A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130

and the

OSU Extension BEEF Team

BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor

You may subscribe to the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu

Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter

Issue # 661

November 18, 2009

Forage Focus: Hay as a Tool - Rory Lewandowski, OSU Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources

Although much has been said and written about the high cost of producing hay, it doesn't appear that beef cattle farmers are going to give up the practice of making and using hay on the farm anytime soon. Therefore, I want to propose that hay be looked at as a tool. Think of it as a tool that is used to manage important resources on the cattle farm. Those important resources are cows and pasture. In hay's role as a tool, it should be used to provide nutrients to the cow and to protect the pasture base. Let's take a closer look at each of these uses and how they can work together within a production system.

Cows require that nutrients be provided at specified levels to insure that they are productive. In the case of a cow/calf farmer, productive means that the cow is able to conceive, carry a calf to birth, and then raise that calf until it is weaned. In order for hay to be an effective tool it must provide a sufficient quantity of nutrients as determined by the cow's production stage. In the beef cattle business crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) are often used to describe cattle nutrient needs and to describe forage quality.

The National Research Council (NRC) has tables that list the nutrient requirements of cattle at various mature body weights and production stages. Although it is common to talk about these requirements in terms of the percent CP and percent TDN of the ration, livestock actually need to consume a specified amount or weight of nutrients. In other words, the animal has to eat a certain amount of a feedstuff that contains the given percentage in order to get the needed pounds of a nutrient. When hay is fed, it is generally assumed that the cow will eat a certain percent of her body weight and if the nutrient percentage is adequate, then she will get an adequate quantity of nutrients. Usually this works out, but not always, as we shall see.

At this point in the fall of the year, most of our spring calving herds have cows that are in a mid-gestation stage of production. There are probably some mid-gestation replacement heifers in the herd. If we use, as an example, cows with a mature body weight of 1300 lbs, then the nutrient requirements of these livestock classes, taken from the 1996 NRC for beef cattle are shown in the following table:

How will the cattle farmer know if his/her hay is meeting these nutrient requirements? A properly done forage analysis will provide the best source of information. The value of the information provided by a forage analysis is directly related to how the forage sample is gathered. Hay should be grouped into lots according to species composition and date. Each lot of hay should be sampled separately. For example, grass hay made in early June is a separate lot compared to grass/clover hay made in early June or grass hay made in late June. Within a lot of hay, sample at least 12-15 bales (more is better) using a hay probe core sampler. There is a hay probe that can be borrowed from many Ohio County Extension offices.

Here are examples of two hay quality tests: a first cut grass hay with a CP level of 7.0% and a TDN value of 50% and a second cutting grass hay with a CP value of 12% and a TDN of 62%. How does this hay match up with the nutrient needs of mid-gestation cattle? How is this hay most effectively used? Dry Matter Intake (DMI) as a percentage of the animal's body weight is influenced by forage quality. Low quality forages have a slower rate of digestion and passage through the digestive system so intake is decreased. According to a Kansas State University publication entitled "Beef Cow Nutrition Guide", a dry cow will eat 1.5 to 1.8% of her body weight on a dry matter (DM) basis with a low quality forage, 2.0 to 2.2% with a average quality forage and 2.5% with a high quality forage. Of course, using general terms such as low, average and high quality is not very definitive and one person's definition of those terms could differ from another person's definition. Using these figures, our example 1300 lb cow would consume about 23 lbs DM of what I will call the low quality first cutting hay sample and around 27 lbs of DM of the average quality second cutting hay sample.

The next step is to use the forage quality analysis, and the expected dry matter intake (DMI) to determine how nutrient needs are being met. If we look at our first cutting hay nutrient analysis and then at the NRC chart for CP and TDN percentages it appears we are exceeding our mid-gestation cow requirements. However, when the 23 lb DMI figure is multiplied by our first cutting CP and TDN percentages, we find that the cow will be consuming 1.61 lbs of CP/day and 11.5 lbs of TDN/day. This just meets the requirement. The point here is that actual intake plays a big role in how animal nutrient needs are met. If the cow consumes this forage at 2.0% of body weight DMI, then requirements are exceeded. While nutrient percentages provide a convenient guideline, the bottom line is intake.

If we take this a step further and use the second cutting average quality hay analysis and a DMI of 27 lbs, the mid-gestation cow will consume 3.24 lbs of CP/day and 16.74 lbs of TDN/day. This greatly exceeds her nutrient requirements. The point here is that we could not expect the dry cow to voluntarily limit her consumption of better quality forage once her needs are met. Once again, it is about intake. It is the job of the cattle manager to limit feed hay, especially if hay is in scarce supply, in this situation.

Now consider the mid-gestation heifer and our hay supply. The total daily pounds of CP and TDN required in the diet are very similar to the dry, mature mid-gestation cow. The difference is that the heifer has not attained her full mature weight. She has a growth requirement. She will consume forage at a similar percentage of her body weight as compared to the mature animal but given her lower body weight, total pounds of DMI will be less. It is clear that the low quality first cutting hay in our example will fall short of meeting the nutrient requirements. The only way to make up the difference is with a more nutrient dense (higher quality) feedstuff. For example, if our pregnant heifer weighs 915 pounds and is provided with our average quality second cutting hay, we can expect a DMI at about 2.0% of her body weight or 18.3 lbs. Multiply that figure by the hay analysis (12% CP, 62% TDN) to calculate a daily intake of 2.2 lbs of CP and 11.3 lbs of TDN. This exceeds the CP requirement and is just slightly below the TDN requirement.

Based on the NRC percentage requirements for CP and TDN, it looked like this hay should have easily exceeded requirements. It depends upon the level of intake. Of course, it's very possible this heifer might consume more than 2.0% DMI. In that case both CP and TDN requirements could be exceeded. Managers should expect to monitor body condition to determine if intake and nutrient requirements are being met.

The lesson here is that if hay is to be an effective tool at providing nutrients to cows, it must be matched to their nutrient needs. This means the cattle farmer has to match hay quality to stage of production. In our example, first cutting hay fed in late gestation will not be effective because it will fall short of meeting nutrient requirements. Fed at this time, it means the farmer must spend additional dollars and provide a supplement to meet the shortfall in nutrients.

I now want to consider how hay can be used as a tool to protect the pasture base. Pasture is an important resource in the cow/calf operation. It provides the lowest cost, lowest labor system of feeding and growing cattle. It is a resource that should be well managed and protected. Unfortunately, if cattle are allowed to continue to graze pastures under drought or very wet conditions, this resource can be damaged. The most dramatic example is soggy winter pastures with our 1300 lb cows churning the sod base in to mud.

There is a cost to restore these damaged pastures whether they are allowed to recover on their own or if the farmer steps in to renovate the pasture. The cost can be measured in terms of lost grazing days, less forage tonnage produced and lower forage quality if weeds invade. Re-seeding the area with improved pasture seed can speed up the recovery process but there is the added cost of seed and equipment. Overgrazing damage to pastures during times of severe drought and tearing up the sod base during soggy periods can be minimized by use of hay.

During either times of severe drought or soggy pastures, hay can be used as a tool to protect this resource base. Hay is not just for winter use. Cows should either be moved to a sacrifice area and fed hay or moved into an area with a heavy use pad and fed hay. Once weather conditions have improved, cows can go back to the pasture paddocks.

Most beef cattle farmers are going to make and feed hay. Thinking about the use of hay as a tool might help farmers make better management decisions regarding cattle nutrition and pasture management.

Adding Fat to the Diet Can Improve Reproductive Performance - Dr. Les Anderson, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky

Over the past 15 years, 30 different research trials have been conducted that examine the impact of supplemental fat on reproductive performance of beef and dairy cattle. Fats (or lipids) have been fed before and after calving and during the breeding season. Research on feeding supplemental fat has resulted in varied and inconsistent results as it relates to reproductive efficiency including positive, negative, and no apparent effect.

Several different fat sources have been studied. Plant oils have thus far shown to have the greatest impact on reproduction. Some of the more common sources of plant oils include: sunflower, safflower, whole cottonseed, rice hulls and soybeans. In addition, animal tallow, calcium salts, and fishmeal have also been evaluated.

Dr. Rick Funston, University of Nebraska beef specialist, reviewed the research pertaining to this topic. His conclusions about added fat in cow and heifer diets suggested that some of the improvements reported may be due to the added energy from the fat source. He suggests that until these relationships are better understood, producers are advised to strive for low cost and balanced rations. IF a source of supplemental fat can be added with little or no change in the ration cost, it would be advisable to add it to the ration. Adding fat would be most likely to have a benefit on reproduction with young, marginally thin, growing cows in a year where limited nutrients are available. In other words, two and three year old cows (in a body condition score of 4 or 5) with low quality and/or quantity of roughage available, are most likely to get a boost from adding whole soybeans, whole cottonseeds, safflower, or sunflowers to their diet.

To examine the potential impact of feeding fat on reproductive performance, Dr. Jeff Lehmkuhler and I conducted a trial this spring on 160 extremely thin cows. Approximately 30 days before breeding, this herd of cows averaged a body condition score of only 3.5 (1-9 scale) and weighed less than 1000 pounds. About 125 of the cows were fed 25 pounds of wet distillers grain (about 12-13 pounds of WDG on a dry matter basis) while on pasture. The analysis of the WDG indicated a TDN of 89%, CP of 34%, and 10% fat. The remaining cows were not supplemented. Estrus was synchronized in all the cows by inserting a CIDR device for 7 days prior to turning the bulls in. Bulls remained with the cows for 70 days. Pregnancy rate was determined about 110 days after the beginning of the breeding season.

All the cows gained weight throughout the experiment. The cows fed the WDG gained over 100 pounds and more than one body condition score (went from a BCS of 3.5 to a 5). The cows that were not fed WDG also gained weight. Feeding WDG improved pregnancy rate as 85% of cows fed WDG became pregnant while only (60%) of the cows that were not fed WDG. This trial is further evidence of the positive impact of supplementation on rebreeding potential in beef cows. Although we cannot determine in this trial if the fat contained in the WDG was the key component impacting fertility, it seems apparent that feeding WDG for 30 days prior to breeding has the potential to improve the reproductive rate of cows in poor body condition.

EDITOR's NOTE: Dr. Anderson will share his research and opinions on improving reproductive performance of the beef herd as one of the featured speakers during session #1 of Managing Dynamic Change in 2010 in February.

Keep track of moldy corn issues this fall - Russ Daly, DVM, Extension Veterinarian, South Dakota State University

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.

EDITOR's NOTE: As indicated above, mycotoxin in corn continues to be a concern in Ohio and around the country. The photograph below from Brown County is indicative of what's being found in some portions of the State. FYI, mycotoxins have not been confirmed by laboratory analysis in this corn. Also, find reaction from the CME in Mike Roberts Market Report following the photo.

Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech

CORN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) finished up again on Monday. DEC'09 corn futures finished at $4.022/bu; up 11.75 cents/bu and 16.25 cents/bu higher than last Monday. The MAY'10 contract closed at $4.274; up 11.75 cents/bu and 17.25 cents/bu higher than last report. Outside markets, a weaker U.S. dollar, wet weather, and the struggle to get harvest done amid wet weather were supportive factors. Gold and crude oil made significant gains. USDA late Monday put the U.S. corn crop at 54 % harvested vs. the 5-year average of 89%. Floor sources said the market expected 50-60%. There is an additional concern with this year's corn crop; Vomitoxin. Vomitoxin is fungus derived from wet, poor quality corn. Today the CME Group set new limits on the corn they will accept for delivery that is affected by the fungus. Even though the U.S. dollar makes them attractive, exports were bearish as foreign traders waited to see if harvest will pick back up. With corn supplies this good there really is no fundamental reason that corn should be trading this high. USDA placed corn-inspected-for-export at 21.937 mi bu vs. expectations for 27-33 mi bu and 5.89 mi bu lower than last week. Cash corn in the U.S. Midwest was steady to firm while corn bids in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic states was firm ranging 2.0 cents/bu - 8.0 cents/bu higher. Funds started shedding net-bear positions as they get in the buying mood. Gold and crude oil are soaring providing plenty of money to hedge funds who then need to balance the books against these huge profits. Funds bought 15,000 - 16,000 contracts. It is a good idea to consider selling the rest of the '09 corn crop and as much as 30% of the 2010 crop on these market upticks.

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were mostly off on Monday with the exception of gains in the December and August contracts. DEC'09LC futures closed at $83.575/cwt; up $0.250/cwt but $1.375/cwt lower than last report. The APR'10 contract finished at $87.550/cwt; off $0.150/cwt. Rolling short positions into deferreds supported the December contract while putting pressure on others. Early short covering was encouraged by the weak U.S. dollar. It is hoped that exports will see a jump later in the week. Last Friday cash cattle weakness put downside pressure on futures. The USDA 5-area average for Friday, November 13 was placed at $83.805 while cash cattle in the southern Plains last week were $3-$4/cwt lower. Beef sales were thin on Monday. Beef demand is light going into the holidays as hogs and poultry compete for the holiday table. Early Monday USDA put choice beef cutout at $139.85/cwt; up $0.43/cwt. Pre-report Cattle-on-Feed estimates range from 0.8 - 2.5% of this time last year for feedlot supplies. According to HedgersEdge.com, average packer margins were raised $5.45from last week to a negative $15.60/head based on the average buy of $84.95/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $83.75/cwt.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME were off on Monday. NOV'09FC futures closed at $93.100/cwt; down $0.050/cwt and $1.150/cwt lower than last Monday. MAR'10FC futures finished at $93.300/cwt; off $0.300/cwt and $3.000/cwt lower than this time last week. Higher corn and feed costs pressured feeders. Cash feeders in Oklahoma City were steady to weaker near the end of last week; down as much as $2/cwt. The CME feeder cattle index for November 12 was placed at $93.57/lb; off $0.01/lb but $0.44/lb higher than last report.

Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events

BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868

Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources