and publishes the results of its corn silage, corn grain, soybean, alfalfa, clover, grass, and cereal grain trials.

&= nbsp;

Edi= tor’s note: Long-time readers of the Farm Report may detect increased references to the on-line availability of articles and data, including Cornell’s grain trial results. This is inconvenient for readers who don’t use a compu= ter with on-line access. It’s understandable for those farmers who eschew= the use of computers for religious reasons—we have quite a few Amish farm= ers, primarily from Pennsylvania, on our mailing list. These folks don’t use electricity at all. But we have little sympathy for farmers who continue to resist use of the internet= for less altruistic reasons, including stubbornness. (This from one who many ye= ars ago grumped “I don’t need any #@%* computer—I’ve go= t my electric typewriter!” How times—and people—change!) If you’re farming and aren’t on the Internet you’re i= n an increasingly small minority, and missing out on more than perhaps you reali= ze. Food for thought.

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

CHANGING FROM PARLOR MILKING
TO AUTOMATIC MILKING SYSTEM
REDUCES UDDER HEALTH

Various technolog= ies are available to farmers that are designed to reduce labor needs and/or improve= cow welfare. Automatic milking systems have the potential to contribute substantially to both of these areas. However, there are limited data avail= able regarding the changes a producer should expect in udder health when convert= ing from a parlor-based milking system to an automatic milking system. A recent publication in the Journal of Dairy Science addressed this knowledge gap.

The study was conducted on 182 dairy farms across Finland that had gone from ei= ther tie-stall housing or freestall housing with a conventional milking system to freestall housin= g with an automatic milking system. The study compared milk yields, somatic cell counts (SCC), the portion of the herd with less than 200,000 cells/mL, and clinical mastitis from the year before the ch= ange in management to the year following the change. Milk yields were determined from the sum of all milkings on a test day, whi= ch were conducted at roughly four-week intervals. SCC was measured from a simi= lar milk sample collected every other month.&n= bsp; Incidents of mastitis were calculated from the farm’s treatment records.

Milk yield was not significantly reduced. Cows within the automatic systems prod= uced about 59 lbs per day while cows in the conventional systems produced about = 62 lbs per day. There was a difference in production during the change to automatic milking based on parity. Younger cows (parities ≤ 2) decrea= sed by 2.4 lbs per day while older cows (parties ≥ 3) decreased by 4.4 lbs per day. An increase in the logSCC (from 4.89 to 4.96) was observed in the cows transitioning to automatic milking. Unfortunately, the authors did not report the base of the log-transformation that they used. To put their logSCC values into perspective, they would represent a change from an SCC = of ~77,600 cells/mL to ~91,200 cells/mL (assuming the initial transformation was done usin= g a log with a base 10). Similarly, a small but statistically significant incre= ase in the percentage of cows with SCC over 200,000 was observed: 3.3% in autom= atic systems compared to 2.1% in the conventional systems. The percentages were highest during the 3 months following the change in milking system. These changes in logSCC and percentage of cows with h= igh SCC were likely due to the reduced number of cows treated for clinical mast= itis (5.1 per 10,000 cow days in automatic systems versus 5.3 per 10,000 cow day= s in conventional systems).

<= /p>

Overall, some decrease in milk production, milk quality, and udder health should be expected following the conversion to an automatic milking system from a conventional system. However, these changes are of questionable biological value and should not be sufficient to dissuade anyone currently considering= a conversion to an automatic milking system.=

— Peter Kra= wczel, krawczel@whmi= ner.com

Reference: Hovinen, M., Rasmussen, = M. D., and Pyörälä. 2009. Udder health of cows changing tie = stalls or free stalls with conventional milking to free stalls with either conventional or automatic milking. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3696-3703.

EV’S WEIRD CRITTER FACTS

A cat has 32 muscles= in each ear.

A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eye= s.

A sn= ail can sleep for three years.

No n= ew animals have been domesticated in the past 4,000 years.

Ther= e are more chickens than people in the world.

A go= ldfish has a memory span of 3 seconds. (Like some people I know.)

An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain. (Again, like some people I kn= ow.)

UPCOMING EVENTS

Pesticide Applicator Training — Recertification

When: Monday, March 22, 2010 in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Plattsburgh, NY

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 in = Westport, NY.

For more information, contact Amy Ivy at
(518) 561-7450 or email adi2@cornell.edu.&= nbsp;

Crop Meeting

When: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Moira, = NY

Presenters include Ron De= beer and Charlie
Hesseltine

For more information, call Charlie at
(518) 483-2783.

NOTILL FORAGE SEEDING

Notill forage seeding is one of the to= pics suggested by our readers. Miner Institute has a notill= drill, a John Deere Powr-Till seeder we haven&#= 8217;t used in over a decade. It has PTO-driven disks to carve out a seeding furrow and works just fine, but it’s only 8 feet wide and has to be operated= at a slow speed compared to our conventional grain drill. Most notill drills are quite expensive, but contain a lot more iron than conventional drills. If you’re considering notill fora= ge seeding, check with local equipment dealers to see if there’s one in = the area that you can rent, or someone who does custom not= ill seeding.

Notill seeding works best where there are a lot of stones to contend with, or steeply sloping land with an erosion potential. I prefer conventional seeding unless there’s a rea= lly good reason not to do so. Among my concerns regarding = notill seeding:

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>4&nb= sp; If you’re coming out of several years of corn production including nitro= gen applications, the pH in the top inch of soil might be low enough to adverse= ly affect the seeding. If this could be the case, get a separate pH test on the top one to two inches of soil before= seeding.

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>4&nb= sp; If you used atrazine during the last year of corn production, some herbicide residues could pers= ist and harm germinating seedlings. An atrazine rate during the final year of corn production that wouldn’t be a problem w= ith conventional tillage could be with notill seedi= ng.

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>4&nb= sp; Don’t even think about notill seeding into a living s= tand. Apply glyphosate to kill the stand, <= span style=3D'mso-cyrillic-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-default-font-family= :"Times New Roman"; mso-greek-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hebrew-font-family:"Times New R= oman"; mso-latin-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-latinext-font-family:"Times New= Roman"'>preferably during the previous fall. A recently-killed grass sod is very tough stuff and will resist or reject many notill= drill disks.<= /p>

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>4&nb= sp; Alfalfa plants recently killed by glyphosate retain their allelopathic properties for quite a while, and alfalfa seeds germinating near these plants may be affected or e= ven killed.

Our practice on the very stony land at Miner Institute has been to plant notill corn for four or five years, then just before seeding alfalfa-grass we run our John Deere Cultimulch= er over the field once or twice, smoothing out ruts and working up about an in= ch of soil. (It’s best to use a tractor with a cab when doing this becau= se of the horrid noise the Cultimulcher or tandem = disk makes grinding over all those stones.) Then we pick the surface stones and = seed with our conventional grain drill. This practice has worked very wel= l, and eliminates or at least reduces several of the potential problems listed above.

— E.T.

BIOTECHNOLOGY FACTS AND FIGURES

<= span lang=3DEN style=3D'font-family:Webdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Webdings; mso-bidi-font-family:Webdings;letter-spacing:.25pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>4&nb= sp; Since 1996 when genetically modified (GM) crops were commercialized, biotechnology traits have added about 130 million tons to the combined worldwide producti= on of corn and soybeans. (This contradicts comments from anti-GM groups that GM crops haven’t increased yields a bit.)

4 Aver= age yield increase from Bt corn is about 6%, with the highest yield gains in the developing countries--where it’s needed the most. (This contradicts the widely-held belief that GM crops only benefit l= arge commercial farms in developed countries.)

4&nb= sp; If GM crops weren’t availa= ble to the approximately 12 million farmers using this high-yield technology (in 2007, the most recent year of reliable data), we’d need 15 million mo= re acres of soybeans and 7.5 million more acres of corn. Along with other GM c= rops including cotton and canola, this would represent about 6% of the cropland = in the U.S.=

4 The added crop production from GM crops has resulted in enough food ene= rgy to feed about 400 million people for a full year.

STRAW, TOXINS= AND NDFD … RELATED?

We have been cons= idering the possibility that mycotoxins in our straw are upsetting the rumen health of our transition cows. We have heard from our nutritionis= ts that much of the 2009 crop year wheat straw is testing positive for mycotoxins. The wet growing conditions of last year may have contributed to this occurrence, which does not bode well when trying to feed low energy, high bulk, straw d= iets for dry cows as well as for a transition cow research trial. A number of samples of straw, both= large bales and small that we have been feeding have shown levels of DON (deoxynivalenol) of 2.0-3.0 ppm. This level alone in the straw equa= tes to about 0.5-0.8 ppm in the total TMR, though our close-up dry cow TMR tested 1.4ppm DON and our BMR tested positive also. Ba= sed on feeding recommendations, that level of DON could pose a nutritional or health problem.

Most o= f the “toxin level of concern” feeding recommendations are for “healthy” lactating dairy cows, (see list below), not immunologically suppressed animals during the transition period. So, what are the critical toxin le= vels for transition cow diets?

“= ;Concern” levels of mycotoxins in TMR (source: Mike Hutjens University of Illinois-Illini Dairy NET, http://www.extension.org/faq/25591)

&= nbsp; >500 ppb or 0.500 ppm DON (deox= ynivalenol)

&= nbsp; >300-500 ppb or Zearalenone

&= nbsp; >100-200 ppb T2 toxin

&= nbsp; >15 ppm Fumonisin<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; >20 ppb Aflatoxin

Past r= esearch determining the feeding level limits of toxins was conducted by feeding eit= her a pure mycotoxin or a single feed contaminated = with a single known toxin. In the fi= eld, however, feeds typically are contaminated with more than one toxin. There are hundreds of toxins out i= n the wild, but we typically only test for a few of them. The few we do analyze for such as = DON, act as indicator toxins, in that if present then there are likely to be oth= ers. Mycotoxins are bad enough alone, but when in combination, can interact and with other stressors on an animal can be toxic at lower levels than the listed levels = of concern.

Considering the p= otential of toxins to affect rumen function and forage digestibility, I began to won= der if this might be related to our extremely low NDFD values for straw lately. Typically our 24hr ND= FD values for straw run in the 22 to 30% range. Of late, the same straw with the 2= .6 ppm DON are running 14% NDFD, a 50% drop in digestibility. Could this dro= p in NDFD of the 2009 straw from other 2008 straw be related to the toxins? Interesting to= note that our standard samples in the same assay jar analyzed as they always hav= e. In other words, only the toxin-lad= en straw had depressed NDFD. Other samples in the same IV jar were not affecte= d by the presence of the toxin straw sample based on previous analyses. In this case, suggesting that the toxins negative affect on digestibility did not circulate to other samples in the same in vitro jar. This is certainly not enough data = to indicate absolute cause and effect of toxins lowering NDFD in the lab. But, could an extremely low NDFD value signify a potential toxin issue for that feed, before toxins are even suspected?&nb= sp; Something to ponder and possibly a quick check on whether a feed wit= h or without toxins may hinder fiber digestion and rumen function. Given the effects of mycotoxins in depressing DMI, decreasing nutrient utilization and ability to alter rum= en fermentation, knowing if toxins are present in dry cow rations is critical = and understanding that the concern levels of toxins in dry cow and transition d= iets is likely much lower than those listed for healthy lactating cows.

— Kurt Cotanch, Cotanch@whminer.com

&n= bsp;