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 # 598
Stockpiling Forage: Still a Good Economic Decision? - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County (reprinted from the Ohio Cattleman's Magazine and the Athens County Beef newsletter)
August is the time to make forage decisions that will affect the late fall and winter-feeding period. In the past, stockpiling grass for late fall and winter grazing has been much more economical than feeding baled hay. How do increased fuel, fertilizer and forage production costs affect the economics of stockpiling forage? In this article I want to review some of the research that has been done on stockpiling forage for winter grazing and apply today's economics to this practice to see if it is still a good economic decision.
As with most management decisions, there are advantages and disadvantages to consider before stockpiling. Probably the main disadvantage to stockpiling grass is that some pasture is being taken out of the active rotation. This occurs at a time when grass growth is slow and rotation lengths between paddocks are increasing in most years. As I write this article in late July, we have had good pasture growing conditions and the weather forecasts continue to look favorable. It is easier to make a decision to stockpile grass for late fall/winter feeding if pasture is plentiful, and it doesn't "hurt" so much to take some paddocks out of the rotation and let them grow. However, even in more typical years where pasture quantity is short, stockpiling can still be accomplished. It might mean feeding hay in August and September so that paddocks can stockpile. Is that all bad? If the trade-off is feeding hay in late summer/early fall vs. late fall/winter, which are the better conditions to haul hay into a pasture for feeding? Which time-frame means less mud and hay wastage? If first cutting hay is of low quality, it might match up better with cow nutrient requirements in August through October vs. feeding it later in the winter. If a decision is made to stockpile forage, the area to be stockpiled should have a last grazing pass or clipping at the beginning of August and then be set aside to grow and stockpile until at least November.
On the positive side of stockpiling, if the grass to be stockpiled is fescue, this may be the best use for it. Cattle that reluctantly graze fescue in August and September, find fescue in November-February to be very palatable. In addition, fescue will maintain it's forage quality and tonnage better than other cool season pasture grasses throughout the winter. Another advantage to stockpiling is that it assures that grasses will be replenishing and storing carbohydrate root reserves during the critical fall period, which will build stronger root systems. Finally, using stockpiled forage in the winter should be cheaper than feeding hay. If hay is $90/ton and a 1200 lb cow eats 2.5% of body weight in dry matter (DM) each day, the cost will be close to $1.50/day on a DM basis to feed hay.
A big part of why hay is so expensive is because of the fertilizer costs associated with hay production. If the decision has been made to stockpile, the next question to answer is: Can I afford to apply high-priced nitrogen fertilizer to stockpiled grass? The added yield and forage quality response obtained with nitrogen application must be compared to stockpiling with no added nitrogen fertilizer. The yield and quality response depends upon the amount of nitrogen applied and the date when it is applied. How that stockpiled forage will be managed once cows are turned in must also be considered.
In general, research work has shown that more total forage dry matter (DM) is accumulated when stockpiling is started in early August as compared to early September. If nitrogen is to be applied, it should be applied when stockpiling begins. Research comparing 100 lbs/acre of actual N application vs. 50 lbs actual N/acre have shown the 50-lb/acre rate to be more economical. When stockpiling and nitrogen application are done early to mid-August as compared to early to mid-September, total DM accumulation is greater from August stockpiling, but quality is slightly higher for the September stockpiled and fertilized forage.
Research in southeastern Ohio on stockpiled fescue plots compared August to September stockpiling start times with each date receiving either 0 or 46 lbs of actual nitrogen/acre (100 lbs/acre of urea). By early November the 0 nitrogen plot had accumulated 2290 lbs of DM/acre. The plot with 46 lbs of nitrogen/acre accumulated 3710 lbs of DM/acre. This is an increase of 1420 lbs, or a response of about 30 lbs of DM / lb of actual nitrogen. Research in Kentucky has shown that nitrogen applied to stockpiled fescue in early to mid-August will provide a yield response of 25 to 27 lb of DM/ lb of nitrogen applied. When stockpiling and nitrogen application is moved back to early to mid-September, that yield response will drop to 18-20 lbs of DM/ lb of nitrogen applied.
Research with stockpiled fescue in Missouri by Jim Gerrish at the Forage Systems Research Center, demonstrated that stockpiled fescue fertilized with 40 to 60 lbs/acre of actual nitrogen could produce forage with a 14 to 16% CP and 65%+ TDN content at the beginning of winter and 10-12%CP and 50-55% TDN content by at the end of winter. In the southeastern Ohio study, applying 46 lbs of nitrogen/acre in mid-August increased the crude protein content of stockpiled fescue as compared to the unfertilized stockpiled fescue across late fall and into winter. Fertilized stockpiled fescue had a CP value in early November of 14.0% vs. 9.5% for the unfertilized fescue. By mid-February, the CP content was 10.5% for the fertilized fescue vs. 7.2% for the unfertilized.
Let's use some of these research results to determine if an economical return can be made on applying nitrogen to stockpiled fescue at today's fertilizer prices. To do this we need to determine the cost/lb of actual nitrogen, and then the cost/lb of DM produced. Once we have those numbers, we can calculate the cost/lb of hay on DM basis and then compare numbers to see if our dollars are best spent in N fertilizer or in hay. Currently (end of July) in Athens County area urea can be purchased for around $790/ton. In a ton of urea there is 920 lbs of actual nitrogen (2000 x .46). The cost/lb of nitrogen is 790/920 = $0.86. Although the research in southeastern Ohio showed a 30 lb DM increase for each lb of nitrogen applied, let's be conservative and use the Kentucky figure of a 25 lb DM response for each pound of nitrogen applied. The cost to produce each extra pound of DM is: 0.86/25 = $0.034.
What is the price of hay on a DM basis? When I ran the numbers to figure the cost of hay based on the nutrient removal rates (N-P-K) plus machinery costs from the 2008 Ohio Custom Rates, I came up with a cost of $107/ton ($77.50 fertilizer value + $29.50 machinery cost). Hay contains some moisture. If we figure 10% moisture, then each ton of hay contains 2000 x .90 = 1800 lbs of DM. The cost/lb of DM in $107/ton hay is 107/1800 = $0.06. At this cost of hay, if more forage is needed for late fall and winter feed, it is more economical to put money into nitrogen fertilization of stockpiled fescue than to purchase or produce more hay. If the hayfield has a 30% evenly distributed legume in the stand, supplemental nitrogen fertilizer would not be needed and this could reduce our hay production cost by about $30/ton, down to approximately $77/ton. The cost/lb of DM for $77/ton hay is $77/1800 = $0.043. Applying nitrogen fertilizer to stockpiled fescue is still a more economical option. In fact, unless you can purchase hay for $62/ton or less, money is better spent on nitrogen fertilizer to increase stockpiled fescue yields, since the DM cost of $62 hay = $0.034/lb of DM.
To figure the cost of feeding stockpiled forage versus hay, the total tonnage of stockpiled forage plus a utilization rate must be considered. In an average type of year it should be possible to accumulate at least 2000 lbs of DM without nitrogen fertilization when stockpiling is begun in early August. Our calculations have shown that it is economical to apply nitrogen to get an additional bump in DM yield. Applying 50 lbs/acre of actual nitrogen should provide an additional 1250 lbs/acre of DM (50 x 25) at a cost of $43/acre (50 x $0.86). According to the 2008 Ohio Farm Custom Rates, the average cost of spreading fertilizer is $4.50/acre, so the total cost to stockpile 3250 lbs of DM/acre (2000 + 1250) is 43 + 4.50 = $47.50/acre. A 1200 lb cow eating 2.5% of body weight in DM/day will need 30 lbs of DM. If the stockpiled area is strip grazed in 2 to 3 day allotments, we can expect 75 to 80% utilization of the forage. At this rate a 1200 lb cow could graze an acre for 80 to 85 days. The cost/day is $0.56 to $0.59. If the stockpiled acreage is not strip grazed, but used as one large field, then utilization could be as low as 30 to 35%, providing about 32-35 days of grazing/head/acre. The feed cost would be between $1.36 and $1.48/day, similar to feeding $90/ton hay. Even if hay can be purchased for $60/ton, the cost is $1.00/day on a DM basis to feed a 1200 lb cow and more expensive than using stockpiled forage.
Another option that might be considered regarding stockpiling is to increase the legume percentage in tall fescue pastures. Research work done by Jim Gerrish at the Forage Systems Research Center in Missouri demonstrated that a 30% or greater percentage of red clover in a tall fescue stand produced as much stockpiled forage for late fall grazing as a pure stand of tall fescue fertilized with 60 lbs of nitrogen. The conclusion of the study was that in the long term, managing pastures for high red clover content might be the most cost effective stockpiling strategy.
Stockpiling fescue for winter-feeding still makes economic sense. Take some time to push a pencil and assess your situation. In our new economic climate, timely management decisions and/or more intensive management are necessary to improve the bottom line.
EHD 2007 Update - William P. Shulaw, DVM, MS, Extension Veterinarian, Cattle/Sheep, The Ohio State University
At this time last year, cases of epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) were probably already circulating in cattle and deer in Ohio, but the disease was not recognized until very late August. Following the initial diagnosis and distribution of informational materials, the disease was diagnosed in numerous Ohio counties in wild deer, captive deer, and cattle. Evidence of EHD virus infection was laboratory-confirmed in at least 28 counties and unconfirmed cases occurred in several more. Although most cases were seen in the southwestern and southeastern counties, laboratory results indicated that the virus was active as far west as Mercer County and as far north as Wood County. In addition, the surrounding states of Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia all had cases of disease in cattle and deer. In fact, reports of EHD activity in 2007 were called "unprecedented" by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, based at the University of Georgia, which monitors this disease throughout the United States. Several articles describing the occurrence of the disease during 2007, including maps of where it occurred, have been published in their recent newsletters which can be found at http://scwds.org/.
Signs of EHD in cattle include depression, lack of appetite, salivation, and lameness, and examination may reveal mouth ulcers, watery inflamed eyes, and swollen, painful coronary bands. Although cattle can be infected by the virus, which is spread by biting gnats, signs of disease are usually quite rare. This was not the case in 2007 where many herds were affected. Fortunately, most herds had fewer than 20% of animals with signs of EHD, and the majority considerably less than that. Most, but not all, animals made a complete recovery within a few days. A few animals suffered severe chronic lameness or chronic unthriftiness, and there were at least two deaths associated with the disease and the hot weather. No reproductive effects attributable to the EHD virus have been documented in Ohio.
Through the fall and winter months, we had an opportunity to investigate the outbreak further by examining blood samples from some cattle herds involved. In the herd where the disease was initially diagnosed, 88 heifers, born in March and April, were sampled. These animals could not have been exposed to the virus in previous years, and at the time of sampling would not have had antibodies in their blood from their mother's colostrum. One hundred percent of these animals were test-positive, and most carried high levels of antibody. The owner believes that about 50% of these animals had some degree of lameness or depression during the outbreak in August/September. In a neighboring herd where clinical disease was present in five cows last August, 46 cows and heifers were tested, and again, 100% of these animals were test-positive, and 61% of these animals carried the highest antibody titer (level) at which the test is run. At a third farm, one county away and where only three or four cases were actually observed by the farm manager, 154 cows were sampled and 68% were test-positive; 50% of the positive samples were positive at the highest screening level used.
Perhaps most interesting finding in this outbreak was evidence of infection of sheep with this virus. The farm where the outbreak was initially diagnosed also had thirty sheep. None of these animals ever showed signs of disease, but 64% were blood test-positive indicating that they had indeed been infected by the virus. According to some sources, natural infection in sheep has not been reported previously. This farmer also documented the carcasses of twenty-eight dead deer on his 300-acre property.
At the present time, the strain of EHD virus involved in the 2007 outbreak, EHD serotype 2, has not been fully characterized by modern molecular methods. Perhaps results of this work will yield some clues as to why so many cattle herds were affected last year. Like other viruses in this family, such as bluetongue virus, mutations in the genetic material can cause subtle changes in the virus over time. Although it appears to be a rare event, recombination of viral genetic material can occur when two differing strains affect the same animal. This can result in major changes in the virus or a "new" virus. This has been recently demonstrated for the related virus which causes bluetongue. There is no real evidence for either possibility as yet with EHD in 2007, and the virus responsible for most outbreaks in the USA in 2007 was EHD-2.
With their attention on the high cost of corn, hay, and fuel, many cattle producers in Ohio have probably already forgotten about last year's EHD problems. For those who remember, they may be thinking, will it occur again this year? It is possible that the disease could reappear this year in deer or cattle, but it seems rather unlikely. The virus appeared to be actively circulating across much of the state in 2007 from August through early November. Many, if not most, of the deer that were infected last year died, and the survivors of an infection would be immune to the same virus if exposed again this year. The evidence we have from blood serum samples suggests that in areas where the virus was most actively being spread, a majority of the cattle in a herd was infected. These animals would also be immune to reinfection with the same virus strain. There is reason to believe that the immunity resulting from an active infection would be protective for most of the animal's natural lifetime. Without significant numbers of susceptible cattle and deer, it would be hard for the virus to cause a detectable outbreak. It might be possible for EHD-1, a different strain also present in the USA, to cause problems in deer if introduced, but there is also reason to believe that some cross protection might occur against this strain in animals previously infected by EHD-2.
At this point some reading this article may be wondering why so much column space has been devoted to a disease that didn't cause most people any significant economic loss and which might never appear in cattle in Ohio again for a very long time. To start with, from an academic perspective the 2007 EHD outbreak is a great illustration of how the natural features of a disease can change over time. The events of 2007 have pointed out how little we really know about this family of viruses, the conditions that favor their transmission, and why disease in cattle occurs only sometimes. Globally, EHD and bluetongue viruses have major significance for international trade, and some strains can cause considerably more disease than we saw in Ohio in 2007. Better information is going to be necessary for policy makers and vaccine manufacturers to make science-based decisions.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to revisit the 2007 EHD outbreak in Ohio can be illustrated by relating something that happened recently. A new faculty member joined our Department in June. He just finished his PhD degree at the University of Tennessee, but he received his veterinary degree in his home country of Argentina. We were visiting about how he might begin his Extension program, and I mentioned the EHD outbreak. He was unfamiliar with the disease so I began to show him my collection of pictures. After the second picture, his eyes got wide and he said, "This looks like foot and mouth disease!!" The point is that by just looking at an affected animal one cannot easily distinguish EHD in cattle from bluetongue, vesicular stomatitis, or foot and mouth disease; all of which are reportable diseases with serious consequences. We are aware of several instances in the late summer of 2007 where cattle were showing signs of what was almost certainly EHD, but they were not carefully examined. We have to be vigilant, do thorough examinations when animals are sick, and report anything at all suspicious to state and federal veterinarians if we really expect to be prepared for a foreign animal disease outbreak.
Forage Focus: CRP Ruling Called Victory for Farmers - Gary Truitt, Hoosier Ag Today (07/24/2008)
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour decided Thursday that while the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not
conduct an appropriate environmental review before opening 24 million acres of private conservation land around the
country to haying and grazing, it would be unfair to farmers and ranchers to stop the program because many were
counting on using that land. The National Wildlife Foundation and its Washington, Indiana, South Dakota, Arkansas,
Louisiana and Kansas chapters initially sought an injunction to stop the emergency haying and grazing program, which
was announced in May. Although the grazing and haying would only be allowed after primary nesting season ends - this
month or next, depending on the location - the damage to wintering areas and habitat for the grassland birds, as well as
water quality, could last for years, they argued.
The American Farm Bureau Federation called the ruling a victory for farmers. "The court recognized that this temporary
USDA program will be of great benefit to farmers and ranchers in dealing with the increased costs of feeding livestock,"
said AFBF President Bob Stallman.
The program was designed by USDA to allow the use of CRP acreage for critical feed use. The program was challenged by a lawsuit from the National Wildlife Federation, claiming USDA did not follow proper procedure regarding an environmental assessment.
The judge issued a narrow permanent injunction to allow those producers with approved CRP contracts to continue operations through the program's original Nov. 10 deadline. Farmers and ranchers who sent applications but have not received approvals will have their applications processed. If approved, those producers may hay until Sept. 30 or graze until Oct. 15.
Farmers and ranchers who have not yet sent applications may do so provided they submit in their application a statement
explaining their reliance on the CFU program. The reliance statement should indicate whether the producer made
investments or preparations of $4,500 or more and provide documentation. If the contract is approved, those producers
also will be able to hay until Sept. 30 or graze until Oct. 15.
Prior to today's ruling, AFBF and other ag groups filed two friend-of-the court briefs on behalf of farmers and ranchers
in the case. The first brief provided details from 29 farmers and ranchers on the management decisions and investments
they made in preparation to take part in the program. The second brief addressed possible remedies that could be taken
to consider the positions of the affected farmers and ranchers.
"We firmly believe our documentation of the good faith efforts and investments taken by farmers and ranchers to participate in a program, which was announced in May, weighed heavily in the judge's deliberations," said AFBF General Counsel Julie Anna Potts. "That is why we were invited to present additional information before the judge and why the program was not thrown out on first consideration. Involvement from our members made a difference."
The critical feed use program was designed to give eligible farmers and ranchers permission for "special, one-time" hay and forage use of certain CRP acreage after the primary nesting season ends for grass-nesting birds. The program was developed with the goal of providing some relief for livestock producers by reducing record-high feed costs. According to USDA estimates, the initiative would generate around 18 million tons of hay, worth approximately $1.2 billion. The critical feed use initiative is not related to emergency use of CRP land.
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
