FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S = DESK –
LEAVES OF GRASS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Now that winter is officially finished across the Northeast, we’ll be harvesting first-cutting haycrop silage before we know it, and much of this si= lage will be predominantly grass. Successfully feeding grass silage requires a thorough understanding of the fermentation of grass fiber compared with leg= umes such as alfalfa. If your feeding goal is to optimize the use of forage fibe= r in the diet and minimize expensive grains, then high quality grasses can be an excellent option.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Although grasses typically cont= ain more fiber (NDF) than legumes they have higher NDF digestibility at a simil= ar stage of maturity. Research has clearly demonstrated that maturity at harve= st has a much greater impact on NDF digestion than the actual grass species. S= o, worry less about the type of grass you are growing and more about the best = strategy to harvest that grass at the proper maturity (and pray for cooperative weather). Grasses can mature rapidly and the harvest window for high quality grass is short in the Northeast.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>Grasses ha= ve a slower rate of NDF digestion than legumes, which might be related to the chemical linkages between hemicellulose and the soluble phenolic complexes that are more abunda= nt in grasses than legumes. Regardless, the slower fiber digestion rate can quick= ly limit feed intake as maturity advances and slower digesting fiber builds up= in the rumen.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>In addition= , not all grass fiber is created equal. Fiber from perennial grasses such as orchardgrass is more filling than fiber from an annual grass (such as corn silage) due primarily to its slower passage from the ru= men. Practically, what this means is that you should limit grass or grass-legume mixtures for the highest production groups on the farm unless it is of very high quality. Remember: the surest way to reduce production in an early lactation cow is to limit intake. If you must feed high-fiber (more mature) forage, then you will need to supplement with more grains which can increase the risk of rumen acidosis. <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp;

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>When formul= ating diets with grasses, the optimal NDF intake will be somewhat higher than typ= ical and about 1.2% of cow body weight. The digestibility of the NDF will determ= ine how much can be fed successfully to a lactating cow.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>Dave Mertens, recently retired from the US Dairy Forage Re= search Center in Madison,WI, calculated an example rat= ion with a grass of 60% NDF digestibility (at 48 hours) and showed that you cou= ld attain 80 lb/d milk with a diet of 54% forage. However, if the digestibilit= y of the grass increased to 76%, then you could feed a diet of 62% forage. In ea= ch case, the forage mixture was 25% alfalfa and 75% grass – not too different from many northeastern farms. Mertens= also related grass NDF content (maturity) with the forage content of the total d= iet to achieve 90 lb/d of milk production. As grass NDF increased from 51 to 59% (as it became more mature), the optimal forage content of the diet decreased from 52 down to only 43%. Clearly, less mature grass allows us to feed higher forage diets beca= use the grass contains less NDF and that NDF is more digestible in the rumen of= the cow. This approach not only should improve rumen health, but it is usually = the most cost-effective as well.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>So, as a n= ew harvest season approaches, let’s all hope for cooperative weather, hi= gh quality grass forage, highly fermentable fiber, and profitable milk product= ion.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ Rick Grant, grant@whminer.com

VET’S CORNER: RE-TREA= TS, ANOTHER USE OF TREATMENT RECORDS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>This winter our practice has be= en using some new antibacterials for the treatment= of calf pneumonia. One pharmaceutical company illustrates the effectiveness of= its product with an innovative technique where a tiny loop is inserted in the lung’s interstitial tissue to measure the level of antibacterial acti= on at the actual site of bacterial infection. The claim is that this type of antibacterial kills the bacteria quickly and no anti-inflammatory is needed= to reduce consolidation and permanent damage to the lung.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Another company makes an equally reasonable explanation that their antibacterial is distributed quickly in m= any organ systems as evidenced by the use of autoradiography on tissues harvest= ed 6 hours after subcutaneous administration of the drug. This antibacterial wor= ks by inhibiting the replication of bacteria and must stay in contact with affected tissue for a longer duration. It depends on an anti-inflammatory d= rug to reduce consolidation and permanent lung damage.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Both companies are backed by st= rong research and logical explanations. The question that veterinarians and calf raisers ask is “Yeah, but does it work?= 221; And once again, the answer can be found in complete on-farm records.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>One of the claims is that there will be fewer pneumonia re-treats with their product. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Does this remind you of claims made about mastitis treatment products? Some farms keep complete records of mastitis treatments to help make culling decisions on cows that have repeated mastit= is events. Likewise, it is important to record treatments of calf pneumonia ca= ses to help evaluate the effectiveness of treatments and the number of cases th= at relapse at a later age. As with mastitis cases, it̵= 7;s impossible to remember every treated calf two or three months following treatment. =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>When an outbreak of calf pneumo= nia occurs, we create a treatment sheet. The date of treatment, the calf’= s ID #, age, daily temperature, appetite, and drug and dosage are recorded in columns. A fresh page is used for every day of the outbreak and the sheets = are saved for a few years. Temperature reduction and appetite improvement guide= the decision to re-treat. Another use of these treatment sheets is for referenc= e if another pneumonia case occurs in older calves, to see if it is a new case o= r a chronic re-treat. If a pattern of re-treats emerges for a particular antibacterial, sound written evidence can guide subsequent treatment decisi= ons.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ Kent Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates= , Inc.

Hugamoo@comcast.net<= /span>

GLOBAL BIOTECH CROP
USAGE INCREASED IN 2009

<= i>Note: This article contains value judgments by the Crops Dude that may not be shared by more temperate contributors to the Farm Report.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span class=3DGramE>The acreage of genetically modified crops increased by 7 percent last year, to = 330 million acres worldwide. But the devil is in the details, so here’s= a closer look at what’s happening where:

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Contrary to= what many assume, biotech crops are not exclusive to developed nations. In fact,= 46% of these crops are grown in developing countries, particularly Brazil, Ar= gentina, India, China and = South Africa. And that’s where most of the increase is occurring: While there was an overall increase = in biotech crop acreage of 7%, this represents a 13% increase in developing nations and only a 3% increase in developed countries.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>Meanwhile, = most of Europe, already a net food importer, appears to be doing a dandy job of making itself technologically superfluou= s, at least agriculturally. While biotech acreage is increasing everywhere els= e, it’s decreasing in the EU. In the past year the number of EU countries permitting the use of biotech crops has decreased from 7 to 6, and total E.= U. acreage planted to genetically modified crops decreased by 12%. The lone exception is Spain, which accounted for 80% of all Bt corn planted i= n the EU. Spain to the rest of the EU: Hasta la vista, baby.

PACKING BUNKER & STACK SILOS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>This article might better have appeared in the August Farm Report, but now that you̵= 7;re well into your 2009 silage, it’s a good time to evaluate the success = or failure of last fall’s packing job.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Adequate pa= cking of hay crop silages isn’t usually a challenge because the forage isn’t delivered to the silo nearly as fast as with corn silage. (Many= of the problems in hay crop silage are due to a combination of late harvest &#= 9472; primarily grass ─ and high DM%. Trying to ensile and pack late cut, 4= 0% DM grass is like trying to pack a stack of mattresses — very bouncy.) Many farms now chop = corn at well over 100 tons per hour, but their packing practices haven’t changed from when they were chopping at half this rate. Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension measured silage density on over 60 bunker and stack silos for several years, and found that only 25% of the
silos had the minimum recommended density. Maybe farmers in other regions d= o a better job of packing — but I’m
willing to bet they aren’t! At delivery rates of 100 tons/hour itR= 17;s impossible to
adequately pack a bunker or stack silo even with a single 300 HP tractor. F= or instance, a John Deere 8430 330-HP tractor weighs 25,000 pounds. You can be= ef it up by loading the tires and by adding a front blade and rear weight, but there aren’t many “loaded” farm tractors that weigh more = than 40,000 lbs. (Our 150-HP Case-IH tractor with duals, blade, etc. weighs about 30,000 lbs.) According to the “800” rule of thumb (tractor weig= ht divided by 800 =3D tons adequately packed per hour), 40,000/800 =3D 50 tons= /hour. Yikes!

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Obviously, = at least two tractors will be needed to pack at delivery rates of 100+ tons/hour. That’s why when Miner Institute made its drive-over stack last fall we had three big tractors on the stack. (See pho= to.) Packing the pile for several hours after harvest is done for the day does m= ore harm than good by chewing up the forage in the top few inches.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>How well is= your bunker or stack silage packed? If possible, have someone do a density test.= The goal is at least 14 lbs of DM/cubic foot. Be very careful around the face of the silo, especially high ones or those with a poorly managed face. Silage density will always be lower at the top and higher at the bottom. Also cons= ider having a fermentation and/or mold analysis on your corn silage. These analy= ses aren’t expensive and are an indirect way to evaluate packing effectiv= eness. =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

TIME TO SOIL SAMPLE?= MAYBE NOT!

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.35pt'>What kind= of agronomist would tell farmers NOT to soil sample their fields this spring? = One that knows how much variation there can be between the analyses of soils sampled in spring vs. summer or fall. The differences may be large enough t= hat they’d do more harm than good. If you normally soil sample in the spr= ing, then go to it. But if you normally sample in the late summer or early fall, don’t sample in April unless you work closely with someone to help you interpret the results. My recommendation: Don’t sample now unless thi= s is the normal sampling time for you.

<= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Cornell University’s statement about soil sampling time: “Soil samples may be taken at any time of the year, but consistently sampling around the same month of the year will help reduce seasonal variations in your soil test records for a field.”

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>So, you ask: How bad can it be = to take soil samples at the wrong time of year? In one trial involving a field that had no nutrient additions or crop removal, over the course of 12 months there was up to a 50% difference in soil test K, depending entirely on the month the soil was sampled. I have long recommended that you always use the same soil test lab (or labs that use the same soil ext= ractant), which allows you to note any changes over time in soil test P and K. This is the best way to tell if like the Three Bears’ porridge, your fertiliz= er program is too hot, too cold or juuust right. B= ut to do so you’ve got to soil sample at about the same time each year. I m= uch prefer late summer and fall because sampling then doesn’t interfere w= ith spring planting.

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

PERENNIAL GRASS
MANAGEMENT

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>(Topic suggested by our readers= ) The species options for perennial grasses are several, alphabetically: Bromegrass, orchardgrass, perennial ryegrass, reed canarygrass, tall fesc= ue, timothy. It’s easier to relate what I don’t like about each of these, save one:

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

Bromegrass doesnR= 17;t tolerate frequent harvest, and the light, fluffy seed makes it difficult if= not impossible to seed with a grain drill.

Orchardgrass is susce= ptible to ice sheet damage and loses quality very quickly after heading. (The other species also lose quality after heading, but orchardgr= ass is particularly persnickety in this regard.)

Perennial ryegrass isn’t reliably perennial in = the northern portions of the Northeastern U.S.

Timothy does poorly when soils dry out and warm up. It’s the “schoolteacher grass,” working into June and then taking the summer off.

Reed canarygrass is slow = to establish and therefore is particularly vulnerable to first-year weed competition. Forage quality is only so-so, and seed is expensive.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>That leave= s endophyte-free tall fescue, which with proper care and feeding has what I think is the best combination= of yield, quality, and tolerance to variable soil conditions. It has a rugged = root system, closest to canarygrass in that characteristic.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>The keys to managing grass: Fertilize with N at green-up, harvest first cut in the boot stage and subsequent harvests as soon as there’s enough forage to jus= tify mowing. Don’t wait for heads to appear on any cutting: “When you see the head the quality is dead.” Topdressed manure will provide N for 2nd and succeeding crops, plus all the P and K mo= st fields will need. Don’t mow too close—3” minimum, and 4” might be better. We don’t know much about the relationship of soil fertility to mowing height, but it seems likely that low fertility fie= lds might need a bit higher stubble since the nutrients for the next crop are in the bottom of the above-ground portion of the plant. Anything over a pH of = 6.0 is A-OK; grass will tolerate a lower pH than this but nutrient availability= is reduced.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'> &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; ─ E.T.

CRITTER NEWS

&= nbsp;

<= span class=3DGramE>• A man was ar= rested for trying to smuggle 14 royal pythons from Denmark into Norway by hiding them under his clothes. The snakes were hidden in stockings duct-taped to his abdomen. (Feel free to insert your own witty comment here= .) Yet another use for the silver-colored stuff! Officials became suspicious w= hen they found a tarantula in the guy’s suitcase. Yeah, that would do it.=

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%'>

&= #8226; California has a Chihuahua crisis. This does not surprise us, but then little do= es that occurs on the Left Coast and particularly in California. Chi= huahuas are the most popular breed of dog in Los Angeles, and by far the most likely to wind up in ASPCA shelters. One Oakland shelter has already shipped 100 of the mini-dogs to other Western states bu= t is running out of transportation money.

<= o:p>

PLANT POPULATION
FOR CORN SILAGE

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>There’s an excellent arti= cle in the March-April 2010 “What’s Cropping Up?” newsletter published by the Cornell University Crop and Soil Sciences Department. You can download the newsletter at the following URL:<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>http://css.cals.cornell.edu/cal= s/css/extension/cropping-up/index.cfm

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>The article in question deals w= ith the best plant population for dual purpose, leafy and brown midrib hybrids = when harvested for silage. I continue to get questions from farmers about the pr= oper plant population, particularly for BMR hybrids. In a two-year study—2= 008 and 2009—Cornell agronomists dropped 25,000, 30,000, 35,000 and 40,000 kernels/acre of two Pioneer dual-purpose hybrids, two DeKalb dual-purpose hybrids, two Mycogen leafy hybrids and two Mycogen BMR hybrids. All except the Pioneer hybrids h= ad the best combination of yield and silage quality at 35,000 = population; the Pioneer did best at 40,000. However, the Cornell agronomists are recommending a population of 35,000/acre for all hybrids, suggesting that s= ome farmers might want to try the higher population with certain Pioneer hybrid= s on fields and regions where drought isn’t common. Both Growing Degree Da= ys and seasonal precipitation were about average for the two years of the stud= y.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Although not the primary purpos= e of the research and involving a limited number of hybrids, it’s worth no= ting the silage yield (tons/acre @ 35% DM) of the four hybrid types when planted= at 35,000 kernels/acre. Pioneer 26= .6, DeKalb 26.0, leafy 25.7, BMR 24.8. This suggests to me that while BMR continues to have some “yield drag”—in this case an avera= ge of 6% compared to the dual purpose hybrids—its much higher NDF digestibility makes BMR worth considering for farms with good milk producti= on and the ability to store BMR silage in a separate silo. = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = ─ E.T.

FERTILIZER PRICE
UPDATE

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Dairy farmers weren’t the= only ones to decrease fertilizer use in 2009. Compared to 2008, worldwide nitrog= en applications decreased 1.5%, phosphate decreased 10.5% and potash dropped by 20%. In the U.S. the 2009 vs. 2008 decreases were more dramatic: Nitrogen down 10%, phosphate down 30%, and potash down a whopping 40%. While nitrogen is leachable and applications one year have little bearing on the following year’s situation, such is not the case with P and K. If manure or fertilizer isn’t applied, crop removal draws down P and K reserves. Therefore, 2= 010 will be a catch-up year for fertilizer applications.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Don’t expect fertilizer bargains in 2010. The economic outlook for most crops in most regions of the world is favorable. Grain and oilseed prices are high enough to encourage increased production, and fertilizer is a global commodity. The improved economic situation combined with farmers having to make up for under-application in 2009 means that this year will be a seller’s mar= ket for fertilizers. In an article titled “Fertilizer Price Outlook”= ; in last September’s Farm Report I predicted that the best fertilizer buys would be from then through early winter. In the article I stated: “If= you don’t like the prices your fertilizer dealer quotes you this fall and early winter, don’t expect them to be lower next spring.” Since bottoming out in November, phosphate prices have increased about 50%. (Oh, = ye of little faith…)

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; ─ E.T.

TWEETING IN PARLOR:
ONTARIO COWS ON TWITTER

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>By now most= of you have probably heard about the social networking website Twitter. Well, = now Twitter has 12 more tweeters (Twitter users) of the bovine variety. Last mo= nth Attention Please, Charge Cindy, Charge Gina, Charge Mabel, Contrast Amanda,= Freeride Speedy, Frosty Lace, Goldwyn Windy, Jerry J = Lo, Kurt Appeal, Montgomery Mae, and Morty Fy joined the tweeting masses.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>The Brant O= ntario cows will tweet in a year-long project launched by their human collaborator= s Buttermine Farms owner Chris Vandenberg and Critical = Media Lab members Ron Broglio, Marcel O’Gorman,= and Pouya Emami. The 12 cows = will keep their human followers up-to-date by tweeting (posting messages) about their lactation cycle and use of a voluntary milking system. So what do the cows tweet about anyway? Below is a selection of tweets from some of the co= ws Twitter accounts during mid-March.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'> =

@AttnPlease (http://twitter.com/AttnPlease): Eat, milk, eat, milk, eat, milk. It never gets old. 8.3 kg from the udder.

@ChargeGina (http://twitter.com/ChargeGina): Farmers f= eed cities. 12.5 kgs.

@MortyFy (http://twitter.com/mortyfy): All this milking makes me hungry. = Ate 120 g.

@FreerideSpeedy (http://twitter.com/freeridespeedy): T= hought I could sneak in early for some good feed. No way.
According to the Teat Tweet website, t= he main goal is to foster interest in how animals and humans can interact thro= ugh the use of technology. To make it easy for the cows to share their daily activities with followers, Critical Media Lab created an application that allows everyone to learn about the dairy industry as well as letting Vanden= berg have a closer connection with his cows. Judging by their tweets, these ladi= es have a good sense of humor and will likely soon have more followers than Op= rah. Okay, so maybe they won’t get quite that many followers, but they are certainly entertaining and bringing positive awareness to the dairy industr= y in is a laudable goal.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>You can fo= llow them on Twitter (www.twitter.com) and learn more about the project here on = the Teats and Tweet website (http://criticalmedia.uwaterloo.ca/teattweet/), but don’t worry if you don’t use Twitter. You can read their tweets, view their profile pictures and read their bios at the Teats and Tweets web= site as well.

<= i>─ Amy Bedard, bedard@whminer.= com

More Critter News ...

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>The phrase “Happy as a pig in mud” doesn’t fit Cinders, a pig in England= . She suffers from mysophobia, an intense fear of dir= t.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>Because Cin= ders was unwilling to join other piglets as they played in the mud, the 12-year = old daughter of owner Andrew Keeble outfitted her w= ith tiny Wellington boots, which worked just fine.

T= he Keebles own a sausage farm which doesn’t seem t= o bode well for Cinders’ long-term future, but Andrew says that she’s = now more of a pet and will be around for a long time.

<= o:p>

WHAT’S HAPPENING
ON THE FARM

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>As the weather is still in limb= o on whether it wants to commit to being spring, some farmers are taking advanta= ge of this down time to begin looking for those stylish show-age heifers to br= ing to the fair. As the summer months are approaching and you are planning on attending a fair in your area, now is the time to start fine-tuning these f= ew select animals. Possible changes in the ration, housing and exercise will benefit the animal more when it is done early enough in the spring. As I have grown up judging and sho= wing cows on my family farm, I have always started our show heifers off early and have seen the success in the ring at many different shows. Now that I am working at Miner Institute, I have been keeping tabs on the young stock in hopes that a few will be more than able to compete at our local county fair. Miner Institute won the Holstein Sr. calf class this past year, and we are hoping to get another win this year!

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>For our summer program at the Institute, four dairy management students work alongside our staff doing da= ily chores and help to harvest the crops. As a learning tool, they also get to bring a few animals to the county fair. We want to get them involved in this aspect of our industry, as some students in the past have had no experience= in this area. They are allowed to pick the animals from the farm with the inte= nt to halter train the animal and clip them for the show. There were some great memories from this past summer’s group of students!=

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>One of our most recent addition= s to the farm is number 1901 (aka ROSE), born on March 12 – our first ever= red and white Holstein! She is already a sta= ff favorite, and is penciled in on our show list. Rose is a Lion King off from= a Peachey Champion Tanner cow. I am hoping that the summer farm management students are as enthusiastic to get in the show ring as I am! Hope to see y= ou this summer!

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ Jenna McNeil, Dairy Int= ern

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
ON SOIL FERTILITY

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>In the Mar= ch issue of ‘Crops, Soils, and Agronomy News’ (published by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil= Science Society of America), the cover story was entitled ‘Looking back on the past 75 years of soil fertility in the United States.’ For a soils ju= nkie like me, this was exciting. The article outlines some of the milestones achieved in the science of soil fertility, and how these developments catal= yzed progress in restoring soil productivity and managing nutrients in the US.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>The Americ= an Society of Agronomy was founded in 1907 and marked the official birth of agronomy as a science. Around= this time, severe erosion and nutrient depletion were starting to be recognized = in the US. The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl reinforced the fact that many agricultural soils were degraded. In the early 1900s, scientists began to think about how to reestabli= sh soil productivity. The concep= t of soil pH was introduced in 1909, but it was another 20 years before pH test = kits were readily available.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%'>In 1914, Emil Truog developed the first widely used test to approximate soil acidity, and in the 1920s and 30s, testing kits to measure pH, phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) were widely used. Analytical capabilities improved in the 1940s and led to the establishment of soil tes= ting labs at many US land grant universities. Over the next several years, regional co-ops and f= ertilizer companies began to establish testing labs.= Private sector labs continue to be important, as many land grant university labs have been forced to close due to a lack of funding. Accordi= ng to Kansas State Agronomist David Mengel, soil t= esting peaked in the 1960s at around three million samples, which is close to curr= ent levels.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>The ‘fertilizer era’ (from the end of WWII to the early 1980s) mark= ed a time when fertilizer sales increased dramatically. Petroleum refineries were in deman= d at the end of the war and many got into the fertilizer business (hydrogen is a byproduct and was used to make anhydrous ammonia). In the late 1950s and 60s, anhydro= us ammonia went for less than $0.05/lb and contributed to the very high rates = of N application. At the same time, agriculture shifted from a livestock focus to a grain focus, which limited N inputs from manure and legumes grown to feed livestock. The steep increase in fertilizer application was evident until the early 1970s (see figure, page 7). While t= he increase in fertilizer use no doubt helped boost corn grain yields, there were other important contributing factors such as the improvement of corn hybrids, herbicide efficacy, fertilizer application methods, and other improvements.= This is also apparent when you con= sider that corn grain yields have continued to increase since the 1980s, whereas fertilizer use has decreased or leveled off.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.3pt'>Soil ferti= lity research over the last 25 years or so has been marked by an increased aware= ness of environmental issues. Much emphasis has been placed on managing losses of N and P to runoff water due = to their role in water quality. = This work has also led to the realization that soil fertility is much more than = just a soil test, and has caused us to rethink what soil productivity means. For example, quantifying soil quality/health is now considered by many soil scientists to better reflect = the sum total of crop growing conditions. Much of this ‘environmental’ research has been incorpora= ted into today’s nutrient management guidelines and is the basis for developing agricultural best management practices. Like it or not, we are now in an e= ra where our ‘environmental outputs’ are being judged as criticall= y as the productivity and quality of the crops themselves.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.4pt'> = ;

<= i> ─ Eric Youn= g, young@whminer.com

KEYS TO MAKING MONEY IN THE DAIRY BUSINESS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Recently I attended the Southern States Dairy Feed Master meeting in Raleigh, NC. Greg Bethard of DRMS (Raleigh, N= C) and G&R Dairy Consulting, Inc. (Wytheville, VA) spoke about managing production cost and identified his top 10 keys to making money in the dairy business. There was a lot of interest in the topic given the current state = of the dairy industry. Here’s his top 10 list:

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= b>1. Keep a full barn to ship a lot of milk per day= .

A full barn is 100% of capacity…this doesn’t mean 1 cow per bed or headlock. Each farm will have a different capacity based on management abil= ity and facilities.

Interestingly, Bethard pointed out that this was not always a = good strategy for making money in 2009.

<= b>2. Healthy fresh cows.

A healthy fresh cow trumps high milk weights…it “sets the table.”

<= b>3. Offer a career change to unprofitable cows.

Overall herd culling rates need to change with economic conditions.

In 2009, myths that were busted included “a marginal cow is always profitable” and “cull level production is always less than tank average.”

<= b>4. Realize quality and component premiums.

<= b>5. Maximize income over feed cost…without impacting herd health.

<= b>6. Minimiz= e feed cost per hundredweight.

<= b>7. Generate pregnancies in cows and heifers.<= /o:p>

Need to maintain cow flow

<= b>8. Minimize replacement costs.=

Need to maintain herd size and structure.

Costs driven by hundredweights shipped, heifer costs, milking herd cull rate, and value of sold cows. Focusing on just one of the= se factors can lead you to misinterpret the true cost of replacement.

<= b>9. Cut cost intelligently.=

Cut costs but do not impact forage quality, cow health, fresh cows, or pregnanc= ies. Cutting costs in these areas is a signal that you don’t intend to rem= ain in the dairy business.

<= b>10. Control labor costs per hundredweight.=

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span class=3DSpellE>Bethard= 217;s overall take-home message was “The rule that trumps all other rules…MAKE CHEAP MILK.”

─ Heather Dann, dann@whminer.com

NORTHERN LIGHT

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>By the time you read this The B= ride and I will be back home for the season, at Oak P= oint on the St. Lawrence River. There’s= much to like about Virginia, AKA the “mid-South,” including garden lettuce in December, magnolia blossoms in March, sweet potato pie, and chea= p(er) gasoline. (Native Virginians wonder why we stoppe= d that far north if we wanted to spend the winter in a warm climate.) <= /span>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>But there’s no place like= home, especially when it’s where my family started farming over 150 years a= go. T.B. claims that an unwritten part of our marital agreement, in addition to “love, honor and obey” (she has a bit of trouble with that last one), is spending as much quality time as possible at Oak Point.

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

THE STATE OF CALF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN QUEBE= C

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Routine calf management practices, such as colostrum feeding, dehorning, and weaning, can potentially impact the health of the farm’= ;s next generation of cattle as well as the public’s perception of dairy farming. A recent survey was conducted on 115 dairy farms in Quebec, Canada to determine the percentage of farms that utilize different management routines and to identify areas that may put the calves at risk of diminished welfare. All of the farms used tie-stall housing for their lactating cows, which is the method of housing = for 90% of farms in Quebec. The average farm size was 52 cows (mimicking the general average of 54 cows across Quebec), and each produced 19,100 lbs per year (Canadian average is 18,400 lbs/cow per year and Quebec farms average 18,100 lbs/cow per year).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Although the survey covers most as= pects of calf management, this summary focuses only on those practices that impact the calf during the first few weeks of life. The key results are as follows:

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'> =

<= b>Management = at Calving – Only 49.7% of farms used a calving pen. This can affect the welfare of bot= h the cow and the calf. Cows calvin= g in the tie-stalls do not have the total freedom to assume the posture that they find the most comfortable and calves end up in the manure alley behind the stall.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.35pt'>&nbs= p;

<= b>Observations of Close-up Cows &= #8211; Farms typically checked cows every four hours during the day between the two milkings of the day, but only once during the night b= etween milkings. As the majority of calvings occur in the= early morning hours, this routine may limit a farmer’s ability to feed colostrum within four hours after calving when the pr= oteins of the immune system are most readily absorbed by the digestive tract of a calf.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span class=3DSpellE>Colostr= um Quality and Feeding – Colostrum<= /span> quality was not evaluated by a= ny farmer included on this survey and roughly 68% of farms did not have a stoc= k of frozen colostrum on hand. The maintenance of a stock of colostrum can benefit the calves by ensuring a source= of colostrum is available to feed within four hours of calving. Additionally, checki= ng colostrum quality, as determined by the concentration= of immunoglobulins, allows the highest quality to be fed= to the heifers and lower quality to the bulls.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= b>Dehorning – Most farms (89%) used a hot iro= n to dehorn calves. This was due to advanced age at dehorning of the calves (6.4 wks). If done earlier (3 wks of age), the disbudding can be
accomplished with caustic paste; an approach that has been determined to be less painful.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= b>Milk Feedi= ng – Calves were typically fed between 4 L and 6 L of milk during two dai= ly feedings, depending on their age. Increasing the amount of milk offered in the early weeks of life may benefit the calf (reduced hunger) and the farm (improved calf growth, great= er mammary development in calves, and increased productivity during a cow̵= 7;s first lactation). The daily allotment of milk was delivered in a bucket on 90% of farms. Again, this may reduce calf welfare. Previous research su= ggests that sucking from a artificial teat can increase= the circulating concentration of digestive hormones, increase the level of sati= ety experienced by the calf, and increase the amount of sleep that the calf eng= ages in.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ Peter Krawczel,
krawczel@whminer.com

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= i>Reference: Vasseur, E., F. Borderas, R. I. Cue, D. Lefebvre, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, K. M= . Wade, and A. M. de Passillé. 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada<= /st1:place> that affect animal welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 93:1307-1315.

DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE ROLE OF
VITAMIN D IN CALCIUM ABSORPTION

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Recently, on a popular morning = news program, the different choices of milk at the grocery store were discussed.= The choices of milk are numerous these days: cow’s milk, soy milk, rice m= ilk, almond milk, etc. The calcium content of the milk choices was discussed, wi= th cow’s milk discussed favorably. However, I think one very important p= oint was missed when discussing calcium intake, and t= hat is the point of calcium absorption.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>On average, only about 30-50% o= f the calcium that is ingested will be absorbed by the body. So that means if you= eat 1000 mg of calcium every day, you will absorb 300-500 mg. This is taken into account with the recommended intakes of calcium, but being aware of what affects calcium absorption is important, particularly because most people do not consume adequate amounts of calcium. Calcium absorption in the body is affected by many factors including age, vitamin D status, and intake of cer= tain compounds that interfere with calcium absorption (discussed later). Therefo= re, depending on these factors, some people may absorb less than 30% of their calcium intake and may not be getting enough calcium even if their intake is adequate. Understanding the process of calcium absorption and factors that influence it can help ensure that we are meeting our daily calcium needs.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Calcium is absorbed in the small intestine via two processes: 1) active transport and 2) passive absorption. Passive absorption of calcium is essentially calcium passing into the intes= tine freely without aid from transport molecules. Active transport of calcium requires transport molecules in the intestinal cells to transport calcium i= nto the body. Active transport of calcium is a vitamin D dependent process. It = is recognized that passive absorption of calcium is inadequate to absorb all of the required calcium that a person needs. Therefore, vitamin D is needed for adequate absorption of calcium.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>Vitamin D is synthesized in our skin cells from sunlight. About 15 minutes of direct sun exposure per day is generally considered adequate for vitamin D synthesis. However, in certain populations, such as, people living in northern latitud= es during winter months and elderly populations who do not venture outside very much, rates of vitamin D synthesis from sunlight may not be adequate to meet requirements.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>Lucky for us living in the North Country, we can also= get vitamin D from our diet. As we select calcium rich foods for ourselves, we should consider the vitamin D content of these foods, particularly if we fe= el our sun exposure is inadequate.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> &= nbsp;

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>As mentioned previously, certain compounds in plants interfere with calcium absorption, particularly oxalates and phytates. Oxalates an= d phytates are compounds found in vegetables. Spinach i= s high in oxalates, so it is not a very good source of absorbable calcium. The cal= cium in broccoli is more readily absorbed than that of spinach. However, you wou= ld have to eat 2 ¼ cups of cooked broccoli or more than 8 cups of cooked spinach to get the same amount of absorbable calcium as you get from an 8 o= unce glass of cow’s milk.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.35pt'>One more t= hing I will note is that vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin, so if you are relying= on dietary sources of vitamin D to meet your requirements, you need some fat in your diet to absorb vitamin D. Therefore, if you drink cow’s milk with some fat in it, you are setting yourself up to get the most out of your cal= cium intake. Now, I am not promoting dumping our broccoli and spinach in the garbage, as these are very healthy foods. But when it comes to absorbable calcium, cow’s milk is a superb choice!

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>For more information on calcium= and vitamin D, visit the Linus Pauling Institute we= b-site http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/. It is a good source of information for these nutrients as well as other vitamins and minerals.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

─ S= arah Boucher, boucher@whminer.com

FORAGE INVENTORY NEEDS: TON= S OF DRY MATTER OR TONS OF DIGESTIBLE FIBER?

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>When plann= ing yearly forage needs should we consider more than just tons of DM? Does digestibility matter when calculating inventory needs? Seems as though good forage feeds = fast and poor feed lasts forever. Whether expanding your herd, increasing ration forage: concentrate ratio, building inventory to provide silage fermented at least 90 days at a= ll times or balancing corn CS:HCS acres, strategic planning is needed to avoid= or at least minimize shortfalls and unexpected expenses for “DM” needs.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Some facto= rs to consider when planning your yearly forage needs, in addition to animal numb= ers and average DMI:

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>1.<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'> Cows are BIGGER. If you guess your mat= ure cows weigh 1500 lbs and they actually weigh 1650, then at 2% of BW as forag= e DM intake for 100 cows, we underestimate our forage DM needs by 3 lbs/cow (8.6= lbs as fed), 860 lbs/d or 156 T/year.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>2. Improved forage quality. As we strive = to improve DM and NDF digestibility (NDFD), consider how much more DM is consu= med per cow with an increase in NDFD of 5% units (45%-50%). A primary regulator of DMI is NDF,= bulk fill and physical limitations. As NDFD increases, that fiber ferments and digests more quick= ly (less filling), allowing for greater DM intake. Forage intake of 30 lbs DM of 45% = NDF with 45% NDFD results in 6.1 lbs of digestible NDF consumed or 7.4 lbs of indigestible NDF consumed. If NDFD improves from 45 to 50%, that same 7.4 l= bs of gut-filling indigestible NDF is not reached until 33 lbs of DM are consu= med. Another 3 lbs of DM/cow x 100 cows x 365 d =3D 156 T. Less filling means higher intake.<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>3. Plant genetics, BMR corn silage for instance. Improved NDF digestibility allows f= or more forage to be fed in the ration. We increased from 50-52% forage to 56-58% forage in our diets when we started feeding BMR CS at only 1/3 of our forage DM (10 lbs DM/cow/d). Our forage: concentrate ratio increased by 6% units or 6 lbs DM from forage. Th= is amounts to about 17 lbs as fed; for 100 cows for a year, 313 T increased fo= rage consumption requiring that much more inventory due to plant genetics, and n= ot considering any potential yield drag.

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'> = ;

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Generally,= as forage quality improves, consumption increases and yield tends to decrease, requiring more acres to provide increased tons of DM required. Would we be = more accurate calculating yearly forage needs if we consider tons of digestible = NDF required versus tons of DM required? How many tons of digestible NDF does your herd consume in a year? Ca= n we obtain that simply through improved harvest yields, feeding more non-forage fiber feeds or do we need to harvest more acres in the short term…long term…?<= /o:p>

<= i> ─ Kurt Cotanch, Cotanch@whminer.com

Closing Comment

Cosmetic ti= p: Know how to prevent sagging?
Just eat until the wrinkles fill out.