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 # 623
February 11, 2009
Forage Focus: Fertilizing Forage Crops in 2009 - Ray Smith, University of Kentucky Forage Specialist
Forage producers around the world have struggled over the last year with high fertilizer prices. I've had many tell me, "I can't afford to fertilize my hay or pastures this year. I'll go broke." While there is some truth to this statement, in the long term, you will definitely "go broke" if your forage crops don't have the necessary nutrients for sustained growth. I don't claim to be a soil science expert, but I would like to provide some basic principles on how to manage the nutrient inputs and outputs on your farm.
First of all, everyone should take soil tests on a regular basis. In hay fields, soil tests should be taken every year, since nutrient removal in hay is high. For well managed pasture fields, soil tests are only recommended about every 3 years. I have heard some of you say, "No point in taking a soil test, since I know I can't afford to apply expensive fertilizer." I would counter that you can't afford not to take a soil test, especially when fertilizer costs are high. A soil test may tell you that one field does not need any fertilizer, another field only requires P, another field only needs lime, and a fourth field has very low nutrient levels so you may consider planting a forage like annual lespedeza which will grow in low pH and low P soils. Taking a soil test will allow you to make educated decisions on your farm rather than adding fertilizer that is not needed, or reducing fertilizer applications on fields that need it the most. And some of you may be fortunate and find that the nutrient levels in your fields are in the high range and you can "mine" the nutrients for a few years and hope that fertilizer prices come down (as they have recently for certain nutrients).
If you decide that you are going to cut back on fertilizer applications remember that hay crops remove more nutrients than almost any other commercial crop. In the book "Southern Forages" nutrient removal from various forage crops is shown in a table on page 85. For example, a 5 ton/acre alfalfa hay crop removes 280 lb of nitrogen/acre, 75 lb of phosphate, and 300 lb of potash. Nitrogen removal is not a problem with alfalfa because N fixation occurs in the nodules on alfalfa roots, but P and K level will drop in that field. Fortunately, it takes the removal of 5 to 7 lb/acre of potassium/acre and about 10 lb/acre of phosphate for soil test levels to drop by 1 lb/acre. In other words, there are more nutrients tied up in the soil than show up on the soil test report. Remember though that even if your soil test levels are high today, hay crops will eventually deplete the nutrients in the soil if you are not replacing them with commercial fertilizers or manure.
In pastures approximately 80% of the nutrients consumed in the forage are returned to the pasture in the manure and urine. Therefore, fertilizer requirements on pasture are lower than for hayfields, but this is only true in well managed rotationally grazed pastures where manure and urine are equally distributed throughout the pasture. If livestock continuously graze one field all season, then nutrient redistribution occurs because much of the manure and urine end up around the pond and shade trees and the rest of the field becomes nutrient deficient.
During the last couple of years the price of nitrogen increased rapidly (N fertilizer is produced using natural gas) and therefore the interest in planting legumes also increased. Nitrogen fertilizer prices have dropped, but it is still makes more sense to add legumes than to rely only on N fertilizer. Not only do the legumes provide N "for free" from the air, but legumes are usually higher quality than grasses resulting in higher rates of gain and higher milk production. Legumes have tremendous advantages, but they also require higher pH levels and higher P and K levels for growth and stand survival than grasses (with the exception of the lespedezas). Just like the rest of life, "you don't get something for nothing."
AgSight: Much Ado About COOL - Nevil C. Speer, PHD, MBA, Western Kentucky University
An already long, contentious, arduous process just went into overtime. Inauguration day brought issuance of a memorandum targeting country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and all other Bush-administration legislation still pending implementation. The move allows USDA to potentially extend the effective date of COOL's final ruling just eight days after release of the final ruling. The industry now finds itself wondering what's next.
Mandatory COOL was the primary item of concern for many cattlemen at NCBA's Annual Convention in Phoenix. Much of the conversation, though, is simply a rehashing of arguments batted around for some time now. This year's convention marks the 6-year anniversary of an article I authored in Feedstuffs outlining fundamental principles of the issue (COOL Has Implications For The U.S. Beef Industry, Feedstuffs, Jan 27, 2003, 75:4). Despite being promoted as consumers' right-to-information, COOL represents some especially important connotations with respect to trade relations. The current uncertainty compounds those ramifications.
Canada declared the new regulations acceptable and backed away from its original stance by withdrawing a complaint filed with the WTO. The complaint, which also enjoined Mexico, was contingent upon steep costs and disproportionate discounts assigned to imported animals due to segregation requirements; some estimates peg the impact upwards of $90/head. The Bush administration was careful to implement changes in the final rule allowing for some additional flexibility thus making COOL more conducive towards maintaining normal trade relations.
To understand the dispute further, it's critical to provide some background of COOL's three primary categories:
A: "Product of the U.S." - meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. or from animals present in the U.S. on or prior to July 15, 2008; the label represents origin of the U.S. only.
B: "Product of the U.S., Country X" - meat from animals born in Country X and raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Meat from these animals were not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. or imported for immediate slaughter; the label denotes multiple countries of origin.
C: "Product of Country X, U.S." - meat from animals imported into the U.S. for immediate slaughter.
The interim rule was vague and left some the industry having to muddle through legal interpretation - especially as it relates to commingling of "A", "B", and "C" animals by a processing facility. Most notably, it dealt with scenarios in which "A" and "B" animals were commingled but failed to specifically address intricacies involving the third category. USDA provided the following guidance (COOL: Frequently Asked Questions; Sep 26, 2008):
Q. Can a packer or intermediary supplier that processes whole muscle meat products derived from both mixed origin animals (e.g., product of U.S., Canada and Mexico) and U.S. origin animals commingle and label these products with a mixed origin label?
A. If meat covered commodities derived from U.S. and mixed origin animals are commingled during a production day, the resulting product may carry the mixed origin claim (e.g., Product of U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Thus it is not permissible to label meat derived from livestock of U.S. origin with a mixed origin label if solely U.S. origin meat was produced during the production day."
As a result, general interpretation was that distinct and dedicated harvest and fabrication schedules would need to be facilitated for C-category animals. Therein enters the concern over costs and discounts. Operational continuity would have to be altered to accommodate C-category cattle and mandate dedicated shifts to maintain segregation integrity. In other words, qualitatively speaking, the "A" and "B" labels were to represent a very different connotation than product carrying the "C" label. The Canadian government took issue with that stance contending "B" and "C" product is not substantively different.
The final rule now reads as follows (Federal Register; Vol. 74, No. 10; p 2659):
"For muscle cut covered commodities derived from animals that are born in Country X or Country Y, raised and slaughtered in the United States, that are commingled during a production day with muscle cut covered commodities that are derived from animals that are imported into the United States for immediate slaughter…the origin may be designated as product of the United States, Country X, and (as applicable) Country Y….the countries of origin may be listed in any order."
The provision helped to placate concerns of the Canadian government going forward. (It should be noted, the law as written does not let processors and retailers off the hook in terms of label integrity and/or record keeping. For example, plants that may designate operations as "A" only, solely processing such cattle, will still be required to maintain records for verification purposes.)
However, the final rule doesn't appease COOL proponents. (Remember, the law covers a multitude of food products but politically sources from the beef industry.) Supporters argue the final rule is disingenuous: American consumers are the priority and possess the right to increased information about the food they purchase. That's especially true when considering the "any order" statement: the final version fails to designate product derived from animals imported for immediate slaughter versus being raised in the United States. Relative availability of "A" product has been diluted by opportunity to utilize a mixed-source schedule and label the product accordingly. Such ideology cites recent polls such as that from Consumer Reports (Nov 21, 2008): ". . . nearly half say their confidence in the safety of the nation's food supply has decreased, and many are concerned with the safety of imported food."
On the other hand, cattlemen from Canada and Mexico (which is pressing ahead with its WTO complaint due to negative economic ramifications impacting their producers) argue that country-of-origin labeling violates NAFTA requirements. Primarily, NAFTA must regard all meat as U.S. origin if it results from animals harvested in the United States. That's especially true considering there's no substantive difference among the categories in terms of food safety and/or eating quality - it all falls under the same grading and inspection regulatory guidelines. At the very least, the law represents discrimination by establishing distinction among "B" and "C" categories. Therefore, any effort to segregate or differentiate "C" cattle from "B" cattle represents an unsubstantiated non-tariff trade barrier and thus establishes damaging and restrictive policy. Legislating differentiation is misplaced and not congruent with NAFTA policy - domestic producers desiring an A-category premium should leverage the free-market system, e.g. the voluntary Born-and-Raised in the U.S.A.
The 2003 Feedstuffs article outlined the ultimate evaluation of COOL's success. It will be dictated by the ability to provide consumers with meaningful information and create value at a reasonable cost while also establishing U.S. producers with a comparative advantage over foreign competitors. But that's the long-term perspective. In the short-run, the industry is burdened with implementing a law that is extremely complex and burdensome from a logistical, notification and record-keeping standpoint. What about the benefits? Domestically, COOL provides no assurance of additional consumer revenue; internationally, it creates animosity and potentially impedes sales to our two largest export partners - markets which can't be taken for granted. Given the adverse cost/benefit considerations, not to mention potential for unintended consequences along the way, COOL represents a steep and tenuous risk/reward proposition. Reopening COOL for comment will likely only serve to worsen that scenario.
Johne's Disease: What have we learned from our Demonstration Herd Project? (Part 1) - William Shulaw DVM, Beef and Sheep Extension Veterinarian, Ohio State University
In late 2003, the USDA provided funding for interested states to participate in the National Johne's Disease Demonstration Herd Project. The primary objective of the project is to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and feasibility of various management-related disease-control measures for Johne's disease on dairy and beef cattle operations. Secondarily, the program has provided for educational opportunities for producers and veterinarians highlighting diagnostic testing and management and control strategies. Currently, 17 states with 66 dairy herds and 22 beef herds participate in the program. Ohio enrolled three herds in the summer of 2004, one dairy herd and two beef herds.
In Ohio, the beef cattle herds have been tested by individual animal fecal (manure) culture and blood serum ELISA testing every spring and fall since the fall of 2004. In addition to the individual animal tests, samples of the farm environment have been taken for culture of the causative bacteria; udder skin surfaces have been sampled for culture; and individual animal fecal samples have been pooled in groups of five for culture. Several other "spin off" projects have also been conducted. A large amount of data has accumulated as well as a number of observations concerning management of the disease. So after four years of intensive testing in Ohio, what are some of the things we learned?
Cows shedding Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP - the cause of Johne's disease) in their manure contaminate the environment with these bacteria which are then ingested by susceptible calves. After an incubation period of several months to several years, these animals may show the classic signs of weight loss and diarrhea and pass large numbers of MAP in their manure. However, most animals shed MAP for months to years before they show any signs of disease. We have known these things for a very long time. Nevertheless, we have only recently begun to appreciate just how many of these bacteria are actually being shed by some cows and how severely the environment can become contaminated. The environmental samples and udder and teat skin samples we have collected show just how severe this can be.
The udder and teat skin samples were collected by rubbing a small section of the skin of the udder at the base and side of the teat for fifteen seconds using a sterile gauze sponge soaked in sterile water. Care was taken to avoid any fresh manure on the skin. The gauze was taken to the lab where any barn dirt was mechanically shaken off, the gauze removed, and the dirt processed for culture much like a fecal sample taken from a cow's rectum. Results from one of the beef herds may serve to illustrate the potential exposure an udder could provide for a calf. During the spring of the first year of the Project, we collected udder scrub samples and fecal samples from all cows in the herd. The herd had calved in a dry lot setting prior to going to pastures, and nearly all the calves had been born and were nursing their mothers at the time samples were collected. Of 88 individual animal fecal samples, 7 cows were culture positive, but of the 88 individual udder and teat skin samples, 33 were positive. Furthermore, a few of these skin samples had numbers of MAP in them approximately equal to that of manure samples taken from the rectums of cows that are classed as "heavy" shedders! Remember that these skin samples were taken only one time in a small area around one teat. Imagine the potential exposure a calf nursing that udder several times a day could get. At another sampling session the following year, only two of 117 animals were fecal culture positive, but 4 of 113 udder skin samples were positive, and all of these were on fecal culture-negative cows. Cows shedding MAP into the environment can make the udder of many of their herdmates sources of infection for the calves.
Results from the samples we collected from the environment on these farms were also revealing. At each visit we collected twenty samples, equivalent to about two ounces, of dirt, bedding, or manure slurry from various areas such as free stall alleyways, calving areas, and dry cow pens at the dairy farm, and loafing areas, around round bale feeders, and the calving areas at the beef farms. We strived to get bedding material or dirt from the pens that would mirror what a calf would get exposed to in the pens and lots or on its mother's legs and belly. In general, when the numbers of infected individual cows were very low, the numbers of environmental samples that were positive was also low. However, the presence of many infected cows, or a few so-called "heavy" shedder cows, made it easy to find MAP around round bale feeders, in loafing areas, and in the calving area.
For example on one recent sampling on one of the beef farms, again when all the calves were born and nursing their mothers, a two-year-old heifer was found to be a heavy shedder. There were an additional 7 of 145 animals that were also culture-positive but which were classed as moderate to light shedders. Two of five samples taken from around round bale feeders, and two of five samples taken from a two-acre drylot/loafing area were positive. Because the calving area had been divided into two separate areas for calving and housing the calves and their mothers, and because one of the loafing areas could not be sampled, the remaining ten environmental samples were taken from these two areas. All ten of these samples were culture positive and all ten would have been classed as a "heavy shedder" if they had been taken from an animal! Because the culture-positive two-year-old had access to both these areas, we believe she was responsible for much of the heavy contamination of the entire area. Udder and teat skin samples were not collected from cows at this sampling, but I have no doubt that a high percentage of them taken from cows in this environment would have been culture-positive thus creating great risk of infection for this year's calf crop. Of course the calves were housed in this area too and had exposure to the same environment.
Next week in Part 2 we'll take a look at Johnes testing alternatives.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were up on Monday. FEB'09LC futures closed up $1.050/cwt at $84.700/cwt; $0.80/cwt over a week ago. The APR'09LC contract closed at $87.750/cwt; up $1.050/cwt and $0.925/cwt higher than this time last week. Short covering and fund buy-stops added support. A lower U.S. dollar is seen as helping exports. Buying got started on higher cash cattle and better packer profits. Cash cattle in the southern Plains traded higher $1 - $3 higher with USDA's 5-area price coming in at $82.36/cwt. Cattle should bring better prices due to tighter supplies. USDA early on Monday put choice boxed beef up $0.03 at $136.90. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average packer margin was lowered $61.95/head from last week to a negative $12.35/head based on the average buy of $81.24/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $80.25/cwt. If a couple months' near-term corn needs on last week's advice it would be a good idea to put a little extra weight on fat cattle before selling.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed up on Monday. MAR'09FC futures were up $1.200/cwt to $95.550/cwt and $2.550/cwt over a week ago. The APR'09FC contract closed at $97.350/cwt; up $4.025/cwt. The Goldman Sachs roll and short covering on late buy-stops supported futures. Funds spread long April/short March futures. Better cash prices and higher fat cattle were also supportive. USDA's report also was very bullish showing the 2008 calf crop at a 57-year low. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for Feb. 5 was up $0.44/lb at $93.93/lb. If grass comes quick and short-term feed needs were bought last week things seem to be looking up for a bit. Now all we need is an improving economy.
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
