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 # 565
Forage Focus: Did we survive the drought? - Victor Shelton, NRCS Grazing Specialist/Agronomist
Occasionally I really am right but wish I had not been…can you relate? Probably best not to let my wife comment on this…. I told a group I was speaking to last spring that I expected a dry summer and I had no idea how accurate that statement was going to be. I based my statement on the fact that since we had had such a very wet fall and winter, nature usually balances itself out. It is probably still a good thing that we can not control the weather because most people still don't want it to rain on their parade…but I did this past summer!
We have, more or less, survived a very dry summer. Many have taken beatings on both hay and pasture production and the livestock too show the effects in several places. Most by now have pretty well done the pencil work and figured out whether or not they have enough hay to survive the winter and either reduced animal numbers or bought some green gold to balance things out.
At this point and time, where do we stand with our pastures? During droughty conditions, pasture management is often compromised. The rest that the pastures desperately needed, tends to be shortened or cease to exist as producers try and keep something in front of the animals to eat. Energy reserves are depleted and this weakens individual plants, sometimes to the point they don't recover. Plants are grazed harder, for longer periods and steadily grazed to heights below the desired.
These severely compromised pastures desperately now need to be remunerated. At the time that I am writing this in late September, most of the state has still not seen much fall rainfall, with only hopeful promises from our faithful weather forecasters. A nice rain by itself will not overcome drought stress. The forage plants have to be allowed a period of recovery to start to build up their energy reserves again, so in time, will eventually be capable of reaching full production potential again….hopefully.
I believe the first step is to first evaluate the pastures. Many people have asked whether or not they will have to start over again and replant all their pastures. That is a good question and the answer is, as always, "it depends".
We will look first at the survival potential of the pasture. Perennial pastures tend to be thinned out after a long dry period depending on grazing pressure, the severity of the drought and the species present. In fields where some stubble was retained, even though it might not be the most ideal, survival of perennial grasses are typically better than where the forage was grazed down completely. For most of our taller cool-season grasses such as orchardgrass and fescue, it would have been good to try and retain at least 2-3 inches of stubble, 3-4 would be have been better. It is about at this time I get long looks and glary eyed stares. I know, I know, the longer the drought, the harder it is to do this. During shorter dry periods and with a better hay supply, you are often better off feeding a little hay for a short period than to compromise the pasture. In extended droughts that decision gets harder and harder, especially with a lower than normal yielding spring hay crop like we had this year. I guess that is when I start taking a second look at the livestock at hand and start contemplating who might be worthy of a set of wheels. Now with all this said, I'll talk somewhat a little out of the other side of my mouth. In the case of the forage plant, an extended drought actually can cause the plant to go into dormancy and actually help it to survive better than in the case where it gets just enough rain to somewhat keep it going….and getting grazed down thus compromising energy reserves. These compromised plants may or may not survive. What do we have? I believe a little of both.
Deep rooted species, especially tall fescue and most warm-season grasses, will normally survive. Orchardgrass typically is a little shallower rooted, and often has a hard time during extended droughts. Shallow rooted species such as perennial ryegrass are typically lost.
Alfalfa, bless its heart, after taking a royal beating early in the year with a late freeze, was one of the few forages that actually "looked" good most of the year. This is due primarily to its deep rooting system. Most producers with stands of warm-season grasses, who cussed at some of the management issues with them in the past, embraced them like old friends this year. One particular producer told me that single handedly, his warm season grass stands were the true reason for his survivability this year, created for him pasture, hay for winter and even perhaps some to sell. I'm getting off subject….where was I?
First we need to figure out what survived and the density of the stand. Both perennial grass and legume survival will be variable and certainly influenced by rainfall timing and totals, soil type, and even slope and aspect. Stocking rate and the management again, have the biggest impact along with the pre-drought health and fertility of the pasture. Lots of pasture, like mentioned before, took two major hits in 2007, first with a late hard freeze in the spring and then drought. It may be slightly hard in some cases to determine now which plants have survived, but we need to be looking for at least 2-3 mature plants per square foot for most cool-season grasses with ideally another 2-3 legume plants. We may find that we only need to reestablish legumes.
What is going to be the value of the pasture to the farm following the drought? I would assess each field and put them probably into three categories:
1. Fields that have moderate to good density of desirable species but have NOT been under severe stress due to grazing pressure. These fields most likely are going to be the ones with fair-good stubble remaining. These fields potentially could offer some light grazing as conditions improve but will still need adequate rest.
2. Fields that have moderate to good density of desirable species but have been put under severe stress due to grazing pressure during the drought. Continuing to graze these pastures will probably continue to threaten their survival. These should be given priority for rest.
3. Fields where the density is too thin in order for it to become worthwhile pasture after we get back to normal conditions. These fields are ones to consider replanting or renovating. They also would be the ones that I would probably utilize as sacrifice areas, if away from sensitive areas, to help provide added protection for the better fields. These fields could have also been possibly drilled with a cereal grain, moisture and weather permitting, if the stand was so thin or completely dormant to be utilized for spring grazing.
Before spring, as a minimum, add legumes to the stand as needed and fertilize and lime based on soil tests to insure that nutrient deficiencies won't be slowing the pasture's recovery. For most of the state, this fall did not provide us very ideal conditions to even think about reestablishing perennial forages. This will need to be reevaluated next spring and the decision made to maintain what we have, reestablish completely, inter-seed or go with an annual forage until next fall….only time will tell.
Hopefully this droughty period is or will be in our hindsight. It is important though that we strategize and have some kind of contingency plan in place to prepare us and to help reduce the effects of the next one.
Keep on grazing!
EDITOR's NOTE: Don't forget that this Friday, December 7, is the last day to visit your NRCS/SWCD office and enroll in the "Special" Ohio EQIP Program which offers cash assistance in re-establishing "Sacrifice" pasture which may have suffered this past summer. See the October 21, issue # 558, of the Ohio BEEF Cattle letter for more details.
Stretching Feed Resources through Strategic Culling - Kenny Wells, Beef Academic Specialist, Michigan State University
With hay supplies in the state extremely tight and pastures drying up completely in many areas, it is apparent that many producers will be buying hay to make it through the winter. Or is it? Could you make it through the winter on the feed you have with fewer mouths to feed? Downsizing the herd could, at least, lighten the financial load of buying hay and supplement. Take the time now to consider whether the calf weaned next fall will offset the investment in feed you will make this year. If your operation is under stress from the current drought situation, now is the time to take action. The following steps should help you to decide whether or not selling cows is the right option for you.
First, take inventory of cows and available feed, both hay and pasture. If you have pasture left, get an idea of how long it will last. If your cows are already being fed, how much feed will it take to maintain them until pasture turn-out next spring? To estimate feed usage you will need an estimate of the average weight of your cows. A mature lactating cow will usually consume around 2.5% of her body weight in dry matter (DM) daily, while a dry cow will consume 2%. Hay is generally around 85% DM. And don't forget to account for some portion of the feed being wasted (5-10%). Using these estimates you would expect to feed just over 1,000 lb of hay to a 1,300 lb cow every month (33.6 lb/day). Use these estimates to calculate how much feed you will need. Consider, whether or not culling more deeply this year would allow you to get by on the feed you have available.
Next you need to put a value on the feed you have and consider the cost of the feed that will be available for purchase. A truly economic stance would be to value the feed you have available at what it is worth in the marketplace. At the very least, you should value the forage at your cost of production. The most recent Illinois Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) summary shows the average cost of forage production to be $48.53/Ton. As for purchasing forage, it looks like decent quality hay could be from $70/Ton to over $100/Ton this fall and winter. Remember, even if you are still grazing, there is a cost associated with pasture use. SPA data shows an average cost of about $0.54/day per grazing cow calf pair.
Now put a price on next year's calf. I realize this is tough, but most economists are forecasting relatively strong calf prices for another year. You need to do this to be able to estimate a profit or loss. When estimating returns per cow, remember, not every cow will wean a calf. Will the value of next year's calf exceed what you have invested in maintaining the cow? Harvested feed and pasture costs are a large portion of that investment, but only account for about 60% of total cow costs on an average year. Non-feed costs added up to just over $133 for the average Illinois SPA participant in 2005. Traditionally, Michigan producers have had higher cow costs than those of Illinois producers. With higher fuel prices and many producers already feeding cows, non-feed costs may be higher than ever for producers this year.
If your estimate of total cow costs for the next year adds up to more than the value of the next calf crop, you need to look for some way to cut costs. For producers who are blessed with extra feed, culling deeply may not be necessary. For those who will clearly be buying hay to maintain their current inventory, consider strategic culling to stretch your feed resources.
The following list should help you to assign priority to which cows need culled first.
1) Cull Open Cows: First and foremost, in a drought/feed shortage situation open cows need to be identified early and culled.
2) Cull Old Cows: Now is a prime opportunity to get rid of cows that are approaching the end of there productive lives. Ten years of age is a good rule of thumb. Their performance will only go downhill from now on.
3) Cull Cows with Physical Problems: Consider culling cows with bad udders, bad eyes, feet-and-leg and structural problems, anything that might not make it through the winter and wean a calf.
4) Cull Poor Performers: If you keep records on individual cow performance, now might be the time to cull those cows that consistently wean a lightweight calf.
5) Cull Late Calvers: This could be an excellent time to tighten your calving season. Based on calving dates or pregnancy detection, cull those cows you expect to calve outside your normal calving window. Their calves will likely be lighter at weaning.
6) Cull Cows with Bad Temperment: Even if productive, a cow with a bad attitude is a liability. A short feed supply might be just the excuse you need to cull her.
Your feed supply will play a key role in determining how far down the above list you may need to go. Other factors, such as, cow genetics and cull cow markets should also be considered when making culling decisions. Remember that culling is not the only option. There are a number of management strategies that may help to reduce feed costs and the need to cull.
If you are not comfortable budgeting your production cost over the next year, an excel spreadsheet has been developed by the MSU Beef Team as a decision making aid. Access the spreadsheet at: beef.ans.msu.edu/Drought/drought.htm
Ohio Line Fence Law Could Change - Peggy Kirk Hall, Director, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program Legal Director
A proposal currently before the House of Representatives could revise Ohio's line fence law. H.B. 323 was introduced September 25, 2007 and is now in hearings before the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
The bill takes a two-pronged approach to responsibilities for line fences, as follows:
* For new fences constructed after the proposed bill becomes effective, a landowner who wants to construct a line fence is fully responsible for the cost of building and maintaining the fence. The landowner may file with the county recorder an affidavit stating the cost of the fence. If an adjoining property owner uses the fence for enclosing livestock within the next 30 years, the owner who built the fence may seek reimbursement of 50% of the cost of the fence, if the landowner filed the affidavit of costs.
* For existing fences and "previously existing" fences, the old (current) law of shared responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the fence would apply. That is, each landowner adjacent to the line fence must share equally in the cost of the fence.
* "Previously existing" fences are those that once existed but have been removed. A landowner who files an affidavit within one year of the effective date of the new line fence law stating that the fence existed in the past ten years and providing its location may use the old law of shared responsibility if the previously existing fence is ever replaced.
* Where a landowner removes a line fence and does not replace it within one year after removal, the adjoining owner may file an affidavit with the county recorder stating that the fence was removed and not replaced and specifying its location. This procedure allows the landowner to use the old law if the fence is replaced.
A number of other changes in the law include revising the procedures for hearing and appealing line fence disputes, allowing a landowner access to the neighbor's property when building or maintaining a line fence, and establishing standards for line fences that enclose livestock.
To access the bill, go here.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) closed up on Monday on technical buying amid oversold conditions and short covering. DEC'07LC futures finished up $0.375/cwt at $94.225/cwt but $2.675/cwt lower than a week ago. The FEB'08LC contract closed at $96.375/cwt, up $0.600/cwt but $2.150/cwt lower than last Monday. Friday's weak market, an RSI at 26, reports that Russia and the U.S. may be close to a deal on importing U.S. beef, and a lively slaughter rate lent support to the market. Cash markets are expected to firm up this week amid a stepped up slaughter pace. The USDA 5-area price for the week ended 12/1 was nearly unchanged at $95.00/cwt - $95.20/cwt. Boxed beef prices were firmer on Monday as USDA put the choice boxed beef cutout at $150.70/cwt, up $0.49/cwt. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average beef packer margin for Monday was a negative $30.50/head, $5.90/head worse than last Friday and $17.95/head worse than last Monday. Cash sellers should see better prices by the end of the week. It is still a good idea to hold off pricing short term corn supplies.
FEEDER CATTLE contracts at the CME were up on Monday. JAN'08FC futures closed at $108.350/cwt, $0.350/cwt higher than last Friday but $0.310/cwt lower than last Monday. The MAR'08FC contract finished at $108.800/cwt, up $0.500/cwt. Rumors that cash feeders had bottomed out and higher live cattle were supportive, according to a couple of floor sources. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index for November 29 was placed at $107.98/cwt, up $0.34/cwt. Feeder sellers ought to stay current on cattle sales while holding off pricing immediate feed needs.
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
