The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute ... · consistently harvest high quality forages. This is great. What you have not been doing is taking full advantage of them

This question is the most important one that can be asked of any educational institution. At the beginning of a new year it’s good to think about what the answer might be for Miner Institute – are we having a measurable impact?

Every December I prepare a year-end report for our Institute Trustees that catalogues statistics pertaining to publications, presentations and workshops, grant income, and student enrollment. These measures all provide good “dashboard indicators” that we are heading in the right direction and passing milestones as outlined in our 2011-2016 Institute Strategic Plan.

But despite the litany of annual accomplishments, there is always that uncertainty – did we really impact the dairy industry? Or the equine industry and horse owners? Or anyone living in the Champlain Valley or elsewhere with an active interest in dairy farming and environmental stewardship?

In 2012 we educated over 60 undergraduates, brought in over $700,000 in grant income to conduct critical research for the dairy industry, saw close to 4000

people walk through our stone gates, and demonstrated best management

practices as evidenced by the continued high

performance of our dairy herd. One of our research

publications on stocking density was even selected as a featured article by the Journal of Dairy

Science.

But do these statistics over the years add up to a measurable impact on the dairy industry? I would say that the answer is emphatically “Yes.” Real impact is evidenced by the fact that Miner graduates have leadership roles in farming, agribusiness, academia, and government. Our Outreach Coordinator, Wanda Emerich, calculated that approximately 50% of cows in Vermont and Northern New York are directly affected by graduates of our courses.

Here’s another real impact: according to estimates by Mike Van Amburgh at Cornell University, about 40% of the dairy cows in the US are fed diets formulated using software co-invented by scientists at Cornell University and Miner Institute. Nutrition models are continually enhanced

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK —DO MINER INSTITUTE'S

PROGRAMS HAVE AN IMPACT?

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute January 2013

In This Issue:

Selecting the Right Forages for 2013 2Higher Forage Rations for 2013? What to Consider

Buying Fertilizer in 2013;Nobody Asked My Opinion

Avoid Flunixin Residue in Milk and Meat

Start 2013 With Updated Colostrum Mgmt Protocols

What's Happening on the Farm

3

4

5

6

7Midwinter Crop Chores; 2013 Nutrition Conference

Vegan Sugar; Crop Congress 2013

Corn Silage HybridTesting in NY

8

9

10Seed Corn Revisited; Reasons to be Happy 11

FARM REPORT

See IMPACT, Page 4

he

l henew

hink about might be e – are we le impact?

prepare a year-Institute Trustees

pe

prby th

performaherd. One

publications owas even selearticle by the

Science.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report January 2013 ─ 2

I have been having a lot of fun since 2002 when I retired from Miner Institute. I’ve been consulting mainly with companies both here in the USA and in Japan and Europe, and getting on dairies enough to keep me humble. One of the projects I am getting into is actually the area that Ev Thomas works in: Forages. I know Ev thinks I will be dangerous but as I have reminded him several times, I have taken more agronomy courses than he has!! Of course he likes to remind me that none of it stuck!!

I decided on this area because we are learning a lot about feeding more forage to our cows. Here is what you have been doing: You have taken the advice of people like Ev (a little dangerous!!) and have selected the right forages to grow for good yields and good quality. You have improved your forage management to the point where you almost consistently harvest high quality forages. This is great. What you have not been doing is taking full advantage of them by feeding higher amounts of forage. For some of you this has become an issue because you have expanded herd size to the point where if you were to feed additional forages you will run out of inventory.

So in planning ahead for next year, what can you do? You need to sit down with your agronomist and your nutritionist (together - so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing) to plan a total crop program that will maximize yield of quality forages per acre not only for 2013 but for years beyond for the TOTAL herd. This also means, in your planning, to understand how to store your forages so that you lose little inventory and then focus more on segregating forages by type and quality. Remember this: We are not going back to $3 corn or $300 soy. This means that you need to provide as much of the nutrients that your total herd needs from the acres that you have. The bottom line here is that we need

to maximize income over purchased feed costs (IOPFC) not only for the lactating herd but the rest of the herd as well.

Here is what we are learning from the work done at Miner Institute by an excellent team and the work done at Cornell with improved nutrition model development. First we can feed lower starch rations and achieve good performance, improving IOPFC. Next we can feed lower protein rations and also get good performance. The exciting work at Cornell and Miner Institute is the better characterization of fi ber digestion, which will allow us to better feed forages. The work done mainly at Wisconsin and Michigan has shown the importance of measuring starch degradability. We have learned that there are signifi cant differences among corn hybrids for starch and fi ber digestibility in the rumen – increasing the need to select the right hybrids. We have learned that processing the corn silage correctly is important to achieve good starch digestibility. We have learned that putting high moisture corn up at the right moisture and then processing it properly is important in achieving the right starch digestibility. This work then is allowing us to better defi ne the minimum and maximum amounts of forages that can be fed, better formulate for fermentable starch in the ration achieving optimum carbohydrate fermentability which allows us to increase feed effi ciency, improve reproductive performance and reduce herd turnover. Be sure to work closely with your nutritionist and agronomist so that the right decisions can be made for your total herd to achieve greater profi tability.

— Charlie Sniffen

* Dr. Charles Sniffen was president at Miner Institute from 1992 to 2002.

SELECTING THE RIGHT FORAGES

FOR 2013I have been having a lot of fun since 2002 when I to


HIGHER FORAGE RATIONS FOR 2013?SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER

There are many benefi ts to feeding high forage rations to dairy cows. Doing so successfully takes planning and forethought. In review of our own feeding trials along with work conducted by Dr Larry Chase of Cornell University, here are some points to consider and reference guidelines of forage quality and ration parameters.

What we are considering high forage rations are rations with nearly 60% forage or higher, fed to high production cows, >100lbs milk. The benefi ts of higher forage rations include the following, as noted in a survey of producers feeding high forage rations conducted by Dr Chase:1. Improved milk components2. Improved $IOFC3. Less metabolic disorders, less acidosis4. Less foot problems5. Increase cow longevity6. Less purchased grain7. Lower vet costs.8. Improved whole farm nutrient balance: less imported nutrients (P).

The standard nutritional guideline of high production cows consuming 1.2% of their BW as NDF is far exceeded with highly digestible forages. With highly digestible forage, consumption of 1.5% of BW as NDF is common in high production cows, with even higher values for low cows. With

high quality forage, more needs to be fed in order to maintain rumen health and not simply allow more grain to be consumed as part of total TMR intake.

High Quality forages required: In our experience, 24 h NDF digestibility of total TMR needs to be >60%. The individual forages both CS as BMR and grass silage were >55% NDFD24. Stage of plant maturity is the single greatest factor determining quality; grasses at vegetative/boot stage with NDF <52%, legumes at bud NDF 40-45%. Corn varieties selected for high fi ber and/or high starch digestibility. Next is preservation, pack density >45lbs/ft3 at a minimum, the tighter the better. Forage harvested too mature, too dry, too wet or loosely packed, will not work in high forage rations.

Farm Management considerations:Feeding high forage rations and

maintaining high milk production is possible. It takes planning and the proper mindset of producer and nutritionist. Forage quality needs to be consistent, as it becomes a higher proportion of the diet; variable quality will have greater effect on intake and digestion. Forage inventory needs to be increased 15-30% or more and requires segregated storage space based

on quality/NDFD; not all cows need or will respond to the higher quality forage (i.e. tail-enders). Is the TMR mixer big enough to mix bulkier loads and in summer aerobic stability of the TMR will need to be monitored. Consider the need for crop acres, storage space and time to build forage inventory. Old ways of harvest may need to change to get the amount and quality of forage required.

Best wishes for 2013. It is not too soon to start planning for higher forage rations.

— Kurt [email protected]

* Reference:Larry Chase. 2012. High forage rations for dairy cattle-how far can we go? Advanced Dairy Nutrition Short Course proceedings.

Sign up for Miner Institute's equine newsletter, The Stable Sheetvia email to [email protected]


BUYING FERTILIZER IN 2013The worrisomely low Mississippi River level has impacted fertilizer availability in the Corn Belt, as delays in barge movement, “light loading” and an early close to the river left some fertilizer stranded on the lower part of the river. (This should have had little impact on fertilizer availability in the Northeast.) There’s almost no chance the Mississippi will return to normal levels anytime soon since that can’t happen until there’s enough precipitation to cause tile drains to run and fi eld ditches to fi ll up. Current industry predictions are that fertilizer prices will increase as we approach the Midwest planting season, then decline modestly as we approach early summer. It’s quite

possible that June fertilizer prices won’t be much different than they are today; prices will fi rst increase and then decrease over the next six months. The startup of a big new UAN plant early in 2013 may also hold down N prices. All of these predictions assume spring weather conditions permitting “fencerow to fencerow” planting of grains. At this time it appears that corn acreage could be at an all-time high in 2013, at the expense of soybean acreage. Since corn uses more fertilizer than does beans, record corn acreage would be bullish for fertilizer usage in general and N in particular. — E.T.

by the research conducted at Cornell, Miner, and many other institutions.

The scope of these impacts will help to shape the dairy industry over time.

A signifi cant challenge remains for us to engage the regional community on agricultural issues that affect society – providing science-based education on matters concerning agriculture and environmental stewardship. The public confusion surrounding agricultural policy and the stalled Farm Bill is one current example. Environmental impacts of farming, food safety and security, the role of agriculture in economic development, and animal welfare are all highly visible issues.

As we look to the next fi ve years, all of these issues will continue to challenge the dairy industry globally, nationally, and regionally. We will continue to conduct our programs each year with the hope that cumulatively they will have a positive impact on the dairy industry.

Before we get too busy with the activities of 2013 - on behalf of all of the staff at Miner Institute, I’d like to wish all of our Farm Report readers a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

— Rick [email protected]

IMPACT, Continued from

Page 1

Is there something you would like to know more about?

Send Farm Report article suggestions to Rachel at [email protected]

NOBODY ASKED MY OPINION … BUT• …why if something isn’t noticeable is it unnoticeable, if not decisive it’s indecisive, and if not penetrable it’s impenetrable? English sure is a confusing language!

• …there’s a big difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

• …I know a guy who brags that he can have any woman he pleases. He’s single and lives alone; so far it appears that he hasn’t pleased any of them. Or maybe he simply decided that he’d rather want something he doesn’t have than have something he doesn’t want.

• …marriage is the only union that can't be organized. Both sides think they're management.

• …it’s ludicrous that it could take 16 days for a fi rst-class letter to get from Chazy to Hammond and then forwarded to Richmond, a rather stately pace that works out to less than 2 mph. My walking pace is 4 mph; therefore I could have walked the letter from there to here in less than half the time.

— E.T.


Visit us online at www.whminer.org

ADMINISTER FLUNIXIN PROPERLY TO AVOID RESIDUE IN MILK & MEAT

Take a quick look through your dairy’s drug cabinet and I bet you will fi nd fl unixin. If the name fl unixin doesn’t ring a bell then maybe some of the common brand names for fl unixin will: Banamine, Prevail, and Flunixamine. Flunixin is a nonsteriodal anti-infl ammatory drug (NSAID) approved for use in cattle for control of infl ammation in endotoxemia and for the control of fever associated with mastitis, bovine respiratory disease, and endotoxemia. It is used on dairy farms, including Miner Institute, under the supervision of a veterinarian. Currently, fl unixin is labeled for intravenous (IV) administration at a dose of 2.2 mg/kg every 24 hours or 1.1 mg/kg every 12 hours. With this route of administration, cattle can’t be slaughtered for 4 days following the last injection and the milk can’t be sold for 36 hours. Cows treated with fl unixin often feel better and return to eating and drinking sooner so this has led some producers to misuse fl unixin on a range of sick cows with minimal veterinary supervision and increase the risk of residue in meat and milk.

The USDA Food Safety Inspection Service reported an increase in the number of residue violations in culled dairy cows from 2005 to 2010 with fl unixin the second most common residue violation. Penicillin was #1. The high number of fl unixin residues identifi ed in culled dairy cows is likely related to the administration of the drug by unapproved routes. The route of administration and dose of a drug, such as fl unixin, can affect the rate of elimination resulting in drug residues and costly violations. Common extra-

label administration of fl unixin includes intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SQ) injections. However, extra-label use is not permitted for reasons such as convenience. In the packing plant it is easy to see the blemishes caused by IM and SQ injections thereby making the cow an easy target for residue surveillance.

As of December 2012, milk is not tested for fl unixin residue but it is on the radar of the FDA as they announced plans in December 2011 to collect and test milk samples for fl unixin. The rationale behind it was that a signifi cant number of fl unixin tissue residue violations were found and that the same treatment practices (i.e. administration by an extra-label route) that are leading to tissue residues might also be leading to residues in milk. The presence of drug residues in milk is a primary threat for the dairy industry! We need to continue producing safe and healthy products and avoid concerns by consumers and actions by the FDA.

In a recent North Carolina State study, low (<44 lb) and high (>66 lb) producing cows were given 2 doses of 1.1 mg of fl uxinin/kg at 12-hour intervals by IV, IM, and SQ injections to assess the plasma pharmacokinetics and milk residue. The good news is that that cows that received fl unixin by the approved route (i.e. IV) consistently eliminated the drug before the approved withdrawal times. However, milk residues persisted beyond the approved withholding times following IM or SQ administration. Also, the lower producing cows had slower clearance of fl unixin from the

milk which may contribute to drug residue violations. Meat residues were not assessed in the study.

Work with your veterinarian to ensure that you and your farm staff are properly educated in fl unixin administration to prevent meat and milk residue violations. The use of testing is increasing and eventually may become routine in the packing and milk plants. There are already Charm tests available for fl unixin. At Miner, we take fl unixin residues seriously. We discussed the issue with our veterinarian. We have protocols in place in Dairy Comp indicating meat and milk withholding times for IV injections. In addition, we have an IM injection withholding protocol in place for those rare times that a cow moves suddenly during an IV injection and some of the fl unixin may end up being delivered IM. The meat withholding is increased to 60 days in that situation.

May your 2013 be residue free!

— Heather [email protected]

— Anna [email protected]

* References:Kissell, L. W., G. W. Smith, T. L. Leavens, R. E Baynes, H. Wu, and J. E. Riviere. 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 95:7151-7157.USDA-FSIS (US Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service). 2005–2010. Red Book. Wolfgang, D. 2012. http://vbs.psu.edu/extension/news/2012/trace-amounts-of-fl unixin-meglumine-in-milk-or-meat


START OFF THE NEW YEAR WITH UPDATED COLOSTRUM MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

As we head into the New Year it might be time to dust off those old colostrum protocols and set your newborn calves up for a great start. Implementing protocols to ensure colostrum quality is not degraded during collection and storage will help deliver the high quality colostrum we strive to feed our calves. Dr. Sandra Godden at the University of Minnesota outlined several control points in the management of colostrum that are described below.

Make sure that you start by keeping the best quality colostrum.

Colostrum can be tested for quality using a colostrometer. Poorer quality colostrum can be fed for third or fourth feedings or to the older calves.

Colostrum may be of poorer quality if:1. The dam had a dry period less than 45 days.2. The dam was provided poor nutrition during the dry period.3. The dam was heat stressed during the dry period.4. The dam was leaking milk prior to calving.5. The dam was a fi rst calf heifer.6. The colostrum is thin and watery.7. The dam produced more than 18 lbs in her fi rst milking.8. The time of colostrum harvest is delayed. Quality drops signifi cantly after 1 to 2 days.

Collect and handle colostrum in a clean manner:1. Wash the udder and teats well before collecting colostrum.2. Buckets, pails, milking equipment and feeding utensils should all be cleaned with detergent and hot water and then sanitized.

3. Filter colostrum to remove debris.4. Store colostrum in closed, sanitized containers. Colostrum storage recommendations:The goal of colostrum storage is to minimize the time colostrum is not cooled. Colostrum should be cooled, like milk, to 40˚F and kept that way until feeding. Bacteria can double approximately every 20 minutes. 1. In a study that compared storage methods of colostrum, researchers from the University of Minnesota found that warm ambient temperatures resulted in the most rapid bacterial growth. Intermediate growth was found in colostrum stored in the refrigerator or treated with potassium sorbate. The most effective treatment was colostrum treated with potassium sorbate and stored in the refrigerator.

Colostrum can be stored at:1. Room Temperature for 1-2 days2. Refrigeration: up to 7 days3. Freezing: up to 1 year. • Freeze in 1 or 2 quart bags. • Do not thaw using high heat, it will

destroy antibodies. • Use warm water baths or microwave

at low or medium heat.

Measuring success of your colostrum management protocols:

1. The goal is to achieve passive transfer of immunity in every calf.a. Measure IgG status- - On-farm kit at 2-7 days old $4.50 per calf.- Serum total protein measured at 24-48 hours with a refractometer.2. Goal should be >80% of calves tested have serum total protein concentrations above 5.0 g/dl.3. Monitor rates of illness and death in fi rst week of life.

Overall, make sure all parts of your colostrum management are clean and sanitary. Play “beat the clock” when storing colostrum; the quicker it is cooled the less time bacteria will have to grow. High quality colostrum can only be maintained, make sure your protocols target contamination points so that your calves get the best to get off to a great start.

— Sarah [email protected]

* Selected References:Godden, S. Calf Health Management. http://www.cvm.umn.edu/dairy/prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/documents/asset/cvm_85245.pdfKirk, J. H. The Impact of Contaminated Colostrum. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF- DA/Contaminated-Colostrum.pdfStewart, S., S. Godden, R. Bey, P. Rapnicki, J. Fetrow, R. Farnsworth, M. Scanlon, Y. Arnold, L. Clow, K. Mueller, and C. Ferrouillet. 2005. Preventing Bacterial Contamination and Proliferation During the Harvest, Storage, and Feeding of Fresh Bovine Colostrum. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2571-2578.


WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARM‘Twas a wintry day, when all through the barnEvery creature was stirring, on our busy farm.

The milking claws were hung by their hooks with careIn hopes that the cattle soon would be there.

The calves were nestled all snug in their straw,While buckets of starter and hay did they gnaw.

The calf feeder in a vest, and I in my bibs,Had just settled the newborns into their deeply bedded cribs.

When out on the fi eld there arose such a clatter,I sprang from the close-up to see what was the matter.

Machinery screeching, complaining of cold,Drainage tiles being torn up; we’re replacing the old.

And through the wall, the harsh wind did blow; asThe maintenance crew fi xed curtains to block snow.

When, what to my watering eyes should appear,But frozen debris being chipped away via skid steer.

I continued my chores, so lively and quick, But realized in a moment the pavement was slick.

More rapidly than I knew, with my pail full of grain; I slipped, and struggled; my balance regained!

"Warm water! More feedings! Higher energy and intake!Up solids! Up ventilation! Up clean air and growth rates!

Decrease the cold stress! Decrease reasons to cull!Cow comfort, good health, we care for it all!"

If you cannot yet tell, what this rhyme is about, It’s about winterizing our farm; getting the word out.

Make sure your water lines to your sprinklers are clear, That way expansion and burst pipes will be no fear.

Spread sand, or salt, or calcite where air sneaks in, To prevent moisture from forming thin ice within.

Confi rm curtains can be adjusted; the key is ventilationTo prevent respiratory disease, and improve insulation.

Service all equipment and vehicles; if possible keep them inside;A bit of warmth and care will promote a smooth ride.

What it all comes down to, is maintaining a quality product, soWe can feed all people, do what we love, and sustain a cash fl ow.

Thank your employees, nutritionists, and AI technicians, Veterinarians, suppliers, and other support positions.

Be appreciative and grateful for all the ladies in lactation, And don’t forget the man behind careful product transportation.

The milkman spoke not a word, but went straight to his work.When fi nished pumping the tank, he turned with a jerk.

Securing the seal, laying wrench aside hose,And giving a nod, “Time to go, I suppose.”

He sprang to his truck, the engine roared deep,And away the milk rolled down the newly sanded street.

But we heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,"Dairy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

I wish all those involved in the success and sustainability of the dairy industry, Happy Holidays and a safe and

prosperous New Year.

— Margaret QuaassdorffDairy Intern

[email protected]

APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM IS 40 YEARS STRONG

2012 graduates and professorsDr. Robert Fuller addresses graduates and attendees at a ceremony celebrating 40 years of the Applied

Environmental Science Program.

The collaboration between Miner Institute and SUNY Plattsburgh

for the Applied Environmental Science Program celebrated its 40th year in 2012. A

ceremony honoring the program was held at the December graduation

for 2012 students.


MIDWINTER CROP CHORESYou think it’s easy to write timely crop-related articles when the ground is frozen, the wind is blowing, snow is on the way and the only thing running is the reader’s nose? (At least I assume that’s the situation in the North Country; here in central Virginia daytime highs have ranged from the 50s to the 70s so we’ve had none of that.)

That said, here are three crop-related things you should/could be doing now:1. Order silage inoculants. Winter is a good time to evaluate the claims being made by the various inoculant companies, do some comparative pricing, and place your order. In most cases inoculants aren’t “one size fi ts all” since some are more effective and/or economical on corn silage than on hay crops. But regardless of which product you buy, you should use a silage inoculant since research has shown that on average they return several dollars in increased quality or decreased losses for every dollar spent on the inoculant. 2. Check corn silage digestibility. If you began feeding new crop corn

silage last fall it’s probably higher in starch digestibility today than when you started. Results of a recent study suggest that there’s about a 6 percentage point increase in 7-hour starch digestibility between fall and spring. Some of this change has already occurred. There may also be increases in fi ber and protein digestibility, but these are relatively small. But you won’t know unless you test, and if you’re feeding corn silage from more than one silo you should test each one. A standard forage analysis won’t cut it; you’ll need a test that measures starch digestibility. These changes may be enough to dictate an adjustment in ration formulation, resulting in a cheaper ration. I repeat: Resulting in a cheaper ration. And the more grain in your corn silage, the bigger the potential savings. Work with your dairy nutrition consultant on this.

3. Do a careful review of your soil analyses. Not the fertilizer recommendations, but the analytical values expressed in ppm or pounds per acre. If you’ve been following what I’ve

been recommending for many years (you have, haven’t you?) you’ve been using the same soil testing lab, which should mean that your soil has been tested using the same analytical procedures. (If you were using the Cornell University lab and are now using DHI’s Agro-One, have your samples analyzed using the “NY Mehlich III analysis with Morgan equivalent values” since this will come closest to the Cornell analyses.) Look at your soil analysis on a fi eld by fi eld basis, current vs. several years (or more) ago. Ideally, what should be happening is that low fertility fi elds — primarily P and K — should be slowly increasing, very high fertility fi elds should be slowly decreasing (tough to do if you apply a lot of manure), while medium fertility fi elds shouldn’t be moving much in either direction. This is important: While a soil analysis provides a snapshot view of soil fertility the day you took the sample, this evaluation will indicate the long-term impact of your farm’s soil fertility program.

— E.T.

2013 Herd Health and Nutrition ConferencePresented by PRO-DAIRY and Northeast Ag and Feed Alliance

April 10 in Syracuse, NY and April 12 in West Lebanon, NH.

The Herd Health and Nutrition Conference provides an opportunity for dairy producers, veterinarians, feed industry representatives and agriservice personnel to increase their knowledge of current herd health and nutrition management techniques while interacting with other professionals. The format will be a combination of PRO-DAIRY's Fall Dairy Conference and Northeast Ag and Feed Alliance's Ruminant Nutrition Conference.

Program Topics: • Recent research on hypocalcemia and immunity. Dr. Jesse Goff, Iowa State University• Group feeding of calves. Dr. Michael Capel, Perry Veterinary Clinic, Perry, NY• Economics on the farm. Jason Karszes, Pro-Dairy, Cornell University• Advances in corn silage. Dr. Randy Shaver, University of Wisconsin

For more information, contact Heather Darrow, Conference Coordinator at (607) 255-4478 or [email protected]


VEGAN SUGARI spent Thanksgiving at my brother’s home in Fairfi eld, CT. A lovely town, a half-hour train ride outside of New York City. As I was helping prepare a meal I came upon a bag of cane sugar — not your run of the mill cane sugar — it was labeled “All Natural Vegan Cane Sugar.” Vegan sugar? Really? Since when is sugar derived from animals? Being the little sister, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to make fun of my brother and sister-in-law, their suburban culture, and the power of food-labeling for consumers in their demographics. (Like the “whole grain” popcorn I recently spotted at a grocery store…think about it.)

While pondering ideas for Farm Report fodder and realizing the

potential of publicly humiliating my older brother (I was a nasty little sister…and evidently still am!), I thought I would share the Vegan sugar story. I decided I’d better do some investigation about the topic and surprisingly found out that it really does exist. Apparently part of the refi ning process involves fi ltering through activated charcoal and some companies use bone char as part of the charcoal base. While humbled that vegan sugar is legitimate, I feel proud of our animal industry for its utilization of every part of animals beyond those parts which are consumed. Talk about recycling!

As a graduate student I spent a considerable amount of time at a local slaughterhouse obtaining

ovaries for a research project I was conducting. Through this experience I gained a new appreciation for not only the safety of our food supply with the diligence of the USDA inspectors, but also the utilization of every part of the animal from head to hoof. It seemed that nothing was wasted.

So, with that said, I will go home tonight and proudly bake some Christmas cookies with my non-Vegan sugar knowing that I am supporting the recycling of agricultural products. I probably should also call my brother and apologize…or maybe not.

— Katie Ballard [email protected]

CROP CONGRESS AT MINER INSTITUTEWednesday, February 13

Vendors are available beginning at 9:30 a.m. The speaker program begins at 10 a.m. Lunch is available for $5.

2013 Agenda: 10 a.m. – Russ Hahn, Cornell University Update on weed control in corn11 a.m. – Randy Shaver, University of Wisconsin Corn shredlage: The new corn silage?Noon – Lunch 1 p.m. – Bill Cox, Cornell University An update on NY corn production research2 p.m. – Crop Insurance, speaker TBA

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


CORN SILAGE HYBRID TESTING IN NYHopefully you have already ordered corn seed for 2013, or are at least thinking about it so you can purchase corn early to take advantage of price discounts. The 2012 corn silage hybrid testing results for NY (http://fi eldcrops.org/VarietyTrials/Pages/default.aspx) show an impressive number of high-yielding silage hybrids for a range of growing environments.

If you grow corn for silage or are in the business of corn production in NY, take advantage of Cornell’s hybrid testing program. The results are based on replicated (4 reps/hybrid) plots conducted in multiple growing environments each year. While seed companies offer a range of fi eld plot data in NY growing conditions, they may not always be replicated within a site, which means there is no estimate of uncertainty. In addition, there may be only a limited number of ‘competitor’

hybrids in a trial, which makes it diffi cult to gauge performance.

The data below are from the 2012 corn silage hybrid test report for NY (Cox et al., 2012) for 96-100 day relative maturity hybrids grown at the Aurora Research Farm (there were 18 hybrids tested in this group but just the top fi ve are shown in the table below).

Included in the table are plot averages and an “LSD” value for yield and quality measures. LSD stands for ‘least signifi cant difference’ and indicates how large the difference between two hybrids needs to be in order to be considered “statistically signifi cant.” For yield, a LSD of 2.57 tons/acre implies that there is a 10% chance the difference in yield was due to random chance, implying a 90% chance the difference was a true difference.

Yield traditionally gets farmers and agronomy types excited,

but quality matters when it comes to silage. There can be a tradeoff between yield and quality. High producing dairy cows require both digestible fi ber and digestible starch. While NDFD is a good estimate of potential fi ber digestibility in the rumen, starch digestibility is more diffi cult to predict from current lab assays. Kernel characteristics (e.g., fl oury type vs. a more vitreous endosperm) can have a large effect on actual starch degradability in the cow. It’s important to note that the “milk/ton” estimates do not capture the complexities of starch digestion – feeding trials are the best test of quality.

— Eric [email protected]

* Reference: Cox, W., P. Atkins and K. Paddock. New York Corn Silage Hybrid Tests — 2012. Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University. Extension Series No. E12-1. November 2012.

Hybrid Yield Moisture NDF NDFD CP Starch Milk/ton Milk

at 35 % DM % % DM % %DM %DM lbs/ton lbs/acre

HiDF3197-7 25.3 63.5 38.6 62.1 8.1 35.5 3468 30682 197-67VT3P 24.3 64.8 40.0 62.5 8.3 33.9 3494 29713 39HF13 25.3 63.0 41.8 61.5 8.2 31.0 3316 29470 D40SS09 24.7 66.2 40.3 59.7 8.6 33.7 3,389 29,296 459GRQ 23.9 63.4 36.7 60.9 8.1 36.5 3,501 29,203

Average 19.5 53.1 32.9 50.6 6.8 27.8 2,811 23,325 LSD (0.10) 2.57 1.54 2.7 2.92 0.40 2.88 139 3468


SEED CORN REVISITEDMost seed companies state that there will be adequate seed corn supplies overall, but you might not get your fi rst choice of hybrid and seed size. Even though the shortages that exist are mostly in long-season hybrids, if you haven’t ordered seed corn by now there’s a good chance you won’t get everything your heart desires. A few other comments about seed corn:

• Size doesn’t matter: Research hasn’t found any meaningful difference in germination or yield between the various kernel sizes and shapes. However, some planter units will need to be adjusted to accommodate large differences in seed size, especially if you plant at a fairly high speed. Some fi nger pickup units will

plant small rounds at a much higher rate — enough so that you’ll need to either recalibrate or slow down. Since most farmers have an abhorrence of slowing down during planting — Don’t wait, recalibrate.

• Don’t spend money for traits you don’t need. Unless you’ll use glyphosate, the RoundupReady trait is a waste of money, as is using seed with the Bt-rootworm trait on fi rst-year corn. Decide on the traits you need for each fi eld (or each group of fi elds since you probably have fi elds with similar trait needs), then match fi elds and traits. This also makes good ecological sense since the use of the Bt-rootworm trait on fi rst (and perhaps second) year corn, where it’s not needed, increases the chances of developing Bt-resistant

corn rootworms. If it ain’t broke, don’t fi x it.

• Most corn hybrids have the ability to produce at high populations, so if you have good land and are still dropping under 30,000 kernels per acre you’re probably leaving some yield potential “in the bag.” Today’s superior seed treatments means that you should lose fewer seeds to insects and diseases, so overplanting by about 10% is about right. So, 33,500 seeds for a fi nal stand of 30,000 plants. Discuss this with your seed dealers since they may be able to provide population guidance on the particular hybrids they sell.

— Ev Thomas [email protected]

REASONS TO BE HAPPYFiscal cliffs, the debt limit, tragedy in upstate Connecticut, war in Syria, continued troubles in the Mideast, global warming; as the saying goes, the world seems to be "going to hell in a handbasket.."

Well….no. In fact, in some ways 2012 may have been one of the best years of all time. Here’s why:

1. Global poverty is at the lowest in modern history. In 1990 the U.N. set as a goal to decrease the amount of global poverty by 50% by 2015. We have already met that goal. The gap between the haves and have-nots has narrowed, too. Still lots of malnutrition in the world, but more poor people are eating better.

2. We're more energy effi cient. Fossil fuel consumption in the developed world’s economies fell by 4% in the past seven years while their economies grew by 6%. Developed economies are doing more with less. This had little to do with wind or solar energy but has been due to more

effi cient cars and industries.

3. We're living longer. The average life expectancy in Africa reached 55 in 2012, fi ve years more than just 10 years ago. The number of people dying of AIDs has decreased in this time, and malaria deaths have fallen by 20% just in the past fi ve years. If you, like I have, contributed to "Nothing but Nets," one of several efforts providing mosquito nets to the poor in malaria-ravaged areas, you had a part in this success.

4. We're healthier. Deaths from breast and lung cancer have fallen by about 35% in the past 40 years, and deaths due to the effects of cold weather have decreased by half since 1960.

5. Deaths due to war were the lowest in 100 years. Hard to believe from reading the headlines, but this fact was recently reported by The Peace Research Institute in Finland.

— E.T.

FINGERPRINTING COW POOP

Scientists now have the ability to identify the original source of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria found in lakes and streams. And in many cases they’re fi nding that the source is not dairy cattle manure, but runoff from urban areas as well as discharges from water treatment plants. Contrary to what many people believe, most strains of E.coli are nonpathogenic though there are a few bad actors that can be fatal if ingested.

USDA/Agricultural Research Service scientists extracted E. coli from a total of 450 water samples and sediment samples from 20 sites in a California watershed. They then used pulsed-fi eld gel electrophoresis (PFGE) to identify distinctive segments of the bacteria’s DNA. These DNA patterns, called “fi ngerprints”, were then used to assign the bacteria to a particular source. Over 600 different isolates of E. coli were found in the 450 samples, with a different fi ngerprint for each one.

*Source: Agricultural Research Nov./Dec. 2012


www.whminer.org518.846.7121 Offi ce518.846.8445 Fax

Closing CommentDon't worry about what people think; they don't do it very often.

YOUR JANUARY FARM REPORT

IS HERE

ENJOY!

Documents

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute ... · consistently harvest high quality forages. This is great. What you have not been doing is taking full advantage of them