the william h. miner agricultural research institute ... · further price cuts — particularly for...

Earlier this year I heard Dr. Larry Chase at Cornell University give a talk on what he called “free feed” – i.e. feed shrink and wastage. The audience chuckled and the phrase stayed with me. Over the past few months I have delved into the literature to see just how much free feed you might fi nd on a typical dairy farm. Certainly, reducing feed shrinkage offers substantial economic opportunity on nearly every farm. On a whole-farm basis, our goal should be to maximize the effi ciency of feed use for productive purposes and minimize the waste.

Feed wastage occurs during forage harvest, feed delivery, and storage; loading and mixing of diets, and feed-out and delivery of these diets. So-called feed ineffi ciency factors on-farm include: 1) excessive dry matter or nutrient losses from wind, precipitation, spillage, or feed predation, 2) inconsistent nutrient delivery due to TMR mixer condition, over- or under-fi lling, mixing time, or improper feed-out, and 3) workers not following the SOPs each and every time. To give you an idea of the potential magnitude of

feed loss, consider that dry matter losses from forage harvest to feed-out may range from 17 to 64% for haycrop silage and 12 to 23% for corn silage! On a smaller (and sillier) scale, birds can consume up to 1.5 pounds of TMR per month – I’ve always wondered if a fl ock of starlings or pigeons could change the forage-to-concentrate ratio of our TMR when they descend on our barns at the Institute.

Feeding environment has a major infl uence on the cow’s behavioral, productive, health, and effi ciency response to diet – in other words, how much free feed is captured. Major components of feeding management include refusal amount, feed accessibility, frequency of feed delivery, and consistency of feed delivery.

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK: FREE FEED!

The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute October 2013

In This Issue:

Alumni Corner: The Best Synchronization Program 2Body Condition is not Just Fat: Think of Muscle Loss

Feeding Calves: It Takes More Than Just Milk

Save the Date: Dairy Day is Dec. 3!

Grinners; Bad Year for Bugs

What's Happening on the Farm

3

4

5

6

7Tile Drains & Water Quality: What Does Research Say?

Tile Drain Conference at Miner Institute

It Takes a Village

8

9

10

Mixed Forages 11

FARM REPORT

See FEED, Page 5

tt

kkkk

d dd ddddd

t dd

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

This fall as I learned about estrous synchronization programs from the veterinary perspective I was reminded of their practical application, and execution, on the farm. There’s always something new in estrous synchronization, an area of research that has been driven by the practical concerns of tight profi t margins, effi ciency, and scheduling convenience. With the dozens of variations to the original Ovsynch protocol, it’s challenging to understand their nuanced applications and pick the best program. But no matter the program, compliance is the biggest factor for successful breeding.

Because cows may be enrolled in Ovsynch at random stages in their estrous cycle, synchronized ovulation occurs in approximately 55-65% of enrolled cows. The implementation of PreSynch, a 5-injection series, ensures cows begin Ovsynch at the appropriate stage in their ovulatory cycle. Presynch has established greater AI conception rates as compared with Ovsynch alone. However, the introduction of more injections into your program increases opportunities for human error: faulty documentation and typos, eartag misreadings, and missed or omitted cows. The most compliant herds are only 95% successful at delivering all shots at the right

time, to the right cows, in the right sequence. It’s important to honestly assess the “human factor” potential for error and to convey the importance of compliance to employees.

The table above indicates the importance of compliance, as conception rates drop precipitously with each round of shots (e.g. 85% compliance for a 3-injection program = .85 x .85 x .85 = .61). An honest assessment of a herd’s capacity for compliance is vital to reproductive success. A short list of important questions includes: How often, and accurately, are cow records updated? Generation of the cow list, with accurate pen location and injection status, is of utmost importance. Are pens small enough to always fi nd every cow? Are cows being skipped for timed AI due to uterine disease or illness? Is storage of the drugs consistent with labeling? (Room temperature for Prostaglandin, 36-48○F for GnRH). Misreading eartags and typos are not signs of negligence, but they do lower success rates. These considerations, in addition to administration on the correct day, determine compliance.

Dozens of variations of the original Ovsynch protocol have been established to improve synchronization and conception rates, cost, and technical challenges related to cow handling and labor. However, a recent economic comparison of reproductive programs demonstrates that well-implemented visual estrus detection programs yield higher conception rates than poorly compliant synchronization programs. Visual estrous detection comes with its own set of challenges, but for a farm unlikely to implement synchronization with high compliance, it may be the better choice. When using a synchronization program, make a commitment to reinforce compliance through accuracy, thoroughness, and consistency.

— Carolyn Kokko

Carolyn spent a year and a half at Miner Institute as a post-graduate intern focused on nutrition research. She currently studies production animal and equine medicine at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

THE BEST SYNCHRONIZATION

PROGRAM IS THE ONE YOU CAN IMPLEMENT

P

Source: Iowa State Extension. Dairy Cow Synchronization Protocols-2011


BODY CONDITION IS NOT JUST FAT: THINK OF MUSCLE LOSS DURING EARLY LACTATION Almost every dairy producer knows the importance of preventing the loss of body condition during the post-fresh period primarily because of its causal link with metabolic disorders such as ketosis and fatty liver disease. Thus, a link was commonly made between body condition and fatness. However, it’s been much less appreciated that early lactating cows experiencing an energy defi cit are generally in short supply of protein as well. As reported in an earlier study by a research group at the University of Maryland, cows that averaged 40 kg/d milk (~3.0% milk protein and 4.2% fat) mobilized approximately 21 kg of body protein (primarily skeletal muscle) in the fi rst 5 weeks after calving. This equaled about 1/5 of the entire empty body protein mass.

One of the consequences of dramatic breakdown of muscle mass (also called muscle atrophy) is reduction in muscle strength. Such aspects have been rarely researched in dairy cows, but well characterized in studies with humans. As summarized in a review paper, loss of leg muscle mass in a range of 6 – 15% could result in reduction of muscle strength up to 30%. For a vivid example, a person who is normally capable of lifting 50 kg would hardly

be able to lift 40 kg after 2 weeks of muscle loss at a rate of 0.5% total muscle mass per day. After reading this, I cannot help but think: Will the drastic protein loss of high-producing cows during early lactation increase the risk of lameness or leg injuries due to compromised mechanical support from leg muscle? Are cows that lack muscle protein reserve more prone to accidental falls? In a study including ~5600 cows, the prevalence of lameness in underconditioned cows was signifi cantly higher compared with normal or even overconditioned herd mates. Undercondition did not only indicate insuffi cient body fat storage, but may account for the difference of body protein reserve as well.

Furthermore, insuffi cient body condition (both fat and muscle) during the dry period may compromise milk production. As reported in a recent

study, cows with low BCS (< 3.0, low in both fat and muscle reserve) before calving experienced more intensive loss of body protein but less fat mobilization, and produced less milk protein and fat postpartum in comparison with cows with normal (3.2 – 3.8) or high (> 4.0) prepartal BCS. Although cows with high BCS were more susceptible to ketosis, the production potential of low-BCS cows may not be fully

developed since they may need to use part of AA that mobilized from muscle protein for oxidation to provide energy or gluconeogenesis rather than for milk protein synthesis. Finally, cows with a normal BCS had the greatest feed intake and milk production.

Thus, it is of importance to restore body condition during late gestation through nutritional strategies. A decent fat reserve should not be the sole target, but suffi cient metabolizable protein should be provided to replenish muscle protein. Recommendations for close-up diets should provide 1100 to 1300 g/d of metabolizable protein. Whether cows with extensive loss of muscle protein are more susceptible to leg injury or lameness warrants future research.

— Peng [email protected]

* References available upon request.

THE LAST WORD ON FERTILIZER PRICES

Perhaps not the very last word, but probably for 2013 anyway. While fertilizer prices may fall a bit further, fertilizer industry experts think that we’re at the point where the potential of a price increase outweighs further price cuts — particularly for N and P. Wholesale nitrogen prices (including urea and UAN) are the lowest they’ve been in several years. Potassium is still a crapshoot, with many of the major players thousands of miles from the U.S.


FEEDING CALVES: IT TAKES MORE THAN JUST MILK

When thinking of calves and what it takes to grow them properly the main component of their diet is milk or milk replacer. However, it’s important to think about the other components of their diets as well. Milk is fed to calves for only a limited time, and the transition to a solid diet is relatively quick. To create a smoother weaning period and maintain growth post-weaning it’s important to encourage intake of more than just milk, even in the pre-weaning period.

The main question is besides milk, what should we be feeding calves to make them grow and transition the best? A concentrate is common throughout most calf programs, but is that all that’s needed? Should some sort of forage be offered? And if so, what kind of forage? There are a number of different views and opinions about this topic, but I’m hoping to shed some light on the advantages of offering forages to calves.

In general and across several different recent studies, in the preweaning period intake of pelleted starter feed does not differ between calves offered forage and those not offered forage. During this period, calves offered forages tend to prefer the forage to the concentrate. In instances where a forage and concentrate were offered as a mixed feed, calves learned sorting behavior at an early age and would sort the offered feed, consuming the forage in higher than expected amounts. Calves that learned this sorting behavior were more apt to continue to sort their rations after weaning compared to those calves offered

concentrate and forage as separate components in different buckets.

Post weaning, the preference of the calves shifts to the concentrate over the forage. Perhaps this shift is to make up for nutrients that were previously provided by the milk. During the post weaning period calves with ad libitum access to both forages and concentrates have greater concentrate intake and total dry matter intake, resulting in higher average daily gains compared to calves strictly offered a concentrate.

This greater intake of concentrates is thought to be facilitated by an increase in rumen pH that occurs when forages are consumed, making a better rumen environment giving calves the ability to consume more grain. Calves offered forages also exhibited lower ruminal concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFA), despite the higher intake of concentrates, which may be due to these calves having a greater ability to absorb produced VFA.

A recent study looked at whether these advantages were truly coming from forages or just added fi ber in the diet. Total dry matter intake and rumen pH was higher in forage supplemented calves than those offered a high (or low) NDF calf starter. Although simply buying a concentrate with a higher fi ber level may be easier, it appears to be more benefi cial to provide forage in the calf diet as the same benefi ts aren’t seen through raising the fi ber content of a concentrate.

The type of forage offered to calves can have different effects. In general

feeding legume forages results in higher intakes of the forage itself, but doesn’t result in greater intakes of concentrate or total dry matter intake. Calves offered legume forages tend to have a higher weight of the GI tract as a percent of body weight than calves offered just starter grain, or starter grain and grass hay. This indicates that feeding legumes may appear to be benefi cial when evaluating weight and gains, but are actually just adding to gut fi ll and not carcass weight.

Grass hays and silages have been shown to produce greater average daily gains and total dry matter intake. Castells et al. (2012a) studied the effects of six different forage sources; average daily gain of calves offered oat hay, triticale silage, and barley straw were found to be 21-28% greater than calves fed only concentrates.

Any farm that raises its own replacement animals is essentially raising the future of their farm, since calf performance and growth is vitally important. Achieving greater growth and gains of calves should be a high priority on any dairy farm and can be achieved with the correct supplementation of a forage and a concentrate. Providing a good quality grass hay/silage in an ad libitum manner, separate from but in conjunction with a concentrate starting in the fi rst weeks of life and continuing through the post weaning period, will maximize calf performance and growth.

— Sarah [email protected]

* References available upon request.

Learn more about Miner Institute by visiting www.whminer.org


Higher amounts of feed refusals tend to be associated with greater sorting against longer particles. Some research from University of Guelph suggests that, at about 3 to 5% refusals, there should be none or very little sorting. Higher feed refusal rates are also associated with reduced feed effi ciency on a group or pen basis, although research results are variable – and the potential difference between pen and individual cow response must be considered.

Some herds are fed to a “clean bunk” in an effort to minimize TMR waste. But, when fed for low refusals, cattle typically have greater eating rate and may be at a greater risk for rumen acidosis. A cow’s motivation to eat increases markedly after only 3 hours without feed, and restricting feed access by 10 hours/day reduced dry matter intake by 3.5 pounds per day. An on-

farm case study from Nebraska found nearly 8 pounds more milk production daily when cows experienced 0 versus 6 hours/day of a functionally empty feed bunk. So, it appears that this “free feed” returns a good profi t.

What about feeding frequency? Once versus twice daily feed delivery is associated with less sorting against long particles, better meal distribution throughout the day, and greater milk production effi ciency. However, increasing frequency of feed delivery beyond 2x/day, although it improves effi ciency, may not be desirable long-term if it reduces resting behavior, which some studies indicate. Studies also indicate that more frequent feed push-ups in the two hours after feeding and consistent feed quality and quantity along the length of the feed bunk are associated with greater effi ciency of milk production and less

competition and switching of feeding place along the feed bunk.

Based on the published research, a proposed ideal feeding management environment might be: 3% feed refusal target, TMR fed 2x/day, every ½ hour feed push-ups for the 2 hours post-feeding, consistent feed quality and quantity delivered along the bunk, empty bunk <3 hours/day, and no overcrowding at the feed bunk.

I’ll end with a few questions to ponder:• Are you taking advantage of the “free feed” found on every farm?• What is the on-farm range in “time without feed” and its consequences?• How do we effectively manage for low amounts of feed refusals?• Are maximal feed effi ciency and optimal cow well-being compatible?

— Rick [email protected]

FEED, Continued from Page 1

SAVE THE DATE: DAIRY DAY AT MINER INSTITUTE

TUESDAY, DEC. 3 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.Speakers and topics include:

Dr. Tom Oelberg, Dairy Field Technical Specialist, Diamond V — Managing TMR variability through the use of TMR audits. What is a TMR audit and factors that affect TMR consistency such as bunker face management, overfi lling, under-processing of hay, improper loading of liquid supplements, worn equipment, and under-mixing.

Dr. Julio O. Giordano, Assistant Professor, Cornell University — Reproductive management strategies that maximize reproductive effi ciency while increasing the profi tability and assuring the sustainability of dairy operations.

The program will also include Miner Institute staff Dr. Rick Grant and Kurt Cotanch addressing new research and what you need to know and Dr. Heather Dann discussing low protein and low starch diets.

Dairy Day is free and open to the public. Hot lunch is available for $5. Pre-registration is encouraged. For more information or to register contact Wanda Emerich, 518-846-7121, ext. 117 or [email protected]

Miner Institute is located in Chazy, NY on Route 191 1 mile west of Interstate 87, exit 41. Travel time is approximately 1 hour south of Montreal, 20 minutes north of Plattsburgh, NY, 1.5 hours from Burlington, VT, or 3 hours north of Albany, NY.


“GRINNERS”That’s what some old-timers used to call ears of corn that weren’t fi lled to the tip; a more modern term is “nosing back.” Often the naked end of the cob would be sticking out of the end of the husk. There are several potential causes for the tip 1-2” of the cob not fi lling with kernels. The ovules at the tip of the ear are the last to be pollinated, so anything that interferes with the amount or timing of pollen shed can prevent them from being fertilized. This includes drought or other plant stresses; anything that results in pollen shed being completed before the silks involving the tip kernels emerge. Insects including corn borer beetles and Japanese beetles feeding on ear silk can also cause poor tip fi ll.

Many times “grinners” are more common for one particular hybrid; this is less likely to be a characteristic of the hybrid than when the pollen shed and silking occurred. All fi elds aren’t planted in a day, and on most farms relative maturities differ by several days or more. Therefore, there’s often a week or more difference between the earliest and latest silking/pollen shedding events, which can lead to one or more corn hybrids winding up with naked cob tips.

How serious a problem is it? The end one-third of a normal ear of corn contains about 15% of the weight of kernels on the ear, so (to mix a metaphor) an inch of naked cob tip is pretty small potatoes. — E.T.

BAD YEAR FOR BUGS

“Nosing back” on corn ears can be due to any of several factors including insect damage and dry conditions at pollination. The problem usually looks worse than it is.

Recent events in the Corn Belt give new ammunition to those who believe that “In the end, nature wins.”

Last year the “big bug news” out of the Midwest involved Bt-rootworm gene corn hybrids that suffered serious rootworm damage. This year the news is even worse: Severe damage by Western corn rootworms found in Bt-rootworm hybrids expressing the Cry3Bb1 protein, and in fi elds that had been planted to soybeans the previous year. Therefore, neither crop rotation nor that single Bt gene controlled the rootworms. Entomologists in that region are now suggesting that farmers either use corn hybrids that are stacked with more than one “Cry” rootworm protein, or hybrids expressing one Cry protein plus a planting-time soil insecticide.

Corn resistant to the same Bt protein causing problems in the Midwest has just been found by Cornell entomologist Elson Shields in a corn fi eld in Cayuga Co., NY. This changes everything, since until now we had no indication that Bt-resistant rootworms had made it this far East. Corn in this fi eld was severely goosenecked and lodged, with considerable root pruning. More on what to do now will be in the November Farm Report.

On another pest-related topic, molds and mycotoxins are again in the news, if they ever were quite out of it. Last year’s Midwestern drought resulted in an unusually high incidence of mycotoxin problems that only recently have been fully recognized. Bt corn hybrids won’t prevent mycotoxins, at least not directly. However, by preventing corn borer damage the Bt trait also limits the molds that follow stalk boring, thereby reducing the potential for mycotoxins.

— E.T.

Th e Heart's Delight Farm Heritage Exhibit at Miner Institute

Free Admission! Open weekdays 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. through October 31.

Contact Rachel at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115 to inquire about

group tours.


WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FARMCorn harvest is underway. We started with our conventional corn and everyday the pile of chopped corn on the wollastonite pad gets a little bigger. Our packer, Henry, takes a sample from each load and runs a dry matter on the composite samples throughout the day. We have a small scale and Koster tester close to the bunks. The fi rst several fi elds we chopped had a dry matter between 34-38% - a little dry. These were fi elds with sandy soil that had been planted earlier than the rest. Now we are into corn fi elds with a dry matter in the low 30% range. We will have to work “in high gear” to stay ahead of the corn that is quickly drying down.

This was not the best growing year for us. There was lots of rain after planting resulting in poor germination and then several dry periods through the summer. We were pretty worried about our corn crop in July, but saw some good growth through August and September. Still some of our fi elds will have low yields. But at this point the growing season is behind us and so regardless of how early we got the corn in the ground, the rainfall, height of the corn, size of the ear, this is our corn crop and we must do our best at this last step – harvesting and packing.

Our bunk repairs are fi nished and while the project was costly, the value of the forages stored in those bunks is much more than the fi nal bill! We have been saving up and preparing for these repairs for several years now and it is really good to have it all done. The tile lines around the outside wall have been repaired. They will collect water and/or silage effl uent and divert it into our effl uent collection tanks.

Recently we had a really diffi cult calving in a cow pregnant with twins. The cow started to calve 20 days early and did not progress normally through the stages of labor in that the calves did not move out of the uterine

horns and into the birth canal even though she was fully dilated. This was something we had never seen before — it was even a new case to those on our farm crew who have delivered hundreds and hundreds of calves over the years. The term our vet used was uterine inertia — insuffi cient uterine contractions to push the calves down into the birth canal. Why?! Maybe low blood calcium or the position and size of the twins made discharge out of the uterus nearly impossible. One of the twins was breech and the other (as we discovered by c-section) was dead and bloated. Looking back at the situation, we were reminded that early intervention is really important if you think something is wrong during calving. And once you have delivered enough calves, you generally know if labor isn’t progressing normally. But if you think you have seen everything — you haven’t — there is always something new when you work on a farm!

We are wrapping up a calf feeding study that was conducted in cooperation with Cornell Cooperative Extension and Northern New York Agricultural Development Program. It has been fairly quiet in the barn on the research end of things — but not for long! We have been working with the research crew as they prepare for a large cow trial beginning in early October. Our maintenance crew will reinstall 60 Calan feeding bins in place of headlocks in one pen. We’ve been discussing with the research crew which cows are eligible for the study, which forages will be consistent for a 3-month period, bST schedule, collection and sampling days and other logistics of the study as they relate to management of the cows.

— Anna [email protected]

We have started chopping our conventional corn. This picture was taken September 17. As the pile gets bigger and we begin chopping fi elds closer to the farm, we will add a second packing tractor on the pile.

The bunk repairs are fi nished. This year we will put BMR corn silage in one of these bunks.

Our Koster tester dries down a fresh forage sample so we can monitor the dry matter during harvest.


TILE DRAINAGE & WATER QUALITY: WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SAY?

The practice of installing clay pipes below the soil surface to improve the natural drainage of poorly drained soils for the betterment of crop production is better known simply as ‘tile drainage’. Though the idea itself is ancient, widespread adoption of the technology did not occur in the US until the middle to late 1800’s. John Johnston is referred to as the “father of tile drainage” in the U.S. because he brought the idea from his native Scotland to his farm in Seneca Falls, NY. At his farm, Johnston experimented with tile drainage and by 1838 his average wheat yields were reportedly six-fold greater than neighboring farms that were not tile-drained. According to some, the eventual widespread adoption of tile drainage revolutionized agriculture in New York State.

Today, many farmers view tile drainage as critical to a profi table and sustainable business. Tile

drainage continues to be a popular practice for a range of agricultural operations (dairy, crop, vegetable, orchards) in humid northern climates. Research over the past few decades has demonstrated agronomic and environmental benefi ts of tile drains. In some situations, artifi cial drainage can facilitate nutrient losses to waterways, and novel practices may be needed to reduce potential water quality impacts.

Join us at Miner Institute on Thursday, October 24 to learn more about current tile drainage best management practices. Some of the questions we will address include:

• What are the basic functions of tile drains and how are systems typically installed?

• How does tile drainage improve soil conditions for crop growth?

• Does tile drainage always result in greater nutrient loss from agricultural landscapes compared to soils that are not tile-drained?

• How do soil type, management, and other site conditions infl uence nutrient loss from tile-drained fi elds?

• How does tile drainage affect the amount of runoff that can enter the soil versus the amount that runs off the surface? How does this affect phosphorus mobility?

• Is there an optimum combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to optimize both crop production and water quality in tile-drainage systems?

Preregister now. Seats are limited. Contact Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or call 518-846-7121, ext. 115 to register.

— Eric [email protected]

CORNELL FEED DEALER MEETINGTuesday, November 12 at 6 p.m.

Miner Institute Auditorium located at 586 Ridge Road, Chazy, NY

Speakers: Dr. Larry Chase and Dr. Tom Overton

Topics Include:

In addition, they will briefl y touch on shredlage, oxygen-limiting bunker covers and on-farm soybean processing methods.

For more information contact: Dr. Kimberley Morrill, Dairy Specialist, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Cell: (603)-568-1404 or Wanda Emerich, Dairy Outreach Coordinator at Miner Institute, 518-846-7121, ext. 117

• Fecal Starch – What Do We Know?• Using Small Grain Silages in Dairy Rations• Fresh Cow Feeding Strategies• Ration starch levels

• Mineral guidelines• Ration protein levels• Nutrition and immunity


PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZERSSome purveyors of liquid fertilizers may try to convince you that the higher price for liquid fertilizers is justifi able because of increased phosphorus availability. Tain’t so, as a recent Australian study confi rmed. The Aussies applied granular and liquid fertilizers to dry soil and to soil that was at fi eld capacity (an agronomist term for “wet”). When the soil was dry the phosphorus stayed where it was placed regardless of whether the fertilizer was granular or liquid, and it remained in a plant-available form. A key fi nding, though, was that under dry conditions granular P sources resulted in more available P than did liquid sources. However, when applied to soils that were at fi eld capacity, both granular and liquid fertilizers exhibited more movement away from the application site, there was more interaction with the soil, and there wasn’t any difference in P availability.

There are valid reasons for buying liquid starter fertilizers, including ease of handling and uniformity of nutrient application; for some farmers these advantages may outweigh a slightly higher cost for liquid fertilizer. However, as the Australian research suggests, you shouldn’t pay a lot more for liquid fertilizer under the assumption that it will result in better phosphorus availability.

Source: The Mosaic Co.

Is there something you would like to know more about?Send Farm Report article suggestions to

Rachel at [email protected]

Visit us online at www.whminer.org

TILE DRAINAGE CONFERENCE AT MINER INSTITUTE

Th ursday, October 24 - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, in collaboration with NY NRCS and the Lake Champlain Basin Program, is hosting a meeting to present the latest research and technology happening in the area of tile drainage water management Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013 at Miner Institute in Chazy. Experts will present research fi ndings and discuss their management implications. Speakers Include: • Dr. Matthew Helmers, Iowa State University —Best Management Practices for

Water Quality in Tile-Drained Systems • Larry Geohring, Cornell University — Historical and Current Drainage Research in NNY • Dr. Bianca Moebius-Clune, Cornell University — Using Adapt-N to Minimize Nitrogen

Leaching to Tile Drainage Water• Peter Wright, NY USDA-NRCS — Use of Subsurface Drainage in Conservation Practices Using the

NYS Drainage Guide• Dr. Eric Young, Miner Institute — Tile Drainage Research at Miner Institute• Dr. Aubert Michaud, Quebec Ag-Environment Research and Development Insitute (IRDA) —

Monitoring and Modeling Phosphorus Flow Path and Speciation

For more information and to pre-register, contact Eric Young at [email protected] or Rachel Dutil at [email protected] or 518-846-7121, ext. 115.


IT TAKES A VILLAGEI began my journey of personal growth and hands-on learning as the Herdsman Intern in June 2012. It sure has been an enlightening and fun-fi lled adventure, and not one that I will soon forget. I’ve put together a list outlining some of the most important lessons that have been instilled in me during my time at Miner Institute.

Lessons learned from the cows:1. Be curious. Cows like routine, but if something new shows up in their environment they are very curious. What is it? It is good, bad, or indifferent? Will it eat me? Can I eat it? It is always good to ask questions. This is the way to make discoveries and improve oneself.

2. Be patient, understanding, and kind. When introducing a heifer to a trailer or chute for the fi rst time or trying to catch the cows for vet check, patience and kindness is key; especially if you ever hope to get her to do whatever you are trying to do again. The same is true when teaching students, or interacting with the public. If you try to empathize with a cow or a person, then mutual understanding and cooperation come easier.

3. Be observant. A good herdsperson can tell a lot about and from a cow by the way she looks and behaves. The signs and clues she gives you are not always obvious. In any situation, being aware of your surroundings, and knowing when and how to take action, are all valuable life skills. Do not let an opportunity pass by because you are not paying attention.

4. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes. When animals are trying to reach a goal, they are not afraid of looking silly, or messing up. They keep trying until they accomplish what they are after.

5. Ruminate often. A cow spends 7-10hrs/day ruminating (Grant and Albright, 2000). Problems arise in any task, but if you take time to think about the solution (ruminate on the issue), you can push past any obstacle in your way.

Lessons learned from the people:1. Animal Husbandry. Herd health,

transition cow management, caring for calves, nutrition and feeding, AI, and milking are all the basic skills I acquired from working with our herdsperson. In addition I now recognize the importance of cow comfort and animal behavior, and how it contributes to the success, profi tability, and sustainability of farms.

2. Mechanical operation and technical skills. While working on the farm I thoroughly enjoyed operating heavy machinery including backhoes, payloaders, skid steers, tractors of all kinds, and my favorite…the chopper! I am sure that learning the basics of being handy around the farm: fi xing leaking waterers and broken gates will be useful in the future as well.

3. People management and communication. The staff at Miner Institute is made up of a team of people with different personalities and backgrounds, but who all work towards a common mission of Research, Education, and Demonstration. To make this happen, skills in organization, good communication, and confl ict resolution come into play. I found the idea of brief weekly meetings including the farm staff, nutritionist, veterinarian, and research staff helpful in setting and accomplishing specifi c goals for the farm and its programs.

4. Learn from mistakes. As I progressed in my internship I was encouraged to evaluate situations and make decisions on the farm based on the skills I had learned up until that point. I made mistakes, but as long as I learned from them and continued to improve, the staff was always supportive of my learning.

5. Enjoy what you do. I found that working with cows and working with people who work with cows is something that I would like to continue. Many employees at Miner Institute would agree that farm work is hard work, but it is also rewarding.

Lessons learned from life on the farm.1. Manure happens. Machinery breaks down, fi elds fl ood, cows get sick, the barn cleaner backs up. You have to keep going,

and not give up.

2. Flexibility and adaptability. Without careful planning and budgeting spring fl oods, hot summers, or early frosts can be detrimental to dairy farms. Policy and regulatory changes as well as public opinion can be game changers as well. ignifi cant forethought, backup plans, innovative ideas, and considering the big picture are necessary for the sustainability of dairy farms.

3. Life balance. Working on the farm has helped me become comfortable with the fact that there is a time for everything: A time to plow, plant, and harvest. A time for calves to be born, heifers to grow, and a time for cows to be culled. A time to work, a time to think, and a time to relax. All of these things are necessary for the health and well-being of the farm and its workers.

4. Strong work ethic. Dairy farming is a 365 days-a-year job. The values of perseverance, integrity, and dependability to get the job done will serve me throughout life wherever I go.

Some highlights of my internship have been:1. Visiting dairies around the area, as well as being able to travel (this year staff and students went to Idaho to tour farms, then to the Western Dairy Management Conference in Reno, NV) to see how the industry works in other parts of the country.

2. Teaching and mentoring students. As the Herdsman Intern I enjoyed helping teach the Herd Health portion of the Summer Farm Experience program and Advanced Dairy Management course. The future of the industry relies heavily on the hard-working young people who are interested in it now.

3. Interacting with the public. Tours, school groups, and open house events are all great opportunities to have conversations with people about the great things we do as an industry.

See REFLECTION, page 11


REFLECTION, Continued from Page 104. Learning about crop cultivation including planning, planting and harvesting. Also, participating in creating and carrying out the specifi c goals for the nutrition and production of our dairy herd. I fi nd the entire process of responsible fi eld management, maintenance of cow and herd health, and production of a high quality food product to be extremely captivating. I have come to appreciate farming as a “scientifi c art-form.”

Small realizations: 1. I am always astounded by the ability of frozen cow snot to seal gate latches shut.

2. Cow tongues are attracted to ponytails.

3. No matter how bad your day, hungry calves are always happy to see you.

4. Few things are more repulsive than rotten placenta in your mouth.

5. Never stand behind a coughing cow.

This will be my fi nal contribution to the Farm Report as my internship has come to a conclusion. Hands-on dairy experience gained here at Miner Institute, combined with my academic education, has set a solid foundation for my future in the dairy industry. It speaks to the strength of the program that those who complete this internship can go on to work in industry, be successful in veterinary school, or continue to their graduate studies. Thanks to an incredible experience at Miner Institute, I am confi dent and ready to take on my next adventure. This fall I begin my Master’s Degree program in Dairy

Nutrition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

To all who have helped me learn and grow at Miner Institute, I thank you. I especially want to thank Farm Manager Steve Couture and Herdsperson Anna Pape, who have dedicated an immense amount of time, patience, and wisdom to assist me on my way to becoming a successful contributing member of the dairy industry. As the saying goes, “It takes a village…” and the great people here make all the difference.

It has been a pleasure writing for all of you readers. Look for my future articles in the Alumni Corner section of the Farm Report.

— Margaret Quaassdorff

MIXED FORAGESMichigan State University agronomists recommend that forages for high-producing cows should be planted as a single species. Their reason: “Planting two or more crops together can result in a forage stand that has variability. Mixed species forages that lack uniformity create sampling and testing challenges that can lead to ratios that are improperly balanced and have day-to-day variation.” From these remarks I surmise that Michigan farmers don’t have to contend with the soil type and drainage variations so common in the Northeastern U.S. Furthermore, I think that the approximately 85% of NY dairy farmers (and probably a similarly high percentage in New England) who seed alfalfa with a forage grass aren’t wrong in this decision.

One 40-acre fi eld at Miner Institute has at least eight soil types ranging from an excessively well-drained gravel loam to a poorly-drained clay loam. Subsurface drainage in this fi eld has been improved, fi rst through the tiling efforts of William

Miner about 100 years ago and more recently by the current Institute staff that replaced a main line and installed a pumping station, but the fi eld still isn’t and never will be uniformly well-drained. Planting straight alfalfa in this fi eld would soon result in areas of dead alfalfa that would soon sprout dandelions and annual grasses, while planting only grass wouldn’t take advantage of the areas in the fi eld where alfalfa does well. Planting an alfalfa-grass mixture maximizes the yield and quality potential of the entire fi eld. The day-to-day variation in forage quality mentioned in the Michigan State article may be a factor with small tower silos and silage bags, but since drive-over piles and bunker silos are fi lled in layers and fed out in slices or (in the case of drive-over piles) shaved off, daily variation is greatly reduced. (Horizontal IN, vertical OUT.) I would expect that the day-to-day change in weather conditions so common in the Northeast has a lot more to do with the daily level in the milk tank.

Next time a heavy rain soaks the face of your bunker silo or drive-over pile, after you feed this silage check to see if there’s less refusal than normal in the feedbunk — or none at all! If so it’s probably not that they ate more dry matter. If like most farmers using mixer wagons you feed silage by weight, after a heavy rain more of that weight is water and therefore the amount of silage dry matter offered is less. Don’t underestimate the impact of this! Many years ago the University of Maine recorded daily corn silage dry matters from a bunker silo for month after month, comparing them with the daily precipitation. They found that the silage dry matter was meaningfully lower after a “signifi cant rain event.” This would suggest that you’d be better off feeding the same volume of silage for at least one day after a rain instead of feeding by weight. This may be tricky, but whoever said farming was simple?

— Ev Thomas [email protected]


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

Closing CommentEducation is what you have left after you subtract

what you have forgotten from what you have learned.

YOUR OCTOBER FARM REPORT

IS HERE

ENJOY!

I've just gotta be me.

the william h. miner agricultural research institute ... · further price cuts — particularly for...

Documents