Recently the National Research Council (NRC) published an important report entitled “Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability.” The NRC is our nation’s pre-eminent research body and has a long history of publishing insightful reports on science and society. Some have been highly infl uential while others have languished with seemingly little impact. This latest report lays out a compelling vision for the needed research in animal agriculture to sustain future U.S. and global food production systems. We all know that world population growth coupled with greater urbanization and global affl uence will lead to higher per capita consumption of meat, dairy products, and fi sh. To meet this demand – and do it sustainably – will require signifi cant research and development investment. Research will need to focus on production effi ciency, environmental impact, ensuring equitable distribution of food, and engaging in meaningful communication between the animal production sector and the general public. In essence we must move beyond research that simply addresses production effi ciency – as important as that is.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the

animal agriculture sector contributed 40% of the global value of agricultural output and supported the livelihood and food security of a billion people. In the U.S., animal agriculture accounts for 60-70% of the total agricultural economy. Despite the tremendous importance of animal agriculture, funding for animal science research has stagnated for decades. To address the twin challenges of chronic underfunding and developing a unifi ed vision for future research, the NRC report recommends the development of a “U.S. Animal Science Strategic Plan” under the leadership of the USDA. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

With two fundamental goals for setting critical research priorities – productivity and sustainability – the NRC committee has proposed these so-called “overarching recommendations” to guide future animal agriculture research:• Integrated research on the entire

food chain rather than traditional disconnected projects.

• Continued research to boost productivity but integrated with research on economic, environmental, and social sustainability of animal production systems.

• Continued focus on 1) breeding

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: GETTING RESEARCH ON THE

RIGHT TRACK

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute July 2015

In This Issue:

Alumni Corner: Ad Libitum Feeding of Calves: Cost/Benefi t 2Agvocate for the Movable Middle; Water Woes

Get Your Gut Microbes Into Shape With Dairy Products

Harvested Forage Storage for Most Effi cient Use

Monarch Butterfl y: Under Stress Travelers Need Support

What's Happening on the Farm

3

4

5

6

7Factors Associated with LDA Recovery

Dynamic Nitrogen Modeling Tools for Corn

Rethinking Rumination Time: Making Sense of min/d

8

9

10What is Johne's Disease Costing You? 11

FARM REPORT

See RESEARCH, Page 4

iocpI

Visit our blog:minermatters.com

facebook.com/WhMinerInstitute

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 2

When I was in the Summer Experience in Equine Management program in 1999, never did I dream that I would return to work here at Miner Institute as a Research Technician, and with dairy cows no less! Well here I am 15 years later, and I’ve worked in an array of research areas, from calves to lactating cattle, forage quality and management, and on to lab analysis, but one of my favorite topics is calf management.

In the summer of 2013 I was given the opportunity to run a study funded by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, and generously provided milk replacer by Poulin Grain, Inc. The purpose of the study was to look at the viability of housing calves in a group and feeding ad libitum milk replacer in an outdoor setting. You may have seen our coolers if you passed by the “calf hill” that summer! Abstract posters of the data collected were presented at the 2014 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and the American Society of Animal Science.

We included treatments of individually housed/limit fed (3qt twice daily for two weeks and then 3.5qt twice daily), individually housed/ad libitum fed, and group housed/ad libitum fed calves. In this model we could look at differences due to both feeding and/or management strategy. What we found, not surprisingly, was that from birth to 53 days of age, the ad libitum fed calves consumed more milk replacer at 131 lbs total dry matter intake compared to 89 lbs for the limit fed calves, and achieved gains of 1.65 lbs/day compared to 1.23 lbs/day for the limit

fed calves. However, we also found that when looking at feed effi ciency, the group housed ad libitum fed calves seemed to have a slight advantage over the individually housed ad libitum fed calves with a gain to feed ratio of 0.70 vs. 0.61. The mechanism behind this is unclear, but it could be that some aspects of the innate social needs of the calves, being herd-based animals, were met by this grouping strategy and allowed these calves to perform better during this stage of life.

So we know that ad libitum fed calves grew at an increased rate during this early stage of life, but they also ate almost an entire bag more of milk replacer. Does the cost outweigh the benefi t? I did a rough economic analysis of raising the calves in these three scenarios. Using the actual intakes and gains, and accounting for only milk replacer and starter costs plus an estimate of labor associated with daily management, I came to an exciting conclusion: While it did cost more overall to raise the ad libitum fed calves to 53 days of age at $282 vs. $232, when looking at the costs based on growth achieved and comparing cost per pound of gain, it was actually cheaper to feed them more milk replacer at $3.22/lb of gain vs. $3.55/lb of gain. Additionally, factoring in some reductions in labor by grouping the calves to feed four calves at once

and maintain one pen instead of four, it was cheaper yet at $227 or $2.40/lb of gain. While there are other costs

to keep in mind, feeding calves in a more biologically appropriate way is not quite as expensive as you would initially think, especially considering the benefi t of the fi nal product: a bigger calf with the potential for an increase in future milk production from the nutrition received during this time period!

With this in mind, we plan to follow the heifers that were used in this study as they enter their 1st lactation. Unfortunately, about half of the calves enrolled on the study were bull calves, so the number of heifers remaining per treatment doesn’t allow for much statistical analyses. However, we still plan on monitoring their production and comparing that to existing herdmates, as our typical calf feeding strategy on the farm at that time was not so different from the individually housed/limit fed treatment. At this time we have had some of the heifers start their fi rst lactation, while the rest are either in the close up pen or due to move there shortly. Stay tuned later this fall or early next spring when we plan to share what we fi nd about the lactation performance of our ad libitum fed calves!

─ Heather Gauthiergauthier@whminer.com

AD LIBITUM FEEDING OF CALVES…

COST VS. BENEFIT?

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 3

AGVOCATE FOR THE MOVEABLE MIDDLEFarmers have a lot on their minds these days. There’s extreme fl ooding in some areas, drought in others, and milk prices are dropping with no end in sight. All the while, the consumer’s perception of agriculture is infl uencing farmers’ daily lives. Because farmers have a lot on their minds it’s more important than ever to agvocate through meaningful conversations. The vegan activist presence on social media, especially Twitter, is relentless. Several Twitter hashtags have been developed in an attempt to unite farmers in the digital space, but most have been hijacked by vegan activists. Surprisingly, some say that these accounts are operated by just one person. Nevertheless we have a bad habit of giving the activists exactly what they want. We get worked up and make ourselves look bad, all for a demographic that will likely never agree with animal agriculture anyway.

Only 3.2% of the U.S. population is vegetarian and only 0.5% is vegan.

A small fraction of vegans and vegetarians engage in online animal rights activism, so why do we focus so much effort on such a small proportion of the population? Instead we should be engaging the 96.8% of Americans who consume animal protein and the 99.5% who enjoy dairy and eggs. Human opinions exist on a continuum, and consumer perceptions of agriculture are no exception. The majority of consumers exist in the “moveable middle.” They have questions and would like to learn more about modern farming and ranching, but at the end of the day their main concern is safe, healthy, and affordable food.

In order to engage with the moveable middle we need to meet them in their circles. They may not be actively seeking out information about modern farming practices, so we need to develop channels of communication that intersect with the general public’s online presence. Social media is a powerful tool that is even more effective if we reach beyond our agricultural communities. This can be

done by joining non-ag twitter parties (some favorites include #GardenChat, #FoodieChats, and #BlogChat), posting about your hobbies and interests outside of agriculture, and incorporating general lifestyle topics into your social media strategy.

While social media is an important tool, person-to-person engagement is still immensely important. Chat with your barber or hairdresser about what you do on the farm. Connect with your neighbors about the improvements made on your farm or ranch through modern agriculture. Research shows that sharing your personal stories is the most effective way to change someone’s mind, especially with controversial or diffi cult topics. Connecting with the moveable middle will allow us to have more meaningful conversations about modern agriculture, and ultimately it will give farmers more fl exibility to do what they do best: produce safe, healthy food.

─ Melissa Woolpertwoolpert@whminer.com

WATER WOESA comment I’ve never forgotten from a seasoned (read: old) farmer: “In a wet year farmers worry to death; in a dry year they starve to death.” This from back in the late 1960s when Northern NY was just emerging from several consecutive dry growing seasons. Note that I didn’t use the term “drought,” because in all the years I’ve lived in the North Country we’ve never had a true drought. What local farmers usually call a drought is in reality two or three dry months during the growing season. Then either fall rains or winter snows recharge the soil with water and when spring rolls around there’s plenty of water to get crops growing. A drought is what’s happening in California (where 6-7% of cropland is fallowed this year) and elsewhere in the Southwest. Two years ago I saw a healthy wheat crop under center pivot irrigation in Texas get disked up because the farm didn’t have enough irrigation water for all its crops, and the farm’s (as-yet unplanted) corn was expected to be worth more than the growing wheat. The areas between irrigation circles made it easy to see what will grow without irrigation—nothing except a few weeds. Farmers in California are now making very diffi cult decisions: Which crop will they let die so that they have enough irrigation water to keep the other one alive?

About 70% of the world’s fresh water use is for agriculture — crop irrigation and watering animals. A recent report es-timated that about one-third of global food production is in areas where water availability is limited. One of the biggest advantages of living in the Northeastern U.S. is our abundant supply of fresh water — both quantity and quality.

─ Ev Thomas ethomas@oakpointny.com

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 4

GET YOUR GUT MICROBES INTO SHAPE WITH DAIRY PRODUCTS

Probiotics have been used for centuries to improve human gut health. A probiotic is a viable microorganism that offers benefi cial effects when ingested by individuals. A recent article in the Journal of Dairy Science investigated the effect of probiotic fermented milk (PFM) infl uenced populations on the human gut microbiota. The most popular sources of PFM include yogurt, fermented milk, and a yogurt-like drink called kefi r. Everyone has heard the jingle for the brand of probiotic yogurt Activia®, which advertises the ability to improve digestive health and keep you regular. This study suggested an added benefi t to ingesting PFMs: altering the human gut microbiota in a way that could reduce the risk of obesity.

Researchers concluded that PFM ingestion increased the relative abundance of Bacteriodetes microbes. Previous research uncovered that

people with leaner body types have a higher ratio of Bacteriodetes in their gut. In addition, the relative abundance of Firmicutes microbes, which have been shown to be more abundant in obese body types, was decreased during PFM consumption. Thus, shifting the ratio of Bacteriodetes and Firmicutes microbes provides another promising method for preventing obesity and the development of associated diseases,

such as Type 2 diabetes.

We often feed cows to benefi t their gut microbiota and provide the optimum environment for proper digestion and in turn, milk production. There is signifi cantly less knowledge about the importance of gut microbiota in human digestion but new studies such as this suggest that it is a worthwhile topic to explore. If you’re interested in getting your gut microbiome “into shape”, you can start by simply consuming probiotic fermented milk products such as yogurt, fermented milk

and kefi r. These delicious, readily available, affordable options could not only reduce obesity and improve digestive health, but also strengthen economic support of the dairy industry.

─ Alyssa Cousecouse@whminer.com

* References available upon request.

Probiotic fermented milk products come in edible and drinkable options.

RESEARCH, Continued from Page 1and genetics, 2) nutrient requirements and feed technology, including use of waste streams from human food production, and 3) animal health with a special emphasis on sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics with greater focus on identifying alternatives.

• Research must include socioeconomic factors, animal welfare, and potential infl uence of global climate change.• Must also close the communication gap between the public, researchers, and the food production industry.• Critical need to revitalize research infrastructure – develop a coherent national animal science research road map

and properly fund it. The cynical side of me thinks “Good luck with this one…”

Between 2003 and 2012 funding for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture was fl at. Gross underfunding of basic agricultural science has been the norm, but this NRC report is a clarion call to action if we truly want to conduct the integrated research that will be necessary to build sustainable animal production systems in the future. I strongly encourage anyone with the desire to eat nutritious and affordable food, produced sustainably, to read this report!

─ Rick Grantgrant@whminer.com

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 5

STORE HARVESTED FORAGES BY CUTTING DATE OR HYBRID TYPE FOR MOST

EFFICIENT USEMuch of the country has fi nished up fi rst cut alfalfa and grass hay or silage. At Miner Institute we have received almost daily rainfall, resulting in challenging conditions for our farm crew to fi nish up the fi rst cut on our hay crop forage for silage. Soon enough though, the farm crew will begin harvesting second cut. We have several bunker silos to store harvested forages plus the option to use plastic silage bags when necessary. The extra bunker silos allow for storage of hay crop forages by cutting date. Additionally, corn silage can be stored by hybrid type, specifi cally segregating conventional hybrids from brown midrib corn silage. Benefi ts to storing forages by cutting date or hybrid type include better forage quality through improved fermentation and the option to target peak lactation cow groups to receive the highest quality forages.

If all hay crop forages are stored in only a couple of bunkers, newly chopped forages must be layered on top of or next to previously chopped forages and may require removal of the top layers of plastic wrap from the forage pile. Removal of the plastic will result in a secondary aerobic fermentation of the top layer of silage, resulting in loss of dry matter and silage stability. Furthermore, adding newly chopped hay crop forage to damaged or poorly fermented silage can reduce the quality of the newly chopped forage. Damaged or poorly fermented hay crop silage often contains high counts of clostridial bacteria, molds, and mycotoxins. A portion of the newly chopped hay crop forage can become contaminated by the damaged silage during packing. It’s worth considering adding a forage inoculant to promote and preserve silage quality even under ideal harvesting conditions (since ideal

harvest conditions happen so seldom) when layering freshly chopped forage onto damaged silage. Ideally, storing freshly chopped hay crop forage in a separate silo will eliminate the need to remove plastic from fermented silage and potential loss of dry matter and silage stability or contamination of the freshly chopped forage.

Storing forages by cutting date or hybrid type will also allow your feed manager and nutritionist to target the highest quality forages to cow groups that will benefi t most from consuming them. Listed in the table above is nutrient analysis of selected fresh forages harvested at Miner Institute in 2014. Dry matter content is lower and crude protein content is greater in fi rst cut compared with second and third cut hay crop forage. More importantly, lignin content and the ratio of lignin: NDF progressively increases from fi rst to third cut hay crop forage. Lignin is indigestible and the ratio of lignin: NDF is a good predictor of NDF digestibility. Digestibility of NDF will be greater for fi rst cut than second or third cut, suggesting that fi rst cut is better quality forage. There are also differences in forage quality for our corn hybrids. NDF and lignin content and the lignin: NDF ratio is lower in the BMR hybrid, whereas starch content is higher, strongly suggesting that the

quality of the BMR hybrid is better than that of the conventional corn hybrid. Based on forage quality, fi rst cut hay crop forage and BMR corn should be targeted to fresh and peak lactation cow groups to maintain adequate dry matter intake and reduce rumen fi ll, leading to greater milk yield and feed effi ciency. Targeting the best quality forages to the highest-producing cows may also alleviate the need to purchase some costly feed ingredients or supplements to meet nutrient demands. The second and third cut hay crop forages and conventional corn hybrid should be targeted to non-lactating animals and the late-lactation cow group. Nutrient demands of these groups can be met with moderate to lower quality forages. If hay crop forages and corn hybrids at Miner Institute were not segregated, we wouldn’t have the option of targeting high quality forages to high producing cow groups.

Plan ahead and use bunker silo space effectively. If possible, storing forages by cutting date or hybrid type can maintain forage quality and improve feed effi ciency by allowing feed managers and nutritionists to target high quality forages to the cows that most need it.

─ Shane Fredinfredin@whminer.com

Item First cut hay crop

Second cut hay crop

Third cut hay crop

Conven onal corn BMR corn

Dry ma er, as fed 29.2 36.8 36.7 29.4 26.9 Crude protein, % DM 17.4 16.0 16.3 8.0 7.4 NDF, % DM 58.6 58.0 59.5 48.1 38.8 Lignin, % DM 4.7 5.7 6.1 3.3 2.0 Lignin:NDF ra o 0.080 0.098 0.103 0.069 0.052 Starch, % DM – – – 27.1 31.0

Nutrient analysis of selected fresh forages harvested at Miner Institute during the 2014 growing season.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 6

MONARCH BUTTERFLY: UNDER STRESS TRAVELERS NEED OUR SUPPORT

If someone were to ask you to name some butterfl y species chances are the Monarch would top your list. For many people it may well be the only butterfl y they could name! If you grow corn, the European corn borer butterfl y will likely make your list as well. The Monarch butterfl y tops our list for several reasons: It’s a diurnal species, so we have lots more chances to see it. It has a beautiful and well-recognized scale pattern and travels huge distances to its wintering habitats in Mexico and California.

The Monarch relies on one plant more than any other during its growth cycle. The caterpillar feeds exclusively on milkweed, so no milkweed - no Monarch! Common milkweed, also known as American milkweed, is a member of the Asclepias family and used to be commonly found in open grassland and natural forest clearings. Its fl ower produces an abundant source of nectar also used by wild bees and other nectar-feeding insects. Native American Indians used root extracts of this plant to treat asthma, coughs, and dysentery, and they used the fl ower as a sweetener. The sap contains between 1 and 2% latex, and experimental production of milkweed latex was tried during World War II for tires and other industrial uses. Current uses of the plant rely principally on the quality

of the fi ber produced by its seedpods. They are recognized as a very good temperature insulator, have useful properties in cleaning up oil spills, and can be used as hypoallergenic pillow fi lling. The fl uffy white fl oss is also six times more buoyant than cork. A chemical from the seeds is currently being tried as a nematicide.Common milkweed is a primary

colonizer and grows wherever a seed falls, either in an open fi eld, on the roadside, etc. However, as agriculture intensifi es the total acreage available for milkweed and other native species gets smaller year after year.

Every farmer could contribute to preserving this butterfl y by allowing a few feet of land on either side of fi eld ditches, by not mowing roadside ditches unless necessary, or by preserving a small area of less productive land. It doesn’t have to be large; the main requirement would be that this land be away from pesticides and herbicides that could

kill the plant or the butterfl y caterpillar. Small changes such as these can quickly result in more diversifi ed habitat for the Monarch.

To learn more about the Monarch including its life cycle and migration pattern, visit www.monarchwatch.com or the Monarch larvae monitoring project from the University of Minnesota at www.mlmp.org.

─ Pascal Drouinpdrouin@lallemand.com

* Pascal is a silage microbiologist for Lallemand Animal Nutrition. He is stationed at Miner Institute and heading up a collaborative research arrangement between Miner Institute and Lallemand.

Map of the main migration routes of Monarch butterfl ies.

Monarch butterfl y catterpillars.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 7

WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARMJune has been an unusually wet and cold month here at Miner Institute, along with other areas in the Northeast. The crops crew is patiently waiting in between rain storms to fi nish fi rst cut hay. They’ve managed to get the good alfalfa hay chopped and covered in the bunk, but most of the grass hay fi elds have been too wet to get into and Mother Nature has not let them have a chance to dry out. The cold and wet weather may have dampened our spirits, but the cows haven’t seemed to mind; they are still producing in the mid 90’s.

The summer students have been rotating through different departments of the farm the past few weeks and have gotten adjusted to the daily routines on the farm. They’re full of enthusiasm and questions, and are ready to learn and tackle any task we throw at them. It’s great to see in students interested in the dairy industry. For the past couple weeks they have alternated between herd health, crops, milking, and feeding calves. The students didn’t have a lot of dairy background coming into their summer experience here so it’s been a lot of fi rsts for them during the past month.

The students have helped with some fi eld work by merging hay, and on the rainy days they’ve learned how to operate the skid steer pushing up feed and cleaning the heifer barn, or driving the tractors and stirring the manure pit. Since the students had never seen calves being born or helped with a diffi cult calving it was another fi rst for them, and it was

defi nitely an experience we had to capture with a photo. From dehorning calves, watching their fi rst displaced abomasum surgery and drying off cows to giving a cow a health exam, administering medicine via IV, and watching/helping cows get their hooves trimmed the students have not hesitated with any of the tasks, but are ready and eager to learn every day.

Having personally come from a dairy farm and been around the animals my whole life I’ve had a great time working with the students and watching them get excited about performing all these “fi rsts.” I’ve seen and assisted with many calvings before and took that opportunity for granted until the

girls said they had never witnessed a calf being born before. So I’ve been pretty excited for them to get fi rst-hand experience performing the different tasks around the farm. There has been a lot of information thrown at them in the past month, and it will be fun to see how much more they’ll learn in the coming months and how they will take their experience here at Miner with them and hopefully impact the dairy industry in the future.

─ Vicky Bembem@whminer.com

Learn more about Miner Institute, visit www.whminer.org

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 8

CONSIDER BEFORE YOU CUT: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LDA RECOVERY

Left displaced abomasum (LDA) is an unfortunate reality on all dairy farms. Recent research from the University of Guelph suggests that there may be two key factors associated with the short-term recovery of dairy cows after LDA surgery. The study followed 176 cows treated for LDA in four different veterinary practices and characterized their following lactation. Of all study cows, 19% of cows were removed from the herd 60 days or less after their LDA surgery, and 36 % of cows left the herd within a year. The 19% (or more) of cows that leave the herd within 60 days of a LDA surgery represent a fi nancial loss for a farm in the form of vet bills, lost milk yield, and reduced beef price if the animal is eligible for market.

Within the study, cows that had a diffi cult calving and later developed an LDA were 13 times more likely to

leave the herd within the fi rst 60 days after a surgery compared to cows that calved normally. This statistic is likely related to the host of metabolic issues and diseases that accompany diffi cult calving that might be complicate recovery.

Cows that had a blood BHBA level lower than 1.2 mmol/L at LDA diagnosis were 3 times more likely to be culled within the fi rst 60 days after surgery. Cows with a LDA generally have ketosis. The presence of a high BHBA indicates that dairy cows are mobilizing body reserves in response to negative energy balance; the LDA is a complication of ketosis. The researchers hypothesized that animals that do not have a high BHBA might have gone off feed for a different reason such as injury or lameness. After the LDA surgery animals that went off feed for

other reasons may have lower chances of recovery, especially if the original injury/condition wasn’t addressed during the course of treatment.

Farms can use this information to make informed decisions about cows diagnosed with LDA before proceeding with surgery. BHBA levels could be used in conjunction with veterinary advice, milk records, and intake/ health information to evaluate probability of recovery after surgery and the best course of action for the cow. Furthermore, BHBA levels in LDA cows could be used as a tool to troubleshoot on farm. A farm with a high percentage of low BHBA levels in LDA cows may have less apparent issues hindering intake in the transition pen.

─ Liz Remickremick@whminer.com

MIDSUMMER MUSINGS• What’s your corn population? Your actual population, not your planter setting or what you think it might be. To determine this, count the number of plants in 17’ 4” of row (assuming 30” row spacing) and do this at least 10 times in a fi eld. If you do it 10 times add up the numbers and multiply by 100 to get population per acre. Do this in several fi elds, especially if there are differences in soil type, seed size/shape or tillage practices. Unless the fi eld has low yield potential due to poor soil type, for corn silage you should be somewhat over 30,000 plants per acre. If not, the problem is either not enough seed or something that happened after planting. Get professional advice if you’re not sure of the reason.

• We’re friends with an Amish farm family and often buy vegetables at their stand. They have a dairy farm and plant corn using a horse-drawn 2-row planter. The other day on the way to their farm we saw a 24-row corn planter in a fi eld near their house. The planter certainly wasn’t owned by the Amish farmer! It’s nice that these

people can farm next to each other and seem to get along just fi ne. Different strokes (and corn planters!) for different folks.

• We may have thought we were somewhat insulated from the sky-high cropland prices we read about in other parts of the country. I remember thinking that at $2000/acre we paid a high price for 100 acres of tile-drained land when I negotiated the purchase for Miner Institute about 10 years ago. But the other day I read where a Jefferson County dairy farmer just bought an adjoining dairy farm and paid what he fi gured was $6500 per acre for the cropland. Very seldom do we look back at the price of farmland we bought several years ago and conclude that we paid too much. “The boys in the coffee shop” often opine loudly that a particular farmer paid much too much for the cropland he just bought, but the boys in the coffee shop are usually wrong.

─ E.T.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 9

DYNAMIC NITROGEN MODELING TOOLS FOR CORN

Corn growers in the U.S. Corn Belt lose from $50 to $60 per acre due to nitrogen (N) management ineffi ciencies. While some level of N loss is inevitable and much of the N loss in wet years is unavoidable, experts believe opportunities exist to improve N use effi ciency for corn production.

Weather strongly infl uences annual crop yield variation in the U.S. Among other impacts, weather dramatically infl uences the N cycle (see schematic). Traditional N recommendations for corn are based on what might be considered “book values” from a modeling perspective. Yield goal has been and continues to be the main driver of N recommendations. Research has shown that approximately 9.1 lb of N for every ton of corn silage produced is required for economically optimum production. A yield expectation of 20 tons per acre would require a total of 182 lb of N per acre. It is important to realize that this gross N need does not account for any potential N losses. In the Northeast, only a small amount of N is applied at planting with additional N applied later (termed ‘sidedressing’). Planting followed by heavy rain results in large N losses, and N not replenished suffi ciently negatively impacts yield. On the fl ip side, soil N accumulates in a drier early season, and the ability to account for this N accurately allows N rates to be adjusted downward,

saving on fertilizer costs and reducing the potential for nitrate-N leaching. While soil-based tests such as the pre-sidedress nitrate test can assist whether or not to sidedress additional N, soil tests cannot directly account for dynamic aspects of the N cycle and represent one point in time. Soil testing approaches to N rates often assume a constant N mineralization rate (conversion of organic N to ammonium-N by microbes), whereas dynamic approaches account for differential mineralization based on changes in rainfall, soil moisture, and temperature, and other factors. On the downside, dynamic N models have a ways to go before widespread adoption. While fi eld trials have been conducted to test the accuracy of some models, in general they have

not been rigorously tested in the fi eld yet, partly because they are still relatively new.

The niche of a dynamic N model is its ability to factor weather-based data into estimates of corn N uptake and losses (i.e., leaching and denitrifi cation) in real-time so that adjustments can be made to optimize economics of sidedress N rates. Over the past few years, dynamic N models for corn have gained increasing interest from universities and industry. The Adapt-N model developed at Cornell was the fi rst widely available dynamic N model for estimating economically optimum N rates for corn. DuPont Pioneer also recently released their dynamic N modeling system

for corn (Nitrogen Management Service). With improved decision support tools (i.e. process-based models) a more precise and real-time monitoring of soil and corn N status during the critical early season will be more tenable. While this is not an easy task given the myriad of factors affecting the N cycle and corn growth, traditional approaches miss important dynamic aspects of the N cycle that result in economically signifi cant losses of N. Continued improvement and calibration of dynamic N models for corn will be needed in order for farmers to take their forecasts seriously and consider adopting this new technology.

─ Eric Youngyoung@whminer.com

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 10

RETHINKING RUMINATION TIME: MAKING SENSE OF MINUTES PER DAY

Diffi cult to tell from just minutes chewing per day. Cow A is chewing over 2 hrs more than cow B. Not until we know DMI intake does it become clear which cow is which; 28.4 lbs and 63.6 lbs for cows A and B, respectively. Also, this data is from the same cow (#1239), the only cow we have DMI, chewing time and rumen volume data for both lactating and non-lactating periods. Cow A is #1239 during her far dry period and B is during peak lactation. My point here is to provide just one example of how minutes per day eating and ruminating may be similar or at least surprising across stage of lactation given different diets and intakes of DM and NDF.

Our SCR collars allow us to track rumination time of cows across pens and stage of lactation (DIM). We, primarily Dr Dann, have been tracking rumination minutes per day as a means of possibly predicting health events and monitoring ration changes. Surprisingly, changes in quality of NDF in our rations have not been associated with clear changes in rumination time. Through much of our own research we have observed signifi cant differences in eating and rumination time per lb of DM and NDF consumed relative to digestibility of the NDF. As NDFD increases, we see less rumination per lb of NDF consumed. Simple, less chewing required to physically crush the fi ber followed by more rapid fermentation by rumen microbes. Conventional wisdom is that rumination is directly related to NDF and NDFD. A few months ago, we had to make a sudden change from a highly digestible NDF ration to lower NDFD diet. We expected to see an increase in rumination time as forage fragility/quality

decreased. However, we did not. What we did see was a decrease in DMI. Cows just could not consume, or rather process the forage fast enough through particle size reduction of chewing and microbial fermentation of the fi ber in order to make space in the rumen for more intake. My thought is that, rumen retention time of the lower quality forage had increased, not increasing rumination time, but decreasing intake. It makes sense that there may be limits on minutes per day that a cow will spend ruminating, “processing” forage. Or there may be a base level of rumination that cows are “normally”, innately programed for.

Table 1 shows the 30d pen average minutes ruminating per cow per day across lactating and non-lactating pens from May 3 to June 2, 2015. The dry cows spent the most time ruminating per day, which is greater that the lactating high and low groups. The fresh group, which includes hospital cows, exhibits much less rumination per day. The lactating heifers ruminate the least at 376 minutes per day. The day to day variation is about 20-24 minutes in this data set.

Diets obviously differ between pens in forage base and NDF content. I fi nd it interesting that with healthy cows, rumination minutes/day is similar despite

differing levels of DM and NDF intake. This suggests that more than just level and quality of fi ber is affecting total rumination time per day. There may be some innate maximum or “normal” level of ruminating a cow performs. Is this possibly related to her level of comfort? It seems that we as managers can really only negatively affect rumination time, either through nutritional or non-nutritional means. We know that nutritional stressors such as acidosis, inadequate peNDF, can drastically reduce rumination time. Non-nutritional factors such as social change, sudden over- crowding, heat stress can reduce rumination time. It appears that changes in rumination time min/d are more indicative of health and stress level status than quality of forage in the ration.

Some thoughts to consider; what is your herd baseline for min/d ruminating; what should it be? It is diffi cult to use minutes ruminating per day to evaluate forage quality or diet change, unless we have good intake values. What level of rumination is indicative of stress, without having to see cows crash? What level of rumination is normal for lactating heifers in a pen and when comingled with mature cows? Questions we hope to elucidate moving forward.

─ Kurt Cotanchcotanch@whminer.com

Quick, based on the eating and ruminating data at right,

which is the lactating cow (100 lbs. milk/d) and which is the dry cow?

Cow Ea ng, min/d

Rumina on, min/d

Total chewing me (TCT), min/d

A 362 510 872 B 264 477 740

Stage of lacta on

Far dry Close dry Fresh High Late Heifer

Rumina on min/cow/d avg ±

stdev

494.4±24.0

453.2±20.2 387.8±22.2 443.6±21.2 403.5±13.7 376.2±23.0

Pen DMI, lbs 32 32 49 65 58 52 Pen NDF, % 48 41 27 27 27 27

Table 1. Average minutes of rumination per cow per day within group; 30 day average±std dev. from May 3 to June 2, 2015.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 11

WHAT IS JOHNE'S DISEASE COSTING YOU?Johne’s disease, also called paratuberculosis, is caused by Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) and results in infl ammation and damage to the intestinal wall that negatively affects absorption of nutrients and overall performance of cattle worldwide. In the US, it is estimated that MAP is present on over 90% of dairy herds! The primary source of exposure is fecal-oral transmission from contaminated environments. Other sources of exposure can include in utero or infected colostrum and milk. Infection often occurs within the fi rst 6 months of life. Interestingly, clinical signs of the infection (i.e. severe nonresponsive diarrhea and rapid weight loss) often do not occur until the animal is 2 to 6 years old. However, clinical signs have been present as early as 4 months. If the exposure occurs during adulthood then clinical signs are seen less frequently. However, cattle with subclinical Johne’s disease may excrete MAP and serve as low, moderate, or super shedders that excrete millions or billions of bacteria into the environment putting other animals at risk.

Detection of Johne’s disease can be diffi cult given the long incubation period and lack of clinical signs. The diagnostic tests used most often include fecal culture, serum ELISA, and fecal PCR. Fecal culture is the gold standard test but it takes time to get results. The sensitivity and specifi city of the diagnostic tests can be issues making the control of the disease a challenge. A major concern is the lack of

cost-effective treatment options for cattle with Johne’s disease.

Johne’s disease can cause substantial economic losses for dairy herds mainly as a result of premature culling with lower slaughter value, replacement costs, decreased milk yield, reduced feed effi ciency, poor fertility, and increased susceptibility to other health problems. However, the economic impact will depend on the number of animals affected and the degree of clinical signs and amount of super shedders. In the US, it is estimated that the economic impact of Johne’s disease is between $200 and $1500 million annually. The economic loss associated with clinical disease has ranged from approximately $200 to over $2300 per clinical case. The economic impact of subclincal disease is less clear but may be $35 to $72 per cow annually. Nevertheless, one thing is clear. The economical consequence of Johne’s disease is likely to increase over time in infected herds when control measures are not implemented.

Voluntary control programs for Johne’s disease have been implemented in the US, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia. Some Johne’s researchers have indicated that farmers’ unwillingness to practice control programs and the lack of reliable diagnostic tests have slowed progress in controlling Johne’s disease. Most control programs use a combination

of on-farm risk assessments, testing and culling high risk animals (i.e. cattle showing clinical signs or shedding large amounts of MAP in feces), and implementing biosecurity measures. Interestingly, the Ontario Canada Focus Farms extension effort is using participatory-based experiential learning programs to change dairy producer behavior to control Johne’s disease. More producers that participated in the Focus Farms program (81%) reported making at least one farm change to control Johne’s disease than producers that didn’t participate (38%). Both groups of producers had strong positive attitudes toward Johne’s disease control and felt social pressure from vets and industry groups to make on-farm changes. However, it seems that the peer-learning extension processes in the Focus Farms that emphasized knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions are critical to infl uencing producer behavior to actually change. It is estimated that the cost of control programs is ~$30 per cow annually with a good return on investment when the cost of subclincal and clinical disease is considered. Test and cull strategies alone fail to eradicate Johne’s disease in the long term. Improved farm management to minimize exposure risk is the most cost-effective strategy to control Johne’s disease.

─ Heather Danndann@whminer.com

* References available upon request.

VT CELEBRATES BREAKFAST ON THE FARM - AUG. 22Vermont's fi rst “Breakfast on the Farm” event comes to Ferrisburgh, Vermont on Saturday, August 22, 2015! This free, public celebration is designed to teach people about modern dairy farming and introduce the farm families who work hard to produce a safe, wholesome product for Vermont and beyond. The Vander Wey family of Nea-Tocht Farm in Ferrisburgh will serve a delicious breakfast and offer self-guided walking tours of their dairy farm. There will be a variety of educational stations, and guests of all ages will get a peek into the life and business of farming, giving them an

opportunity to learn where their food comes from. This event promises to be tasty, educational and fun for the whole family. This is a free event, but tickets must be reserved in advance through www.

vermontbreakfastonthefarm.com.

The lead organizing partner is the Vermont Agency of Agriculture. Event sponsors include Vermont Feed Dealers, New England Dairy Promotion Board, Poulin Grain, Hall Communications, Farm Credit Northeast Ag Enhancement, and Coop Insurance.

mes , d

d

oTft

v

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report July 2015 ─ 12

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

Closing CommentThe careful application of terror is also a form of communication.

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute1034 Miner Farm RoadP.O. Box 90Chazy, NY 12921

Change Service Requested

Non-Profi tOrganization

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDChazy N.Y. 12921

Permit No. 8

YOUR JULY FARM REPORT

IS HERE

ENJOY!