Water is the most important nutrient, but too often neglected. Lactating dairy cows drink more water than does any other domesticated ruminant – on average about 170 pounds each day. Adequate water availability enhances dry matter intake, with peak feed consumption being associated with peak water intake. In fact, South African research in the late-90s measured up to a 27% reduction in feed intake when water was restricted, with meal size shaved by over 50%. Accurate prediction of water consumption is necessary to properly size and manage water systems for dairy cattle. In the latest issue of the Journal of Dairy Science (99:7191-7205) researchers from the University of Nebraska and University of California-Davis published updated, much more accurate equations to predict drinking water intake by dairy cows. They combed the published literature and found 55 papers comprising 93% Holstein or Holstein crosses in North America (47%), Europe (25%), and Australia (8%). Most of the data were from TMR-fed herds with only 10% on pasture. Most existing drinking water prediction equations require dry matter intake as an important measure. The problem, of course, is that feed intake is not measured (or measured accurately) on many dairy farms. This research group therefore set out to develop improved prediction equations that worked well with or without a measure of feed intake. When a good on-farm measure of dry matter intake is available, they found that this equation worked best for predicting water intake: Free water intake (kg/d) = -91.1 + 2.93 x DMI + 0.61 x DM% + 0.062 x NaK + 2.49 x CP% + 0.76 x TMP In this equation, DMI is dry matter intake, DM% is the dry matter content of the diet, NaK is diet Na and K content (mEq/kg of DM), CP% is dietary crude protein content, and TMP is daily mean ambient temperature (°C). This equation explained 76% of the variation in drinking water intake and could accurately predict water consumption with little bias. Importantly, this new equation worked better than the currently recommended model in the 2001 Dairy NRC, and should be used in the future when water intake is being predicted. When a measure of feed intake is unavailable – as is too often the case on many farms - this equation is recommended: FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: HOW MUCH WATER WOULD A DAIRY COW DRINK? The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute September 2016 In This Issue: Countdown to 2016 Corn Silage Harvest 2 Corn Silage Maturity; Measuring Forage Dry Matter Protecting Your Farm from the Inside Out Reproductive Management for Cows out of Synch Keeping Ahead of the Curve on Forage Grasses What's Happening on the Farm 3 4 5 6 7 Corn Silage 2016 On-The-Fly Adjustment of Corn Plant Dry Matter Dairy Scholar Program 8 9 10 A Tale of Two Mommies 11 FARM REPOR T See WATER, Page 2 Visit our blog: minermatters.com facebook.com/WhMinerInstitute
Transcript
Water is the most important nutrient, but too often neglected. Lactating dairy cows drink more water than does any other domesticated ruminant – on average about 170 pounds each day. Adequate water availability enhances dry matter intake, with peak feed consumption being associated with peak water intake. In fact, South African research in the late-90s measured up to a 27% reduction in feed intake when water was restricted, with meal size shaved by over 50%.
Accurate prediction of water consumption is necessary to properly size and manage water systems for dairy cattle. In the latest issue of the Journal of Dairy Science (99:7191-7205) researchers from the University of Nebraska and University of California-Davis published updated, much more accurate equations to predict drinking water intake by dairy cows. They combed the published literature and found 55 papers comprising 93% Holstein or Holstein crosses in North America (47%), Europe (25%), and Australia (8%). Most of the data were from TMR-fed herds with only 10% on pasture.
Most existing drinking water prediction equations require dry matter intake as an important measure. The problem, of course, is that feed intake is not measured (or measured accurately) on many dairy
farms. This research group therefore set out to develop improved prediction equations that worked well with or without a measure of feed intake.
When a good on-farm measure of dry matter intake is available, they found that this equation worked best for predicting water intake:Free water intake (kg/d) = -91.1 + 2.93 x DMI + 0.61 x DM% + 0.062 x NaK + 2.49 x CP% + 0.76 x TMP
In this equation, DMI is dry matter intake, DM% is the dry matter content of the diet, NaK is diet Na and K content (mEq/kg of DM), CP% is dietary crude protein content, and TMP is daily mean ambient temperature (°C). This equation explained 76% of the variation in drinking water intake and could accurately predict water consumption with little bias. Importantly, this new equation worked better than the currently recommended model in the 2001 Dairy NRC, and should be used in the future when water intake is being predicted.
When a measure of feed intake is unavailable – as is too often the case on many farms - this equation is recommended:
FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK: HOW MUCH WATER WOULD
A DAIRY COW DRINK?
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute September 2016
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 2
WATER, Continued from Page 1Free water intake (kg/d) = -60.2 + 1.43 x Milk + 0.064 x NaK + 0.83 x DM% + 0.54 x TMP + 0.08 x DIM
In this equation, Milk is milk yield (kg/d) and DIM is days in milk. This equation contains milk yield as a proxy for dry matter intake which makes sense given the strong relationship between the two. About 63% of the variation
in water intake is explained by this equation, so it’s not as good as the one that uses a measure of feed intake, but it still provides reasonably accurate predictions. For many situations, this prediction equation may be most useful because it is driven by inputs that are easily measured on most farms – milk yield, dietary Na, K, and dry matter percent, average ambient
temperature, and days in milk.
Going forward, we need to use these two new equations to better predict drinking water consumption by dairy cattle. Having a good estimate of water intake should always be the first step in putting together a successful feeding program!
Corn silage harvest for NY dairies will soon be in full swing. Some farms are already harvesting in southern parts of the state. The status of this year’s corn crop is highly dependent on location. Large areas of the Northeast have suffered from a lack of rainfall, limiting hay and corn yields.
Since rainfall varied across the state and within regions, corn development also ranges widely. It’s important to know the status of your fi elds ahead of chopping time. Plan to either hand-sample or chop guard rows to determine whole plant moisture status. In general, assuming the crop is not severely drought-stressed and has a developed ear, aim for 32-35% whole plant dry matter content at harvest.
Using mean daily temperature is a good way to track the development of your corn silage crop. Growing degree-days (GDD) for corn are calculated by subtracting 50°F from the mean daily temperature.
Research by Bill Cox showed that an average of 1,262 GDD were needed for 96-100 day relative maturity hybrids to progress from planting to silk/tasseling. Another 760 GDDs were needed to go from silking to harvest moisture (approximately 32% dry matter). An average of 2,022 cumulative GDDs were required to go from planting to harvest moisture.
July and August temperatures in Chazy have been above normal. The fi rst fi elds at the Institute were planted on May 10. Based on cumulative GDDs at the
Miner Institute weather station and using 15-day forecasted daily high and low temperatures, the fi elds would be predicted to reach harvest moisture on Sept. 6 (see inset graph). If you have easy access to nearby weather station data or track weather at your farm, GDDs are a good way to track your corn’s development.
While tracking GDDs is a useful indicator of harvest timing, there’s no substitute
for getting out in the fi eld and checking fi rsthand. Start monitoring whole plant dry matter after full dent and when a visible milkline is present. In general, 1/3 to 1/2 milkline stage is recommended. Depending on the growing environment and hybrid, milkline stage may not be a good predictor of whole plant moisture. If corn is severely drought stressed and doesn’t have an ear, you should still aim for 32-36% dry matter at harvest.
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 3
CORN SILAGE MATURITYThis gets so old: Reminding farmers to check dry matters on corn to be chopped for silage, and not to start until it’s at the proper dry matter. (Note “dry matter”, not “maturity”, because the dry matter content of the crop can vary widely at the same visual level of maturity, infl uenced by hybrid and weather conditions.) But as long as we continue to see corn silage analyses with under-30% dry matter, and recently-fi lled silos leaking effl uent, we’ll continue to harp on this (seemingly) simple but critical factor. Fact, not opinion: Corn silage at 33-35% dry matter has higher yield, more grain per ton and per acre, and greater milk production potential than corn chopped
at a lower DM content. And 30% DM is not the “gold standard” for corn silage in spite of what you might read elsewhere. Corn will burn up a point or two of dry matter during fermentation, and a dry matter check on a sample consisting of a few (or a hundred) stalks will usually be a point or two higher than the actual DM of the entire fi eld. (Don’t ask why because we don’t quite know—it just is.) Therefore, to wind up with 33% DM corn silage coming out of the silo, begin harvest when a fresh-chopped sample tests 35-36% DM.
With continued increased use of silage processors we occasionally see the recommendation that corn silage
harvest be delayed until 40% whole plant DM. This may make biological sense since stalk quality doesn’t usually start to decline until sometime after 40% DM, and delaying harvest (assuming the crop hasn’t been killed by frost or disease) will result in higher starch content. But in spite of this we’re hesitant to recommend that farmers wait this long. What if your crop is at 40% DM, you’re ready to head for the fi eld with your chopper, and you get two days of rain that keeps you out of the fi eld for a week? Or worse yet, a killing frost followed shortly thereafter by that big rain. Ugh. ─ E.T.
MEASURING FORAGE DRY MATTER: NIX THE NUKEI recently saw an article on measuring the dry matter content of forages using a microwave. In the interest of space I’ve condensed the recommended steps: Comments in italics.
1. Determine net weight of sample by weighing empty container, using a scale measuring in grams.
2. Spread forage evenly in the container at a maximum depth of 1 ½ “, leaving a small depression in the middle. Place a glass of water in the microwave. DO NOT use the microwave in your kitchen for drying forage samples.
3. Put container of forage in the microwave and nuke on high for 2 minutes for silage, 1 minute for hay. Adjust times accordingly since microwaves vary in performance.
4. Remove forage sample and weigh, adjusting for container weight.
5. Mix forage, rotate container, return to microwave and repeat until forage weight decreases by no more than 1 gram from the previous weighing. If the forage starts to char or burn, use the previously recorded weight. You wondered what the glass of water was for — now you know: To put out the fi re.
Sheesh…what a lot of work! Nix the nuke and use Honest Ev’s easy instructions for drying forage samples:
1. Buy a Koster Tester (or a similar forced hot air dryer) but not the optional spring scale — use a postal scale calibrated in grams.
2. Connect the dryer to a timer, weight out 100 grams of forage, then determine approximately how long it takes to dry a sample. Drying times should vary little between samples of a specifi c crop (fresh-chopped corn, for example).
3. Set the timer for the expected drying time and turn on the dryer. Confi rm fi nal DM by drying for few more minutes, subtracting about 1% point from the fi nal reading to account for the humidity in the air since a forced hot air dryer never quite dries the sample to 100% DM.
─ E.T.
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 4
PROTECTING YOUR FARM FROM THE INSIDE OUT
Biosecurity plans can help prevent diseases from being brought onto your farm as well as prevent the spread of diseases within your farm. Having a biosecurity plan in place on your farm is important to reduce your farm’s risk of an infectious disease outbreak that could cost you both time and money.
The three main areas to focus on for biosecurity include isolation, traffi c control, and sanitation.
Isolation: Any new animals coming onto the farm should be quarantined in an area away from animals currently on the farm for at least 30 days to prevent the introduction of any new diseases that the animal may be carrying. Testing new animals for BVD virus, Johne’s disease, and mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, and Mycoplasma bovis and purchasing animals from farms that have a known effective vaccination program can also reduce your risk of introducing a new disease to your herd. Sick animals on your farm should also be isolated in a separate pen away from healthy animals to prevent the spread of disease and separate equipment should be used to care for these animals to avoid cross-contamination.
Traffi c control: Anyone and anything that comes onto the farm has the potential to bring in a new disease. Make sure that employees or other visitors to the farm wear new boots, wash their existing boots, or wear disposable plastic boots as well as wear clean clothing when coming onto the farm. Vehicles also have a high potential for carrying a disease, so limit where people are able to drive and have farm vehicles to use on the farm that don’t leave the farm. Make sure the milk hauler can easily drive in and out of the farm without driving in areas where cattle are moved. Also be careful when transporting animals to and from the farm in a livestock trailer. If an outside person is picking up an animal in their trailer, make sure that there is a specifi ed pick-up location away from the rest of the herd and don’t let them enter the barn. Use separate equipment for feed and manure to avoid contaminating the feed as this is a high risk for the spread of diseases such as salmonellosis and Johne’s disease. Clearly mark areas that visitors are not allowed to enter, and designate a clear location for visitors to check in where a record can be kept of who comes on and off the farm. Keep calves and fresh cows in low traffi c areas as these
are the animals most susceptible to disease.
Sanitation: Equipment used on the farm should be disinfected if it has the potential for contamination. This includes milking equipment, feeding equipment, and manure handling equipment. Sanitize any loaner equipment or equipment that has left the farm such as trucks and trailers.
Vaccination is another critical component of biosecurity. Working with your veterinarian to create a vaccination program for your herd is essential to protecting your animals against diseases commonly found in your herd, or diseases that have a high likelihood of transmission. Identifying the cause of death of all animals is also important to create a strategic plan so more animals do not die from the same cause.
Biosecurity is important when it comes to preventing disease on your farm. It’s also one of the cheapest and most effi cient ways of controlling disease, but can only work if you have a clear and easy-to-follow biosecurity plan that’s understood and followed by all employees.
“No other occupation is so vitally important to the human race,
nor requires such a wide range of practical and technical knowledge,
as farming.”─ William H. Miner, 1915
Visit the Heart's Delight Farm
Heritage Exhibit at Miner Institute!Open May-October
Weekdays from 9 am to 3 pm
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 5
Getting cows pregnant in a timely manner can have huge economic consequences on a dairy farm. A 2006 University of Florida study estimated that factors such as lactation number, milk yield, persistency of lactation, milk and feed prices, and breeding and replacement decisions all impact the value of pregnancy. In 2006 the average value of a new pregnancy was $274 and the average cost of pregnancy loss was $555. New pregnancies are associated with greater value when daily milk yields and milk price are increased, heifer replacement cost is increased, persistency of lactation is reduced, while probability of pregnancy, opportunity to breed cows and probability of involuntary culling are all decreased.
Even with all the technology available today to help identify cows in estrus, some cows don’t show heat or just aren’t cycling normally, even after a synchronization of ovulation protocol has been followed. It’s estimated that 65 to 70% of lactating cows remain open after an AI service, making successful identifi cation of non-pregnant cows and resynchronization for subsequent breedings a critical aspect of reproductive management for optimal performance and profi tability.
D32 Resynch is a common resynchronization protocol used by many dairy herds in the U.S. With this protocol, Ovsynch (GnRH – 7d – PGF2α – 56h – GnRH – 16 to 20h – AI) is initiated 32±3 days after TAI service, regardless of pregnancy status. Seven days after initiation of the protocol (before PGF2α injection) cows are checked for pregnancies and only non-pregnant cows continue
with the protocol. It’s important that only non-pregnant cows continue on the protocol because giving a prostaglandin (PGF2α) shot to a cow in early pregnancy will cause her to abort. This protocol is great for intensively managed herds; when cows are enrolled weekly it guarantees an interbreeding interval of no more than 45d.
A major determinant of Resynch TAI successfully resulting in pregnancy is the presence of a functional corpus luteum (CL) at the time of PGF2α injection. Cows without a functional CL have about a 50% reduction in fertility when compared to cows with a functional CL because they do not have the right mix of hormones to be ready for breeding at the end of the Ovsynch protocol. Progesterone supplementation during Ovsynch and presynchronization with a GnRH injection prior to the initiation of Ovsynch have been shown to be effective methods for improving fertility in cows without a CL at the initiation of Ovsynch because both improve the hormonal environment necessary for the cow to be ready for AI.
A study recently published in the Journal of Dairy Science by researchers from Cornell University and Dairy Health and Management Services LLC in Lowville, NY compared reproductive performance using two different resynchronization protocols, both based off of D32 Resynch. They compared reproductive performance of cows without a functional CL, managed either with the Ovsynch protocol and progesterone supplementation using a CIDR device or presynchronized with GnRH 7 days before Ovsynch.
Their results suggest that at the time of the PGF2α injection of Resynch, by using ultrasound it’s possible to identify a subgroup of cows that are expected to have poor fertility at TAI because they have no CL tissue, the CL is <15 mm in diameter, or they are cystic. Additionally, they found that enrolling these cows in either the CIDR protocol or the presynchronization with GnRH protocol increased their fertility so that it was comparable to cows that had a CL of ≥ 15 mm, a functional CL, at the initiation of Resynch. Overall reproductive performance was similar for both protocols.
Farms that are looking to improve fertility in their Resynch program have several options. Many veterinarians and other staff trained to check for pregnancies already use ultrasound. Challenge whoever does your farm’s pregnancy check to identify cows that fall into each of the following groups: pregnant, non-pregnant with a functional CL (larger than 15 mm), and non-pregnant without a functional CL (no CL tissue, CL smaller than 15 mm, or cystic). Cows that fall into the non-pregnant without a functional CL group can then be enrolled into one of the protocols evaluated in the study. Cows that are non-pregnant but have functional CL tissue can be enrolled in the regular D32 Resynch protocol. If ultrasound isn’t available or is inconvenient, consider enrolling cows that seem to have problems breeding back into one of the study protocols and hopefully that will get them back in synch.
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 6
KEEPING AHEAD OF THE CURVE ON FORAGE GRASSES
Dairy farmers in the Northeastern U.S. are fortunate that some faculty at Cornell University including Jerry and Debbie Cherney are interested in the use of cool-season forage grasses seeded with alfalfa. A recent article in Cornell’s “What’s Cropping Up” newsletter summarized the university’s current research and recommendations for seeding meadow fescue with alfalfa.
Meadow fescue has been grown in Europe and Canada for many years, but until recently was mostly ignored in the U.S. because in pure stands of relatively low yield. But it has higher fi ber digestibility than tall fescue and most other forage grasses. When seeded at 4 to 5 lbs per acre with 12-14 lbs of alfalfa, meadow fescue adds to total yield while not being competitive to the alfalfa. Current research will evaluate meadow fescue as a companion grass for reduced-lignin alfalfa varieties. So far the results are encouraging.
Like most forage grasses, meadow fescue grows best in deep, fertile soils with good organic matter. It doesn’t have
much drought resistance, behaving more like timothy under limited moisture conditions. Like tall fescue it will tolerate fairly wet soils but (unlike reed canarygrass) meadow fescue won’t tolerate fl ooding. We’re still learning about variety selection, which will be an important factor in its success. There are a dozen or so named varieties sold in the U.S. and Canada, plus some “variety not stated” seed. As with seed corn silage blends, farmers should avoid unnamed seed sources because of potential differences in performance. If you buy a “variety-not-stated” meadow fescue and are happy with it, buying a similar product from the same dealer the following year may yield very different results. Find a variety with proven performance, and stick with it. We’ll continue to follow Cornell University variety trial results, and as more information on variety performance becomes available will pass this information on to our readers. ─ Ev Thomas [email protected]
10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Guest speakers include: Dr. Paul Fricke,
University of Wisconsin-Madison Bill Zweigbaum, Farm Credit East
Admission is free, lunch is available for $5
SAVE THE DATE: DAIRY DAY 2016
IS DEC. 13!
NOBODY ASKED MY OPINION, BUT…
…if a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
…life is all about perspective: The sinking of the Titanic was a miracle to the lobsters in the ship's kitchen.
…as if we needed another reason, recent research in England involving 6800 men and women ages 50-89 found that sexually active people scored higher on cognitive tests. But does sex increase brain power, or are sexually active senior citizens smarter to begin with?
…speaking of senior citizens and on a personal note: On Sept. 3, 1966 Katy Chapman said “I do” and became The Bride.You do the math. We’ve been married long enough that she no longer refers to me as her “fi rst husband.”
─ Ev Thomas
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 7
WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE FARMThings have been so busy at the farm we’ve barely had time to sit down and write a Farm Report article! We are wrapping up the summer, fi nishing our second cutting of grass, third of alfalfa, and saying goodbye to our Summer Experience in Farm Management students. The summer fl ew by with them here and we’re sad to see them go but know that all four of them are on to do great things within the animal industry.
We got lucky with our students this summer. All four of the girls worked well together, which was especially apparent at the Clinton County Fair at the end of July. The students were each in charge of their own heifer to halter train, clean and clip for the show in addition to their regular work schedules. This made very long days for them! They took turns sleeping at the fair to care for the animals there, while the other students were back at the barn working on herd health and calves. Even though everyone was sweaty and overtired the girls all managed with ease, caring for
the heifers and working with them, along with milking the two cows that Anna and I showed. They all communicated well with one another and took initiative to work with each other’s animals when not everyone was able to be there each night. Everything ran smoothly the entire week and our heifers did awesomely in the show! We got a fi rst, three seconds and an honorable mention in the junior champion class.
Watching them help each other during the fair got me thinking just how crucial it is to have good communication in the barn, as well as in any workplace.
When everyone is communicating well, much can get accomplished.
The students did so much in such a short period of time with us. They were able to fi t in some tours to local farms, get AI certifi ed and help with the Holstein Association classifi er as he scored our herd. They learned how he scores cows and were able to pick up on some areas of scoring that we are working to improve on within the herd. I found it very helpful to learn
from the classifi er while the show type characteristics were still fresh in my mind from the fair. I had never shown a cow prior to this so it was a wonderful fi rst-time experience for me to witness the behind-the-scenes work. I learned a lot working alongside the students this summer and I know they learned a lot with us too. If nothing else, they learned how well they could work as a team, a very useful skill as they continue on in their professional careers.
DAIRY SCHOLAR PROGRAM AT MINER INSTITUTE(formerly known as Advanced Dairy Management)
Learn more about the Dairy Scholar Program on Page 10.
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 8
CORN SILAGE 2016Well, it’s that time of year…dog days of summer, hot humid, misty foggy mornings all foretell corn harvest season. Hopefully your area has received enough rain to mature the crop and fi ll ears. Here in Chazy we have been fortunate enough to receive suffi cient rains and the corn looks good.
Frequently we are asked the question, At what particle length to chop; depending on whether it is conventional, BMR or shredlage? My default reply is still ¾” (19 mm) for chopping with consideration of proper kernel processing. If harvesting shredlage, the suggestion from other experts is about 22-25 mm or just under 1”.
Key points to remember:
1. Proper DM content: 32-35% is ideal.
2. Kernel processing: smash all kernels. If they only crack and break into distinct pieces that means they are getting dry and tough and MAY escape rumen fermentation.
3. Packing density: 50 lbs DM/cubic foot; certainly greater than 45 lbs. A good visual is to only see tire treads in the packed silage, NO tire ruts visible as you add layers. If you are seeing tire ruts, wait to add another layer of forage.
4. Particle length. Note this is #4 for me…. Better to err on the shorter side than longer particle length in order to optimize packing density especially if the fresh forage is getting dry. Cannot pack dry forage (dry being >35% and certainly anything near 40%) I still argue that corn silage is your energy feed, optimize digestion of starch fi rst then fi ber. Relying on corn fi ber for chew factor, pef is last resort for me. Why? Corn fi ber is a less effective stimulator of rumination than straw or clean late harvest grass hay. One pound of straw signifi cantly increases rumination time without requiring longer eating time/bunk space time. Get the energy out of your corn silage fi rst.
Above are a few visuals to use in the fi eld as you or your custom operator is chopping. I know we all have great intentions of monitoring chop length at harvest, but it requires scales, calculator and time…. Hopefully you at least have access to a Penn State Separator with 4 tiers (19 mm, 8 mm, 4 mm and pan) These are some photos to compare with.
Short answer, optimize kernel processing, pack density and maximize the amount of forage on the 8 mm sieve. Best wishes to all for a safe, successful harvest.
Kernels plucked from the 8 mm and 4 mm screen of these silages A, B and C top to bottom. All kernels are broken or smashed to some extent. The smaller the better, especially if the kernel fragments are dry and hard.
Conventional chop, kernel processed (kp) at about 1-3 mm. Notice short chop length, almost nothing on top screen; percentage of materials on the 4 tiers, respectively (2%, 72%, 16%, 10%, pef of 90). Physical effective factor (pef) or percent of material >4mm. Key point; no long sortable forage but still 74% >8 mm; a lot of effective fi ber, easy to ingest.
Silage A
Conventional chop, but too long, too much >19 mm on top screen (14%, 45%, 22%, 18%). Even with 14% long material, only 59% is >8 mm with a pef value of only 82%. This is long forage, with OK kernel processing. (Sorry no CSPS scores to verify, just visual; see other photo). This forage is likely to require more time to eat, is sortable and may have lower rumen digestion of starch because of large kernel fragments. Need a fecal starch analysis, though even that does not account for possible hind gut fermentation of starch which may lead us to over-estimate what was fermented in the rumen.
Silage B
Shredlage, only 8% long forage (8%, 63%, 16%, 14% pef = 86). Excellent kernel processing, 71% forage >8 mm for suffi cient physical effective fi ber score of 86. Still some large sortable material on top but this silage looks nice and should provide good rumen fermentation of starch and suffi cient stimulation of rumination.
Silage C
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 9
ON-THE-FLY ADJUSTMENT OF CORN PLANT DRY MATTER
CONTENT
EGO TRIPPING
Farmers can adjust the dry matter content of corn chopped for silage “on the fl y” simply by raising or lowering chop height. Of course chopping higher will reduce yield, something few sane farmers will want to do given the low yields due to the very dry summer in much of the Northeast. Chopping much lower than normal may also result in an unfortunate encounter with a rock that should have been picked but wasn’t. (In California many farmers with pool-table fl at fi elds — and no rocks — chop as low as 2-3 inches.) Another factor to consider, especially in heavily manured fi elds, is that the nitrates in corn stalks are higher in the bottom of the plant. Nitrates are seldom a problem in fully fermented silages but it’s better to be safe than sorry.
─ E.T.
A recent paper on research citations in professional journals confi rms what many women (and most wives) have known all along: In general, men aren’t encumbered by a crushing lack of self-worth. The study examined the citations by authors to support the various facts and assertions in their research papers. The authors (three women and two men) discovered that male researchers to a disproportionate degree back up their assertions with an appeal to a higher authority: Themselves, specifi cally their previous research. There’s a self-serving reason for this: The more times a researcher’s work is cited in professional journals (such as the Journal of Dairy Science), the more the indication that the person is “somebody” in his or her fi eld.
The authors evaluated a huge database of 1.5 million research papers dating from the late 1700s, containing over 8 million citations. About 10% of the citations were authors citing their own research. Over the years male researchers cited their own papers 56% more often than did women. Has the increasing awareness of women’s workplace issues (i.e. the glass ceiling) had an impact? Not so you’d notice. In papers published during the most recent 20 years (1991-2011) men “self-cited” 70% more often. In fact, the two male co-authors of the paper cited themselves at three times the rate of the three women. In defense of men — and you knew this was coming, didn’t you? — they publish more research papers, particularly early in their careers, and since men publish more papers there’s more opportunity to self-cite. ─ E.T.
DID YOU MISS THE AUGUST 10 PREMIERE OF HEART'S DELIGHT:
THE STORY OF WILLIAM H. MINER?
Join us for another showing! Wednesday, Sept. 28 at 7 pm
Strand Theatre, 25 Brinkerhoff St. Plattsburgh, NY
Tickets available The Strand Center Box Offi ce and strandcenter.org
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 10
DAIRY SCHOLAR PROGRAMUnique opportunity for dairy science undergrads to participate in the Advanced Dairy Management
program at Miner Institute in Chazy, NY
The 15 credit residency program is divided into fi ve courses: • Farm Management Practicum - Critical thinking skills are developed to evaluate dairy farm systems through a
combination of classroom lectures, work experience in our 350-cow dairy barn and farm visits. Field trips provide opportunities for high impact learning through exposure to a bigger, broader view of dairy farming. Interactions with producers and ag business professionals throughout the semester encourage students to become infl uential leaders in the dairy industry.
• Crop Production – Lectures focus on annual cropping and nutrient management decisions made by dairy farmers in the Northeast. Students are involved in the step-by-step process used for planning the agronomy program at Miner Institute.
• Dairy Cattle Nutrition – Lectures and laboratory time focus on nutrients and their use by cattle for productive functions. Impact of forage and feed quality on ration balancing for dairy cows are discussed using computer models. Case studies are also used to illustrate concepts.
• Agricultural Research Experience - Lectures about the research process, basic statistics and experimental design provide students with skills to develop a research hypothesis and design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Statistical methods are explored through modules where data associated with dairy management and crops production is collected, summarized and presented.
• Agriculture Seminar – Weekly class addresses “hot topics” in agriculture through student presentations of journal articles used to enhance speaking and organizational skills in addition to adding to the range of topics discussed during the semester.
The Dairy Scholar Program takes place in the spring semester from mid-January to mid-May.
For more information, contact Wanda Emerich at [email protected] or call 518-846-7121, ext. 117
or visit http://whminer.org/education/advanced-dairy-managment.php
DAIRY SCHOLAR PROGRAMThe Advanced Dairy Management program was initially developed in 2000 as a 15 credit course for juniors and seniors at the University of Vermont. We have also had students from the University of Connecticut, University of Massachusetts, and Morrisville State College participate in the program. We are excited to cast our net to a broader population of dairy science/animal science/ag business students who are eager to spend a “semester abroad” in Chazy, New York. The small class size allows students to interact intimately with our faculty and staff. A fl exible course schedule enables our students to take advantage of many learning opportunities beyond the scope of the classroom without missing any valuable class time. For more information about this program, email Wanda Emerich at [email protected] or call 518-846-7121, ext. 117. Visit http://whminer.org/education/advanced-dairy-management.php to watch a video about the program and download an application.
Help us spread the word about this exciting opportunity. The deadline for applications for the spring 2017 semes-ter is October 14.
The William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Farm Report September 2016 ─ 11
A TALE OF TWO MOMMIESIt was the best of times. It soon became the worst of times. This spring, we eagerly awaited the arrival of our foal crop. An established broodmare was the fi rst to foal with a beautiful colt that was carbon copy of the foal she produced last year. The rest of the foals were extraordinarily special: 1. A foal resulting from embryo transfer, our second successful attempt so we were quite excited; 2. A foal resulting from the use of frozen semen, the fi rst foal to be sired by UVM Springfi eld since his death in 2013; and 3. The fi rst foal out of our beautiful home-bred mare, HD Valhalla or Hallie as she was known in the barn. All mares foaled without incident.
Hallie’s foal was particularly special with a unique face marking and being less than 75 pounds at birth, he soon donned the nickname, Peanut. Hallie appeared to be content in her role as a mother and enjoyed the extra time she spent outdoors with the other broodmares. All was well until Hallie became colicky one evening while our summer students were watching another mare foal. The local vet was called and referred us immediately to the Vermont Large Animal Clinic (VLAC) in Milton, VT, where surgery could be performed if needed. At VLAC, they determined that Hallie’s colic was the result of a lipoma strangulating some of her intestines. The prognosis was poor for Hallie and ultimately we chose to have her euthanized. We had transported Peanut to VLAC with Hallie and the sight of the orphaned 84-pound foal alone in a big box stall was heartbreaking. There was no time to mourn the loss of the mare as we were faced with the challenges associated with the care of an orphaned one-week old foal. Acquiring mare milk replacer and implementing a two hour feeding schedule was the least of our worries. We had managed horses in the past that had been orphaned as foals and they were behaviorally very challenging to work with as adult horses since they had not been taught by their dam how to “behave like a horse.” In addition, we knew that with fi ve summer interns, the instinct to coddle the undersized Peanut
was going to be strong. Even though the intentions may be well-meaning, the outcome a few years from now would be a pushy, ill-mannered horse. One of the vet’s at VLAC suggested the use of a nurse mare, however an initial search for a potential candidate was fruitless.
Although VLAC had never attempted it, they had heard of using a protocol for inducing lactation in a nonlactating mare and subsequent adoption of a foal. Without any other options, we identifi ed a Morgan mare, UVM Kimberly or Kimmy, who had recently been leased to Miner Institute as a potential broodmare. She had previously raised a foal and was selected because of her demeanor and interest in other foals on the farm. The protocol for induction of lactation was to administer 3 cc of progesterone/estrogen combination (150 mg progesterone and 10 mg estradiol) intramuscularly once per day for 7 days; and 10 cc (500 mg) Sulpiride intramuscularly twice per day for 10 days. Sulpiride is an antipsychotic drug used in humans that has a helpful side-effect of increasing plasma levels of prolactin, a protein hormone that enables mammals to produce milk. Peanut was placed in the stall next to Kimmy, where they could see each other and touch through the stall bars. He trained to drinking the milk replacer from a pail easily and was fed milk replacer every two hours by a dedicated staff with many volunteers outside our horse barn staff taking shifts to help out. By Day 3 of the protocol, Kimmy started to produce small amounts of milk that we were able to obtain 5 minutes after giving her ¼ cc of oxytocin (to promote milk letdown) using a hand-held, manual milking pump.
Once Kimmy started to produce milk, we milked her 5 times per day to increase her production levels. Each milking was measured and as the sample size increased, we began analyzing the milk composition to compare to the other lactating mares in our herd. On Day 7 of the protocol, we determined that although Kimmy wasn’t producing enough milk to sustain Peanut’s growth, she was making
enough to satisfy his urges to nurse and we could supplement additional milk replacer to meet his nutritional needs.
The fi nal step of the process was for Kimmy to accept Peanut as her own foal. On a daily basis, we had taken Peanut to a scale to monitor his weight. Each day, Kimmy became more and more anxious each time he left the stall next to her. This was very encouraging and indicated she was bonding to him. On the day of the adoption, Kimmy was particularly frantic when he left to be weighed. Although we probably didn’t need to, we chose to follow the protocol for adoption and mildly tranquilized Kimmy under the supervision of a local vet and also gave her a shot of prostaglandin, which in horses will cause mild contractions of the uterus… which we hoped would simulate birth and encourage her bonding with the foal. Five minutes after the contractions started, we brought Peanut into her stall. Kimmy nickered and Peanut successfully began nursing. As you can imagine, there was a collective sigh of relief, and yes, a few joyful tears were shed. We continued to supplement his diet with milk at much longer intervals and eventually transitioned him to milk replacer pellets fed ad lib. We have monitored the growth of all the foals on a weekly basis to compare Peanut’s growth rates to his counterparts. We have also been sampling milk from all four of our lactating mares on a weekly basis and will be able to evaluate milk composition from an induced lactation compared to regular lactations. Look for an update with this data in a future Farm Report.
Providing a nurse mare for an orphan foal should be considered a viable option for horse breeders. Peanut won the lottery…one week after losing his dam, he was blessed with another mare to care for him and teach him how to be a horse. I am optimistic that Our Tale of Two Mommies (sorry Charles Dickens) ends with a season of light and spring of hope.
