A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to this weekly BEEF Cattle letter by sending a blank e-mail to beef-cattle-on@ag.osu.edu
Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter
Issue # 583
Adjusting to a New Economic Reality - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County
Unless they have been off vacationing on some remote tropical island the past 3 to 4 months, beef producers realize that they are operating with a whole new set of economic realities. Of course, that vacation scheme implies a different set of economic realities as well. Back to beef production economics. Surplus hay supplies are limited to non-existent; $120/ton sounded like a bargain this past winter and now into early spring. I guess it might be if some of the prices I have heard for small square hay bales are correct at $6-$9 /bale. If bales are 50 pounds, that figures out to $240 - $360 per ton! The cost of mineral, particularly phosphorus is also climbing rapidly. Remember $2.00/bushel corn? It's fluctuating around the $5.00/bushel mark now. Are you ready to fertilize hay and pasture fields? How does $0.75 + per pound nitrogen sound? Phosphorus (P2O5) costs are similar and continuing to increase, potassium (K2O) is around $0.50 per pound. I had better date this (3-26-08) because prices are likely to be higher by time you read this. As if high feed and fertilizer costs were not enough of a challenge, fuel continues its climb into the record books. An important question to ask in the face of these high input costs is: Are these high prices an aberration, a temporary fluctuation, or are they here to stay? If the answer is that these prices reflect a new "normal" or "business as usual" model, then beef producers need to make some management adjustments to stay in step with these new economic realities.
A number of livestock owners attended the recently completed the two weeknight short courses that dealt with the topic of these new economic realities. I want to summarize here some of the management adjustments that were suggested by speakers and participants at these meetings. While all of these suggestions will not fit each and every cattle enterprise, they hopefully will stimulate some discussion and thinking that will lead to profitability on the farm. I'll divide the suggestions into several broad topic areas: Pasture/Hay, Alternative Forages, Grain and By-Product Feeds, Cattle.
Pasture/Hay: The days of cheap forage are gone. Just looking at the nutrient removal costs in a ton of hay will push hay prices to over $70 /ton. By time machinery costs and labor are figured in $100/ton is about the breakeven price of producing hay. This has several management implications.
First, grazing management becomes more important. The forage produced in your pasture is not a cheap forage, it should be valued at least the equivalent of hay. Livestock harvesting of forage is much more economical than machine harvesting. Given these statements, what can be done to utilize this resource more effectively? Some suggestions include:
* Increase the number of paddocks on the farm. More paddocks on a given area means smaller paddock size. Putting the same number of animals into a smaller space increases stocking density. Increased stocking density results in more uniform grazing, better forage utilization and more uniform manure distribution. This can help to increase pasture organic matter content. Increasing the organic matter content by 1% adds 20,000 pounds of organic matter per acre to the soil. Organic matter can hold up to 90% of its weight in water. So a 1% increase in soil organic matter can result in an additional 2000+ gallons of water per acre. In addition, each percent of organic matter in the soil releases on a per acre basis 20 to 30 pounds of nitrogen, 4.5 to 6.6 pounds of P2O5, and 2 to 3 pounds of sulfur per year.
* Use soil sampling to make more effective and efficient use of purchased fertilizer. Grazing animals move nutrients and concentrate nutrients in pasture areas, particularly if paddock size is large and/or stocking density is low. Even if pastures are not divided into smaller paddock subdivisions, divide the pasture into smaller soil sampling units. The idea is to do some type of grid sampling that will permit variable rates of fertilizer to be spread across a pasture according to need. Soil sampling is cheaper than either over or under applying fertilizer over a large area.
* Add legumes to the pasture mix. A paddock containing 25 to 30% evenly distributed legumes, such as red or white clover will provide the nitrogen needs for the grass and eliminate the need for purchased nitrogen fertilizer.
* Develop a plan to protect the sod base during periods when soils are saturated with moisture. This could be either a heavy use-feeding pad or a specific sacrifice pasture paddock. The advantage of a heavy use-feeding pad is that it will allow you to move and spread manure to other areas of the farm.
Since hay is no longer a cheap feed, what can be done to reduce waste and loss of that feed source? How can hay be used more effectively? Some suggestions include:
* Look at how hay is being stored. The greatest loss occurs on hay stored in the open on the ground. A first step is to get it off the ground. Stone or pallets can be used. After that storage that provides some cover can further reduce losses. It may be economical to build a storage structure.
* Reduce feeding waste. Use hay savers in bale rings. Consider feeding on a heavy use pad. Feed smaller amounts of hay at one time.
* Make use of hay testing. When feed and mineral were less expensive, over supplementing had smaller economic consequences. Hay quality should be matched to animal nutrient requirements. A small investment in hay testing can pay some big returns.
* Feed low quality hay after weaning. For many spring calving herds that means September. During this time let your pastures stockpile. Stockpiled forage is typically higher quality than most of the first cutting grass hay in our area. Use this stockpiled forage in the winter.
Alternative Forages: Annual forages can provide options to help get pasture paddocks re-seeded and can fill in cool season pasture production gaps. The downside to annual forage use is that they require some type of soil preparation, there is an annual seed cost, and to take full advantage of their production some additional management skills often have to be practiced. In Athens County the biggest hurdle on that list is finding some level ground where they can be planted. Some suggestions to consider include:
* Brown mid-rib (BMR) sorghum x sudangrass or sudangrass forages planted in late May can be ready for grazing in early to mid-July. In one on-farm trial in Athens County in 2007, BMR sudangrass that was grazed beginning mid-July through the end of August yielded approximately 3000 lbs of dry matter in each of two grazing passes. Forage quality was 20% Crude Protein with a TDN value of 68. With more intensive strip grazing, it should be possible to get 3 to 4 grazing passes. It fills in the cool season grass summer slump. Surplus forage could be chopped and put into silage bags or baled and wrapped as baleage.
* Forage turnips can be planted in April or through early May and will provide a source of grazing about 6 weeks after germination. Frequent, short duration grazing can be used to provide several grazing passes, again helping to fill in the summer slump period.
* Annual ryegrass can be planted in areas that have been tore up to provide some quick cover and allow grazing about 4 weeks after germination. Once again, frequent, short duration grazing is the way to manage.
* Corn silage is a high quality feedstuff that is often cheaper than hay with a better energy content. The best situation is to contract with a crop producer to grow some silage corn, chop it and then bag it in a silage bag on your farm. Bunk feeding is the best method to get good feed utilization.
* Six years of work with summer planted oats in Fairfield County have demonstrated that oats may be the most productive alternative forage option available; under the right conditions. Oats work very well doubled cropped after wheat. When planted in the late July through late August time frame, oats put growth into leaves and do not produce seed. Oats can be grazed through the winter months, or, some producers are harvesting oat forage for hay or cutting and wrapping as a baleage product. Quality analysis has shown that oats hold on to the quality they had at the point when growth is stopped due to freezing weather. It does not appear that oats can be no tilled seeded into an existing pasture sod and expected to produce the same tonnage as oats after wheat. So, at this point, unless oats can be planted under a tillage situation or no-tilled into a field where there will not be sod competition it may be best to look at other options.
Grain and By-product Feeds: In times of short forage supplies and expensive hay, grains and by-product feeds such as distiller's grains, soy hulls and wheat midds may provide more economical options to feed beef cattle. However, even these by-product feeds fluctuate in price and availability. In order to make best use of grain and by-product feeds; the following suggestions need to be considered:
* Corn grain, even at $5.00 per bushel is often the most economical feed choice to stretch limited hay supplies and a better buy than purchased hay. Corn contains about twice the energy as hay, so when nutrients are compared on a cost/lb of dry matter basis, corn is more economical. Thought needs to be given about how to feed corn. Feeding underneath an electric wire is an effective means of reducing waste to virtually zero. Another option is bunk feeding.
* If by-product feeds are going to be an option in the feeding program, then they must be bought when they are at a low point in their price cycle. This low price point may not be when the extra feed is needed in the beef producer's calendar. Therefore, to take advantage of the price and time of availability, the producer must have a way to store the by-product feed. Stan Smith in the new economic realities meetings, talked about hay sheds that could also be used as commodity structures to store other feed products.
* Is it time to think about bunk feeders? Bunk feeders will allow more feeding options as ways to feed grain, by product feeds, corn silage and chopped forages. If a beef producer is committed to feeding the lowest cost ration during times when grazing isn't possible and/or hay supplies are limited, then bunk feeders allow many different kinds of alternative feeds to be fed with the greatest efficiency and least amount of waste.
Cattle: Much attention has been focused on alternatives and options within a conventional spring cow/calf operation. Are there some changes that could be made from the animal side of the enterprise that should be examined in light of these new economic realities? Some suggestions to consider include:
* Fall calving. Could moving to fall calving increase productivity and profitability? John Grimes, Extension Educator in Highland County, provided some reasons for this management practice. Some of those reasons include: generally more favorable weather conditions such as less mud, and warmer temperatures, more favorable temperature conditions to re-breed cows/ higher conception rates, and good use of stockpiled forages.
* Forage-based genetics. Make sure your cows have the genetics/are adapted to growing and being productive on a forage base without needing supplementation. Frame scores should be moderate. Large animals have higher maintenance requirements compared to smaller animals.
There are probably other suggestions that came up at the meetings that I am not recalling at this time, but the point is that there are management adjustments that can be made to cope and survive in these new economic realities. For more information about any of the suggestions presented here, contact your County Extension office.
Mineral and cattle, can one fit all? - Stan Smith, PA, Fairfield County OSU Extension
While the cost of minerals escalates as rapidly as fertilizer and feeds, we've received questions such as, "What's the best mineral for my cattle?" For many years, the mineral supplementation approach has often been to simply offer them as much of a "good" free choice mineral as they wanted whenever they wanted it. Yet, we seldom knew if it was warranted or even if it had the "right stuff." As we face a whole new set of what seem to be harsh economic realities in the beef cattle business, it's probably time to begin balancing our mineral needs just as we do feed rations or fertility recommendations for row crops.
The question we need to address is why we'd even need to consider different mineral recipes for each
herd, or perhaps at different times of the year? Over the past 30+ years many of us across Ohio have dramatically changed our crop and pasture field fertilization habits. As crop prices quickly escalated in the '70's, we found there was quite a response to applying supplemental fertilizer to row crops and forages. Yet, in many cases, these fertilization habits (management practices) have been as varied as the individuals who've employed them ever since.
This in turn, has made nearly every field look different from a mineral content standpoint. Thus, forages on each of these widely varying fields (varied from a fertility standpoint) may each be different in mineral content especially in regard to the higher valued minerals such as phosphorus and potassium. While these differences may appear to be slight and offer little significance, a lifetime of even small deficiencies compounded by the stress of the birthing process, or lack of adequate forage, or poor plant growth due to heat or drought, may cause even subtle mineral deficiencies to be magnified into animal herd health issues.
For example, grass tetany in a cow is typically due to lack of magnesium. However, it may not be due to the fact it wasn't offered to her, but perhaps she simply wasn't consuming enough at a critical time to avoid a problem. Health issues related to magnesium deficiencies are magnified by the birthing process and the onset of lactation. These issues are magnified further when cows are on rapidly growing spring grass which doesn't take up as much magnesium as it can when grass growth is slowed by the heat or lack of moisture. At the same time, magnesium uptake in forages is impacted by the balance between potassium and magnesium in the soil. Going one step further, if early spring pasture growth is accelerated by the top dressing of nitrogen to the soil, magnesium uptake by forages is yet again suppressed by the even more rapid forage growth. According to Steve Boyles, OSU Beef Extension Specialist, relatively high levels of potassium in numerous forage samples he has seen may be a primary issue for potential grass tetany for some cattlemen. He suggests when testing Ohio forages for magnesium, also look at the potassium level. Additional soil nutrient imbalances such as low pH, or incorrect calcium to phosphorus or calcium to magnesium ratios may also create differences in the mineral content of forages.
The most common management practice employed by cattlemen over the years has been to offer free choice minerals in ratios that best suited their part of an "average" world. Thus, cattlemen frequently offer essentially the same mineral mix year around, perhaps only adding a little more phosphorus at breeding time. Today, minerals have become very expensive (phosphorus alone has more than doubled just this winter) while cattle continue to experience moderate amounts of stress from last summer's heat or lack of adequate nutrition.
All that being said, when trying to create the "perfect" mineral mix for a specific beef herd, we are best served by having our forages and feed stuffs tested for mineral content. In fact, in the quest to be even more precise, it may be wise to test pasture forages early in the spring and again after the spring flush subsides. Each cutting of hay should probably be tested as well as testing each different field's hay which may possess significantly different forage species.
Even going beyond the forages, recognize that some of us are offering feedstuffs to cattle they've never experienced before and these feedstuffs may be dramatically different than the traditional concentrates we may have fed in the past.
For example, whole corn grain may have 0.03% and 0.31% respectively of calcium and phosphorus on a dry matter basis. Yet, a load of dry distillers grains with solubles fed in Fairfield County this winter had 0.13% and 0.85% of calcium and phosphorus, respectively. At the same time, corn stalks being fed here in the County were analyzed to have 0.28% and 0.09% of calcium and phosphorus and the oats we were feeding tested out at 0.34% and 0.45%, respectively.
As you might imagine, depending on the feedstuffs being fed, the amounts of each being fed, and the cows' stage of reproduction, phosphorus supplementation could change significantly throughout the year. With phosphorus being the most expensive ingredient in most beef cattle minerals and other ingredients becoming more expensive, it may no longer be affordable to simply offer one mineral mix for all situations. In fact, as the season, stage of reproduction and feed stuffs change throughout the year, we may find ourselves adjusting mineral supplementation as frequently as we might the feed ration.
Simply put, high costs alone may no longer allow us to rely on the "one perfect mineral" concept that we've utilized for so many decades in much of Ohio. For more information, review Steve Boyles Mineral Supplementation section of the Beef Cow Nutrition publication found in the OSU Beef Team web Library: http://beef.osu.edu/library/cownutr.html and also an article by Francis Fluharty found in the Library entitled Updating Phosphorus Supplementation in Ruminants to Meet the Animal's Requirement, Reduce Excess Cost, and Reduce Environmental Concerns: http://beef.osu.edu/Neweconomics/ReTkgPhos.doc
Forage Focus: Ryelage Harvest: Just Around the Corner - Paul H. Craig, Dauphin County Pennsylvania Extension
With the arrival of warmer temperatures this week the cereal rye crop has rapidly begun to grow and develop. In some areas in southern PA the crop is approaching mid-calf height and will quickly reach knee height. This indicates that the harvest for highest quality forages is just around the corner. Are you ready??
Many dairy producers have adopted management practices to maximize forage quality and yields from ryelage. These individuals quickly plant rye into harvested silage acreage in the late summer and then gain the advantage of a winter cover crop, a way to recycle fall applied manure nutrients and provide quality forage at a time when other forage crop supplies are getting short. Others have learned to despise this crop based on experiences when feeding an over-mature or too wet ryelage crop.
To ensure high quality ryelage harvest, producers must have harvest equipment ready to go. The quality of ryelage rapidly decreases with maturity and one day in harvest delay can make the difference between high quality and average to poor quality forage. If producers rely on custom harvesters, these individuals should be contacted now to plan approximate harvest schedules.
The most successful ryelage managers time harvest for maximum plant sugar levels with the highest level of digestible forage fiber. These individuals time mowing of rye stands just prior to head emergence. Their goal is to have no more than 5% of the tillers showing any sign of emerged heads. You can monitor where the head is within the plant stalk by feeling for it or by carefully dissecting the tiller. Once the flag leaf has emerged the seed head is soon to follow.
Cereal rye can provide high levels of dry matter per acre. This large amount of forage can greatly affect rapid dry down following mowing. Ensuring a rapid dry down maximizes the level of plant sugars in the plant resulting in better fermentation in the silo and higher quality forage for the cow. Mowing and putting the forage in as wide a swath as possible will aid dry down. By not conditioning the plant the forage will continue to respire in the field post mowing and more rapid dry down will naturally occur. Conditioning breaks the "plumbing" of the plant and limits dry down rates.
Many successful ryelage producers also ted their rye to speed dry down. Most will ted as soon after mowing as the surface of the swath is dry. This is usually followed by a second tedding when the tops of the forage is dry and finally a rake is used when moistures are close to harvest targets (62 - 65%) to prepare the field for chopping.
Another successful practice is to include the use of inoculants to speed the fermentation process in the ryelage storage structure. Be sure to talk to your supplier to select the proper inoculants for a ryelage crop. Be certain to check inoculant rates and the manufacturer date to ensure high quality products. When filling the inoculant tank do not use chlorinated water. Chlorine in public water systems can negatively affect inoculants survivability. Another factor that has been shown to affect inoculant survival is temperature of the water on the choppers. When tanks are located near engines and exposed to sunlight high water temperatures can reduce viability of the bacteria.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were mixed on Monday with nearby's up and deferreds closing off somewhat. The APR'08LC contract closed at $89.150/cwt, up $0.450/cwt and $1.275/cwt higher than a week ago. This contract was under pressure by talk of deliveries last week but has rebounded nicely. JUNE'08LC futures were up $0.325/cwt at $90.100/cwt and $0.600/cwt higher than last Monday. This makes two weeks in a row of gains for these contracts. October live cattle are not as optimistic believing higher grain prices are in the offing. The OCT'08LC contract closed at $101.350/cwt, off $0.475/cwt. Cash cattle in the U.S. Plains did not show much activity on Monday after large sales last Friday around $87/cwt. USDA on Monday put the 5-area price for steers at $87.16/cwt vs. $85.95/cwt last week. Some analysts are saying we'll have $89-$90/cwt cash cattle this week. $87-$88/cwt cattle are more like it on surging grain prices. Feeder buyers were reportedly losing as much as $175/head last week and may not want to bid up more losses this week. On the other hand, higher beef prices, less cattle, better futures prices and positive beef plant margins have feeders with cattle-to-sell-for-processing hoping for better prices this week. We'll see but don't hold your breath. Monday USDA raised the choice boxed beef cutout by $2.36/cwt from Friday to $145.83/cwt. The average beef plant margin for Monday, April 14 was estimated at $30.45/head vs. a negative $16.70 last Monday. This was based on the average buy at $85.61/cwt vs. an estimated breakeven processing figure of $88.87/cwt, according to HedgersEdge.com. Cash sellers should consider pricing some cattle on the nearby rally not waiting for the end of the week. Corn inputs should be priced only as needed.
FEEDER CATTLEat the CME closed up across the board on Monday. The APR'08FC contract finished at $99.550/cwt, up $0.050/cwt and $0.550/cwt higher than last Monday. MAY'08FC futures were up $0.025/cwt at $103.075/cwt and $1.150/cwt higher than a week ago. Feeders were supported by live cattle futures even though feed supplies were up. Hedge funds are looking to balance toward the end of the month with higher cash coffers from surging crude, gold, and silver. In addition, tighter feeder supplies were supportive. Estimates looking forward to Friday's Cattle on Feed report are showing a range from 87%-98% of year-ago placements; from 96%-98% of last March's marketings, and between 100.4%-102% of a-year-ago feedlot supplies. That's why live cattle are being pressured and feeders look like a better bet. Stocker owners are seen as having opportunity to capitalize on grass gains if decent rains continue. Just remember not to put those feeders on fresh pastures too soon so as not to limit forage yields. The temptation is there with high feed supplies but it is strongly encouraged to hold of tromping that new grass just yet. Reading a forage and grazing piece the other day it was recommended to wait until short fescue was around 6 inches tall and tall fescue was around 9 inches tall before turning cattle out. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index for April 10 was placed at $98.66/cwt, off $0.060/cwt. It is a good idea to hold off sales if adequate grazing opportunity is in place. Feeders still might rally a little more.
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
