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 # 648

August 12, 2009

OCA Roundup Registration Deadline Extended, All Livestock Producers Invited!

You might find a few poultry, dairy, or pork producers at the Cattlemen's Roundup planned for August 29, 2009. With the growing threat from radical animal rights groups, the Ohio Cattlemen's Association (OCA) is inviting all of the livestock industry to their summer meeting near Oxford, Ohio. With the location just a few miles from Indiana and Kentucky, they are also inviting out of state farmers to the event.

The event will feature two speakers who know the hidden agendas of the many animal rights groups: Wes Jamison from the University of Florida and David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Jamison has studied the animal welfare movement for nearly 20 years. The reason the animal welfare movement is having success is because society has changed. More and more people believe farm animals should be treated as well as their own pets, says Jamison.

Livestock transportation could be targeted by using the interstate commerce clause to raise the cost of transportation across state lines. Activists will want animals to lie down with access to food and water. Jamison says that message will play well to an urban audience, and to the new President and Congress.

David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom says, The Humane Society of the United States is the single biggest threat to animal agriculture that Americans have ever seen. Join Martosko for a frank discussion about the need for an aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to dealing with this wealthy and dishonest organization.

Martosko is the principal expert on animal rights for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a Washington, DC, nonprofit watchdog group. He led CCF's launch of groundbreaking Internet websites like PetaKillsAnimals.com, ActivistCash.com, and MercuryFacts.org.

Martosko has testified before Congress about the threat of animal-rights violence and the hidden agendas of deceptive groups like the Humane Society of the United States. He has also lectured about the threat of animal-rights and eco-radicals in Europe.

The early registration deadline has been extended to August 19. The special package price for anyone who is a member of a commodity group, is $30 for the tours, lunch, steak dinner and entertainment. Non members and at the door rate is only $40. For information call: 614-873-6736 or email beef@ohiobeef.org. Make checks to: Ohio Cattlemen's Assn., 10600 US Hwy 42, Marysivlle, OH 43040. See the Roundup program and registration details on the websites: http://cattlemencare.net or www.OhioCattle.org

Disposition is important . . . and heritable - Dr. Roy Burris, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky

I was just out of graduate school and working for Mississippi State University in 1974. My first effort was to participate in a very large crossbreeding project. One of the first bulls that we used made a lasting impression on me. He taught me that a bad attitude is contagious and that disposition is very important…and heritable.

This bull came from Arizona and represented a breed that was particularly adapted to browse and low quality roughage. He arrived in a "gooseneck" trailer which was minus two crossgates, and shaking and rattling when it pulled into the experiment station. We cautiously let him off the trailer. He hit the ground pawing, snorting and bellowing. Two little bulls across the fence felt obligated to return the gesture. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to fight him but probably just didn't want him to think they were heifers.

I promptly made a peace offering with a bale of our best bermudagrass hay. He didn't seem to know what to do with it but he did eat the baler twine. I was impressed.

A lot of bad bulls will demolish fences and gates. But not this gentleman, he was so athletic that he could clear a 48" fence with room to spare. When "business got slack" he would just go visiting. Fortunately, he sired some pretty nice looking calves so the neighbors didn't complain and came to depend on his frequent visits. He'd usually come home on his own, which was a good thing since there was little chance that we were going to get him back into a cattle trailer.

He sired some of the most reproductively efficient cows that I have ever seen but there was one problem. It seems that disposition is somewhat heritable. Some of his heifers didn't need or want a lot of attention so whole herd testing for brucellosis was a problem. We quickly solved that with a tranquilizer gun, though. We could get close enough to shoot them out of the back of a pickup truck and hastily get a blood sample as soon as they went down. That's as close as I have ever gotten to going on a safari.

That was before we had adequate cattle handling facilities or horses. We had to rope cows out of the back of an old pickup truck - jerk the rope - and quickly let go or you'd fly out of the back of the truck. Richard, who worked at one of the farms, was particularly adept at driving upon the knot on the end of the rope and stopping the cow. We managed to catch one cow that was trying to calve and then throw her to the ground. I proceeded to pull the calf but Richard was sitting on the cow with the lower foreleg pulled up to help keep her down. He was in another world, puffing on his ever-present cigarette - not even aware of what I was doing.

In a moment of pure devilishness after I pulled the calf, I jerked the rope off the cow's neck and jumped in the back of the truck. The cow realized she was loose before Richard did. She chased him around the truck about three times with her nose in his back pocket before he could create enough space between them to jump in the truck with me. He didn't say much to me then (or for several days after). He was just violently gasping for breath. I was somewhat sympathetic to his plight and said in a most concerned tone "Richard, you need to cut back on those cigarettes. She almost got you!"

I have to admit that there was an element of excitement involved in those activities. But I was younger then. They say that you learn more quickly when you are young but I'm not sure that's correct. I'm older now and I've finally decided that disposition is perhaps the most important trait that we can breed and select for.

A wild animal is much more difficult to handle and can, in fact, be a definite liability to your operation. So what can we do? We can start by culling problems out of our cow herd. I like to start by evaluating calves for disposition every time they come through the chute. Calves can be rated according to their behavior in the squeeze chute:

1 = Docile

2 = Restless

3 = Nervous

4 = Flighty/wild

5 = Aggressive

Those calves that are rated as 4 or 5 should not go back into a breeding herd. A similar system can be devised using exit speed from the head gate. After weaning, continue to watch calves and eliminate problem cattle. It is very expensive to have to cull breeding stock because of disposition problems. The best plan is to select breeding stock that have good dispositions and avoid having to cull them.

Feeder cattle with good dispositions are also more valuable. In a study of over 13,000 feedlot calves (Iowa State University), calves were rated as docile, restless or nervous to aggressive. When all factors (gain, carcass traits and death loss) were considered, "docile" calves were worth $62.19 more per head than their "nervous to aggressive" counterparts.

Table: Effects of disposition on the difference in net dollars returned on a per head basis (Iowa State University)

In my opinion, we should make disposition one of the most important traits for which cattle are selected. Owners of smaller, more intensively managed herds want docile cattle. I understand that . . . now.

What's Up Or Down With Cow Prices? - Tim Petry, Livestock Marketing Economist, NDSU Extension Service

Last year, cull cow prices were at a record high despite the relatively large beef cow slaughter levels. Beef cow slaughter was high due to a drought in several cattle-producing regions of the U.S., including North Dakota, and sharply increasing input costs, such as feed, fuel and fertilizer.

However, cow prices have averaged about $5 per hundredweight (cwt) lower than last year. In mid-July, cow prices finally reached levels similar to last year.

There are several reasons for lower prices for the first half of this year.

Although beef cow slaughter has been lower, total cow slaughter has averaged about 3 percent higher than in 2008.

The dairy industry has suffered with very low milk prices this year and dairy cow slaughter has been about 15 percent higher than last year. Increased milk production and lower domestic and export demand due to the weak world economy have caused weak prices.

A Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) dairy cow buyout program that accepted more than 100,000 dairy cows for slaughter during May through August has contributed to the increased slaughter. Details for the buyout are available on the CWT Web site at www.cwt.coop.

Cow prices did decline contra-seasonally about $6 per cwt in May during the early stages of the buyout. But the lower prices were not entirely due to the additional dairy cow sales.

Beef cow slaughter also increased due to more beef cows than normal being marketed at northern Plains markets. There were more calf deaths than usual this spring in parts of North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana due to a record snowfall, several severe spring snow storms and unprecedented flooding.

Therefore, cows that lost calves were sold.

Last year at this time, the price for 90 percent lean, wholesale beef was surging, with increases in all commodity prices. Prices now are $15 per cwt lower than in 2008 because ample supplies of meat, especially pork, are available at lower prices than last year.

In addition, imports of manufacturing grade beef have increased 20 percent over last year's historically low levels. Last year, imports of beef from Australia, the leading supplier of manufacturing grade beef to the U.S., were down about 25 percent from historical levels due to the low value of the U.S. dollar. This year, imports from Australia have increased back to historic levels as the U.S. dollar has increased in value and other countries that import beef have struggled with poor economic conditions.

What's ahead for cow prices in the last half of 2009? Although prices in mid- July were similar to last year's levels, cow prices likely will not increase to the high levels reached last August. Instead, prices likely will level off for the rest of the summer.

The typical seasonal price pattern for cows shows a sharp decline in October and November, when heavy beef cow culling occurs. That scenario likely is to occur again this year.

Other factors that may contribute to the decline are that CWT is in the process of implementing another dairy cow buyout that could occur during the late fall marketing timeframe. The CWT Web site has more information.

In addition, the western Canadian cattle-producing provinces are experiencing abnormally dry conditions. If that dry pattern continues, Canadian cow imports, which so far have been near last year's levels, could increase.

If possible, marketing cows before October or after December usually is a prudent marketing strategy. That very well could be the case again this year.

Managing Cull Cows at the Noble Foundation - Jon Biermacher, Ag Research Economist and Billy Cook, Division Director, The Noble Foundation

Cull cows represent between 15 and 30 percent of a cow-calf herd's revenue, but relatively little attention is given to cull cow marketing. Most cow-calf producers traditionally sort and sell cull cows in the fall when prices are at or near the seasonal low. However, alternative management systems and timing of cull cow marketing may increase net revenues for the cow-calf operation. The purpose of this article is to report the first year's findings of a three-year cull cow management study conducted at the Noble Foundation in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University.

A total of 48 cull cows were randomly assigned to one of two cull cow management systems, including 1) feeding 24 cull cows on grain and supplement in dry lot confinement and 2) a system that allowed 24 cull cows to graze native forage pasture. The experiment was conducted from October 2007 to April 2008. Various data measurements were taken at five intervals including the initial culling date (Oct. 3). Time periods after culling were 42 days (Nov. 15), 78 days (Jan. 10), 111 days (Feb. 12), 134 days (March 6) and 164 days (April 2). Data were collected on weight, estimated USDA grade, estimated dressing percentage, costs (feed, animal health, etc.) and estimated market value. For each feeding time interval and each cumulative period, estimated animal performance and net returns were calculated. Estimated USDA grade and dressing percentage were used to assign a price to each cow, based on prices reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) for cull cows in Oklahoma sold the same week. The market value of each cow at each period was calculated. Data enabled tracking animal performance, costs and estimated value, all of which are critical to assessing the added costs and returns for retaining cows beyond the normal culling date.

Average daily gain (ADG) declined generally for each group of cows. ADG was higher for cows in dry lot after 42 days (November) and remained higher for each cumulative feeding interval. For both management systems, the decline in ADG indicated weight gain was slowing as the length of the feeding period increased.

Average cost of gain was lower for cows on grass compared with cows in dry lot. Cows in dry lot gained faster, but ration costs were much higher, thereby contributing to the higher cost per gain. Feed costs accounted for 83 to 93 percent of total costs for each feeding interval. Percentages were higher for cows in dry lot than cows on grass.

For all intervals, net returns were greater for cows on grass than cows in dry lot. Cows gained in value during the first 42 days (October to November) from added weight, but declined in value over that 42-day period from the drop in prices. After the first interval, price increases offset losses in value from weight loss for cows on grass. Cows in dry lot increased in value both from additional weight gain and increase in prices. However, net returns for cows in dry lot declined due to the higher feed costs associated with obtaining the weight gain.

Cows on grass lost weight after the first 42 days (October to November), reducing their value. However, their ration costs were low, so even at lower weights, their value increased due to higher prices. The higher prices and lower costs compensated for the loss in weight.

Figure 1 below indicates that only at 111 days (February) and 134 days (March) were net returns positive for either feeding program for this first year of a three-year experimental design. In this first year, the best alternative would have been to keep cows on native grass and market them at 111 days (February).

Results suggest a potential for holding cows beyond culling for about three months on a low-cost feeding program. However, results indicate the key to net returns in this first year of the experiment was experiencing the typical seasonal price increase from the low in November through the January-February period.

Forage Focus: Grazing Bites, August 2009 - Victor Shelton, NRCS Grazing Specialist

This morning when I left the house the first time it was 59 degrees outside. I had to remind myself that it really was the first of August. This has certainly been a strange summer for most of Indiana. Many parts of the state have had a rain almost every week and have struggled to "make hay while the sun shines", while other parts of the state, especially the north-east are droughty. The Fort Wayne area recorded the coldest July on record with an average temperature at 68.9 degrees. Between the cooler weather and me still trying to adjust to eastern daylight saving time, I feel like I'm stuck in some kind of never ending jet lag. After complaining one evening about how tired I was, my wife quirked back, "you still get up at the same time you always did, but you don't come in until it gets dark…which is a lot later". . . I'd feel good about how much more I should be accomplishing if I wasn't so tired.

What does this all mean for our forages and pasture? I am certainly not a nutritionist by training, but I have noticed things that effect animal performance over the years. Temperature has a huge effect on most physiological processes that occur in plants including photosynthesis, respiration, nutrient movement, carbon partitioning and certainly growth. The plant response then for "cooler" conditions than normal might include slower rate of maturity, slower lignification, meaning it should be easier to keep it higher in quality longer and with sufficient moisture, possibly more growth, more leaf to stem ratio and perhaps higher digestibility. We would ideally like our pastures to be low in fiber and highly digestible. As the NDF (neutral detergent fiber - plant cell wall content - generally very digestible) decreases, net energy increases; as NDF increases, net energy decreases. NDF is also probably the biggest indicator of how much an animal will eat. A cow will eat more forage if it is low in NDF…the more mature the forage, the less consumed.

That all sounds good and it is for the most part. What about the down side? Is there a down side? Day length and the quantity of sunny and cloudy days can also play a big part in forage quality. Forage plants accumulate total nonstructural carbohydrates from the sun. With lots of sun, photosynthesis produces plenty of carbohydrates and in fact, more than the plant can even utilize on some days. On very cloudy days and at night, respiration of the plant still continues and can soon deplete the carbohydrate concentrations.

In the areas with increased rainfall too, it is certainly possible for some carbohydrates to be leached. This loss of available carbohydrates can mean less energy available for the grazing livestock. How much less depends on all the mentioned factors, but generally not too much. Depending on the grazing system and the grazing animal, hopefully you have already matched the appropriate forage for the system and livestock present. Growing and lactating animals require high energy forages for the best results.

Ever notice how the cows don't eat the grass in the shaded areas of a pasture or the water flow areas of a field as well as the rest of the field . . . it is generally because of lower energy in these areas and they will certainly eat the good stuff first. Most ruminants you will notice will actually do more grazing in the afternoon and early evening than any other part of the day - again, they are getting the biggest bang for the bite at that time when energy is the highest . . . good reason to cut hay after lunch too.

Ok, what does all this mean? If you have kept your forages vegetative, which has been an easy thing this year for the areas with plenty of rainfall, you probably are a little lower in energy than normal, but should be fine. Systems with lots of maturing forages will certainly be lower in energy and protein and I would consider utilizing dry cows on these areas in higher concentration for short durations grazing small areas for short periods to graze the best and return the rest back to the soil for next time. This will help build soil nutrients, increase organic matter and improve the forage for the next grazing period. Save your best forages with the highest energy for lactating and growing animals. Maintain sufficient residual after each grazing period to maximize that solar panel to harvest as much sunlight as possible and to maintain live roots. Maintain sufficient legume content (30-40% by dry weight) and add legumes to the sward for next year if lacking. Graze brassicas, ryegrasses and summer annual warm season grasses if available. In the wetter portion of the state, double check internal parasite levels of grazing livestock. Increased rainfall and wet conditions can increase the likelihood of problems.

If you really want to know what your forage quality is then I would certainly suggest taking forage samples of the forages that the livestock are eating (just watch them graze for a while and see what they are actually eating . . . might surprise you) and have the samples tested at a lab then supplement as needed to meet your goals. The ultimate measure of forage quality is animal performance.

If we had a perfect world and the perfect pasture scenario, it would rain only at night when we need it with blue sunny skies during the day maximizing our solar energy, but that would take all the fun out it wouldn't it?

Keep on grazing!

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

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were off on Monday. The AUG'09LC contract closed down $0.575/cwt at $83.275/cwt; $1.175/cwt lower than this time last week. DEC'09LC futures closed at $88.150/cwt; off $0.525/cwt and $1.450/cwt lower than a week ago. Weak cash sales again last week, higher corn prices, and worries over potential deliveries in the August contract pressured prices. The August premium to cash ahead of first delivery notices are expected to draw some deliveries. Cash were off $1 at $81/cwt in the southern plains with USDA reporting the 5-area average at $81.17/cwt; $1.44/cwt lower than this time last week. Expected tight fed cattle supplies ahead were mildly supportive. Early Monday USDA placed Choice Boxed Beef at $140.84/cwt; up $0.14/cwt but $1.99/cwt lower than a week ago. News reports of 27 people ill with salmonella resulting in the recall of 800,000 lbs of ground beef from 12 states was not much of a factor in today's trading. According to HedgersEdge.com, average packer margins were raised another $7.60/head to a positive $30.60/head based on the average buy of $81.96/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $84.31/cwt. Wait until after the USDA WASDE report to look at pricing any feed. Sell cattle when ready.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME were down on Monday. AUG'09FC futures finished at $100.425/cwt; off $0.925/cwt and $1.575/cwt lower than last report. The OCT'09FC contract closed at $100.625/cwt; down $0.950/cwt; $1.375/cwt lower than a week ago. Feeders followed live cattle on weaker cash markets despite smaller herd numbers. Cash feeders were $1-$1.50/cwt lower in Oklahoma City. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for Aug. 6 was $0.83/cwt lower than a week ago at $100.78/cwt. It is still a very good idea to sell feeders on the heavy side if you have grass as feeder buyers will want to buy as little grain as possible.

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