Back to Ag Home Page 

County Home Page

Previous Issues:

Feb 2003

Jan 2003

Nov 2002

Oct 2002

Sept 2002

Jul/Aug 2002

Jun 2002

May 2002

Apr 2002

Mar 2002

Jan 2002

 IN THIS ISSUE... FEBRUARY 2002

New Resistant Weed Found

The war on weeds appears to be a never-ending battle! Ohio State University weed scientists have discovered another herbicide-resistant weed, making it the eighth confirmed weed species in the state that has gotten the upper hand on chemicals.

Smooth pigweed, commonly found throughout Ohio, shows resistance to aceto- lactase synthase-inhibitor herbicides, commonly referred to as ALS-inhibitors. This herbicide group kills weeds by preventing the plants from producing essential amino acids that are needed for proper growth and development.

Jeff Stachler, an Ohio State weed scientist, said that smooth pigweed shows resistance to some commonly applied ALS-inhibitors, such as Harmony GT and Python. "Harmony GT and Python applied post-emergence at two times the labeled rate provided only 20 and 4 percent control of this smooth pigweed population, respectively," said Stachler.

Smooth pigweed joins the ranks of other Ohio ALS-resistant weeds such as shattercane, giant ragweed, common ragweed, marestail, Powell amaranth, common cocklebur and waterhemp.

Despite the growing list, Stachler said smooth pigweed might not create headaches for growers if they take the necessary management steps. "Smooth pigweed is really not a big problem for most farmers compared to common ragweed, giant ragweed, or common lambsquarters," he said. "It's those growers who are using ALS-herbicides every year or every other year that will most likely be affected."

While most ALS-resistant weeds exhibit complete cross-resistance (meaning they have developed resistance to products within the same herbicide mode of action), smooth pigweed sets itself apart in that it only exhibits partial cross-resistance. This population is still sensitive to ALS-inhibitors such as Pursuit, Raptor, Lightning, and Scepter.

"This is positive news for growers," said Stachler. "At least there may be some options with ALS-inhibitors when controlling smooth pigweed. However, continued use of these ALS-inhibitors will cause problems down the road, so be sure to use non-ALS herbicides as often as possible to effectively control smooth pigweed and other weeds.

back to top
 

Ag Alternatives for the Future

In last month's newsletter we discussed the need for Ohio Farm managers to think about alternatives – alternative enterprises, alternative marketing systems, or alternative production systems. Each month we will use this space to stimulate thought, discussion, and probably some "cussing" about potential alternatives for Carroll, Harrison, and Jefferson County farm families.

Raspberries - They are soft, sweet, and full of profit potential in Ohio. Raspberry production has increased dramatically in Ohio over the past several years, but production hasn't even come close to meeting demand. In 2001, Ohio farmers grew 300,000 lbs of raspberries on 245 acres. Several types of raspberries are currently being grown in Ohio, including: black raspberries, fall red raspberries, and other varieties such as golden and purple raspberries.

Our climate, soil types, and most importantly our market potential will support raspberry production in Carroll, Harrison, and Jefferson Counties.

If you'd like to learn more about the potential for growing raspberries on the farm, plan on attending an on-farm workshop on "Getting in the Berry Business" scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 from 12:00 - 4:00 p.m. in Monroe County. There is no cost to participate in the workshop, but registration is required. For a brochure which contains a map, registration form and agenda, contact your local Extension office.

Organic Grain Production – Growing the same crop utilizing a different production system, such as organic production, is another example of an alternative. The organic foods market has grown more than 20% in each of the past five years. This is one of the few food markets which has experienced such growth.

If you'd like to learn about transitioning some corn acreage into an organic production system, you may want to attend the "Introduction to Producing Organic Grain" workshop scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 2002. The workshop will be held during the day in Springfield and during the evening in Bowling Green. While the location of this workshop is far from our three counties, Mike is planning to attend the daytime workshop and would be glad to have one or more of you "ride shotgun"! See the attached brochure for details.

back to top
 

Editor's Note: From time to time we will include in this newsletter short agricultural law articles developed by OSU Extension Legal Educator Peggy Kirk Hall. These articles are not intended to serve as legal advice, rather they are intended to  provide general education about legal issues which affect farm operations. Always be sure to consult your attorney for specific legal advice for your situation.

Property:  Boundary Disputes

Who decides the location of a property boundary if surveyors disagree on the exact location?

For most boundary disputes, Ohio case law states that the ultimate determination of the location of a boundary line is an "issue of fact" that must be decided by a judge or jury in a legal action to "quiet title." In a quiet title action, each property owner must submit evidence of the location of the boundary line to judge or jury. An important determining factor would be the results of a survey, but where two surveyors disagree on the proper location, additional evidence would be necessary. Such evidence could include the testimony of the surveyors, old deeds or plat maps, and testimony about the property's histories and how the properly owners have regarded the property line in the past. The judge or jury must then weigh all of the evidence and decide the actual location of the property line.

Ohio law also creates a procedure by which adjoining landowners may agree on the location of a property line. The written agreement, if property executed and filed with the county recorder, establishes the boundary line and is binding upon future owners of the properties.

See Section 5301.21 of the Ohio Revised Code.

back to top
 

Beekeeping Workshop

The 24th Annual Beekeeping Workshop will be held on Saturday, March 2, 2002 at OARDC in Wooster from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. For a complete agenda and registration flyer, contact your local Extension office.

back to top
 

Reproduction:  How is Ohio Doing?

The short answer to this question is "Not very good, Odie!" This answer is based on the analysis that we did of the reproductive performance of all Ohio Holstein herds on test with DHI Cooperative Inc. of Powell, Ohio. All types of tests (e.g. regular, official, etc.) were included but herds that did not report breedings were excluded from the analysis.

Reproductive performance as a function of Heat Detection Rate

Table 1 reports the average reproductive performance when herds were grouped in quartiles based on heat detection rate (HDR). The top quartile of herds had an HDR of 60%, more than twice that of the bottom quartile. Herds with high HDR had 40 less days at first breeding, but lower percent first service conception. As a result, high HDR herds were open for 38 less days.

Heat detection rate is a very important factor in the overall reproductive efficiency. HDR affects days to conception by its direct effect on days to first breeding, by its indirect effect on days to first estrus, and by its direct effect on estrous interval. A good expert benchmark for HDR is 70 to 75%. Even the top quartile of Ohio herds did not achieve this result.

Table 1. Reproduction performance by quartile of Heat Detection Rate (Ohio, 1997).

In Table 2, we sorted and grouped herds into quartiles based on first service conception rate (FSCR). The top quartile herds had a FSCR exceeding 75%, far greater than the 32% of the last quartile herds. But the top "conception rate (CR)" herds were less able at detecting heats: 39% HDR, or eight percent units lower than the fourth quartile herds. Cows in the top CR herds were first bred an average of 20 days later than cows in the bottom quartile. Consequently, in spite of having a FSCR 2.4 times greater, the top 25% CR herds averaged only 10 less days open than the bottom CR herds. 

Table 2. Reproduction performance by quartile of First Service Conception Rate (Ohio, 1997).

The end result: days open

The average number of days open (DO) is the reproductive parameter with the largest economic impact on dairy farm profitability. In a final analysis, we ranked herds from best to worst for average number of days open (Table 3). The top ‘breeders' had an average of 118 days open, nearly 60 days less than the bottom ‘breeders'. The 118 day average for the top quartile is somewhat higher than expected. This average translates to an expected 118 + 280 = 398 days between calvings (or a 13.1 months calving interval). An expert benchmark would be in the 110 to 115 day range.

Table 3. Reproduction performance by quartile of Days Open (Ohio, 1997).

Quartile	Heat Detection (%)	DIM 1st Bred	S/C	% 1st Conception	Days Open
1	52.6	81.6	1.72	56.2	118.0
2	45.6	89.7	1.86	52.5	138.8
3	40.8	97.8	1.95	50.2	155.2
4	35.0	115.1	2.04	49.1	187.9

The cost of reproduction (or lack thereof)

It has been suggested that each additional day open over and above 100 days results in a lost income of $2.00 to $2.50 per cow for each additional DO. With an average of 150 days open, Ohio herds would incur a loss of $100 to $125 per cow per year due to sub-optimal reproduction. 

We verified these figures using a computer simulation of herd reproduction and production. Our results showed an estimated loss of 3.07 lbs of milk per day of production life from the sub-optimal reproduction. At $13/cwt, this equates to $145 of lost gross income per cow per year. Assuming variable costs of $5/cwt, Ohio's optimal production would result in reduced net income estimated at $80/cow/year.

What can we do to improve reproduction?

Future articles will (1) provide you with ways to improve heat detection efficiency in your herd, 
(2) explain how untrasonography can be used, especially with those cows that are giving you headaches, and (3) spell out the three most frequently seen mistakes made by dairy producers in their reproduction program.

-Norman St-Pierre
 OSU Animal Sciences

back to top
 

Bull Test Open House

The Ohio Bull Test Field Day and Open House will be held on Thursday, February 20, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Bull Test Station at Belle Valley. This year's open house coincides with the 84 day weights. Various educational programs will be held throughout the day and lunch will be provided. The open house will be an excellent opportunity to visit the bull barn and preview the bulls. For more information and complete bull test data, visit the Ohio Bull Test website at: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~bulltest
 

Sire Selection, Job #1

It's bull buying season! From a genetic standpoint, sire selection is the most important decision a cattle producer makes. The bast majority of genetic improvement in commercial herds is the direct result of sire selection. Consider the fact that 87.5% of the genetics of an individual calf were inherited from three sires in that calf's pedigree (50% from the sire, 25% from the dam's sire, and 12.5% from the dam's maternal grandsire). This fact alone emphasizes the importance of proper sire selection, and the impact that each sire has on economically relevant traits. For herds with small numbers of cows and in single-sire herds, the importance of an individual sire is even further exaggerated- as one sire alone accounts for a large proportion of the genetics represented in each calf crop. Relative to other production and management decisions, sire selection is an infrequent occurrence for many cow-calf producers. However, these decisions have long-term impact relative to the productivity and profitability of the cow-calf enterprise.

In many ways, the process of bull selection is analogous to hiring a new employee. Initially, a job description needs to be written which defines the responsibilities and qualifications for a new herd sire. Given these responsibilities and qualifications, the task of evaluating applications and narrowing the candidate pool becomes much more efficient.

Define Job Responsibilities: Defining the responsibilities of the new herd sire needs to be the initial step in bull selection. This list of responsibilities may be quite long, or could be relatively short- depending on the specific intended contributions of the bull. Breeding system, marketing system, management level, and feed/environmental resources are important considerations for writing the job description. Specific questions that warrant consideration when defining these responsibilities include:

•   Will the bull be used exclusively on heifers, mature cows, or     both?
•   Will replacement females be retained in the herd?
•   How will the calf crop be marketed? 
•  At weaning as graded feeder cattle?
•  As backgrounded calves?
•  Through a retained ownership venture?
•  What are the labor and management resources             available?
•  What are the feed resources and environmental conditions of the operation?
•  How will this sire contribute to the overall breeding system plan?

Define Job Qualifications: With answers to these general questions, individual traits and their relative importance can be identified. From this, specifications/qualifications for each trait can be defined. As an example, if we have determined that replacement females will be retained out of the bull, individual traits that should be considered include milk production and frame size, coupled with structural soundness, body capacity, and potential fleshing ability. Bull selection for these traits will therefore include milk EPD, maternal weaning weight EPD, frame score (or mature height and weight EPDs), and visual appraisal. Upon determination of these EPDs, specifications can be set for an EPD value that is most desirable. In this example, setting EPD specifications for milk will be highly dependent on feed resources as well as the milk genetics contributed from the cow herd. In case of milk EPD's specifications will likely be determined within a range of acceptability. For other traits, minimum or maximum values may be more appropriate as specifications - minimum values in the case of growth EPDs, and a maximum value for birth weight EPD. Determination of the primary strengths and weaknesses of the herd will assist in prioritizing traits/EPDs. As the number of traits that are included in a selection scheme increases, the number of bulls that will meet the specifications for each of these traits is likely to decrease. This is amplified when specifications are set at a very high level.

Several tools can be utilized to assist in the determination of EPD specifications. EPD values for current and past sires can be used as benchmarks. With these benchmarks, EPD specifications can be set to reflect the desired increase or moderation in performance for a particular trait. Breed is an important consideration as specifications are set for individual EPDs. The genetic merit for an average bull for any trait varies considerably from breed to breed. A milk END of +20 has a drastically different meaning for a Simmental bull as compared to an Angus bull. The genetic merit for milk production of the daughters of these two bulls is quite different, despite the fact they have the same milk EPD. The same holds true for growth and carcass traits. 

Evaluating the Applicants: Upon determination of the responsibilities and qualifications, proceed with screening potential applicants. There are many sources of bulls that warrant consideration– production sales, test stations, and private treaty sales. Of critical importance is that the bull come from a reputable breeder who will stand behind his genetics and product. It may be necessary to take applications from several sources in order to find the correct bull. The first step in doing so is to evaluate the resume' and transcripts of the bull, which can be found in the sale catalog, performance pedigree, or data sheet. By examination of the bull's performance record, determine which bulls meet the EPD and other specifications that have been met? (and likewise eliminate those that do not meet the specifications). Be prepared to make trade-offs, as the perfect record may not be attainable. 
Do not be surprised or alarmed when the bulls you have highlighted appear scattered through the sale order. Remember to stick to the selection criteria and qualifications/specifications that have been established. Doing this homework prior to arrival at the auction or farm will not only save time, but also assist in making sure the right bull for the situation is purchased. Upon narrowing the potential candidates on paper, the bulls can be evaluated for suitability of phenotypic traits and the potential candidate list shortened even further. The final step is to make an offer - which is between you and the auctioneer!

Source - Virginia Tech

back to top
 

Sincerely,
 

Mike Hogan Extension Agent Agriculture & Natural Resources  Community Development

Ken Simeral Extension Agent Agriculture & Natural Resources Community Development

tr

Trade names are supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Ohio State University is implied.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a non-discriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.

OSU Extension will provide accommodations to handicapped persons needing assistance to participate in Extension programs. If you require some type of assistance/accommodations to attend programs, utilize written materials or visit the Carroll, Harrison, or Jefferson County Extension Offices, please contact that office or TTD#1-800-589-8292.

Visit Ohio State University Extension’s WWW site “Ohioline” at: hhtp:/www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ohioline/
back to top

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Keith L. Smith, Director, Ohio State University Extension.
TDD # 1 (800) 589-8292 (Ohio only) or (614) 292-1868