FARM REPORT: JULY 2001

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO US On June 29 th, 1951, the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New Yorkgranted a provisional charter to the William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute.Astute readers will conclude that this is our 50 th anniversary. The stated purpose of theInstitute was: ..to provide for the operation and maintenance of an experimental farm, withfacilities and opportunities for experimental and research work, for training young menand women in practical and theoretical farming…all in such manner and to such extentas in the trustees’ judgment will best serve to advance the science of agriculture.” A recent decision by the Miner Institute Trustees affirm their belief that this purposehas not changed. Last month they unanimously approved the construction of a $1.4million dairy research complex consisting of a 280-cow free stall barn, milking parlor, andspecial needs facility. Site preparation will begin in 2002, with completion in fall, 2003.The barn will have 280 free stalls; the special needs facility will have 16 tie stalls forindividual cow intakes and the like. The free stall barn will feature a perimeter walkway topermit observation of the herd.

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM• Wet weather in late May delayed forage harvest, but cool conditions held quality

fairly well through early June. Yields of alfalfa and N-fertilized grass were verygood, especially considering how poor things looked in mid-May. I’m not asoptimistic about second cut quality, too much rain and hot weather, includingsome warm nights that are great for corn but lousy for forage digestibility.

• On June 16 we had 6.2” of rain (this is not a misprint), which ended any incipientdrought. Some corn was under 2 feet of water, and we lost perhaps an acre thatwas submerged for several days. We couldn’t sidedress/cultivate N, so had itcustom applied, increasing the N rate by 20 lbs/acre to account for excessiveleaching. The following week we had another 2” of rain, and some of our cornonce again became aquatic vegetation. Through June 28, we had over 9” of rainfor the month.

• We planted two corn silage hybrid trials on May 1 st, one sponsored by Agwayand the other by Syngenta Seeds. The Agway trial includes 18 hybrids, and theSyngenta trial has 11 hybrids. The hybrids are planted in approximately 1000’strips, 4 rows of each hybrid with 4 rows of a “tester” hybrid separating eachentry. Evaluations will include yield, maturity and forage quality.

• We’re participating in a Cornell–sponsored trial examining soil phosphoruschanges in a cornfield during the growing season. Soil samples—both 0-2” and0-8”—are being taken in May, June, July, October, and either November 2001 orApril 2002. The field we’re sampling is high pH, high P. We’re sampling the same2.5’ x 10’ strip of row each time to reduce soil variability.

• Our two new bunker silos are complete. The base is 6 to 8” of Item 4 gravel plusgeotextile filter fabric, and the asphalt floor is 2.5” of dense binder topped by 1.5”of Type 6 (“Armor Coat”). We installed the collection system for silage effluent;the next job will be to put concrete in the area between the old and new bunkersilos. We’ll have to do this in two steps to allow access to the old silos.

Ev ThomasThomas@westelcom.com

NUTRITION MANAGEMENT OF THE POST-PEAK COW Over the last few years there has been much written about the management of thetransition cow, but we seldom talk about the post-peak cow. For what ever reason I wassitting here this morning thinking about a Michigan herd that I was working with manyyears ago that got into trouble in the post-peak period. Here is how it started: Just about every cow in the herd that calved had ketosis. This, as you know, candrive you nuts – the days never seem to end. The rations for the cows were very highdensity and were balanced correctly for effective fiber and for protein. We went back tothe dry cow rations, developed a new close-up ration and solved the problem. There wasno adjustment of the lactating rations. The body condition score on the herd wasgenerally on the thin side with the cows drying off at a BCS of 3.25 to 3.50. This was inthe days prior to bST and the herd was being milked 2X. The herd received top qualityforage and was using high moisture corn. Things were going along great for about 6 to 8 months when problems started tooccur again. We again looked at the close-up rations. This time however, they were fine.When we looked at the herd, we saw a difference. The cows were drying off at BCS 3.5to 4.0. We then looked at the milking rations. What we found was that the cows werereceiving rations that were too high in energy for the milk being produced and the cowswere gaining weight, starting at about 150 days in milk. We refined the high group rationby reducing the fat and refining the protein. We reduced the energy in the mid and latelactation rations and slightly increased the protein, refining the protein fractions to ensurethat there was a slight excess of absorbed protein for the amount of absorbed energy.This corrected the imbalance, the cows were more persistent and started to dry off atBCS 3.5, eliminating the fresh cow problems that resulted from overconditioned cows. You need to be body condition scoring your total herd on a continuous basis. Thetransition cow problem can start in mid lactation. Plot the lactation curves for your herdby age group and by month of calving. Compare this information with the changes inbody condition scores. When you see cows becoming less persistent and BCS startingto increase, refine the rations. This is an insidious thing. Before you know it, milkpersistency can slightly decrease with a BCS increase and then it is too late – a group ofcows will be in trouble. It takes constant monitoring and ration refinement. We wantcows to dry off at 3.25 to 3.50. Conversely, the cows can be persistent but are notregaining condition. This discussion is relevant to all types of housing systems. Theherds in conventional tie stalls can easily solve the problem. Herds in free stall barnswill find the problem harder to solve. It becomes a grouping problem combined with thebalancing of nutrition. Watch those mid and late lactation cows, the problem can creep up on you and biteyou in the rear end! Monitoring all cows on a routine basis will pay off.

Charlie Sniffen

PHOSPHORUS INDEX In the future it’s likely that CAFO farms will be using the Phosphorus Index to guidephosphorus manure and fertilizer applications. The P Index differs a bit between states(NY, Vermont and Pennsylvania have all been developing them), but all rank fieldsaccording to low, medium, high and very high risk. The risk level depends not only onsoil test P but erosion potential, natural drainage and proximity to streams or drainageditches. Low and medium risk fields can receive manure based on the N requirement ofthe crop. Very high risk fields can receive no manure P (Pennsylvania) or no manure orP fertilizer (NY). High risk fields can receive manure based on P crop removal . Followingis a table of P concentrations (based on Dairy One Feed Laboratory averages), what I

would consider typical crop yields with average management, and the resulting annualcrop removal of P. For crop removal I’ve converted elemental P to P 2O5 since that’swhat’s used in manure analyses and fertilizer recommendations.

Crop Yield, Tons DM/A % P P2O5 removal, lbs/ACorn silage 5.5 0.24 60Alfalfa-grass 3.5 0.33 53Grass 3.0 0.30 41HM Corn 3.0 0.31 43

Manure analyses vary considerably depending on % dry matter, milk production andmineral content of the ration, which is why you shouldn’t use “book values” for manureanalysis. An annual manure analysis for each type of manure on a farm will be arequired part of nutrient management plans. That said, assuming 8 lbs of P 2O5/1000gallons of manure (the P concentration from our most recent manure analysis), applyingmanure based on P crop removal would result in an application of 7500, 6625, 5125 and5375 gallons of manure/A respectively for the four crops. Assuming a potassium (K 2O)concentration of 18 lbs/1000 gallons manure, that would provide 135, 119, 92 and 97 lbsof K2O per acre, enough for all but alfalfa-grass which contains about 60 lbs of potashper ton or 210 lbs at a 3.5 ton yield. The soil will supply some K, but applying manureaccording to P recommendations will often require fertilizer K.

--E.T.

SUMMER TOPDRESSING Check the most recent soil analyses on your alfalfa-grass fields: If soil test P or Klevels are less than adequate, now is a good time to topdress slurry manure or othermanure that contains relatively little bedding. The manure spreader will do somewheeltrack damage to alfalfa crowns but won’t hurt the grass much. Therefore, this is anespecially good practice for legume-grass fields that are at least 3 years old since thesefields will (should) be rotated to corn in a year or two anyway. A “light” application of3000 gallons/acre of slurry manure will supply about 25 lbs of P 2O5 and 50 lbs of K 2O. Ata price of $0.25 and $0.15/lb for P and K, that’s about $14.00 per acre plus the value ofthe micronutrients. We’ve applied considerably more than that to some fields; this yearour intended rates are 3000 and 4500 gallons/acre. If possible, get the manure on withinone week of harvest to prevent burning the tender new growth. If your soil is boron-deficient, don’t count on manure to supply this micronutrient. Onaverage, 3000 gallons of slurry dairy manure only contains about 0.03 lbs of boron, orabout 1% of what boron-deficient alfalfa needs. On these fields, use 0-0-60 + 2-3 lbsboron instead of (or in addition to) manure. --E.T.

KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS Nuisance lawsuits against farms and agribusinesses are becoming more common assuburban sprawl encroaches on rural land. As people who are not familiar withagriculture have moved out to the country, conflicts have begun between the newneighbors. Recently an open lot dairy in Idaho lost a nuisance suit over the intenselighting in animal pens being a nuisance to nearby homeowners who were trying to

sleep. Most complaints for dairies these days, however, stem from odor issues generallyinvolving liquid manure. Farms have moved away from daily spreading of manure for two main reasons: Theability to move manure at convenient (after harvest) or ecologically sound (when the riskof runoff is low) times of the year. Laws in some states mandate restrictions on whenyou can spread manure. Secondly, liquid manure is easier to move and store on a farm.This convenience comes with a cost. Liquid manure generally smells worse than semisolid or composted manure. Hence, there is a problem. Farmers need to spread manureto utilize the valuable nutrients it contains, and they need to spread because the manureneeds to go away from the farm. Neighbors tolerate the manure to varying degrees, butif you try to accommodate them you will have better success. Here at Miner Institute we are relatively lucky that we have only one main neighborthat is affected regularly by our manure operations. The problem is that the neighbor isan industrial facility that employs over 300 people with a sophisticated ventilation systemthat draws all of the air into the building from the roof. That roof is directly downwindfrom our manure storage. Our neighbor is most affected when we agitate our manure,less so when we are spreading. What I have done the last time we needed to agitatewas to do it at night when their workforce is reduced by about 90%. I am going to try andcontinue that practice and accomplish most of our agitation at night. We also try toaccommodate their needs and do not spread when they are having important functions.They don’t ask often, we try to be as good neighbors as we can. Your neighbors are probably at work during the day and are home in the evening.Trying to spread earlier in the day so that it has time to dry (and de-stink) before theycome home may be a good idea. You should definitely open the lines of communicationto avoid spreading next a wedding reception in the backyard or Junior’s graduationparty. Your farm operation may have been there long before the neighbors came in, andyour community may have a right-to-farm law in place. They will not protect you againsta suit where the neighbors accuse you of maliciously spreading manure to annoy them.Recently in Connecticut a farmer lost in a jury trial where the surrounding homeownerswere awarded a large settlement from the farm over manure handling practices eventhough there was a right to farm law in place. Following best management practices are important, especially when dealing withdangerous pathogens that may exist in manure. Along with that are other communityrelations issues. Get to know your neighbors, and then try to accommodate theirreasonable requests—or explain why you can’t. You will not satisfy everyone, but if youget hauled into court, you’ll need all the friends you can get.

Neil Andrewandrewn@westelcom.com

BIOSECURITY—WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? The term ‘ biosecurity’ refers to protecting the health of livestock by preventing thetransmission of disease. Any disease that could jeopardize the health of animals on yourfarm represents a threat to the economic viability of the farm and the welfare of yourherd. A common-sense approach to preventing disease from coming onto your farm andinfecting your livestock is one of the best investments you can make. Infectious diseasecan be spread a number of ways that include direct contact between animals, indirectcontact between animals (such as water source), or through the wind, contaminatedclothing or wildlife.

In an attempt to reduce our disease risk at Miner Institute we have added some newsignage to areas of the farm to attempt to discourage visitor traffic to areas where ouranimals that are at higher risk for contagious diseases reside. This includes the calfgreenhouse and the dry cow and heifer barn with maternity area. We also have a largesupply of plastic boots on hand for scheduled visitors to wear when they are on the farm.We have observed that the 6-mil plastic boots are quite a bit sturdier than the 4-milplastic boots and apparently worth the extra price. However, the Jumbo boots only seemto be available in 4-mil. In addition to the high fashion footwear, we have added disposable coveralls to ourlineup of biosecurity clothing. We utilize the disposable coveralls for moderate riskvisitors (people who travel from farm to farm and have limited contact with livestock) whocome to Miner Institute for a training program that includes touring of the facilities andpossible contact with cows or manure. These coveralls are available from Nasco inboxes of 25 pairs. The white coveralls, complete with a zipper and hood, cost about$1.60 per pair. A roll of duct tape should probably be included with these disposablecoveralls because, at $1.60/pair, just how long do you think they last before they areincredibly well ventilated? When looking to purchase these ‘most affordable’ coveralls, itis probably wise to avoid the Medium and Large sizes and just get the XL and XXL. Thecoveralls were made in China, and apparently American and Chinese models are not thesame size…

IL Richer training at Miner Institute

For our annual Farm Days for Fifth Graders we purchased a ‘people footbath’ fromNasco and used a disinfectant solution in it. All 500+ visitors to the farm walked throughthe soapy sponge on their way to the cattle areas of the farm and as they left the area.One of our students presented information to the 5 th graders regarding biosecurityissues. In addition to getting everybody’s footwear clean, we accomplished somepositive public relations that day. It is interesting to note at the end of this article that my computer Spellcheck doesn’tfind ‘biosecurity’ in the dictionary, and selects ‘insecurity’ as an appropriate substitute…

Wanda Emerichemerichw@westelcom.com

COW NUMBERS According to the Food and Policy Research Institute of the University of Missouri, by2010 California will have 11% more cows than in 2001. However, an item in the May“Dairy Alert”, an electronic newsletter from Dairy Herd Management Magazine, quotesTom DeRose from Wells Fargo Bank in Visalia, CA: “Dairy expansion has pretty muchstopped in California,” with litigation by environmental groups cited as the major reason.

DeRose says that a number of California farmers are interested in relocating to theMidwest. But the University of Missouri predicts that by 2010 cow numbers in Wisconsinwill decrease by 22%, in Minnesota by 33%, and in Michigan by 15%. Maybe thosesneaky Californians are talking about a different Midwest (Midwestern Idaho?); it wouldbe just like them.

BUTTERFLIES ARE FREE• Mark Sears, chairman, University of Guelph Environmental Biology Department:

"We've found the toxicity of pollen grains from the current commercial varieties ofcorn is not sufficient to cause mortality or even measurable sub-lethal effects.There's just not enough pollen deposited on milkweed leaves, that's the host ofthe monarch butterfly, in the field to warrant a measurable effect. So we can'tsupport the earlier findings by these other scientists who produced results thatsaid the monarch butterfly is harmed by this type of pollen. It just hasn't shown tobe so in our data."

• Wall Street Journal Europe Editorial: "Let's face it: The GM scare is based onless than nothing. Genetic manipulation of food and animal breeds has beengoing on for centuries. The United States has been gobbling up nutritious GMfood for years with no adverse health effects (except obesity, perhaps). The greatbutterfly scare of 1999 - wherein monarch butterflies allegedly keeled over aftereating GM leaves - turned out to be baseless, as an exhaustive study by the U.S.Department of Agriculture confirmed. It found no difference between the survivalrates of monarchs who'd eaten [biotech plants] and those that had not

CRITTER NOTES In response to the article in last month’s issue about the use of cyclone fence toprotect sweet corn from raccoons, a local farmer called with an effective but muchcheaper solution: He puts electric fence 6-8” high around his sweet corn patch. Thisreally discourages the coons; one or two jolts and they decide to go elsewhere for theirevening meal. However, this may be a hazard for male dogs that amble by and decide totake a whiz on the fence. Liquids are excellent conductors of electricity, as the dogssoon discover.

WHERE FARMERS SHOP The Internet may or may not be the future of farm product purchases, but currentlyit’s very small potatoes. In a Gallup poll sponsored by the Association of Leading AgMedia Companies, 71% of the 1200+ farmers taking part in the survey said they buyagricultural products from local or farmer dealers, and 46% buy from a local farmcooperative. (Numbers total to more than 100% because of multiple responses.) 20%buy from a regional distributor, 9% directly from the manufacturer, while only 1% dobusiness over the Internet. A more recent survey by Doane Marketing Research hadsimilar results. My experience in ordering farm products on the Internet hasn’t been toogood: Last winter I ordered 6 units of seed corn over the Internet. We’re still waiting forthat seed…good thing we didn’t pay for it. When it comes to who influences ag product purchases, in the Gallup poll 57% saidthat local dealers or farmers had the greatest influence. Consultants and Extensionagents were also influential, at 34% and 28% respectively. --E.T.

HYBRID ALFALFA

After 24 years of research and development, Dairyland Seed has introduced“HybriForce-400”the world’s first hybrid alfalfa. In university strip trials and on-farm stripplots, the hybrid alfalfa is increasing yields by 8 to 15%. This may be an importantdevelopment since a University of Wisconsin study determined that there has been verylittle genetic yield increase in alfalfa over the last 17 years. Not surprisingly, HybriForce-400 seed won’t be cheap; at an estimated retail price of$270 per 50 lbs, the seed cost is about 50% higher than that of other alfalfa cultivars.

YUCK Collection and/or treatment of silage effluent is an integral part of ComprehensiveNutrient Management Plans. Dilute effluent (rain and snow runoff from silo areas) istreated in a vegetated filter area, either naturally occurring or constructed. Concentratedeffluent—that dark brown, really stinky stuff—should be collected for later landapplication. Our collection system will use a 1000-gallon septic tank. We plan to eitherpump this into a slurry spreader for direct field application, or into our slurry pit to bespread with the rest of our manure. (Direct field application should be done with care,since silage effluent has a pH of about 4.0 and could burn tender foliage.) But wait! After my describing our effluent disposal plans, two guys on one of the on-line bulletin boards to which I subscribe noted that silage effluent can be fed to livestock.Yuck! Incredulous, I got some references, mostly from Ireland and involving feeding thestuff to hogs. I attributed this practice at least in part to overconsumption of Guinness (bythe farmers, not the hogs), but lo and behold there also was a report from the U.K.where feeding silage effluent to dairy cattle increased milk production and components.When I mentioned this to Neil, the look I got suggested that we would not soon befeeding silage effluent to our cows. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has a good factsheet onsilage effluent (seepage), available online at:

http://www.gov.on.ca.OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/95-043.htm

The factsheet contains the following statement: “Seepage may also be used as asupplementary feed. Fresh effluent may be fed to pigs and cattle or one may feed“stored effluent” if collected in closed drains and stored in air tight containers. Highpotassium & nitrate levels can cause problems, therefore feed with expert advice only.”(The italics are OMAFRA’s) In Europe, silages are put up at much lower dry matter contents than in the U.S.,resulting in copious effluent production. The NRCS design for our silage effluentcollection system recommends only a 1000-gallon tank. OMAFRA estimates that at 35%DM, the 5000 tons of silage we’ll have in our bunker silo complex will produce 18,000gallons of effluent per year. Au contraire, according to a 1999 Cornell Universitypublication 30% DM hay crop silage produces no effluent. Hmmm, maybe something todo with the exchange rate... But back to the feeding issue: Silage effluent on the averagetests 2% crude protein, 0.04% P, and 0.4% K, or about $200 total nutrient value for the18,000 gallons of effluent OMAFRA says we’ll produce. How much risk do we want totake to save $200 in feed costs, when the same nutrient value can be returned to theland as fertilizer through field application?

--E.T.

FORAGES.ORG On this dandy Cornell website is a Forage Species Selection Tool designed for NewYork farmers. By entering the soil type for a field (by name or by general information)

and a bit of other information including pH, any drainage improvements, and intendeduse of the crop, the program recommends the forage species that will do well on thatfield. This is pretty neat, but as they say, You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Cell phones arebeing developed with built-in GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) chips, and before long afarmer will be able to stand in a particular field, dial a number, and get forage speciesrecommendations for that field including expected yield and management suggestions.

TOP 10 U.S. FEED COMPANIES1. Land O’Lakes Farmland*2. Cargill Animal Nutrition3. Purina Mills*4. Consolidated Nutrition/MoorMan’s5. J.D. Heiskell & Co.6. Westway Feed Products7. Kent Feeds8. Southern States Co-op9. Ridley/Hubbard10. PM Ag Products

*Since this list was compiled, Land O’Lakes has purchased Purina.

CLOSING COMMENTInside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell happened.