BEEF NEWSLETTER

                   December 2009/January 2010

 

MOLDY CORN AND MYCOTOXIN CONCERNS	USING STOCKPILED FESCUE
LATE GESTATION PREPARATION	NUTRIENT NEEDS AND REPRODUCTION
HAY IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY	COW/CALF 101
BEEF 509	MANAGING DYNAMIC CHANGE 2010

 

Dear Beef Farmer,

         As we approach the end of yet another year and look towards the future, it certainly appears that the beef industry continues to be in challenging times. I heard a presentation from a futurist who described the future as volatile, uncertain and complex.  Now, this speaker was not talking about the beef industry or any aspect of agriculture, but those words could certainly be used to describe the challenges ahead in the beef industry.

           How those challenges are perceived and how they are handled depends upon a number of factors.  Some of those factors might include:

• Your present financial situation
  
• Your use of sound production practices and application of economical management techniques
  
• Your output of saleable product
  
• Your cost of production
  
• Your opportunities for marketing
  
• Your attitude
  
• Who you hang around with or listen to

          In my position as an Extension Educator I guess it is no surprise that I see education as an important tactic to help manage challenges.  Although not guaranteed, often having knowledge of why something is happening and how various markets and factors are interconnected may suggest some strategies to overcome tough times. 

            Last winter in the Managing for Dynamic Change beef school meetings, prominent national and regional speakers described the volatility in not only the beef cattle market, but also the grain market.  Examples were provided of how interconnected these markets are.  Markets are complex and influenced by such things as government policy, the strength of the U.S. dollar internationally, multi-national corporations, consumer attitudes and consumer eating trends.

            This winter a 4-week advanced beef school that begins in February and is entitled Managing Dynamic Change 2010 will build upon the presentations from last winter meetings and focus on some practical production methods and management techniques for these challenging times.  In addition to hearing from some knowledgeable speakers, it is an opportunity for cattlemen to get together and learn from each other as well.  This years cost is lower than last year and I hope that many of our beef farmers can attend.  Details are inside this newsletter.

            This newsletter contains information about some other upcoming educational programs that may be of interest including a beginning level 4-week beef school in Hocking County and the popular BEEF 509 program scheduled for two Saturdays in January.  In addition, I hope that the articles in this newsletter provide you with some useful information for your cattle operation.  As usual, please give me a call if I can be of assistance in providing more details about a particular program or to help you answer a production question.

Sincerely,

Rory Lewandowski

Extension MEducator, Ag/NR

Athens County

Buckeye Hills Extension Education and Research Area

 

MOLDY CORN AND MYCOTOXIN CONCERNS

            I have received a couple of questions recently concerning moldy corn and concerns about feeding moldy corn.  At issue here is possible mycotoxin (poisonous substances) production by the molds.  The most common members of the ear rot complex are Gibberella zeae (causes Gibberella ear rot), Stenocarpella maydis (causes Diplodia ear rot) and members of the genus Fusarium (causes Fusarium ear rot).  Of these three, Diplodia ear rot has the least concern regarding mycotoxin production.  Giberella fungi can produce mycotoxins that are harmful to animals. These include deoxynivalenol (Vomitoxin) and zearalenone and T-2 toxin, all of which may cause health problems in livestock.   Fusarium fungi can also produce mycotoxins that are harmful to animals and include fumonisins. 

            To address possible questions and provide more information on this topic, I am including a couple of articles published in the OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter.  Contact me at the Athens Extension office (593-8555) if you questions and/or need more information.

Field Conditions for Corn Raise Questions

Dr. Jeff Lehmkuhler, University of Kentucky Extension Beef Cattle Specialist
From: OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter Issue 660, 11-11-09

          Wet field conditions this fall are raising concerns over mycotoxins as Fusarium, Gibberella and Diplodia ear rot is being observed in several areas. This is not limited to Kentucky as other states throughout the cornbelt and Northern Plains are experiencing similar wet conditions this fall making dry down a challenge and providing conditions for molds to flourish. Fusarium fungi, Penicillium sp. and Aspergillus flavis can produce mycotoxins which are of concern to livestock producers as they can be detrimental to livestock performance.

          Beef cattle are less susceptible to these mycotoxins than are monogastric species such as poultry and swine. However, this should not be interpreted such that beef cattle are not affected by mycotoxins. Dairy cattle with high dry matter intakes of corn-based diets are at higher risk. Younger cattle such as weaned calves are more susceptible to mycotoxicosis than older cattle.

Table 1. Action levels for total aflatoxins in the diets or feed offered to cattle.

Class of Animals	Feed	Aflatoxin
Finishing beef cattle	Corn and peanut products	300 ppb
Beef cattle	Cottonseed meal	300 ppb
Breeding cattle	Corn and peanut products	100 ppb
Immature animals	Animal feeds and ingredients, excluding cottonseed meal	20 ppb
Dairy animals	Animal feeds and ingredients	20 ppb

Adapted from Henry, FDA 2006. Ppb=parts per billion.

          The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides levels for mycotoxins in the diets of livestock. These levels are provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for various mycotoxins found in grains/feeds. Producers are encouraged to obtain a representative sample and test suspect corn prior to feeding to determine if any mycotoxins are present and if so at what levels.

Table 2. Guidance levels for total fumonisins in animal feeds offered to ruminants.

Class of Animals	Feed Ingredients & Portion of Total Diet	Levels in Corn & Corn By-products	Levels in Finished Feeds
Breeding Ruminants	Corn and corn by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet**	30 ppm	15 ppm
Ruminants > 3 months old being raised for slaughter	Corn and corn by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet**	60 ppm	30 ppm
All other classes	Corn and corn by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet**	10 ppm	5 ppm

** Dry weight basis. Ppm=parts per million

 

          For additional information on mycotoxins, readers are encouraged to review publications ID-121 (Fumonisin, Vomitoxin, and Other Mycotoxins in Corn Produced by Fusarium Fungi), ID-59 (Aflatoxins in Corn).

 

Table 3. Advisory levels for vomitoxin (DON) in livestock feed offered to beef cattle.

Class of animals	Feed ingredients & Portion of Total Diet	DON Levels in Grains & Grain by-products and (Finished Feed)
Ruminating beef and feedlot cattle older than 4 months	Grain and grain by-products not to exceed 50% of the diet	10 ppm (5 ppm)

            Two Ohio labs which will test for mycotoxins are Columbus Grain Inspection (Ray Anderson), 613 South Washington, Circleville, OH 43113 (ph:740-474-3519) and Holmes Lab, 3559 U.S. Rt. 62, Millersburg, Ohio 44654-8834, http://www.holmeslab.com/  (Ph: 1-800-344-1101 or  330.893.2933).

Keep track of moldy corn issues this fall

By:  Russ Daly, DVM, Extension Veterinarian, South Dakota State University
From: OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 661, 11-18-09

          Dry weather - thankfully - has returned to the region, allowing some "catch-up" for the soybean and corn harvests. The cool wet weather we had through October has had important implications for the corn crop. Conditions have been favorable for mold formation on corn ears, and in some cases, stalks, leaves, and husks as well. Early indications are that a great percentage of the corn crop has been affected-not just in South Dakota, but across the Corn Belt. The presence of these molds has raised many questions about the fitness of this corn: both for marketing purposes and for use as livestock feed.

          SDSU's Plant Pathology and Olson Biochemistry Labs, along with many other private and university labs, have been busy fielding calls and testing corn affected with these molds. So far, many of the molds observed have not been ones that produce mycotoxins; but these are early results and more will be known as the harvest progresses.

          Understanding the difference between molds and mycotoxins is important. Just because an ear of corn has mold does not necessarily mean it will be harmful to animals. A lot of the molds we people encounter on spoiled foods won't hurt us either, but it doesn't mean the food is going to taste good. Likewise, it's possible that even some of these harmless molds will create off-flavors and decreased feed consumption as a result.

          Certain molds, however, under just the right conditions, produce chemicals as a by-product of their growth called mycotoxins. These chemicals have various effects on animals and sometimes on people.

          One of the types of mold for which conditions have been right is fusarium mold. This is a white to pink cottony-appearing mold that has potential to produce the mycotoxin called fumonisin. The animal most sensitive to fumonisin is the horse. Relatively small amounts of fumonisin eaten by a horse can result in what has been known for years as "moldy corn poisoning." The toxin has its effect on the white matter in the brain, causing death of brain cells. Clinical signs consist of behavior change, weakness, staggering, an inability to rise, and eventually, death. There is no treatment or vaccine. Especially worrisome is the possibility that corn stalks or leaves may be affected with the fungus, thus potentially the toxin. This leads me to caution horse owners to at the very least be extremely cautious letting horses run on cornstalks this fall, or even exposing them to corn stalk bedding. Fumonisin can also affect cattle and pigs, but at much higher concentrations than affect horses.

          Gibberela mold, a pinkish mold that develops from the tip of the ear inward, has the potential to create vomitoxin, which when given to pigs in sufficient quantity, has exactly the effect that its name implies! More importantly, at lower levels, it causes feed refusal, resulting in decreased weight gain and efficiency. Gibberela mold also may possibly produce zearalenone, which is a mycotoxin that has reproductive effects, especially in pigs, causing premature estrus cycles, vulvar swelling, and prolapses in growing gilts. At higher concentrations it can affect reproduction in heifers and cows.

          There are some other potential mycotoxins to look out for, but they do not seem to be as common this season. The most notable of these is aflatoxin, a potent cancer-causing agent that suppresses the immune system and causes liver damage in pigs and cattle. Aflatoxin generally is produced by molds during hot weather, so its presence is not really expected this fall.

          The bottom line with mold issues in corn to be fed this year is that it is much easier to test the grain or feed now, or before feeding, to get an idea of whether mycotoxins are present and if so, in what quantity. Clinical signs due to mycotoxins tend to be very vague and may not show up until long after the offending feed is fed, making diagnosis after the fact difficult.

          The good news is that there are many resources to help livestock producers sort out potential mycotoxin issues this fall. SDSU's Cooperative Extension Service has a very useful website, http://sdces.sdstate.edu/weatherDamagedGrain/index.cfm, and local Extension educators and veterinarians are great resources as well.

 

 

USING STOCKPILED FESCUE

            One question that beef producers might be asking regarding stockpiled fescue is; when should stockpiled fescue be utilized?  If fescue was last grazed, clipped, or harvested for hay in early August and has been stockpiling since that point, a considerable amount of plant material will have accumulated by the time by the time the growing season ends and plants go dormant.  Work done in Ohio suggests that if stockpiling was started in early August with 50 units of nitrogen applied around mid-August, and assuming normal precipitation, it is not unreasonable to accumulate more than a ton and a half of dry matter, in fact, 3500 to3700 pounds/acre could be available.  Even without nitrogen fertilization a ton or slightly more dry matter could have accumulated.  Most cattlemen I have talked with regarding stockpiled fescue say they like to wait until after a couple of hard frosts before turning cattle in to the fescue because cattle will graze it better.  This brings up a question of when to begin grazing stockpiled fescue.

            Much of the tall fescue in our area is infected with an endophyte, a fungus that produces a toxic substance known as ergovaline.  The endophyte and ergovaline are responsible for the reduced palatability of fescue during the summer months.  The fescue toxicosis associated with ergovaline is responsible for elevated body temperatures, restricted blood flow to extremities and poor animal performance.  It has been generally assumed that ergovaline doesn’t pose a problem in stockpiled fescue, in part because the ergovaline seems to concentrate in seed heads and stockpiled fescue is vegetative.  Yet, the fact that cattle don’t really eat stockpiled fescue well until after a couple of hard frosts suggest there are still concentrations of ergovaline present in infected fescue that reduce palatability until after frost. 

          An article published in the Journal of Crop Science, volume 43 in 2003 examined ergovaline levels in stockpiled fescue over two winter seasons in Missouri.  Previous research had suggested that ergovaline concentrations of 150 parts per billion (ppb) and higher were associated with symptoms of fescue toxicosis during winter months.  This study found that there was a rapid loss of ergovaline after mid-December.  In the two years of the study ergovaline levels fell below the 150 ppb level by early January in one of the years and by early February in the other year.  Researchers suggested that the rate of ergovaline decrease may be related to temperature and rainfall levels.  The year in which ergovaline levels declined the slowest was a warm, dry fall and winter as compared to the year when levels declined quicker.  Colder temperatures may be associated with less growth allowing for earlier decomposition of ergovaline and it is thought that ergovaline also may be leached out of the plant with rainfall.  The conclusion of the article was that since stockpiled fescue retains dry matter and quality throughout the winter, the best use of infected stockpiled fescue was during the late winter period.

          A more recent study published in December of 2007 in the Forage and Grazinglands Plant Management Network examined, among other factors, the total ergot alkaloid (of which ergovaline is a part) concentration or endophyte infected fescue from December to March.  This study was repeated over 5 years.  The results showed an 81% decrease in the ergot alkaloid concentration from early December until early January.  So once again, it appears that if the use endophyte infected stockpiled fescue can be delayed until into January, animal performance may be better.

            Regardless of when the cattleman decides to allow cattle to graze stockpiled fescue, how the cattle are allowed to graze will determine how efficiently the grass is used.  Cattle turned into a large area with unrestricted access to stockpiled fescue are likely to waste 60 to 70 percent of the forage due to trampling and manure deposition.  In other words only 30 to 40% of the stockpiled forage is actually eaten.  Grazing studies have shown that by restricting access to no more than a 3 day of forage, utilization can increase to levels in the 65 to 70% range.  I’ve talked to some producers who manage even more intensely, restricting access to a one-day supply and they have bumped utilization up to around 80% or better.  Research at the Missouri Forage Systems Research Center compared 14-, 7-, and three-day forage allocation strips on stockpiled tall fescue. Strip grazing on a three-day frequency yielded  40% more grazing days per acre than allocating a 14-day forage supply and produced the same level of animal gain.

          A final point to keep in mind while managing the fence for stockpiled forage is that a back fence is not needed since the plant is dormant and not growing.  This type of management will also help to reduce the amount of trampling and mud created.

 

 

LATE GESTATION PREPARATION

            The increase in nutrient requirements during the late gestation period is significant.  Depending upon the mature weight of the cow, crude protein (CP) requirements increase approximately 28 to 30%, while total digestible nutrient (TDN) requirements increase approximately 15 to 17% between month 7 and month 9. 

          Nutrient deficiency during this period can result in weak calves that are more susceptible to environmental stresses, and cows that are slow to breed back.  Failing to provide late gestation cows with a ration that meets their nutrient requirements will negatively impact the potential profitability of the cow/calf operation.  Thus, the cattle manager must prepare for those increased nutrient needs.  Preparation involves knowing the weight and nutritional status of the cow, knowing the diet nutrient requirements and knowing the nutrient content of the feedstuffs that are being used.

            Nutrient requirements of cattle, as provided by the National Research Council (NRC) subcommittee on beef cattle, vary depending upon the mature weight of the animal, the age of the animal and the production stage of the animal.  Large frame heavier animals have higher daily nutrient requirements than smaller frame, lighter animals.  Pregnant replacement heifers and two year old cows all have higher nutrient requirements than mature cattle at similar production stages.  Examples of CP and TDN nutrient requirements for the last 60 days of gestation (months 8-9) for mature and growing cattle are provided in the following table to illustrate this point.  The nutrient density requirements are based on a dry matter intake of approximately 2% of the animal’s body weight.

 

	Nutrient	Density	Daily	Nutrients	Nutrient	Density	Daily	Nutrients
	Month	8	Month	8	Month	9	Month	9
Cow Type	CP%	TDN%	CP (lbs)	TDN (lbs)	CP%	TDN%	CP (lbs)	TDN (lbs)
Mature 1200 lbs	7.7	52.3	1.86	12.6	8.8	56.2	2.16	13.8
Mature 1300 lbs	7.8	52.5	1.99	13.4	8.9	56.5	2.31	14.7
2-yr old, 1200 lbs*	8.5	55.9	1.93	12.7	9.4	59.7	2.23	14.1
2-yr old, 1300 lbs*	8.5	56.2	2.06	13.7	9.5	60.0	2.40	15.1
Pregnant heifer, 1200 lbs*	8.5	56.2	2.02	13.3	9.6	59.9	2.35	14.6
Pregnant heifer, 1300 lbs*	8.5	56.0	2.13	14.1	9.5	59.5	2.45	15.4

 1996 NRC for Beef Cattle

* Projected mature weight

          Several observations can be made from studying the table:

• The nutrient density requirement of the diet does not vary greatly between weight classes of similar aged animals but nutrient density requirements are higher for younger animals that are still growing.  This reflects the relationship between body weight and a dry matter intake based on a percentage of body weight.
• The total amount of nutrients (lbs/day) that are required increases as animal body weight increases for both mature and growing animals.
• Both the nutrient density and the amount of nutrients (lbs/day) increase as gestation advances.

          The take-home management message is that the mature weight of the cow should be known to insure adequate nutrients are being provided.  Although many cattlemen think they have 1200 lb (or less) cows, there are many 1400-1500 pound cows out in the country-side.  I remember hearing at a meeting a couple of years ago a speaker say that most 1200 lb cows weighed 1500 lbs and most 1000 lb round bales weighed 750 lbs.  You have to measure and weight if you want to do a good job of managing.

          Feeding to meet the needs of a mature cow will put the younger growing cows and heifers in a nutrient deficient state.  On the other hand, feeding to meet the needs of the younger cows and heifers will mean that mature cows are being overfed.  Both situations are costly.  Grouping cows according to age and production stage would allow more targeted feeding and better economical use of feed resources. 

          In practice, particularly with smaller herds, I see farmers feeding hay free choice to the entire herd.  If the hay is close to the required nutrient density, cattle will often eat more than the 2% of body weight figure.  This may allow the younger growing animals to meet their daily pounds of nutrients needed, but it means the older animals are over eating.

          Besides knowing your cow weights and nutrient requirements, preparation for late gestation involves knowing the nutrient content of the hay, stockpiled forage or other feedstuffs that may be used.  It’s very hard to economically match nutrient needs without this information. 

          The eye of experience and close detail to body condition can help managers make good feeding decisions.  When used with knowledge of animal weights, nutrient requirements and feedstuff nutrient analysis, the combination can be increased profitability.

 

 

NUTRIENT NEEDS AND REPRODUCTION

From: The E-Extension beef cattle web site at:
http://www.extension.org/pages/Nutrient_Needs_and_Reproduction
            Focus on feeding programs that meet the nutrient requirements for the young cow. These requirements are well defined in the 1996 Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Once the requirements are determined, it is simply a matter of fitting the proper quantities of feedstuffs available to supply the proper levels of protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Feed and manage young cows so that they are in adequate body condition at calving. Cow body condition at calving is the most important factor in determining how quickly a cow will breed back after calving. Some producers feel that if cows are thin at calving, then "flushing" (feeding a high level of energy) the cow after calving will compensate for poor condition and result in acceptable breed back. This management practice works in limited situations. In most cases, extra energy after calving will stimulate milk production and not result in replenishment of energy reserves that seems to be necessary to signal the reproductive axis to “gear-up” and assure acceptable reproductive performance. Trying to play catch-up after calving is almost always expensive because extra energy is needed in the diet.

          Research conducted at Oklahoma State University was designed to either intentionally feed a group of first-calf heifers to achieve a body condition score less than 5 (thin) by calving or a comparable group of heifers were fed to achieve a condition score of 5 and above by calving. After calving, half of each group was fed to either maintain the same level of condition while the other half of the heifers were fed to gain condition after calving. Heifers that calved thin (below condition score 5) and maintained in thin condition after calving had a 36% pregnancy rate the following fall. Those that calved in thin and then fed to gain condition had a 66% fall pregnancy rate, while those that were calved and maintained in good condition had a 91% fall pregnancy rate. The nutritional (both protein and energy) needs of the young cow during her first lactation are high. Because the young cow has a small rumen compared to mature cows, the quality of the diet needs to be high to meet her nutritional requirements. Feeding medium quality hays without supplementation is not an option. Young, lactating females managed on these diets will loose weight and body condition. Young females that loose weight and body condition before the start of their second breeding season will have reduced rebreeding performance.

          In another experiment conducted at Oklahoma State University illustrates the importance of not trying to starve calving difficulty out of young females. Some feel first-calf heifers should be restricted in feed prior to calving to decrease the size of the newborn calf. Even though feeding heifers to achieve good body condition (condition score 5.5) by calving may increase calf size slightly, research consistently shows that calving difficulty or dystocia is not increased. What is often encountered in this feeding management practice is a weak heifer at calving trying to give birth to a slightly smaller calf. Instead of starving calving difficulty out of the 1st-calf-cow, her ability to become pregnant with her second calf is greatly compromise. As suggested in the research, 89% of the 1st-calf-cows became pregnant with their second calf when fed to achieve a BCS of 6 at her first calving as compared to 78% and 65% for those heifers fed to achieve a BCS of 5 or 4, respectively, at their first calving.

 

 

HAY IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY: Save money by limiting storage and feeding waste!

By:  Stephen K. Barnhart, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University Extension
From: The OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 563, 11-21-07

         What a Waste! Storage and feeding losses can accrue for any hay bale type, but large, round hay bale management systems often lead to the greatest and most consistent losses. By the time that hay is fed, much of it will have lost more than 25 percent of its feeding value. Research on hay storage often supports what many producers say, "I get about three bales' worth of feed out of every four bales that I put up."

          The traditional large, round bale storage method has been "outside, on the ground." Under average weather conditions, you can expect 25 to 35 percent dry matter and nutritive quality loss on unprotected bales stored outside, on the ground. While there are a few inches of weathering on the tops and sides, much of the loss is on the bottom of the bales where they are in contact with the wet soil. Simply storing round bales on a few inches of crushed stone (or on pallets, tires, etc.) can lead to considerable savings during storage. A stone pad is a cost, yes, but often a very economical one.

          The next most often used storage step is to cover individual bales or groups of bales with some type of tarp or plastic cover. Another significant savings in forage can be gained by covering outside-stored bales but at additional cost and, in this case, shorter useful life for the investment. Covered and off the ground is getting close to the savings of inside or under-roof storage. I must note that there is still about a 5 percent loss in dry matter under the best of conditions with inside storage. The cost of permanent roof cover for the hay storage site can be quite economical, depending on the initial cost and any alternate uses that the structure can provide. The table below is a good summary of some of these cost and savings tradeoffs.

Method	Total Cost	Useful Life of Investment	Dry Matter Loss (%)
Outside on Ground	--	--	30
Outside on Gravel Pad	$4,000	10 years	20
Outside on Gravel Pad
with Tarp	$3,500	10 years (pad only)	10
Plastic Bale Wrap	$350	1 year	7
Under Roof	$6,000	25 years	5

From University of Kentucky Hay Storage Decision Aid program with assumptions of the storage methods

          Feeding losses are expensive too. Hay costs between $0.02 and $0.07 per pound of dry matter, usually more than double the cost for the same amount of nutrients from pasture. In many forage/livestock production operations, more than 50 percent of the hay that is produced is wasted by either poor storage methods or improper feeding practices, or both.

          No matter how hay is packaged, if you waste it during feeding, you lose money. Below are some general recommendations that can help minimize waste during feeding.

          Feed hay in small amounts or in a feeder to minimize waste: When fed a limited amount of hay at a time, cattle have less opportunity to trample and soil the hay. As shown in the table on page 278, feeding hay in a rack or a "hay ring" also limits the opportunity that animals have to trample or soil hay and will reduce waste substantially if you intend to provide more than a day's worth of hay at one time. This applies to large hay packages too. Large bale systems are designed to minimize labor, not waste.

          Another popular system is to unroll the bale and feed it on the ground as loose hay. This can result in high trampling and soiling losses if too much hay is fed at one time. If a three-day (or longer) supply of hay is unrolled and left for cattle to consume on their own, feeding losses of 40 percent or more can be expected. However, if fed on a daily basis, feeding losses run about 12 percent. One advantage of unrolling bales is that it gives you the opportunity to move the hay feeding areas around the pasture and distribute manure and nutrients evenly over a large area.

          Feed hay in well-drained areas: If you intend to feed hay in a single location all winter, then providing a footing, such as crushed stone or even concrete, can help minimize problems with mud. Perhaps more cost effective is to move hay-feeding areas around the farm to minimize the damage to any one area of the pasture.

          Feed hay stored outside before hay stored inside: Hay stored outside usually has more spoilage during storage and lower palatability than hay stored inside. Cattle will waste a greater percentage of poor-quality hay than they will of good-quality hay. Animals fed high-quality hay early in the season will often refuse poor-quality hay when it is offered later.

Estimated losses (percentage of hay offered) from different hay-feeding methods.

	With Rack		Without Rack
Bale Type	1-Day Supply (%)	7-Day Supply (%)	1-Day Supply (%)	7-Day Supply (%)
Small square	3.9	4.1	6.7*	--
Large round or square	4.9	5.4	12.3*	43.0*
Formed haystacks	8.8	15.0	22.6	41.0

*Bales spread or unrolled across pasture

Table adapted from an article by Rob Kallenbach, University of Missouri Extension.

 

 

 

COW/CALF 101

By: Jim Skeeles, Extension Educator, Hocking and Fairfield Counties

          The Cow/Calf 101 School is specifically designed for the new and beginning person starting out with a few cows but even those who have had a cow herd for years are welcome to attend. The school will be held on January 7, 14, 20 & 28, 2010 and the sessions will run from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at the OSU Extension Office, Hocking County, 150 N. Homer Avenue, Logan, OH 43138, on the Hocking County fairgrounds.

          Cost for the workshop is $10 per person per session, collected at the door. It is not necessary to send registration money in advance, but calling the Hocking County OSU Extension Office at least the day before at 740-385-3222 to let us know how many will attend that session is appreciated.

          The first session on January 7^th is titled “So you want to be a Cowboy/girl!” This session is designed as a reality check for those planning to make money with a small herd of beef cows. The session will ask new or prospective cow herd owners to develop realistic goals and do some soul searching about how much time they can and will spend managing the cows and how much money they are willing to invest.

          The second session on January 14^{th is} titled “Nutrient, Hay, Manure, Water and Plant Management Economics and Environment — How the Government helps.” During this session you will explore how good of a steward you are willing to be of your farm, the land, the water and the air.

          The third session will be held on Wednesday, January 20^th.  This session will cover general cow and calf health, calving, breeding and nutrition and putting all these together to get the most live healthy calves on the ground.

          The final session will again be held on a Thursday, January 28^th where a discussion will guide you through how much marketing you wish to do with your calves, bulls or cows. None of us are happy with the price we get at the stockyards when we are price takers. This session will help price takers to decide if they have the will, the time, the personality and the patience to do their own marketing. Discussion will cover calf management such as weaning and: What to do with your calves? Creep feed? Precondition? How heavy when sold? Discussed also will be niche and other marketing strategies such as: Grass fed? Organic? Freezer beef? Hormone free?

          For more information contact Jim Skeeles at 740-385-3222 in Hocking County or in Fairfield County at 740-653-5419, Extension 23. You may also Email Jim at skeeles.1@osu.edu to make reservations or to get more complete details.

This event is sponsored by OSU Extension, Hocking and Fairfield SWCD and NRCS offices, and Feeder Creek Veterinary Clinic.

 

 

BEEF 509

          The BEEF 509 program is a program to raise the awareness level about the food we produce, BEEF, and the reasons why it sometimes misses its mark with consumers’ palates and producers’ pocketbooks. It will take place on two Saturdays in January. The first day will be Saturday, January 12 and the second day will be Saturday, January 26. Each day will be filled with programs beginning at 9:00 a.m. and concluding in the early evening. The program will take place at the OSU Animal Sciences Building in Columbus. All the same information and activities from past 509 programs will be included.

Featuring Hands-on Training and Expert Discussion in the areas of:

 Live Cattle Evaluation, Beef harvesting procedures and innovations, Carcass aging, Grid Pricing, Current beef issues, Taste panel and shear force evaluation,  National Beef Quality Audit, Food safety issues, Genetic & Environment factors concerning carcass merit, Beef carcass grading, Beef Carcass Fabrication, OSU Beef Team Update, Questions/answers & evaluations, Review live, carcass and box beef values

          It will be critical to attend both days as participants will be assigned to teams that will work together for both days of the program. The live animal evaluation, auction and grid discussion will take place on January 12. Carcass grading and fabrication are among the activities planned for the 26th.

          A maximum of 32 spaces will be available on a first come first served basis.  The registration fee for each BEEF 509 participant is $150.  The registration deadline is December 15.  The program is the result of a partnership with the Ohio Beef Council, The Ohio State University Extension and The Ohio State University Department of Animal Sciences. These entities will be funding all remaining costs associated with the BEEF 509 program.

          For additional information on BEEF 509, or to register, call the Ohio Beef Council office at 614.873.6736.  For those with Internet access go to: http://www.ohiocattle.org/CMDocs/OhioCattle/08.beef509.application.form.pdf

 

 

MANAGING DYNAMIC CHANGE 2010: An Advanced Beef Production School

            The beef cattle business is changing.  In this process of change there is much volatility and uncertainty.  What is the formula for business survival, sustainability and profitability?  A series of meetings last winter entitled Managing Dynamic Change in the Beef Cattle Industry, charted some of the changes in the beef business, attempted to explain why the changes were occurring and mapped out some possible strategies to survive the changes.  As a follow-up, Managing Dynamic Change in 2010 will be hosted on four Wednesday's and Thursday's during February and March in two different locations.  These four session meetings are an advanced beef production school that will zero in on practical management techniques and management priorities to help cattlemen weather the changes and identify production practices that will keep profitability in the cattle operation.

            Topics that will be covered at the Managing Dynamic Change 2010 Beef Production School include:

• Management Techniques to Improve Reproductive Performance
• Systemic Crossbreeding and Heterosis
• Management Priorities to Reach Target Carcass Markets
• Market Trends and Economic Projections
• Implementing a Comprehensive Cow Herd Health Program
• Keys to Using Forage Profitably in Beef Production

          Featured presenters will include University of Kentucky beef cattle reproduction specialist Les Anderson, University of Kentucky Extension beef cattle specialist Darrah Bullock, Mark McCully from Certified Angus Beef, Dr. Carla Huston, DVM, PhD from Mississippi State University, and University of Kentucky forage specialist Dr. Garry Lacefield. Also on the program will be Ohio State University Extension's own Matt Roberts from the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics.

          The program will be hosted on the Wednesday evenings of February 3, 10, 17 and March 10 in the Highland County Training & Employment Center in Hillsboro and repeated on the Thursday evenings of February 4, 11, 18 and March 11 at the Alexander High School at Albany in Athens County. Each evening will begin with supper promptly at 6 p.m. followed immediately by the program from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm. 

          Those who attended the beef school at the Alexander High School last year know that it is a nice facility and that the Alexander FFA Alumni Association does a great job of preparing and serving the evening meal.

           Registration cost for the school is $25 per person.  Please help us with meal planning by sending in reservations.  Reservations may be made by sending the registration form and fee to the Ohio Cattleman's Association and specifying which location you will be attending. Call OCA (614.873.6736), John Grimes, Highland County Ag Educator (937.393.1918) or Rory Lewandowski, Athens County Ag Educator (740.593.8555) for more detailed information. 

          For those with Internet access, click on the following link for a brochure and registration form: Managing Dynamic Change 2010 registration.

          Don’t miss this opportunity to hear nationally recognized speakers, gather information that will keep you on the cutting edge of the beef industry, and exchange ideas, opinions and stories with fellow beef farmers from a multi-county area.

Managing Dynamic Change in 2010 is sponsored by The Ohio State University Extension and Ohio Cattleman's Association with financial support from the Southern Ohio Agricultural & Community Development Foundation.

 

Managing Dynamic Change 2010 in the Beef Cattle Industry

Send the completed registration form along with your check to:  Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, c/o Managing Dynamic Change, 10600 U.S. Highway 42, Marysville, OH  43040.  Make checks payable to “OCA”.  Registration Fee:  $25 per person.

 

Name of Participant: _______________________________________ $25.00

Address:  ________________________________________________

Phone Number:  ___________________________________________

E-mail Address:  ___________________________________________

Name of 2^nd Participant from this Farm Operation ______________________ $25.00

Name of 3^rd Participant from this Farm Operation _____________________   $25.00

Name of 4^th Participant from this Farm Operation ______________________ $25.00

 

Location participants will be attending (circle one)    Hillsboro      Albany (Athens)

 

Total Number of Participants from this Farm Operation:  _____________

 

Total dollars submitted $_________