Search Results for: extension

January 4, 2012 By admin

Mobile Slaughter Unit Meetings January 10-12

PRESS RELEASE: January 4, 2012
Contact: Betsy Hodge, 315-379-9192, or local Cornell Cooperative Extension

Mobile Slaughter Unit Meetings Set for January 10-12 in NNY

The North Country Economic Development Project includes a provision for developing a mobile USDA-approved slaughter unit. The North Country Pastured Poultry Group has organized a series of meetings to talk about the possibilities for this unit. North Country Pastured LLC, managed by Renee Smith of Sugar Hill Farm in DeKalb, has purchased such a unit for poultry and custom work with third-party certification for organic, humanely treated and animal welfare approved status.

[Continue Reading]

Klebsiella Sources, Transmission & Control Points

Northern NY Agricultural Development Program 2006-2007 Project Report

Project Leaders
Quality Milk Production Services, Cornell University: Ruth N. Zadoks, DVM, and Gary J. Bennett; DVM

Collaborator
Everett D. Thomas, William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute, Chazy, NY

Cooperating Producers
John Kingston, Maple View Farms, Canton, NY
Vincent Bilow, Bilow Dairy Farm, Malone, NY
Steve Coutier, Dairy Farm Manager, Miner Institute, Chazy, NY

Background
Mastitis is the most common and costly disease of dairy cattle. Losses due to mastitis have been estimated at $200 per cow per year in the USA. The magnitude of losses depends in part on the organism causing mastitis. Judging by producer testimonials and culture results from our diagnostic laboratory, Klebsiella is an increasingly important cause of mastitis in New York. Its economic impact can be devastating because vaccines and antimicrobial treatment have limited impact on severity of mastitis, milk loss, death and culling due to Klebsiella. Prevention is the main control strategy for Klebsiella mastitis.

For many years, sawdust and shavings were considered the most important sources of Klebsiella and use of Klebsiella-free bedding was thought to be adequate for prevention of mastitis. In recent years, however, Klebsiella mastitis has become an issue in herds that use other bedding materials such as recycled manure or even sand bedding. In previous work, we showed that on average 80% of healthy adult dairy cattle shed Klebsiella in their feces during the summer. Fecal contamination of the farm environment, feed, water and animals is common, and it seems likely that exposure to Klebsiella could result from contact with sources other than bedding.

In this project, sources and transmission routes of Klebsiella mastitis on dairy farms were determined, so that critical control points for prevention could be identified. Initially, the presence of Klebsiella in feed and water, manure and bedding was evaluated. Early results suggested that animal hygiene may be an important indicator of the risk of exposure to Klebsiella. In the second half of the project, we specifically measured the association between hygiene scores and the presence of Klebsiella on the animals’ legs and teats.

We also evaluated the potential role of feed crops as source of Klebsiella. This work enabled us to pinpoint sources that harbor disease-causing Klebsiella species and that are critical points in the control of Klebsiella mastitis.

The second goal of this project was to educate dairy producers and farm advisors about sources, transmission and control of Klebsiella mastitis. Using the research results, we produced a fact sheet on Klebsiella mastitis control for distribution to dairy producers, veterinarians and other farm advisors in Northern New York. In addition, information was and will continue to be disseminated through ongoing QMPS education and extension activities, including presentations at the Miner Dairy Days, the National Mastitis Council Meeting, producer meetings, and continuing education meetings for veterinarians and publication in the dairy press.

This project benefits dairy farmers, the dairy industry and dairy cows. Herds that are involved in the project received herd-specific results and management advice. A large audience of dairy farmers, veterinarians and students is reached through direct contact with QMPS staff, through publications in professional and scientific journals and through teaching and continuing education courses. The W. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute in Chazy, NY, is a partner in the project and will play an active role in dissemination of the results to producers and students.

The dairy industry as a whole and consumers of dairy products benefit from improved understanding of methods to control Klebsiella mastitis because they will contribute to improvement of production efficiency, milk quality, and shelf life of milk. Finally, dairy cows will benefit. Klebsiella mastitis is a painful and often fatal condition that has a strong negative impact on cow health and animal welfare. Every case that we can prevent may be a cow’s life saved.

Methods
In June, July, August and September 2007, feed, water and environmental samples were collected from farms in Clinton, Franklin and St. Lawrence County. This included samples from bedding (unused bedding, used bedding, and spots that were heavily soiled with leaked milk) and from alleyways. At the Miner Institute, samples from soil, corn, alfalfa, rumen content and feces were collected. In the other two counties, lower legs and teat ends of cows were sampled. Per visit, legs of 50 animals and teats of 50 different animals were sampled. Legs were sampled in lactating cow pens, whereas teats were sampled in the milking parlor. Teat ends were swabbed before and after pre-milking udder preparation. The preparation routine included use of teat disinfectants based on peroxide or iodine. Animals that were sampled were also scored for cleanliness.

All samples were tested for presence of Klebsiella using culture media that we developed specifically for Klebsiella detection. The selective culture plates are not perfect, and other bacterial species may grow on them. Isolates that looked like Klebsiella were therefore tested with additional laboratory methods to determine whether they were really Klebsiella. For isolates from crops, soil, rumen content and feces, we used DNA sequencing and DNA fingerprinting to identify bacterial species and bacterial strains within species, respectively. This allowed us to determine which types of samples contain the type of Klebsiella that has the ability to cause mastitis in dairy cows.

RESULTS

Klebsiella in environmental samples
Across herds and samplings, two-thirds of samples from alleyways, feces, and bedding tested positive for Klebsiella. Bedding drenched in milk due was Klebsiella-positive in 75% of cases. Most water samples, except those collected from faucets rather than drinking troughs, were Klebsiella positive, i.e. 83% of samples. Detection of Klebsiella was less common in TMR, which was mostly collected from feed alleys after cows had been eating. Only 30% of TMR samples tested positive. These results show that alleyways and soiled drinking water are important sources of Klebsiella.

Klebsiella on cows’ legs and teats
Klebsiella was very common on legs: on average, 59% of animals tested positive. In Herd 1, animal hygiene scores, environmental hygiene and detection of Klebsiella on legs were similar for August and September (56% vs. 60% of legs). In Herd 2, animal and environmental hygiene were much better in September than August and drastic reduction in the proportion of legs testing positive for Klebsiella was observed (98% vs. 22% for August and September, respectively). Results for teats showed a similar pattern: in Herd 1, 54% of teats tested positive for Klebsiella before udder prep, and 22% tested positive after udder prep, with little difference between months. In Herd 2, all animals had Klebsiella on their teats before udder prep, and 74% of animals still tested positive after udder prep in August. In September, only 34% of animals had Klebsiella on teats before prep, and there was almost no Klebsiella left (6%) after prep. Before udder prep, cows with clean udders were as likely to have Klebsiella on their teats as cows with dirty udders. After udder prep, however, most Klebsiella was removed from clean udders, whereas dirty udders still had Klebsiella on them in many cases. Bacterial isolates from swabs and from clinical mastitis cases were compared. The proportion of K. pneumoniae and K. oxytoca in clinical mastitis cases was farm-specific, and mirrored the proportion of K. pneumoniae and K. oxytoca on teat. This means that Klebsiella on teats is a very likely source of Klebsiella mastitis, that teat hygiene is very important in mastitis prevention, and that pre-dip is not sufficient to eliminate Klebsiella from dirty udder..

Klebsiella in soil, crops and the rumen
Soil was collected in July, August and September. Klebsiella and Klebsiella-like organisms were detected 67% of corn plots and 57% of alfalfa plots that had received manure. Two of 3 alfalfa field plots that had not received manure for 50 years also tested positive. Based on DNA- sequencing, soil harbored four species of Klebsiella and Klebsiella-like organisms: K. oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, K. variicola, and R. planticola. Only the first two species are associated with mastitis. Klebsiella was isolated once from corn roots and once from alfalfa roots, but not from stems or leaves. In contrast, cultures from freshly cut corn, which was sampled just after harvest in September, showed heavy growth of Klebsiella. Of 10 corn varieties tested, 8 were positive for Klebsiella (80%). Most fecal samples (80%) and almost all rumen samples (95%) from cows at the Miner Institute contained Klebsiella. Almost all isolates from the rumen and feces were identified as K. pneumoniae based on DNA-sequencing results (93%), whereas almost all isolates from crops and soil were identified as one of the other species (87%). This implies that soil and crops are not important sources of mastitis-causing Klebsiella. Within many samples, multiple bacterial species could be found, and within a bacterial species, multiple strains could often be found within the sample.

Conclusions/Outcomes/Impacts
For years, wood-based bedding was seen as the most important cause of Klebsiella mastitis. Our earlier work on Klebsiella had shown that the bacteria are also very common in the feces of cows. This finding has been called a “paradigm shift” and raised two important questions: 1) does Klebsiella spread from the feces to the environment, so that the cows’ udders are at risk of Klebsiella mastitis; and 2) does Klebsiella in the gut come from feed crops? The NNY project has enabled us to answer these questions with a resounding “Yes” for question 1, and an almost as resounding “No” for question 2.

Farm soil and crops contain organisms that are closely related to Klebsiella, but rarely the type of Klebsiella that causes mastitis. Klebsiella-free crops or soils will not solve Klebsiella mastitis problems. The main source of Klebsiella in the cows’ rumen and gut is the constant intake with feed and, more importantly, drinking water that are contaminated with manure. Manure also contaminates bedding. Most used bedding contains Klebsiella, even if the bedding was originally Klebsiella-free. The real solution to Klebsiella mastitis lies in hygiene, particularly hygiene of alleys and holding pens. Most alleys and holding pens contain manure and Klebsiella. As cows walk around, manure gets onto their legs. It may also splash onto their udders. When cows lie down, Klebsiella may be transferred “from feet to teat”. Klebsiella on cows’ teats is only partially removed by pre-milking udder preparation, even when teat disinfectants are used. This means that cows are at risk of new Klebsiella infections in the barn as well as in the milking parlor.

Klebsiella mastitis is difficult or impossible to control with vaccination, antibiotic treatment or use of sand bedding alone. Cows contaminate their environment with Klebsiella, putting themselves at risk of mastitis. By keeping the cows and their environment clean, the risk of Klebsiella mastitis can be reduced. Hygiene of pens and alleyway is a critical control point in prevention of Klebsiella mastitis.

Outreach
1. Klebsiella Mastitis. Presentation at Miner Dairy Days by G. Bennet, November 2007.

2. Klebsiella Mastitis Prevention and Control – QMPS tri-fold for dairy producers, distributed in Northern New York through QMPS, CCE offices and veterinarians.

3. See list of reports and articles (will be made available on-line once published)

4. Press release by Kara Dunn, NNY ADP

5. QMPS veterinarians and technicians disseminate results through their on-farm consulting activities, and their education and extension activities for dairy producers, dairy veterinarians, and students of animal and veterinary science.

Next steps
Prevention is the most important component of mastitis control programs. The 2007 funding from the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program has enabled us to identify critical control points in prevention of Klebsiella mastitis (most importantly: pen, alley and animal hygiene). Despite producers’ best efforts to prevent mastitis, some cases will occur. In those cases, producers will try to save the cow through treatment. For some mastitis pathogens, it is known that specific characteristics of the cow and the bacteria affect chances of cure. This knowledge enables producers to select candidates for treatment as opposed to culling, and to choose an appropriate treatment duration. Knowledge of such risk factors is not available for Klebsiella or for its cousin, E. coli. The next step would therefore be to evaluate characteristiscs of cows and Klebsiella and E. coli strains that affect the chance of cure. Ideally, this is done in the context of a treatment trial. QMPS will conduct a coliform mastitis treatment trial in 2008, which provides a unique opportunity to evaluate factors affecting cure on New York dairies.

Acknowledgments
The project was sponsored by the Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, and by Quality Milk Production Services, a program within the Animal Health Diagnostic Center, which is a partnership between the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University. Research on Klebsiella mastitis in New York also receives funding from the Multi-State Mastitis Research Project USDA CSREES NE-1028 (formerly NE-1009), and from the Collaborative Research in Preclinical and Clinical Sciences Program through the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University.

Reports and/or articles in which the results of this project have already been published.

1. Klebsiella mastitis – beyond bedding. Northeast Dairy Business, January 2008.

2. Klebsiella – Not By Bedding Alone. R. Zadoks, M. Munoz, H. Griffiths, G. Bennett and Y. Schukken. NMC 47th Annual Meeting Proceedings, January 2008.

3. Klebsiella In Feces Of Dairy Cattle – Where Does It Come From? R. Zadoks, H. Griffiths, M. Munoz, G. Bennett, E. Thomas, and Y. Schukken. NMC 47th Annual Meeting Proceedings, January 2008.

4. Klebsiella – From Feet to Teat. Submitted to Hoard’s Dairyman.

5. Cleanliness Scores as Indicator of Klebsiella Exposure in Dairy Cows. M. A. Munoz, G. J. Bennett, C. Ahlström, H. M. Griffiths, Y. H. Schukken and R. N. Zadoks. Manuscript in preparation for Journal of Dairy Science.

6. Comparison of Klebsiella and Raoultella isolates from dairy farm soil, crops and animals. H. M. Griffiths, E. D. Thomas, M. A. Munoz, C. Ahlström, G. J. Bennett, and R. N. Zadoks. Short communication in preparation for Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

For More Information
Quality Milk Production Services, Cornell University, Ithaca NY : Ruth N. Zadoks, DVM, PhD, Senior Research Associate, 607-255-8202, rz26@cornell.edu

Quality Milk Production Services, Cornell University Veterinary Science Building, Canton NY: Gary J. Bennett, DVM, Senior Extension Veterinarian, 315-379-3930, gjb9@cornell.edu

Hid-N-Pines Cold Hardy Grapes Project

The following research was conducted by Northern NY grape grower Richard Lamoy at his Hid-In-Pines vineyard, Morrisonville, NY.

Better Wine Grape Quality using Combined Vine Training And Canopy Management FNE09-662 by Richard Lamoy

Project Leader
Richard Lamoy, 456 Soper Street Morrisonville, NY 12962, 518-643-0006, richL@charter.net

Goals
The goal of the project was to see if it is possible to improve the quality of wine grapes by using a combination of training systems and canopy management to match the varieties. The objective was to use three existing varieties of wine grapes – Frontenac, Chardonel and Leon Millot and train them to both Vertical Shoot Positioning and 4 Arm Kniffen. Within those systems they were to be compared using Shoot Thinning, Cluster Thinning and use a control or check. Data results will compare yield and quality as measured by visual inspection of the fruit and sugar and acid measurements close to and at harvest.

Farm profile
The farm name is Hid-In-Pines Farm located at 456 Soper Street in Morrisonville, NY. In the past it operated as a fresh vegetable and fruit farm as well as a small dairy. The farm is currently transitioning to a vineyard and soon a winery. The farm is an offshoot of Lamoy’s Produce and they are both part of the same physical farm of approximately 90 acres. The vineyard consists of three acres of cold hardy wine grapes. I am in the process of converting existing outbuildings into the new farm winery and am in the process of licensing as a Farm Winery and expect to open the winery in the next year.

Participants
The technical advisor on this project was Kevin Iungerman who is the Cornell Cooperative Extension Northeast NY Commercial Fruit Program Specialist. Others, while not direct paid consultants, who visited and provided some collaborative feedback in their specialties, were:

Justine Vanden Heuvel – Cornell University – Assistant Professor Viticulture Wayne Wilcox – Cornell University – Professor Plant Pathology – Viticulture Tim Martinson – Cornell University – Senior Viticulture Extension Associate Anna Katharine Mansfield – Cornell University – Assistant Professor of Enology Chris Gerling- Cornell University- Enology Extension Associate

Project activities
The project began by examining the vines in the early spring after an unusually cold winter event. The temperatures were substantially colder than in the past fifteen years.Normal lows have ben in the -10 to -12F range and this year we reached -22F two times. The results of the inspection indicated that the variety Frontenac was fine with very good bud survival. The Leon Millot was generally in good shape with an acceptable bud survival. The Chardonel suffered terribly with dieback to the snowline at the time of the cold event to about 15 inches above ground. That eliminated Chardonel from being useful in the trial. After consultation with the grant supervisor, a decision was made to switch that variety to LaCrosse which had good bud survival and was in an acceptable layout for the trial. Because of its trailing tendencies it was decided to be trialed using Top Wire Cordon and 4 Arm Kniffen. Each system has a panel of each treatment (4 vines). By way of example Frontenac trained to VSP has 4 vines between posts (a panel rep) each for the Shoot Thinned, Cluster Thinned and the control or Check.

Work began in the vineyard doing preliminary dormant season vine pruning keeping in mind the training systems. The number of retained nodes (buds) was based on making bud cuts to determine bud mortality rates. The desired retained nodes were set at a base of 5 nodes per foot of canopy for Frontenac, 6 nodes per foot for Leon Millot and 6 nodes per foot for LaCrosse. The retained nodes were counted and recorded after pruning. Keep in mind that the foot canopy includes two levels with the 4 arm Kniffen and the number of nodes was divided between these two levels. For example, the Frontenac used 3 nodes per foot on the top wire and two nodes per foot on the bottom fruiting wire.

Shortly after spring pruning, the training systems were established. The Frontenac and Leon Millot had all previously been trained to Vertical Shoot Positioning (VSP). At pruning, two long canes near the trunk at the fruiting wire were retained. These were trained up to the top wire and tied down to it and thus the four arms were established. Some canes were a bit short to allow for a fully spread canopy on the top wire, so extra nodes were retained on the lower wire in those cases. The LaCrosse had been previously trained for 4 Arm Kniffen. It was decided to cut off the lower cordon arms to convert to Top Wire Cordon (TWC) instead of VSP. The top wire cordons were more completely formed in general leading to that decision.

The types of training systems used:
Vertical Shoot Positioning
Top Wire Cordon (TWC)

In Season Pruning and Training
As the growing season progressed the vines were trained and maintained to the appropriate systems. Times needed for these operations were recorded and later tabulated for each treatment panel. These were listed as Pass One, Pass Two, etc.

The VSP shoots were trained between the catch wires. As the shoots grew over the top wire by a few feet, they were hedged off to just above the top wire.

The vines trained to the 4 Arm Kniffen were allowed to grow the shoots as long as they got. They were trained to droop down while straightening them out (combed). Any shoots that interfered with the tires of the tractor running over them for normal vineyard operations were cut off at the ground (skirted) to prevent the shoots from being broken off.

The Top Wire Cordon (TWC) vines were kept tied to the top wire and the new shoots were trained downward and combed to open the canopy up. If the vines touched the ground as above, they were skirted back.

Note: Not all of the top wire cordons were well formed with the LaCrosse and adjustments were made to them to try to increase node count to the desired number. This surely influenced the results and because of this should be replicated again to improve the reliability of results.

At the appropriate time shoot thinning and cluster thinning were implemented aiming for the desired number of shoots and clusters per foot and recorded. Shoot thinning was aimed at a final shoot count of 5 shoots per row foot (combined wires) for both all treatments. All treatments, including the Check were appropriately hedged or skirted and leaf pulling took place to expose the fruit.

Pictures were taken as the year progressed to help document the results of these operations.

Sampling and Testing
Samples were taken of the fruit beginning in mid September to monitor ripening and potential differences in the fruit quality. Three samples were taken for each treatment approximately ten days apart. A final sample was taken at harvest to gather the final fruit quality sample. Fifty grapes were taken randomly from each panel of each variety. Each sampling period took readings of eighteen (18) individual samples. Each sample of the first test tested the sugar (brix) and acid (pH) and was recorded. The following samples, as well as the final sample, tested for brix, pH and TA (titratable or total acidity). All the samples were recorded in a spreadsheet as part of the final results and is available. Notes were also taken of fruit quality and canopy density as they became apparent.

The sample berries were crushed and the juice extracted for testing. The brix was measured using a handheld refractometer. The pH was measured using a portable electronic pH meter after calibrating. The TA was measured using a Hanna Instruments 84102 Mini Titrator with digital readout after calibration.

Harvest
Each variety of grapes was all harvested the same day so the results would be consistent. Frontenac was harvested first on October 15, 2009. LaCrosse was harvested October 17, 2009 and the Leon Millot was harvested on October 21, 2009.

Every vine of every treatment was picked into its own grape lug. They were individually weighed in pounds to the tenth pound and recorded. As the vines were picked, the harvested clusters were counted and recorded. These two measurements allowed for average vine and cluster weights for each treatment. It also makes it possible to give acre equivalent yields based on vine and row spacing.

Results
There was a lot of information gathered from this trial. In general I can say that based on a single year’s data collection, it certainly is possible to influence and increase the quality of wine grapes. I will list the information here in a condensed format for the results of the trial. After that I will try to interpret some of these results and what it can mean. Like any other study, the validity of the data would be enhanced with further testing in future years. Because of this I will be seeking an extension to the grant for further testing.

Frontenac
The VSP required more time for training and summer pruning than the 4 Arm Kniffen. It took three large hedgings to get the VSP down to a manageable size to not shade the fruit. The 4 Arm Kniffen stayed visibly more open with the fruit more exposed for ripening, reducing the need for pruning and leaf pulling.

To sum up the results of the Frontenac grapes, the highest quality grapes were obtained using 4 Arm Kniffen and Shoot Thinning. Final test results were a brix of 21.6, pH of 3.19 and a TA of 14 g/L. This was the best combination and at a yield of 28.3 pounds per vine average would give a yield of about 9.78 tons. This results in a great increase in the yields over of any of the VSP treatments and a 67% yield increase over VSP Shoot Thinned. In this case we obtained two thirds more yield of a higher quality product.

For comparison I assign a value of $1000 per ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 21, $900 for brix between 19.5 and 21, $800 over 18 but under 19.5 and $500 for a brix of under 18. Actual price differences will vary from area to area and variety to variety, but this shows how price drops for lower sugar and higher acids.

Following is a summary of comparative treatments:

Frontenac
VSP Shoot Thinned 17.0 4
AK Shoot Thinned 28.3

VSP Cluster Thinned 18.4 4
AK Cluster Thinned 29.1

VSP Check 24.4 4
AK Check 29.2

5.87 9.78

6.34 10.05

8.41 10.07

$800 $1000

$800 $900

$500 $800

$4696 $9780

$5072 $9045

$4205 $8056

AvgYield lbs Tons/Acre

brix pH TA 19.2 3.04 16.7 21.6 3.19 14.0

18.7 3.02 16.1 20.0 3.14 15.2

15.0 2.95 17.4 18.8 3.04 15.3

Price Value/Acre
The differences in this case between Shoot Thinned and Cluster Thinned are small and but demonstrates a big difference between VSP and 4 Arm Kniffen.

Leon Millot
The Leon Millot grapes were in two adjacent rows, with one having VSP training and the other the 4 Arm Kniffen. The training was implemented the same as the Frontenac, training the extra two arms from long center canes retained at dormant pruning. A higher than normal node count was retained at dormant pruning to allow for a forty percent dead primary bud count. Differences between the two systems was not as pronounced as with the Frontenac, but still existed. The 4 Arm Kniffen required less summer pruning and training time than did the VSP. The canopy was also visibly less dense than the VSP and in a normal year would have enabled at least one less spraying.

For comparison I assign a value of $1000 per ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 20, $800 over 18 but under 20 and $500 for a brix of under 18. Actual price differences will vary from area to area and variety to variety, but this shows how price drops for lower sugar and higher acids.

Following is a summary of comparative treatments:

VSP Shoot Thinned 8.3 4 AK Shoot Thinned 9.0

VSP Cluster Thinned 6.1 4 AK Cluster Thinned 7.5

VSP Control 5.4 4 AK Control 8.6

2.85 3.11

2.11 2.57

1.87 2.97

Price Value/Acre $2280

Yield lbs Tons/Acre

brix pH TA 19.0 3.14 9.1 $800 20.0 3.18 8.3 $1000

19.0 3.13 9.3 $800 20.0 3.26 7.0 $1000

19.2 3.12 9.2 $800 18.6 3.21 7.4 $800

$3110

$1688 $2570

$1496 $2376

Although the yield differences aren’t significant. The quality in general was also better resulting in almost a forty percent increase in value per acre for the 4 Arm Kniffen grapes over the VSP. Shoot thinning with this variety in this case resulted in definite yield and quality increases over cluster thinning.

Leon Millot Grapes Before Picking- VSP Shoot Thinned

as striking with the Leon Millot, they are still

LaCrosse
The LaCrosse vines were trained to Top Wire Cordon (TWC) and 4 Arm Kniffen. The TWC vines were not all well formed so some of the yields and results may have been skewed. A follow-up year of testing should be done with better developed vines for more reliable results. Also the east side of the 4 Arm Kniffen LaCrosse were shaded for an hour or so in the morning which resulted in visibly more dew staying on the vines later in the day. A further year’s testing could include reducing the shading by removing a few trees.

For LaCrosse- a white grape -I assign a value of $1000 per ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 18, $800 over 15 but under 18 and $500 for a brix of under 15. Actual price differences will vary from area to area and variety to variety, but this shows how price drops for lower sugar and higher acids.

Following is a summary of comparative treatments:

TWC Shoot Thinned 8.0 4 AK Shoot Thinned* 15.2

TWC Cluster Thinned14.7 4 AK Cluster Thinned 17.41

TWC Control 8.4 4 AK Control 19.8

2.75 5.25

5.08 5.99

2.88 6.84

9.8 $800 11.1 $800

9.5 $800 7.8 $800

9.7 $1000 9.5 $800

$2200 $4200

$4064 $4792

$2880 $5472

Yield lbs Tons/Acre

brix pH 17.0 3.13 15.4.6 3.08

17.0 3.11 15.6 3.20

18.0 3.11 15.6 3.21

TA Price Value/Acre

*This panel of vines was shaded in September and October probably lowering potential sugars and possibly increasing expected acid levels.

In the LaCrosse because not all the vines were well formed and there was some shading, the results are less meaningful, but in general they demonstrated a yield increase with four cordons than two. Quality was alright, but brix levels were low due to the cool growing conditions. Acid levels were good in spite of this demonstrating that they were ripe, just low in sugar. That difference is easier to adjust for than high acid, so the value is good.

LABOR The following table summarizes the time involved in the labor of training and tying the vines of each treatment during the growing season. It logs the actual times needed for each treatment. By gathering this information it takes any extra labor needed for any treatment into consideration. By way of example, the Frontenac VSP panel took an hour and 15 minutes per 4 vines to keep the canopy managed for this type of treatment. The Frontenac 4 Arm Kniffen took a total of 32 minutes or 43 minutes less per 4 vines. At a density of 691 vines per acre, the time savings would be 123 hours of labor per acre. This is a considerable time saving for one treatment over another.

Labor Date

Hours: Minutes

Variety

Frontenac Frontenac Frontenac Frontenac Frontenac Frontenac Leon Millot Leon Millot Leon Millot Leon Millot Leon Millot Leon Millot LaCrosse LaCrosse LaCrosse LaCrosse LaCrosse

LaCrosse

1:15 1:35 1:29 0:35 0:52 0:55 1:42 2:00 1:49 1:13 1:32 1:34 0:29 0:30 0:26 1:15 1:15

0:50

Labor

Training System

VSP ** VSP ** VSP ** 4AK*** 4AK*** 4AK*** VSP VSP VSP 4AK*** 4AK*** 4AK*** TWC* TWC* TWC* 4AK*** 4AK***

4AK***

2009

Canopy Panel Management Number

Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two Control Three Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two Control Three Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two Control Three Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two Control Three Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two Control Three Shoot Thinned One Cluster Thinned Two

Control Three

Total Time

Conditions
There are certain conditions that were encountered this year that may have caused some deviation in expected results. First of these was the unusual cold spell we had in January of this year. That affected the condition of the vines, with somewhat reduced bud survival. As a result some of the vines may have had less bearing shoots on them than expected- notably the LaCrosse and Leon Millot. Like was previously mentioned, Chardonel was supposed to be the third variety, but was switched with the LaCrosse because it was so badly damaged from the cold.

Also a factor this year was the cold, cloudy weather this spring, summer and fall. We ran about 200 degree days short of normal, logging about 2200 growing degree days instead of 2400 which is more typical. July and August were very wet months which dictated an extra spraying for disease over what might have been needed.

The trial vineyard encountered some shading from the native trees on the east side of the LaCrosse. I believe this led to lower brix and higher acid conditions than would be expected without the shading. This only affected the vines adversely in September and October, but this year those were cloudy and cool months compounding the problem of ripening. I will be seeking to remove or trim the trees which were causing the shading.

Economics
In general it is certainly possible to increase the value of the wine grapes both through increased yields and improved quality. Furthermore net farm income could be increased by getting higher returns for the crop along with diminished labor requirement. Some of the treatments required substantially less labor input during the growing season as well as harvest labor.

Using Frontenac by example see the following:

Frontenac

VSP Shoot Thinned 4 AK Shoot Thinned

Labor Price/T Value/A Hours/$10×172*

Net

$2546 $8777

$2349 $7555

$1653 $6479

Tons/Acre 5.87 9.78

VSP Cluster Thinned 4 AK Cluster Thinned 10.05

VSP Control 8.41 4 AK Control 10.07

$800 $4696 $1000 $9780

$800 $5072 $900 $9045

$500 $4205 $800 $8056

$2150 $1003

$2723 $1490

$2551 $1576

6.34

*Spacing provides approximately 688 vines / Acre divided by 4 = 172 We can see in this example that even though the cluster thinned treatment of 4 Arm Kniffen and even the Control gave a greater yield, the greatest return was obtained by the Cluster thinned 4AK because of reduced labor needs. Should these grapes be made into wine instead of selling as grapes, there is the potential for even greater returns.

Assessment
This trial project shows that there is great potential to maximize yield, increase quality and net farm profit. Further testing should be done to validate these findings. More years of data and expanded replications would be of value. I see this project as validating the concept and the additional testing would give reliability to the findings. In the future it would probably be worth expanding the number of training systems, and varieties this work was done with. It may be possible to reliably predict the best combination of variety, training system and canopy management type. Armed with that information, it would increase the net farm income and sustainability of adopting farmers.

Adoption
At this point, I would advise caution in adoption of the results of this project trial. It certainly would value anyone considering adopting this to give it a try on their individual farm, possibly in a side by side comparison. The results may vary from farm to farm based on soil types, climate and inputs. After further testing on my vineyard, I will probably adopt these concepts to maximize farm income.

Outreach
I see the outreach part of this project as a continuing process and hope to continue the dissemination of the results for the next year or more. This current year the outreach consisted of several methods of dissemination.

Onsite Field Meetings.
A tour and field meeting was held at the vineyard on July 17 and was attended by a number of local vineyard owners. Joining the group was Justine Vanden Heuvel and Wayne Wilcox both from Cornell. Justine reviewed the trial and made a few suggestions for canopy management. Mr. Wilcox checked the vineyard for disease since he is the Plant Pathologist expert at Cornell. He noted the lack of any disease pressure in spite of the rainy season. The following day the group and an expanded crowd attended a field session at the Willsboro Cold Hardy Grape Trial after visiting the UVM NE1020 Grape Trial in Burlington Vt. Justine gave a talk about Canopy Management such as I have implemented in this project. Wayne Wilcox discussed the value of canopy management in the control of plant disease pressure to minimize the number and amount of needed sprays. I showed the vineyard sprayer developed for the Willsboro trial based on my own I made and alluded to the value of such a sprayer in being able to control pests with a minimal spray program.

The next meeting was held here on August 15, 2009 and had approximately 15 attendees on hand. Notices were sent out through e-mail, the local press after contacting the local Extension office and online as posted through the UVM Cold Climate site at http://pss.uvm.edu/grape/ .An overall summary of the project was given out in a binder along with a site map showing the layout of the newly planted trial expansion and a PowerPoint slide show. The meeting covered the trial and its layout. We conducted a walking tour and included a discussion of what was being done, studied and compared. I went over data collection and basic training and canopy management.

A follow-up field meeting was held on September 10 and included a group from the Lake Champlain Grape Grower’s Association. We did a walking tour of the vineyard and I showed the vines involved in the trial. At that point the differences in Training Systems and Canopy Management were becoming very apparent. A number of attendees expressed an interest in adopting the training system used after seeing preliminary results. I cautioned that the results are very preliminary and not replicated yet so if they adopt the system, they should do so with guarded caution. We covered the test equipment being used to gather the sample data which I shared with the group at a later meeting.

There were eight volunteers that showed up to help with harvest in the larger vineyard. A number of them were growers with their own vineyards, so I showed them the different Training Systems and Canopy Management treatments of this trial. Many expressed an interest in the systems and asked to be sent the final data.

Networking with Extension
Cooperative Extension personnel were used wherever I could to help with the dissemination of data. Amy Ivy of Clinton County Extension helped write press releases. As stated above joint meetings and involvement of Extension or Cornell personnel were used whenever possible. Also visiting the vineyard was Tim Martinson, Cornell Head Extension Associate of Viticulture. He invited me to a meeting held November 12 in Burlington Vt as part of a grant for studying ways Extension may help promote Cold Hardy Grapes. I made a presentation to the group of the results I obtained from this grant study. Head extension personnel from a number of states were there as well as industry leaders and representatives. Also visiting and discussing ways to improve grape quality for cold hardy grapes were Anna Katharine Mansfield and Chris Gerling. Chris is from Extension Viticulture and Anna Katharine is form the Enology Dept of Cornell.

Printed Material
As stated above, a pamphlet binder was handed out at a meeting which included initial planning, trellising and training in the trial along with a PowerPoint Presentation. A copy of this was also brought to the Clinton County Cooperative Extension office and added to their file of material available to interested parties. It is also available to other offices upon request.

A summary of this study is being prepared and will be available to all interested as either printed material or in an Excel Spreadsheet format. The summary data is also being sent to interested parties involved in the Burlington Vt Cold Climate Grape Conference since a number of attendees requested the information.

News Media
With a press release from Kara Dunn, publicist for NY Farm Viability and others, a number of articles appeared in print and online. They were aimed at getting general information out to the public and improving exposure and public interest in cold hardy grapes. Some of the articles were in

Plattsburgh Press-Republican http://www.pressrepublican.com/sunday/local_story_284001033.html , Adirondack Harvest Newsletter http://www.adirondackharvest.com/files/Summer-2009-low-res.pdf Denton Publications

http://www.denpubs.com/Articles-c-2009-10-15-63579.113116- sub8589.113116_North_Country_becoming_wine_country_for_local_grape_growers.ht ml#nogo AdirondackAlmanack.com http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2009/10/north-country-grown-wines-win- awards.html Strictly Business Monthly http://www.sbmonthly.com/magazine/2009/10/Growing%20Wine%20Grapes%20in%20t he%20North%20Country.php and Northern NY Agricultural Development site https://www.nnyagdev.org/press-09-30- 09-b.htm.

An article has also been submitted to the American Agriculturist magazine to be run for January 2010.

Through this publicity I hope to develop a greater understanding from the public in this valuable crop and the future of it in our economy. This interest will help promote good will and increased sales to all wineries and vineyards and help foster an increased sustainability.

Report Summary
The purpose of this project was to determine if it is possible to obtain better wine grape quality using a combination of vine training systems and canopy management. Several vine varieties were used in the project and were trained to two training systems each. They were further divided into two canopy management systems of Shoot thinning and Cluster thinning and also included a check or control in the project. Data was collected to give comparisons of each combination for each variety. The data included yield and comparative quality measurements through sugar and acid levels. By comparing these numbers obtained in the data collection, it is reasonably certain that an improvement in quality is possible through these reproducible systems. Furthermore it is possible to also increase the yields as well as quality.

Richard Lamoy, November 20.2009

Report Summary
The purpose of this project was to determine if it is possible to obtain better wine grape quality using a combination of vine training systems and canopy management. Several vine varieties were used in the project and were trained to two training systems each. They were further divided into two canopy management systems of Shoot thinning and Cluster thinning and also included a check or control in the project. Data was collected to give comparisons of each combination for each variety. The data included yield and comparative quality measurements through sugar and acid levels. Based on this one year’s data collection, it appears that an improvement in quality and yield is possible through these reproducible systems. A continuation of this study would help verify the results.

It was my observations based on this one year of experience that the Vertical Shoot Positioning System was the most time consuming of the ones trialed requiring about 40 percent more time per 4 vine panel. On my medium vigor site, the vines on VSP appeared to have too much vigor for the space and crop they carried making it hard to maintain an orderly open growth habit. It made the fruit more shaded and crowded which lead to some rot and unripe fruit. It appears that the 4 Arm Kniffen has an edge in this respect by having twice as much cordon length to spread the same or slightly higher number of shoots on to keep the shoot length down allowing for a more orderly, open and easier to maintain canopy. That translated into a slightly to moderately higher yield (up to 60 percent), higher quality fruit ( see tables on pages 8, 9, and 10)and less required spray material. The Top Wire Cordon was only used with the LaCrosse and while the fruit quality obtained was higher, the yield in general was lower. Further study should be done with this system due to environmental affects this year.

Based on my positive results this year, I will be looking at repeating this work in the future. If the further data supports these results I will be adopting and incorporating these training systems to increase farm viability and prosperity.

Richard Lamoy, November 20.2009

Research Projects: Alfalfa

Alfalfa Crop Production, Brown Root Rot and Winter Survival
. Cutting Height Effect on Yield & Quality of Alfalfa in NNY, 2005-06
. Are Manure and Established Alfalfa a Good Mix? 2007
. Can sulfur addition increase alfalfa yield & quality in NNY? 2009
. Alfalfa Winter Survival in NNY, 2015-2016
. Testing Alfalfa Varieties & Germplasm for Winter Survival in NNY, 2015 2014
, Click here for research results on Brown Root Rot in alfalfa

Alfalfa-Grass: Maximizing These Combination Crops
Maximizing Both Alfalfa and Grass Quality of Mixtures: 2021
2020 Report 2019 2018 2017
Alfalfa-Grass for Maximum Economic Return in NNY, 2015
Improving NNY Alfalfa-Grass Mix Quality, 2013-15
Pre- and Post-Harvest Evaluation of Alfalfa-Grass in Mixed Stands for Maximizing Economic Return, 2014

Alfalfa Snout Beetle (ASB)
. Alfalfa Snout Beetle Life Cycle and Management

ASB and Biocontrol Nematode Science for Pest Management
. Persistent Bicontrol Nematodes for Pest Management
. Persistent Biocontrol Nematode Protocols Development Timeline
. Persistent Biocontrol Nematode Application Techniques
. Resources: Instructional Manuals & Videos
. NNYADP Persistent Biocontrol Nematodes Year-to-Year Reports
. Are Persistent Biocontrol Nematodes an Economic Benefit for Your NNY Farm and Where to Get Them
. January 2021: “The True Cost of Alfalfa Snout Beetle on Your Farm”

Biocontrol Nematodes and Berry Crops
2013-2014 Biological Control of Black Vine Weevil/Strawberry Root Weevil Complex in Northern NY Strawberries and Other Berries with NY Native Persistent Biocontrol Nematodes

*NNYADP ASB-resistance trials blossoming in a Cornell greenhouse. Photo: Julie L. Hansen*

Breeding ASB-Resistant Alfalfa
2017, 2014-2015 Report: Tables Photos
2012-2014 Report: P h otos, Table 2: 2013 and 2014 yields,
2014: Yields/% ASB-resistance table
2012 report

NNY Dairy Research Projects

Farmer-driven Northern New York Agricultural Development Program small grants projects support research and technical assistance to help NNY dairy farmers be more efficient, sustainable and profitable. Click on the links below for project results.

Most Recent Projects:
The Effectiveness of Fans for Heat Stress Abatement in Lactating Dairy Cows in NNY: A comparison of animal well-being and economic impact before and after fan installation on a dairy farm in NNY, 2023

2022: Economic Feasibility Case Study of Co-Digestion of Manure and Food Waste on NNY Dairy Farms

2022: Investigating Kefir as a Probiotic Supplement: Growth, Diarrhea Incidence, Antibiotic Use in Holstein Dairy Calves

DAIRY BUSINESS:
BENCHMARKING, LABOR/WORKFORCE and MILKER E-TRAINING
Benchmarking: A Power Tool in Your Dairy Business Management Toolbox

Pilot Project: Developing E-Learning Training Systems for Dairy Workers
2022 Article: Dairy farm worker milking equipment training with an e-learning system by Alanis, V; Recker, W; Ospina, P; Heuwieser, W; Virkler, P
2021: Dairy Workforce: E-Learning Training Systems as an Educational Approach for Dairy Farm Workers and The Effect on Milk Quality: Phase III
2020: E-learning Training Systems as an Educational Approach for Dairy Farm Workers on Milk Quality and Parlor Performance – Effect of Milking Equipment on Teat End Health: Phase II
2019: Assessing the Effect of E-Learning Training Systems on Milk Quality and Parlor Performance

DAIRY CALF RESEARCH
2022: Investigating Kefir as a Probiotic Supplement: Growth, Diarrhea Incidence, Antibiotic Use in Holstein Dairy Calves