The Rural Voice, 1987-05, Page 55St: IF DIVISION
Silo construction
& silo wall restoration
<BUTLER>
(01
SYSTEMS DEALER
Livestock Equipment Cattle, Hog
Feed Mixers & Truck Scales
Silo unloaders
Acni oivissOl
Hanover: George Bauman 519-364-5226 (after 5 p.m.)
Wingham: Glen Walker 519-357-3729
Head Office: Elmira 519-669-1655
CO.OP
Now —
A supplement to
help turn dry cows
into fresh cows.
New CO-OP calving supplement helps your
Cows meet Crucial changes— from 2 weeks
before to 4 weeks atter calving.
CO-OP Calving Supplement is a unique
concept in dairy teed management. It is
the first single supplement designed to
bndge the penod from late pregnancy to
Lull milk production. It contains all me
elements needed to tum a dry cow into a
fresh cow with minimum feeding related
problems.
New CO-OP Calving Supplement can
make re-entry to the milking herd easier in
three ways.
1. FEWER POST—CALVING PROBLEMS.
Feeding Calving Supplement to dry cows
helps to prepare them for calving and to
recover more quickly. For example. this
new supplement is formulated to help
reduce the incidence of retained
placentas.
ALSO AVAILABLE
WITH
j5
2. SMOOTHER FEED CHANGE. This
high-energy CO-OP supplement is ex-
ceptionally palatable. It i5 designed to
encourage higher feeding rates eanter
in cows who will soon be on a full
milking ration.
3 FEWER METABOLIC DISORDERS.
CO-OP Calving Supplement also helps
t0 reduce the incidence Of milk fever
and ketosis—IwO important disorders
related t0 changes in nutritional require-
ments.
Good forage and CO-OP Calving Supple-
ment is all a cow needs to ease her through
me largest change in her year. Get full
details now from your CO-OP
Representative.
North America s
largest reed Research
facility on the leading
edge of technologically
advanced. cost
efficient feeds
ElMwD00 Meat* atpenielpatirp Co-oP"'IM" "'aupfrout ona"io.
PORT ELGIN
MILDMAY
MEAFORO
AUBURN
CHESLEY
OWEN SOUND
WIARTON
t �rlyr ,gin` ,t
.41 ;� t,IIa• Ilrtk
363-2017 LISTOWEL 291.4040
832.2077 DUNDALK 923.2014
367.2657 DURHAM 369.2415
538.1050 KINCARDINE 396.3451
526.7262 THORNBURY 599-2626
363.3030 BELGRAVE 357.2711
376-5110 MARKDALE 986.2031
534.1840
54 THE RURAL VOICE
ADVICE
HARD RED WHEAT:
THE BOTTOM LINE
Since 1984, farmers in Westem
Ontario have been attempting to grow
hard red wheat. Last year, many far-
mers tried hard red spring wheat for the
first time. Hard red wheat was to be
the new mortgage -lifter, and the price
would jump to between $7 and $11 a
bushel. But the price didn't go that
high, and for some, yields did not pan
out because of heavy disease pressure.
In Canada we have a two -price
marketing system for wheat: a domes-
tic price set by the federal government
to range between $5 and $7 a bushel
and a price set by the export market.
Growing hard red wheat in Ontario
is an attempt to replace some of the
Western Canadian wheat coming into
Ontario for breadmaking and to take
advantage of the higher domestic price.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, de-
pending on where you live, we don't
have a well -adapted, high -yielding hard
red wheat variety in Ontario. The only
hard red winter wheat registered in
Ontario is Monopol, a German vari-
ety. It has had difficulty meeting the
quality requirements for bread wheat
and is used only as a five per cent
blend and sometimes in batters for
onion rings and crackers.
The hard red spring varieties, main-
ly Katepewa and Columbus (available
from Western Canada), plus Max,
another German cultivar, all experi-
enced poor growing conditions in
1986.
This past fall in Perth County,
production data was collected from five
Katepewa and six Monopol growers.
These are the conclusions from the
small study groups.
1. If all production costs are in-
cluded, a yield of approximately 35
bushels an acre is required to break
even on Katepewa. I estimate this to
be close to the Perth County average
last year. Average costs on a per acre
basis were: materials $76, machinery
$67, and other costs $30; total $173.
The average yield in the group was 41
bushels, but this varied by more than
40 per cent from top to bottom, and
this was a very small sample group.
2. Monopol production costs paral-
lelled those of corn. Average per acre