the william h. miner agricultural research institute ... · pdf filethe william h. miner...

FARM REPORT

January 2010 The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute

Pricing Crop Inputs; Soybean Variety Trial Summary

2 From President’s Desk —State of Institute 2010 3 Vet’s Corner: Mycotoxins in Northeastern Dairy Rations 4 The EU Strikes Again; Critter News 5 What’s Happening on the Farm 6 Watch Out For Alfalfa Snout Beetle in 2010 7 Insect Control in Corn; Forage Variety Information 8 Risk Factors For Lesions on Freestall‐Housed Dairy Cows in Norway

9 Rethinking Grouping Strategies 10 Cornell Winter Dairy Management 2010 11

Inside this issue:

KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECT TRANSITION SUCCESS

The Miner dairy farm and research staff has spent the last several months conducting a nutrition study with dry cows and early lactation cows. This type of study reminds us all of the challenges that surround the transition period. A couple of our research technicians had limited experience with fresh cows at the beginning of the study. Their hard work and willingness to learn and ask questions has been great. We have had several discussions focused on fresh cow health, physical examinations, and causes of transition failures. There are several key factors in transition cow management that affect transition success. Dr. Ken Nordlund surveyed the transition management practices of 50 Wisconsin freestall herds. The herds had a wide range of management practices, housing characteristics, and animal evaluations. Interestingly, 5 factors were associated with the herd average Transition Cow IndexTM (TCI). The TCI is a tool to assess the effectiveness of transition management programs. Bunk space. A minimum of 30” of bunk space per cow in the dry and fresh pens is recommended when headlocks or other vertical dividers between feeding spaces are used. More bunk space is needed when a post and rail system is used.

Pen moves and social stress. Frequent pen moves and entries into pens should

be minimized to reduce social turmoil. Limit the duration of stay in isolated pens (i.e. box stalls). Amply sized freestalls or bedded packs. Stalls for Holstein and Jersey cows should be at least 50” and 45” wide and 70” and 63” long (curb to brisket board), respectively. A bedded pack should provide at least 100 square feet per cow when there is a separate feeding alley or at least 120 square feet per cow when the feeding area is continuous with the bedded pack. Surface cushion. Sand is the recommended bedding for freestalls. A deep, loose surface (i.e. bedded pack or mattress with adequate bedding) is better than a hard surface (i.e. concrete or mattress with no bedding). Effective screening program. Optimal screening programs use some form of appetite assessment, have facilities that allow for easy restraint, and have skilled herdsmen. Nordlund says the 5 factors listed above are the primary focal points he and his colleagues work with to improve fresh cow health for their clients.

— Heather Dann, [email protected]

Reference: Nordlund, K. 2009. The five key factors in transition cow management of freestall dairy herds. Pages 27-32 in Proceedings 46th Florida Dairy Production Conference, Gainesville, April 28, 2009.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report January 2010 — 2

PRICING CROP INPUTS In looking over university crop research results, some-thing that has long bothered me is how seldom the cost of a particular crop input is tied to its effectiveness. For example: In a university trial, Herbicide A provides 92% control of yellow foxtail, while Herbicide B pro-vides 90% control. However, Herbicide A costs $30 per acre, while Herbicide B costs only $15. Which is your better alternative? Will there be a corn yield difference between 92% and 90% foxtail control? I think not, but you sure would notice the difference of $15 per acre! Some years ago in attempting to control annual grasses in the corn at Miner Institute, we used a top-rated poste-mergence application of a package mix of two herbi-cides. It did a good job, but in looking at the cost – about $40 per acre when the adjuvant was included – we decided to try a somewhat cheaper alternative, finding that it too was very effective. Of course there's a reason for the lack of price data: It would be almost impossible for university researchers to report input prices on a state-wide basis because of the differing prices offered by the various distributors and the often large year-to-year price changes of some prod-ucts. For instance, Monsanto is having a fire sale on Roundup this year, pricing it at about 50% of what it cost last year. So any cost comparison from 2009 in-volving Roundup (or most likely any other brand of

glyphosate) would be way out of whack in 2010. Good luck in trying to find current price data on herbi-cide options, at least in any comprehensive form. Not that this hasn't been attempted: A number of years ago one of the regional agribusinesses in Northern NY pub-lished a list of many of the commonly used herbicides and herbicide combinations, including the current retail price. This was very useful, but of course was outdated by the following spring. And it must have been enough work that I never saw an updated version of this list. As you consider the relative effectiveness of various pest control options (both chemical and genetic), also consider the cost. Sometimes you'd wind up paying a lot more for a very small gain in pest control – or no gain at all. One of the best sources of this informa-tion, at least when it comes to herbicides, is custom applicators. These folks make most of their profit on the actual application, not the small difference in markup between one herbicide and another. Their goal is to provide effective weed control at a reason-able price. Good weed control keeps you coming back to them, while the reasonable price helps keep you in business. A win-win situation, to be sure...

– Ev Thomas, [email protected]

SOYBEAN VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY We don't know what it is about North Country weather – particularly Northeastern NY – but soybeans continue to be an almost bulletproof crop, at least to grow if not to har-vest. Each year Cornell University agronomists plant soy-bean variety trials at two or three Northern NY locations including one in Cornell's crop research area at Miner Insti-tute. And each year – hot, cold, wet, dry – the Miner Insti-tute trial provides big yields. This year the trials, consisting of 14 Roundup Ready Group I varieties planted on May 29th, averaged 57 bushels/acre. Just about everything yielded well; with the exception of one variety that yielded 51 bu/A, there wasn't anything that was less than 55 bu/A with the top three all 60 bu/A or higher. It was encouraging that even though the trial wasn't harvested until Nov. 2 there was no lodging at all. A similar trial at Sackets Harbor (near Watertown) didn't fare quite as well but still averaged a respectable 44 bu/A.

Soybean field.


FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK — STATE OF THE INSTITUTE 2010

We just completed our year-end review of programs and activities at Miner Institute for 2009 and I thought I’d share some of the highlights with you. Each year as I look back over the accomplishments of the Institute staff and their programs I am amazed at what a staff of only 50 folks can accomplish! Our educational programs remain the fundamental reason that we exist. The Advanced Dairy Management program monopolizes our efforts during spring semester, with dairy management students spending an entire semester in resi-dence at the Institute. These are primarily students who have spent two years at Vermont Technical College and have transferred to University of Vermont for their final two years. Our hope is that most of these students return to dairy farming or closely allied industry when the program is completed. In 2010 we will have nine students, up from six this past year. During fall semester our focus shifts to Agriculture and the Environment and students primarily from SUNY-Plattsburgh with limited agricultural background. Here our goal is to use the Institute’s farm and forested lands to teach students how agricultural practices impact the environment. The contrast in student backgrounds, ex-periences, and expectations between spring and fall se-mester is a significant part of what makes it stimulating to work here. Our Summer Experience programs in crop/dairy man-agement, equine management, and agricultural research remain vibrant and highly competitive, attracting stu-dents from across the U.S. and even internationally. Our research group conducted numerous studies on top-ics ranging from evaluating the effects of stocking rate on dairy cow behavioral response to successfully feed-ing low starch diets to dry and fresh cows. Student pro-jects are a significant portion of our research and educa-tional programs, providing them with a glimpse into the research process and simultaneously generating useful, practical knowledge. In 2009, 11 students conducted research projects ranging from the effects of forage NDF source on milk components to the effect of soil sampling site on phosphorus content. Industry outreach consumes substantial amounts of all staff time, and this reaches back to the Institute’s core mission of application of the latest technological advances to solve problems confronting North Country agriculture (or, in fact, national and global issues). Over 2700 people attended over

50 workshops/seminars held at the Institute in 2009. In 2009 the Northern New York Dairy Institute was created as a collaborative effort between Cornell Cooperative Exten-sion of the northern counties and Miner Institute. The Farm Report continues to be our outreach effort with the single greatest impact on crop and dairy farmers. In ad-dition, The Stable Sheet delivers timely information to the equine industry. Increasingly, our website is an important vehicle for delivering information, and in 2009 it was com-pletely overhauled. The Institute’s most visible demonstration program contin-ues to be the dairy herd. As always, the dairy staff did an excellent job of balancing research and educational de-mands with our need for maintaining a highly productive herd. In 2009, herd milk production topped 31,500 pounds rolling milk production. A high level of dairy herd perform-ance is necessary for our research results to be applicable to the modern dairy industry, for relevant educational pro-grams, and for effective demonstration of the latest technol-ogy in a dairy-crop system. Obviously, I’ve skipped over many other significant ac-complishments and programs, but I did want to provide a quick glimpse of the breadth and vigor of our research, edu-cational, and demonstration programs. If this brief over-view stimulates interest on your part in learning more about the range of Miner Institute programs, please feel free to contact us. And, most importantly, I hope that 2010 brings you prosperity!

— Rick Grant, [email protected]

Aerial view of the barns at Miner Institute.


VET’S CORNER: MYCOTOXINS IN NORTHEASTERN DAIRY RATIONS

Possible mycotoxin contamination in dairy rations has been an important topic this fall due to wet, cool grow-ing and harvest weather. In recent weeks our practice and clients have been brought up to date by excellent presentations by Dr. Ken Zanzalari, Prince Agri Prod-ucts and Dr. Swamy Haladi, Alltech. For comprehen-sive reading on the subject check out the following web-sites: www.KnowMycotoxins.com http://www.vetmed.iastate.edu/diagnostic-lab/

diagnostic-services/diagnostic-sections/chemistry-toxicology/mycotoxins

When considering the possibility of mycotoxins in ra-tions, investigate for breakdowns in proper feeding management before going to the expense of mycotoxin testing. Vomitoxin (DON) is the most commonly re-ported mycotoxin in forages grown in the Northeast. In ruminants it doesn’t cause specific disease symptoms but reduces the palatability of feed and therefore reduces dry matter intake (DMI). In this year with such poor climate conditions for harvest, monthly testing of for-ages is recommended to stay ahead of mycotoxin prob-lems. Of course there are a myriad of reasons for DMI to be reduced. Before just throwing an expensive feed additive into the ration, Drs. Haladi and Zanzalari rec-ommend reviewing other causes of diminished DMI, such as inaccurate moisture content of the ration and overcrowding of the feed bunk with the herd feed rep and/or herd veterinarian. Zealerone is another mycotoxin, one found in 90% of forage samples that test positive for DON. For this rea-son, forage analysis usually just tests for DON and as-

sumes that zealerone is also present. Unlike DON, spe-cific symptoms are associated with this mycotoxin in dairy cattle. Zealerone mimics estrogen’s effect on the dairy cow’s reproductive system and has been associ-ated with poor conception rate in cattle that exhibit ab-normal estrus activity. Cows display increased vaginal secretion and swelling and heifers may exhibit abnormal mammary enlargement. There are many causes of abor-tion, early embryonic death, and irregular cycling in dairy cows that must be eliminated before placing the blame on mycotoxin. These are the two main mycotoxins found in the North-east, but that doesn’t mean that other mycotoxins can not be in your dairy’s rations because grains imported from the Midwest could contain significant levels of aflatoxin and fumonisin. These mycotoxins will be con-centrated 3X during the ethanol production process and therefore be more concentrated in distiller’s grains. Lo-cal grain companies regularly test loads for these con-taminants. Ruminants can handle a low level, but there is increased danger this year. Aflatoxin is associated with cottonseed and can be transmitted through the milk to humans. In humans it can cause liver cancer so it’s tested for at the milk plant in Midwestern states. Fu-monsin is a common mycotoxin in the Midwest that causes poor appetite and diarrhea in dairy cattle. It’s suspected to be one of the causative agents in the emerging disease syndrome, Hemorrhagic Bowel Syn-drome.

— Kent Henderson, DVM Northwest Veterinary Associates, Inc.

[email protected]

NOTABLE QUOTES One of the remarkable things about life is that

it's never so bad that it can't get worse. Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes)

Things ain’t what they used to be and proba-

bly never was. Will Rogers

Funerals are for people who died too young; everyone else deserves a celebration. Buck O'Neil, former Negro League baseball star.

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice

letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain


THE EU STRIKES AGAIN That crazy bunch of activists on the other side of the pond is at it again. The European Union recently banned the use of atrazine, which has been in common use for about 50 years. Was this ban based on pollution prob-lems? Human health issues? Poor performance? Nope, according to EU policy makers, the ban wasn't based on any scientific knowledge but simply because atrazine is so widely used by European farmers that it might cause problems someday. Under these guidelines perhaps the EU should also ban the consumption of lettuce; it's never caused any prob-lems and has been eaten for generations but, well, you never know.... (Sigh). How do U.S. weed scientists view atrazine? Here's a quote (from a couple of years ago) from a weed scientist at a state agricultural college, referring to weed control in corn: "It doesn’t really mat-ter which herbicide you use as long as it contains atrazine." However, in the spirit of full disclosure, EPA recently

announced plans for yet another review of atrazine. This in spite of a just-completed multi-year regulatory study that concluded that atrazine is unlikely to cause cancer in humans and doesn’t affect the reproductive develop-ment of frogs and other amphibians. EPA has been studying atrazine for about 20 years and hasn’t found any ”smoking gun” so to speak, but environmental ac-tivists continue to hound EPA about this highly popular herbicide. That said, U.S. farmers should take heart: Between the EU's staunch opposition to its farmers growing genetically modi-fied crops and its Neanderthal view of modern agricultural technology in general, the EU is painting its farmers into the proverbial corner compared to the rest of the farming world. It's already more expensive to produce almost any farm commodity in Europe than it is in North or South America, and the banning of one of the oldest, most widely used (and cheapest) herbicides is just one more nail in the European Union coffin.

– E.T.

INTERESTING FACTS As we start a new decade, a few facts to chew on: There are five times as many words in the English

language as there were in Shakespeare’s time. The amount of new technical information doubles

every two years. China is the second largest English-speaking coun-

try in the world. One out of five jobs most in demand now didn’t

even exist in 2004.

WHO SAID THIS? "Small farms, the niche marketers, and the organic producers can feed the com-munity and those who want to buy local, but only the large commercial farmer can feed the world, and a well-fed world will not be a terrorist world." The president of a large petrochemical company? Some-one from The Fertilizer Institute? Nope, it was none other than a guy whose wife planted an organic garden as soon as she and her family moved into their new house. The "house" was the White House, and the hubby was President Barack Obama.

CRITTER NEWS

Small American flags were disappearing from the graves of veterans at a Port Huron, Michigan ceme-tery. Workers noticed that the flags had been torn from their little wooden staffs, which were still in place. The crime was solved when the cemetery su-perintendent watched a grey squirrel detach a flag and carry it up to its nest, which upon further ex-amination was colorful indeed.

EQUIDAY 2010

Equiday at Miner Institute will be held Saturday, March 20, 2010 at the Miner Center Auditorium, 586 Ridge Road, Chazy, NY. Admission is free and registration begins at 9 a.m. For more information, contact Karen Lassell, [email protected] or call (518) 846-7121, ext. 120.


SOUTHERN EXPOSURE foolish ways than the “bricks and mortar” ap-proach seen down here. Finally, one of the highlights of the holi-day season here in Richmond is the an-nual “Tacky Lights Festival”, a city-wide event focusing on the homes with the most impressive and/or exces-sive use of Christmas lights. The locations of the winners are well-publicized, and there are even com-mercial limousine tours. Some displays, including one home with over a million lights, must really make the old electric meter spin!

– E.T.

Ever since we arrived in Virginia in early November, the weather has been the meteorological equivalent of the rinse cycle. We’ve had so much rain that animals are starting to pair up two by two, and church discussions involve the ex-act length of a cubit. (Answer: It varies since a cubit is the distance between the tip of the middle finger and the elbow, generally 17-21”. Remarkably, when asked, The Bride knew this.) However, in between storms there have been enough 60-degree days to make it tolerable. It’s certainly different to live (if for only a few months a year) in a region where cotton and tobacco are commonly grown field crops. In recent years, our leaders in Washing-ton have shanghaied U.S. tobacco companies for billions of dollars. In Virginia this money has in many cases been put to good use, with some very impressive community meet-ing centers built with tobacco company reparations. To-bacco money has been used by local and state governments for varying purposes across our nation, and in a lot more

WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARM Another year has past – it is hard to believe. We probably say that every year and should by now be used to the pace! Looking back over this year, we are mindful of the importance of our farm team – those individuals that work together to make the farm run smoothly and successfully. Everyone has a different job and/or shift, each person brings a different set of skills, everyone’s personality is different and some-how all these people have to work together to operate the farm and accomplish all the different jobs that entails. And details cannot be neglected on the farm or the cows and the business will suffer. Part of our farm team is our nutritionists, veterinarians, breeders, IBA dealer, and milk tester – those who “bring us news from the outside world,” evaluate our cows and farm management with a fresh eye, and provide the services we need to continue operation.

Last year we set several goals for the farm including decreasing the DA rate, the somatic cell count, and the number of calves born dead on arrival. In all these areas our team made progress while increasing herd average by 1,660 lbs. And can we point to one person who made this all happen? Certainly not — it had to be a team ef-fort. To meet our goals in the new year, our team must perform like a well-oiled machine, everyone doing their very best at their job and contributing to the successful operation of our dairy farm.

The following are some fun year-end numbers. In 2009 our team: • Milked approximately 312,075 cows – that is 13,000 turns of the parlor. • Fed 6,432 tons of TMR to the milking cows (or 12,864,790 lbs). • Inseminated 1,219 cows and heifers. • Freshened 339 cows and heifers. • Raised 146 heifer calves. • Chopped and packed 5,937 tons of corn silage. • Mowed, merged, chopped and packed 2,969 tons of grass and alfalfa haylage.

Wishing you and your team a wonderful new year! — Anna Pape, [email protected]

Tacky Lights Festival


WATCH OUT FOR ALFALFA SNOUT BEETLE IN 2010

The alfalfa snout beetle (ASB) is the most damaging alfalfa insect pest and can completely destroy an alfalfa stand within a year or two. The Ontario Ministry of Ag-riculture estimates that ASB can cause a 20 to 30% in-crease in feed costs in some cases due to reductions in yield and quality, certainly something that no dairy farm can afford. ASB was identi-fied as an alfalfa pest in the late 1920’s when alfalfa was intro-duced as a forage crop in Oswego County. ASB has since spread onto an estimated 500,000 acres of NNY cropland. Recent ASB infestations have been confirmed in Peru, Malone, and along Lake Champlain north of Plattsburgh. No evidence of ASB has been found yet at Miner Institute, but the re-cent discovery of ASB in the area should get the atten-tion of alfalfa growers. The adult ASB can hitch rides on farm implements, beehives, and other equipment, making containment difficult. Since all ASB adults are females, it only takes one to start an infestation as they lay between 300 and 1,000 eggs. The broad host range of ASB (alfalfa, clover, wild car-rot, dandelion) and the inability to manage them with insecticides makes control difficult. The real damage is caused by larvae. Adults are on the move in April and lay eggs in June. Larvae migrate to depths of one to two feet in the soil and feed on roots until they pupate the second year. Damage by ASB should not be confused with winter kill. The best time to look for ASB damage is generally in late October. The picture of alfalfa dam-age above right was taken in the third week of October before 4th cutting and was easily distinguishable from the unaffected portions of the field in the background. ASB is typically found in well drained soils where the seasonally high water table is deeper in the ground.

Dr. Elson Shields at Cornell has shown that biocontrol of ASB may be possible by inoculating soils with ento-mopathogenic nematodes, which prey specifically on ASB and other soil insects. Nematodes are cultured, added to water, and applied with sprayers at a rate of 1 billion/acre for a cost of about $200/acre. Shields recently demonstrated that nematodes persisted for seven years at one site, while ASB populations stayed at manageable levels compared to no treatment. Shields also works with Dr. Don Viands at Cornell on develop-ing ASB resistant alfalfa. The Shields lab has screened hundreds of thousands of plants and Viands performs the selection and cross breeding. Shields believes that both alfalfa resistance and biocontrol will be required for effective ASB control. So what’s the bottom line? Vigilant scouting is impor-tant because you and your farm neighbors need to know if ASB is present, where it is, and how severe. If you noticed suspicious alfalfa damage this fall, be on the lookout for ASB adults this spring. While biocontrol and alfalfa resistance continue to improve, problem fields can be managed with a shorter rotation (~2 yr) or can be seeded to grass.

— Eric Young, [email protected]

ABOVE: Adult Alfalfa Snout Beetle BELOW: Alfalfa Snout Beetle Larva

TOP RIGHT:

ASB larval damage

showing the severing of

an alfalfa tap root.

BELOW RIGHT:

ASB-affected alfalfa field showing an

infested area of the field

(light brown foreground

area).


INSECT CONTROL IN CORN In the current issue of Cornell’s “What’s Cropping Up?, Extension Entomologist Elson Shields makes some ex-cellent points about rootworm control in corn. He notes that first year corn has virtually no chance of corn root-worm damage, while second year corn has only a 25 to 35 percent chance of economic damage. However, the percentages increase to 50 to 70 percent for third year corn and 80 to 100 percent for fourth year and beyond. Put another way, if you do nothing your chance of in-curring significant rootworm problems are approxi-mately one in three for the second year of corn produc-tion, two in three for the third year, and almost certain in the fourth year and later. So what are you going to do about it? The high (1.25 mg) rates of Cruiser Extreme and Force will do a good job of controlling corn rootworms in the Northeastern U.S. However, using these seed treatments as your sole means of rootworm control isn’t a good idea because of the potential for developing insect resistance. A better idea would be to use the high rate seed treatments for a couple of years, then switching to genetic control (Bt) for years four (and if applicable, five). Don’t assume that just because you don’t see goose-necked stalks and lodged corn that you have no root-worm damage. Yield loss can occur as a result of root pruning even if your corn doesn’t assume what we agronomists call a “horizontal growth characteristic.” If you’ve already ordered seed corn and need to make changes to increase rootworm protection, most seed

companies should be accommodating. Almost all seed corn is already treated with Cruiser Extreme or Force, so usually all that’s necessary is to order seed with the higher treatment rate. If you choose genetic control, in many cases the base genetics wouldn’t change so the other characteristics—yield potential, silage quality, etc. would be very similar. For a more complete discussion of insect control in corn, visit: http://css.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/cropping-up/index.cfm#rootworm

– E.T.

Western (left); Northern (center) and Southern (right) Corn Rootworm Beetles.

FORAGE VARIETY INFORMATION Cornell University has an excellent website that con-tains a great amount of current and recent years’ crop variety yield data: http://css.cals.cornell.edu/css/extension/publications.cfm On this website you’ll find five or six years of both corn silage and corn grain hybrid trial results, plus the results of several years of soybean and forage variety trials. Many include quality data particularly useful to dairy farmers. Also included is an archive of Cornell’s excel-lent newsletter, “What’s Cropping Up?,” with issues going back to 2000.

It’s worthwhile to look over this information prior to placing forage seed orders. For instance, many farmers are considering a change in forage grass species, per-haps from timothy to tall fescue. By spending a few minutes on this website you can learn, for instance, that in one 2009 N.Y. trial, Climax timothy (seeded April 2007) yielded 5.33 tons of dry matter per acre, while Select tall fescue, seeded on the same date, yielded 8.47 tons DM/acre with higher digestibility. Is it worth your spending a few minutes to learn this? You can even find some cut-by-cut yield data, showing which species pro-vides the highest mid-summer yields.

– E.T.


RISK FACTORS FOR LESIONS ON FREESTALL-HOUSED DAIRY COWS IN NORWAY

For the past 15 years, Norwegian dairy farmers have been required to construct only freestall barns, as devel-opment of new tie-stall facilities was prohibited by the Norwegian Food Authorities. As with any regulation, there are pros and cons of this development. The elimi-nation of tie-stall housing provides the cows with more freedom of movement and the ability to perform natural behaviors (grooming, social interactions, etc.). The largest negative is the prevalence of skin lesions that occur on loosely housed cattle. This is a welfare issue that can impact large portions of herds housed in freestall barns, especially those using mattresses and sawdust for the stall surface. The lesions are common on any part of the leg that protrudes from the leg, such as the hock, and arise due to the compression of the soft tissue between the stall surface and the bone. The extent of the injury ranges from mild hair loss to an open wound in the most severe cases. Due to the legislative restrictions on housing, a group of researchers from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science and the Norwegian University of Life Science conducted a survey of 232 dairy farms to determine the prevalence of leg lesions and identify specific stall and cow characteristics that put individual cows at risk for developing lesions. They also sought to investigate the role of the farmer’s attitude in the prevalence of cows with lesions within their herds. The data for the survey was collected during a single visit to each farm. Skin lesions (on a scale of 1-to-5 with 1 repre-senting no lesion to 5 representing an open wound), body condition score (5-point scale), and locomotion (5-point scale) were recorded from a representative group of 10 cows from each farm. The stall length (measured from the curb to the front divider), curb height, and neck rail height were recorded for each farm. The stalls were further charac-terized by softness of the base and bedding material Fi-nally, the farmers’ attitudes were quantified by their level of agreement with the statement: “Animals experience pain as humans do.”, which was also used in a previous study by the same researchers. The cows enrolled into the study were primarily Nor-wegian Red and were 140 DIM. Thirty percent of the cows were primiparous and 28% were in their 4th or greater lactation. Eighty-three percent of the cows were not lame (locomotion scores of 1 or 2) and only

0.5% were severely lame (locomotion score = 5). Lame cows were at a greater risk than non-lame cows for developing a lesion and multiparous cows were more likely to have a lesion than primi-parous cows. For stall design, softer bases and shorter stalls, in both a double-row or against a wall, were less likely to result in the development of lesions on either the knee or the hock. Finally, cows were less likely to develop knee lesions on operations run by farmers who agreed that animals feel pain in a similar way to humans. There was no relationship between the farmer’s attitude and hock lesions. Overall, this study highlights that characteristics of the cow, the stall, and the farms all have a role in the risk that the cow is at for developing skin lesions. While most farmers are stuck with their current facilities for the immediate future, attitude and lameness can be more readily addressed. Assuming that risk factors are the same in here in the Northeastern U.S., taking the cow’s ability to feel pain into consideration when making management decisions and striving to remedy lameness as quickly as possible could reduce the prevalence of skin lesions on dairy cows.

— Peter Krawczel, [email protected]

Reference: Kielland, C., L. E. Ruud, A. J. Zanella, and O. Østerås. 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5487-5496

Hock lesion score = 5.


RETHINKING GROUPING STRATEGIES On many dairy farms, a single total mixed ration (TMR) is fed to the milking herd after the cows leave the fresh pen or even after calving. There is a lot of information about providing a separate TMR to fresh cows, but what about providing a separate TMR to cows in early to peak lactation versus cows in later lactation? Two of the primary reasons to feed these two groups different TMRs are to prevent over-conditioning of later lactation animals and manage feed costs. Recently Dr. Michael Allen from Michi-gan State University presented information about “Grouping to Increase Milk Yield and Decrease Feed Costs” at the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference in Fort Wayne, IN (reference below). Some of the key points of these conference proceedings will be high-lighted in this article. The nutrient requirements of high producing cows are very different from low producing cows. If the same TMR is fed to both groups, you run the risk of feeding below the requirements of the high pro-ducers, which will limit milk and milk component production, or feeding above the requirements for the low producing group, which can lead to over-conditioning. When cows in late lactation gain ex-cess body condition, they are at increased risk of developing metabolic and reproductive problems in the subsequent lactation. Use of rbST helps pre-vent over-conditioning of late lactation animals, which has allowed for relative success of feeding a one group TMR to the lactating herd. However, because many herds are not using rbST anymore, it may be time to re-evaluate grouping strategies in the milking herd.

An important benefit of utilizing grouping strategies is that feed costs can often be reduced. If grouping strategies are implemented, you can maximize forage utilization in the low producing group and decrease the need for purchased feeds. Right now, many pro-ducers are looking for ways to cut feed costs. Cutting out highly fermentable carbohydrates and good qual-ity protein sources from the high producing cows can negatively impact milk production, which may not help the bottom line. However, grouping and maxi-mizing forage utilization in the TMR of late lactation animals can save on feed costs without sacrificing milk production.

One argument that is often heard for maintaining a one group TMR strategy is that labor savings are realized when one TMR is fed to the milking herd, but depending on the

mixer capacity, pen size, and herd size, labor costs may not increase when groups are fed different TMRs. Some of the key points of grouping strategies high-lighted by Dr. Allen are: Benefits of grouping: Optimal forage allocation Increased efficiency of nutrient utilization Decreased nitrogen excretion Potential profits to be realized: Increased milk and milk component yields Decreased feed costs Decreased culling Herds that will benefit most are those that: Do not use rbST Have more variation in milk yield and age among cows Re-evaluating the use of multiple TMRs in the lactat-ing herd may be of benefit at this time due to high feed costs, particularly if you are no longer using rbST. However, it is important to evaluate changes in both labor and feed costs if these strategies are im-plemented.

— Sarah Boucher, [email protected] Reference: Allen, M. S. 2009. Grouping to increase milk yield and decrease feed costs. In: Proceedings of the Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, p. 61. Fort Wayne, IN.

A group of cows is milked at Miner Institute.


CORNELL WINTER DAIRY MANAGEMENT 2010

Widening Dairy Margins Using Herd “Intelligence”- Keeping More Dollars on the Farm Using New & Traditional

Herd Health Surveillance Tools

Thursday, Jan. 21 — 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Miner Institute, Chazy, NY

Program:

Money-on-the-Table…Workshop Focus, Case Farms and Your Farm’s

Data Presented by John Conway Catching Pathogens at “Stage 0”. QMPS’ New Bulk Tank Surveillance Program is the Perfect

Complement to Cow Level Tools that Help Grab Dollars

Presented by Tonya Van Slyke and Dr. Gary Bennett, QMPS

Feet Talk. NYSCHAP Foot Health Assessment and Root Cause Diagnoses Help this

New Module Keep Manage-ment’s Feet to the Fire

Presented by Frans Vokey, Lewis CCE and Kathy Finnerty, NYSCHAP.

Proud of the Job you are doing Assuring the Health

and Well-being of your Herd? Why not tell the consumer how good your

farm is with a Whole Herd Animal Welfare Audit? Presented by Kathy Finnerty, NYSCHAP

Your Farm’s Surveillance Data

Question, Answer and Discussion Session with all of the Presenters.

Registration: Cost is $25, and $15 for additional participants from the same farm for preregistration. $5 extra will be charged for on-site registration. Emily Myers, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Northern NY Regional Dairy Specialist Cell: 518-353-4949

CROP CONGRESS AT MINER INSTITUTE

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Speakers include: Quirine Ketterings, Cornell University, Corn-

alfalfa Rotation Management. Anita Deming, Cornell Cooperative Ext., Essex

County, Costs of Roundup Ready Corn Production Versus Conventional Herbicide Programs.

Eric Young, Miner Institute, Getting the Most From

Your Soil Tests. For more information, contact Eric Young, 518-846-7121, ext. 113 or email [email protected]

When: Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Where: Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center, South Burlington, VT — Registration information is available by calling 802-334-7325, ext. 11. Speakers for this one-day program include: Senator Bernie Sanders Comedian Carl Hurley Dr. Bill Stone Dr. Andre Wright Terry Batchelder Bob Gray Dr. Rick Grant Dr. Tom Overton

VERMONT DAIRY PRODUCERS’ CONFERENCE


The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute 1034 Miner Farm Road PO Box 90 Chazy, NY 12921 Change Service Requested

Non‐Profit Organization

U.S.POSTAGE PAID Chazy, N.Y. 12921

Permit No. 8

www.whminer.org 518.846.7121 OFFICE

518.846.8445 FAX

YOUR JANUARY

FARM REPORT HAS ARRIVED

ENJOY!

C l o s i n g C o m m e n t

If you can't convince them, confuse them.

the william h. miner agricultural research institute ... · pdf filethe william h. miner...

Documents