Farm Report – September 2010

Farm Report – Septemb= er 2010

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK <= /span>—
ADJUST YOUR ATTITUDE

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.35pt'>Recently = I was asked to give a presentation to a group of dairy farmers in Pennsylvania on ways to lower the cost= of milk production. I focused on forage quality and cow comfort as the two cornerstones of a successful dairy farm. Optimizing fiber and starch digestibility to increase the forage content of the diet combined with comfortable housing that promotes resting, eating, and ruminating is a powe= rful combination that virtually guarantees a profitable farm. Farm operations bu= ilt on consistently high forage quality and cow comfort have greater efficiency= of milk production, better herd health, and lower overall costs of production.=

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Toward the end of the talk I sh= ifted gears and asked the simple question: “Are you (or your employees) a source of comfort or stress to your cows?” For many years we’ve known that the behavior of the milkers and other staff on a dairy farm can have a tremendous impact on the behavior and performance of the cows. Really, it is intuitive to any good dairy farmer, = but I think we forget the potential magnitude of lost milk production when cows= are treated aversively. A side note: researchers in this field tend to use the = term “aversive” frequently. The definition is “tending to cause avoidance of a punishing stimulus.” In other words, treating animals roughly, hitting them, etc. “Aversive treatment” sounds better.=

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Just this year, a research grou= p from northern Europe observed that farmers with greater empathy for cattle pain had her= ds that averaged nearly 2,000 pounds/year more milk production. A decade ago, Canad= ian researchers found that residual milk (that milk left in the udder after the milking machine has detached) was increased over 50% when someone who had treated the cows aversively was in the parlor vs. someone who had treated t= hem gently. We understand the biology of milk let-down, but we don’t alwa= ys appreciate the importance it has on milk yield.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>In the 198= 0s pioneering work from the UK in this area found that cows averaged 13% more milk production with gentle versus aversive handling. In 2006, another research group measured 3.6% gre= ater milk yield from a milking team that had more positive vocal and physical contact with the cow. Apparently, both voice and physical contact are impor= tant to the dairy cow – again no surprise to a good cow person. =

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Here’s the bottom line to= me: We constantly talk about ways to improve profitability of our herds and what the return on investment will be for any particular management strategy or innovation. But we seldom consider the fundamental impact of the human-anim= al interaction in our day-to-day farm management. The research tells us that gentle interactions with cattle designed to reduce fear will often result in greater productivity. And it doesn’t cost a dime more to behave gently rather than aversively. I’d have to conclude that the return on investment for gentle animal handling is pretty high. So, again there is the simple question to ponder: “Does your attitude (or your employee̵= 7;s) need adjusting?”

— Rick Grant, grant@whmin= er.com

SEXED SEMEN UPDATE

<= sub>As promised= last month, I thought I’d share some information presented at a Sexed Semen Symposium held at this summer’s joint meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and American Society of Animal Science. Besides, Ev nea= rly had to be resuscitated after seeing that I had written for the Farm Report = last month. I assume maybe the shock knocked him off his golf game for a day or = two, so I hope the same will happen this month.

<= sub> =

<= sub>Although we’ve heard about sexed semen for quite some time, it’s only be= en available on a commercial basis since 2006. Over 250 patents have been issu= ed on sexed semen, however most are not efficacious= or useful. The commercialized method, developed by Dr. Lawrence Johnson at USDA-Beltsville, utilizes fluorescent dye to sort sperm. Essentially, sperm= are identical in every aspect except that the X-bearing sperm have 3.8% more DNA than the Y-bearing sperm. (Ev, please note that it takes a little something extra to make a female…shows how simple males are!)

<= sub> =

<= sub>The process= used for separating the X-sperm from the Y-sperm incorporates a dye that bin= ds to the DNA of the sperm. A pump sends sperm past a detector which sorts them i= nto three categories: 1) X-sperm; 2) Y-sperm; and 3) Can= 217;t tell. As you can imagine, the ejaculate must be very dilute to maximize the accuracy of the sorting, with most bull studs targeting a rate of 5000 sperm/second per nozzle which results in 90% accuracy. To obtain a higher accuracy, the throughput per hour declines dramatically. In the end, it tak= es approximately one hour to produce 15 million sperm, a standard insemination dose for sexed semen. One added benefit of the sorting process is that any = sperm with compromised membranes is also discarded, resulting in a viable populat= ion of X-bearing sperm. Of course, the sexing process also ad_{=
ds a degree of insult to the sp=
erm as
well. It generally takes 7-8 hours to process an ejaculate, compared to 1 h=
our
or less for conventionally processed semen. Sperm are also shot past the
detector at 50 mph (No need to stop and ask for directions, thank goodness!=
).
Since the ejaculate needs to be diluted prior to sorting, the post-sorted
sample needs to be concentrated through centrifugation, spinning at a g-for=
ce
of approximately 500. The stain and laser exposure, although found to be
non-spermicidal, are certainly nothing a sperm sees in its normal life cycl=
e.
So, with the staining and spinning of sperm, can these fellas
really fertilize an egg and have the resulting embryo develop normally? Dr.
George Seidel from Colora=
do
State University
presented data from 1036 calves resulting from the use of sexed semen. The
accuracy of the sexed semen was 89%. There were no differences in abortion
rates, neonatal death, birth rate, or other abnormalities when compared to
calves resulting from use of conventional semen. The only difference between
the use of sexed vs. conventional semen is a slight reduction in conception
rate, with sexed semen obtaining 80% the conceptions
realized using conventional semen. Last month, I discussed potential factors
that may contribute to this reduction in fertility.}

<= sub> = ;

<= sub>During the commercialization of= sexed semen, I think the bull studs were prud= ent in their decision to make certain producers aware of the decreased fertility w= hen using sexed semen. Virgin heifers or first lactation cows were identified as the best candidates, and most producers were pleasantly surprised that conception rates were at or above expectations.

<= sub> =

<= sub>Dr. Mel De= Jarnette, the reproductive specialist for Select Sires, explained that initially, the high sperm loss experienced during the processing of sexed semen limited the genetic caliber of bulls offered. Essentially, it didn’t make economic sense for the bull studs to process their most popular bulls when every spe= rm was sold once it hit the straw, so to speak. As market acceptance and sorti= ng efficiencies improved, the genetic quality of sires offered has also increa= sed. While the economic climate of the dairy industry in 2009 took a toll on sex= ed semen use, the market is slowly recovering with greater consideration being given to semen price and to the genetic potential of both the male and fema= le.

<= sub> <= /p>
_—_{Katie B=
allard

ballard@whminer.com}

VET'S CORNER: LOSSES DUE TO=
EXCESS STILLBORN MORTALITY

<= i>Editor̵= 7;s note: After eight years, this is Kent Henderson’s last “VetR= 17;s Corner.” We appreciate his always-useful contributions to our newslet= ter, and wish him all the best.

<= i> =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Our practic= e, with the support of various pharmaceutical and feed companies, has hosted several farmer discussion group events in the past year. The topics are selected by the pro= ducers and the vet practice has scouted out appropriate speakers or conducted the discussions “in house” with our veterinary staff taking turns presenting the information. In July, our topic was dys= tocia and the three youngest members of our staff conducted stations complete with preserved cow pelvises and deceased calves to demonstrate fetal manipulation and proper delivery procedures. My assignment was to emphasize the economic incentives for extra vigilance over the calving pen.

<= 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'>In 2010, wh= en baby heifer calves sell for only $300, the University of Wisco= nsin goal form estimates an annual loss of $4,284 for a 100-cow farm that has 100 head of heifers. At current disastrous cattle values, this is an extremely conservative estimate.

<= 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:-.35pt'>Few farms record how many calves die at birth, so we don’t have an ironclad estimate of average stillborn losses. We expect that the loss on most farms would be in the 20% range if records were kept. We encoura= ge farms to begin recording as an incentive for improvement in this area.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.55pt'>In the ca= se of maternity pens that are observed hourly by well-trained personnel, a stillb= orn rate of 10% can be achieved. Farms that milk three times/ day have a built-= in advantage of having workers available around the clock and should be able to observe the maternity
pen on an hourly basis in an attempt to lower the stillborn rate. Farms that milk twice/day may consider feeding dry
cows later in the day to reduce night-time calving.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Another loss estimate was found on The Ohio State Closed Herd Number Projector. For a well-managed 100-cow herd with a 25% cull/death rate, 13.5 month CI, 24 mon= th age at 1st calving, and 6% heifer cull/death rate; annual herd growth rate = is improved 2.5% when stillborn rate was reduced from 20 to 10%. On herds that= are not enjoying good cull/death rates, longer calving interval, or low age at first calving, an additional three heifers may have to be purchased every y= ear to make up for the excessive stillborn rate.

<= i> = ;

— Kent E Henderson, DVM

Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

Hugamoo@co= mcast.net

<= i> = ;

FAMILY FARMS

According to the latest USDA statistics, a whoppi= ng 97% of U.S.<= /st1:country-region> farms are family farms. Large-scale family farms are increasingly the produ= cers of the food we eat: These farms represent only 12% of the total but grow or raise 84% of the value of production. As for the 88% considered “small” family farms, not all are tiny. USDA considers any farm selling less than $250,000 of agricultural products to be small. Also, these smaller operations own two-thirds of U.S. farmland, so “small” certainly doesn’t mean insignificant. But this isn’t nearly as impressive to those who still have the quaint idea of= a farm as a man, his family, and a few dairy cows or pigs or beef cows. They’d much prefer to rail against “factory farms” even though the vast majority of these large farms are family-owned and family-operated.

VERMONT DHIA PCDART
& DAIRY WORKSHOPS
with Dr. Greg Bethard

Sept. 14 - Sept. 16, 2010

Sep= t. 14: Burlington, VT - Windjammer Hotel and Co= nference Center
Sep= t. 15: Brooklyn, CT - Brooklyn Fairgrounds

Sep= t. 16: Concord, NH - NH Farm Bureau Federation

&= nbsp;

Meetin= gs will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Pre-re= gistration is required. To register, call 800-639-8067 or email vtdhia@vtdhia.org.

&= nbsp;

Pri= mary Topics

Activi= ty Tracker

Heifer= Tracker

Concep= tion Tracker

Matern= ity Tracker

Update= s on Bull Breeding in PCDART

Oth= er Topics

(as time permits)

&= nbsp;

Crosst= abs

PCDART= Protocols

DHI-20= 2 Herd Summary

Analys= is

&= nbsp;

Dr. Bethard is a partner in G&R Dairy Consulting and is Assistant Director for Dairy Technology at DRMS in Raleigh<= /st1:City>, NC. As a private consultant= , he has advised numerous agri-business and client dairies ranging from 50 to 10= ,000
cows across the U.S.= and internationally. At DRMS, he has been instrumental in developing the new "Tracker" series
of PCDART analytical tools and in updating and refining reproductive calculations. Dr. Bethard received his Ph.D. in Dairy Science from Virginia Tech.

FOOD CHALLENGES IN THE COMI= NG 20 YEARS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>At the rece= nt Northeastern Branch of Crop, Soil and Agronomy Societies meeting in Ithaca, Chris Bar= rett of Cornell’s Department of Applied Economics and Management gave an interesting but depressing overview of the global food situation and where we’re headed in the next twenty years.

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

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>• = Asia has few options for expanding cropland. In fact, Lat= in America is the only place with the combination of abundant land and water. There isn’t a global cropland shortage, but many regional shortages. =

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>• Climate change will lik= ely result in better crops in the Northern Hemisphere (that’s us) but wil= l be bad for the tropics, which are already food-deficient.
<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>• According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, we used 14 million hectar= es for biofuels in 2004, and this may increase to = at least 35 million hectares by 2030. (A hectare is about 2.5 acres.) This is resulting in “land grabs” in the developing world, with huge tr= acts of land being purchased by wealthy corporations for eventual biofuel production. This will effectively remove land= from the food supply chain.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.2pt'>• Wat= er issues will be huge, and 1 in 5 developing countries will face water shorta= ges by 2030. Everywhere except in North America and Euro= pe about 80% of all water use is for agriculture.

<= 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'>• Com= modity prices will be high and volatile, with price forecasts of 30 to 90% above 2004-05 levels. The 2009 food price spike undid 15 years of progress in reducing food poverty.

MAILBOX

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>Following a= re recent questions from farmers and agribusiness reps that wound up in Ev’s inbox, with the assumption that if somethi= ng concerns others it might be of interest to you. Comments are in italics.

<= 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'>• Far= mers are having lots of problems with high yeast concentrations in corn silage. = Will the choice of silage inoculant make any differe= nce? Yes, while any inoculant can improve the situation by enhancing fermentation, university trials have found that inoculants contai= ning L. buchneri may be better at reducing yeast concentrations through the production of acetic acid. Several silage inoculant companies sell products containing L. buchneri.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>• My soils are high in K = but low in Ca. Will the high K, low Ca alfalfa be bad for my dairy cows? Just because the soils are high K & low Ca doesn’t mean that alfalfa g= rown on these soils will be high in K and low in Ca. Too much can happen to influence the availability and uptake of these nutrients by the alfalfa, including soil pH and the relative concentrations of other nutrients. Forage mineral content cannot be reliably predicted by soil analysis.

<= 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'>• My clover-grass seeding is overrun with weeds that are choking out the clover.= Is there any herbicide that will control the weeds without hurting the clover, should I clip the field to reduce competition, and is all this weed competi= tion likely to hurt the clover? No, yes, and yes.

MURPHY’S LAWS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Anyone who= has ever done applied research is a firm believer in Murphy’s Laws. Here = they are:

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

Nothing is as easy as it looks.

Everything takes longer than you think.

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.<= /span>

If several things can go wrong, the one that will cau= se the greatest damage will be the one to go wrong.        =               =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;  If anything absolutely CANNOT go wrong, it will anyway.

If you think there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong and circumvent them, a fifth way, unprepared for, wi= ll occur.

Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to wor= se.

If everything seems to be going well, you have obviou= sly overlooked something.

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

CRITTER NEWS

• In = Sweden,= heavy snow collapsed the roof of a tennis court complex that was hosting a rabbit breeders’ exhibition. Many cages broke open, and once free the rabbits did what they are famous for; according to one of the breeders, “They made new friends.” These new friendships produced at least 50 “surprise” litters, including Dwarf Hotot<= /span>/British Giant offspring. All this free love made some of the breeders hopping mad.<= o:p>

CORN SILAGE HARVEST
CHECKLIST: BE PREPARED

<= sup>With the 2= 010 growing season running about 2 weeks ahead of schedule, corn harvest may be closer than we think. LetR= 17;s run through the checklist and make certain we are ready, since we cannot af= ford to miss this harvest window.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{1. Dry mat=
ter:}

<= span class=3DGramE>^{a. 32-35}^{% Bunker silos}

<= span class=3DGramE>^{b. 35-40}^{% for Uprights and Bags. =}

<= sup>c. Initial= tests of hand sampled/chopped whole plant usually run 2% drier than the actual cr= op.

<= b>^=
;

<= b>^{2. Packing
Density:}^{Goal o=
f 15
lb DM/ft3 (45 lb/ft3 as fed) to minimize DM loss and spoilage, maximize
effectiveness of inoculants <=
o:p>}

<= sup>a. Fill rate/Packing rate: 3 minutes packing/ton forage

<= sup>b. Packing wt: Tractor lbs required =3D = T/hr x 800

<= sup>c. Forage = layer depth to pack should be <6”, thin layers pack tighter.

<= sup>d. Rule of= thumb for effective packing: How mu= ch do packing tractor tires sink into forage? < 3”? Should see tread trail only, no ti= re ruts and minimal forage spring.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{3. Particl=
e size
and Theoretical Length of Cut:}

<= span class=3DGramE>^a^{. ¾ inch processed, ½”
unprocessed.}

<= span class=3DGramE>^{b. Penn}^{State Particle Separator (PSPS) dis=
tributions
for Top 3-8%, Middle 45-65%, and Bottom Pan 35-45%. Note the top sieve retains particl=
es
>19 mm (3/4 inch) and the middle pan retains particles longer than 8mm
(3/8”). This is a wide range of particle length between the top and
middle; in other words look and make sure that what is on the middle screen=
is
not all 9 mm diced forage yet still meeting the % recommendations.}

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{4. Kernel
processing:}=

<= sup>a. Quarter= s, not halves, make certain kernels are smashed and cracked, not simply bruised and squeezed. 3 mm clearance to start harvest, and check again at end of day and throughout the harvest. At least look= at the kernels periodically.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{5. Starch
digestibility, kernel processing score or degree of starch access:}

<= sup>a. However= you and your nutritionist choose to monitor starch digestibility, keep in mind kernel processing and crop moisture content. As the drop matures and kernels get hard, tighten the rolls to decrease kernel particle size to ensure stee= ping during ensiled storage and ruminal digestibilit= y.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{6. Delayed
Harvest?}

<= sup>a. Starch = levels will increase up to 4% by waiting from 30% to 35% whole plant DM, with litt= le effect on starch or NDF digestibility. As you approach 40% DM, decrease in starch digestibility negates gain in total starch and risks silage quality, pack density, fermentation, spoilage, etc.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{7. High Chop:}=

<= sup>a. Good if you have a bumper cr= op.

<= sup>b. Don’t high chop immatu= re corn (less than 32% DM). With well-matured corn, whole plant dry matter increases about 1% point for every 6” increase in chop height. This c= ould be a problem as whole plant DM increases past the ideal.

<= b>^=
;

<= b>^{8. Cover a=
nd
Weight:}

<= sup>a. Plastic sheeting, and gravel bags or tire to tire

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{9. Preserv=
ative}

<= sup>a. &= nbsp; Inoculant: Beneficial in corn silage 90% of the time, AS LONG AS all else is in order: DM, pack density, coverage. Need > 100,000 CFU of homolactic bact= eria, > 400,000 CFU of heterolactic bacteria (i.e.= L. buchneri)

<= sup>b. Acid

<= sup>c. Applica= tor calibrated? If not, could be a waste of money or preservative, too little or too much.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{10. Save a
Reference sample.}

<= sup>a. Once you= have the chop length and kernel fracture that you want, take a sample and refrigerate or freeze and keep this as a reference for you and the harvest crew. No more PSPS shaking an= d pondering, have it handy to pull out and look at. Save a gallons= worth, label it with date and chopper specs.

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{11. Don=
217;t
miss the harvest window,}^{it may be coming by very quickly. A week’s delay could result =
in
significant milk loss.}

<= sup> = ;

<= b>^{12. Be safe!}

^{— Ku=
rt
Cotanch}

^{cotanch@wh=
miner.com}

<= sup> = ;

FALL HARVEST
OF ALFALFA

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>I’ve= said before that farmers should take a fall harvest of alfalfa only if they need= the feed. This is for two reasons: First is the modest yield typical with fall harvests. The leaflets on fall-grown alfalfa are quite large and often make= the crop look better than it is. There’s an impressive canopy of leaves at the top of the plant but not much below. Farmers mowing fall alfalfa are of= ten surprised and depressed at the wimpy windrows discharged from their mower-conditioner: “Where’s the beef?” We’ve harvested fall alfalfa= several times at Miner Institute and have seldom reached 1 ton of DM/acre, with more fields closer to 0.5 ton/acre. (As I’ve noted previously, weighing ev= ery truckload of harvested forage can be both enlightening and depressing.) The second reason is the negative impact a fall harvest often has on the follow= ing year’s yield. Many years ago Michigan State University agronomists found that fall-harvested alfalfa had lower yield the following spring.

<= 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'>Now we hav= e more recent data from the Univ= ersity of Wisconsin, based= on three years of research. Dry matter yields were similar to what we’ve found at Miner Institute: An average of 0.6 tons/acre with a range of 0.3 to 0.9 tons/acre. The agronomists discovered that first cut yield the following year was reduced by about as much as the previous fall’s yield. The c= ombined Wisconsin and Michigan data suggest that a fall harv= est will almost certainly reduce yields the following spring.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>Something = else to think about before taking a fall harvest, though I have no data to suppo= rt it, is that fall-harvested alfalfa doesn’t feed as well as it tests. Crude protein is usually very high, and NDF is low—sometimes frightfu= lly so. On paper the stuff looks like “cow candy” but the ladies mu= st not have a sweet tooth. Our dairy farm manager Steve Couture has commented = that 4th cut alfalfa in not his favorite forage, and other top herd managers echo this opinion. Note: The term “fall harvest” is a bit misleading since fall doesn’t officially start until September 21st while many farmers refer to fall harvest as the last possible cut in the season, which= is usually 4th cut in Northern NY and New England. I’m not opposed t= o an early September harvest as long as the crop has enough time to put on enoug= h regrowth before a killing frost. The worst scenario i= s for the crop to regrow 6” or so at the expens= e of root reserves, then be hit by a hard frost. That’s a classic setup for winterkill.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'> Unless you’re so short of fee= d that you’ll have to buy forage this winter, before mowing alfalfa this fall ask yourself: Is this trip really necessary?

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; — Ev Thomas, thomas@whminer.com

HIGH CHOP CORN SILAGE<= /o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.35pt'>Some farm= ers have an excellent corn crop, enough that there will be more than enough to = fill silos. If sale of excess corn is an option (at a price that at least recove= rs all production costs), this is worth considering especially with the current cash shortage on dairy farms. But if a cash sale isn’t in the cards, = this might be the year to consider high-chopping some or all of your corn for silage. Normal chop height varies by farm, usually six to 10 inches. High chopping — 18” stubble height is typical — will decrease = NDF and increase NDF digestibility, but only by a couple of percentage points. = The biggest quality difference will be in net energy because the ears are mixed with a smaller amount of stover. As long as the= crop is at the recommended maturity —at least 32% DM — choppi= ng a foot higher will increase silage DM percent by about 2% points. This is something to consider if your corn is already a bit high in DM. Don’t even think about high chopping corn that’s less than 30% DM since this will accomplish little other than reducing total yield.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.35pt'>How much = will higher energy density corn silage help? This depends on your ration, of cou= rse, but since it looks like corn will be well over $4 per bushel this coming winter, the economics look pretty good. High chopping reduces dry matter yi= eld — duh — but some trials have found that high chop corn silage actually results in more milk production per acre as well as per ton. High = chop looks especially good if your alternative is piling the corn on bare ground= .

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; — E.T.

BEHAVIORAL PREDICTORS OF CL= AW LESIONS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Lameness i= s an animal welfare issue and a major economic loss on many dairy farms. Common = causes of lameness include sole hemorrhages, white line hemorrhages, and sole ulce= rs which can be categorized as claw horn lesions. These claw horn lesions can develop around calving and early lactation, and become noticeable around pe= ak or mid-lactation. The current hypothesis is that claw horn lesions are a re= sult of a bruise within the claw horn capsule. Physiological changes around calv= ing and early lactation, such as weakening of connective tissue of the hoof suspensory apparatus and the decrease in thickness of= the digital cushion increase the risk of bruising, especially in poor housing conditions.

<= 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'>In the Sep= tember issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, University of Briti= sh Columbia researchers showed that cow behavior during the transition period may contribute to the development of claw horn lesions by exacerbating environmental and physiological risk factors for lameness. Cows that were diagnosed with claw horn lesions 7 to 15 weeks aft= er calving spent more time standing than cows without lesions during the 2 wee= ks before calving (~2 hours more) and the 24 hours after calving (~4 hours mor= e). Interestingly, the cows that developed claw horn lesions spent ~1.5 hours m= ore per day during the last 2 weeks before calving perching with front feet in = a stall. In addition, cows diagnosed with claw horn lesions in mid-lactation ate at a faster rate and had more frequent but smaller meals during the 2 weeks befo= re calving compared with cows that were not diagnosed with claw horn lesions. Surprisingly, during the first 24 hours after calving, cows that eventually developed lesions consumed more feed in more frequent meals. Also, the feed= ing rate tended to be faster. Additional work is needed to understand how feed consumption after calving affects the development of claw horn lesions.

<= 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:-.2pt'>The behavi= or predictors of claw horn lesions described above provide additional support = for proper facility design and implementation of good management practices dur= ing the transition period. Facilities and management practices aimed at minimiz= ing excessive standing and perching by providing comfortable lying surfaces may= be beneficial for reducing the occurrence of claw horn lesions in the weeks af= ter calving.

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

— He= ather Dann, dann@whminer.com

ROOTWORM-RESISTANT CORN USES MORE NUTRIENTS

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.2pt'>Research a= t the University of Illinois found that rootworm resis= tant corn takes up more nutrients. Not only was total nutrient uptake 14 to 27% greater, but there were higher concentrations of several nutrients includin= g N, P, K, S and Zn.

<= 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 likely= reason is that the root system of Bt corn is protected against rootworms and therefore is able to take up more nutrients. The Illinois researc= h was done with corn grain; not much is known about the effect on corn silage, but since good corn silage is at least 40% grain there certainly would be some effect.

<= 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'>We mention = this now because farmers will soon be forage testing new crop corn silage. It wo= uld be interesting to do fresh chop analyses on both rootworm resistant and non-resistant hybrids harvested for silage, especially if they were planted side-by-side in the same field. This would have to be carefully done to avo= id having field variation mask differences, and it = would be necessary to use wet chemistry (not NIR) for mineral analysis.

TIME TO HARVEST CORN FOR SILAGE?

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>The answer to this question dep= ends on planting date, relative hybrid maturity, and of course when you’re reading this newsletter. This has been an unusually warm summer, with an eye-popping 670 Growing Degree Days in July compared to a long-term average= of 616 GDD. (This isn’t proof of global warming; while 2008 was even warmer--688 GDD-- 2009 was one of the coolest Julys in years at only 522 GDD with 2007 also below average at 557 GDD.) The most accurate statement that = can be made about North Country weather is--= -it varies. Good August growing conditions are also important, but as long as t= he heat is accompanied by some rain, a hot July goes a long way toward making a good crop.

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>You should= be out in your fields by now, staging your corn crop for silage harvest. What do we mean by this? The medic= al definition of “staging” is the life history of an organism or a= ny biological process, and what you’re trying to do is determine your co= rn plants’ stage of growth (or more accurately, stage of maturity). Milk stage means you have a while to wait before the corn is ready to chop for s= ilage; dough stage is closer but not there yet. “Fully dented” is ofte= n in the eye of the beholder, and due to wide variations among hybrids in the stay-green characteristic, is NOT the best determinant of when to harvest. = By far the best way is to harvest a number of plants, either by hand or with y= our chopper. If harvested by hand, carefully run them through a chopper or wood chipper. Take a representative sample of the chopped forage (note the itali= cs), dry it, and then subtract two percentage points from the resulting dry matt= er test. That’s because the whole field is almost always a couple of poi= nts lower in DM than even a carefully taken sample. Trust me on this…

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

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>You’= ve invested hundreds of dollars per acre in growing what in many cases is a fi= ne corn crop. Don’t blow it now by chopping a week or so too early! In g= ood weather a standing crop will dry down at a rate of ½ to ¾% per day. Therefore, in one week (assuming decent weather) the crop may go from = 28% DM (ugh) to 31-32% DM (OK). Ten days and it should be 33-35 %, which is just about ideal. Anything less than 30% DM corn silage will produce effluent, especially if the crop is processed, while 33-35% DM corn silage will produ= ce little or none. This can make a big difference in the maintenance and opera= tion of silage effluent management systems.

<= 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'>Some farm advisors are recommending that corn be harvested for silage at 38-40% DM, b= ut I’m not ready to go there. Corn chopped at 38% DM and processed is probably OK, but what if you guess wrong and the crop is over 40%? Then it rains an inch or so and you’re not able to get back into your fields = for a week, during which time the drydown rate may = be slower but the “corn clock” still keeps on a-ticking. Nope, I g= et nervous at much over 35-36% DM.

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

CONSUMERS HAVE LONG MEMORIE= S

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:-.1pt'>My #1 son,= who owns a website development/optimization business in = Virginia, came home from a recent meet= ing with this information: If in a business transaction a customer receives bet= ter than anticipated service, on the average he/she tells three people. But if = the customer receives poor service, he/she tells ten people. So at least in business, being bad has a lot more lasting impact than being good. (I think this might be true in marriage, too.)

<= 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'>What does = this have to do with dairy farming, where there are usually several middlemen between the farmer and the consumer? It’s all about image. As a former tennis star used to say about a line of cameras he was promoting: “Im= age is everything.” Most farmers are responsible citizens, trying to keep= mud and manure off the highways, or at least cleaning up when they make a mess.= And most farmsteads are neat, or at least presentable. On the plus side, in rec= ent years there’s been a trend to building new farm facilities with the p= ublic image in mind. Flower gardens next to the milking parlo= r? Why not? What hurts all farmers are the few who leave roads covered in mud = (or worse), who put the farm’s rusty iron and steel “boneyard” out near the road, abuse livestock, o= r use poor judgment in where and when they spread manure. They may be few, but th= ey leave lasting memories with the public—the voting public, and farmers= are only about 1% of the population.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%'>Some years ago we had a farm wo= rker at Miner Institute who considered it impossible to move cows without using a cane. In an attempt to change this behavior I went shopping for one of those long foam “noodles” that kids use when swimming, intending to g= ive it to the employee in exchange for the cane while informing him that he cou= ld “encourage” the cows all he wanted as long as all he used was t= he foam noodle. Hopefully he’d take the hint. Unfortunately it was late = in the fall and I couldn’t find one anywhere. However, we used our own “noodle” and found a more practical solution: The employee beca= me an ex-employee.

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

HIGHLI= GHTS FROM 44TH CONGRESS OF
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR APPLIED ETHOLOGY

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;letter-spacing:.1pt'>The Interna= tional Society of Applied Ethology (ISAE) held its ann= ual congress in early August with a focus on the coping strategies used by anim= als housed in large groups. There was a wide range of behavioral research presented, but several presentations and abstracts focused on the behavior = and welfare of calves or cows during parturition.