A Publication of:

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 the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu

Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter

Issue # 625

February 25, 2009

Johne's Disease: Control and Elimination (part 3) - William Shulaw, Extension Veterinarian, Cattle and Sheep, Ohio State University

Controlling or eliminating Johne's disease in a herd takes time and commitment. A final observation from the Demonstration Herd Project is that the herd owner must become well informed about the disease and set realistic goals. If this includes making rapid progress, and perhaps eventual elimination, careful consideration regarding retaining home-raised heifer replacements must be given. One of our beef herds had made the decision to try to eradicate Johne's disease from their herd before they were enrolled in the Project in 2004. To their great credit, the owners had recognized the possibility that a replacement heifer could become infected as a calf and not begin shedding for several years. This could destroy a lot of hard work and expense after considerable progress toward that goal had been made by exposing a future calf crop to MAP. Before 2004, they made the decision not to keep their own heifers until they had reason to believe the disease was gone or nearly so. Toward that end, they have purchased some heifers from a herd enrolled in Ohio's Test-Negative Status Program. After removal of two cows following the first sampling in the fall of 2004, and one more after sampling in the spring of 2005, they have had six consecutive, semi-annual, whole-herd tests with all negative culture and blood test results.

In contrast, the other beef herd could not afford to make the decision not to keep some of their own heifers, but they do wish to eventually eliminate Johne's disease from the herd. About 20% of the cows were culture-positive on the first test in the fall of 2004 and 8% the following spring. Subsequently, semi-annual cultures revealed one or two positive cows per sampling. In 2007 all tests were negative. However in the spring of 2008, the apparently healthy, but heavy-MAP-shedding, home-raised heifer cited in the above example of environmental contamination was detected. This is very disappointing but not really surprising. Actually, although it is hard to see any good in this, it is better to have found her as a two-year-old than as a three or four-year-old. This is one of the many frustrating aspects of this insidious disease.

To summarize, some take home messages for beef producers from this Project include:

* Cows shedding MAP into the environment can make the udder of many of their herdmates sources of infection for the calves.

* Beef cattle herd owners need to carefully consider the timing of any diagnostic testing so that results will be available with sufficient time before the calving season begins to cull or segregate infected cows and to remove potential contamination from the calving area before the new calves arrive.

* Pooled sample manure culture can allow the producer and the veterinarian to better characterize the extent of MAP infection in the herd than using blood testing, and they can then determine if there are individual animals that should receive further testing to identify the infected ones.

* The herd owner must become well informed about the disease and set realistic goals in light of their individual situation and current technology.

Direct Federal and state support to producers for control of Johne's disease has dwindled to nearly nothing. However, several million Federal dollars have been allocated for research on the disease over the last five years, and on a worldwide basis, attention on this important disease is increasing in both the livestock and human health sectors. In Ohio, we have been evaluating the usefulness of testing breeding age heifers to find infected animals early in life as well as the potential uses of a more rapid test on manure, the PCR assay. Last April, the National Animal Health Monitoring System released its Dairy 2007 report which showed that at least 68% of US dairy farms are infected. Among other information, the report also states, "These results suggest that at least one-fourth of U.S. dairy operations may have a relatively high percentage of infected cows in their herds." The available information suggests that the situation is not yet so serious for the beef cattle industry. The national Johne's Disease Demonstration Herd Project has given us new insights into the control of this disease, and additional information is expected from analysis of the national database that now exists from this project. We hope beef producers will take advantage of what we know about prevention and control of this disease to reduce spread within and between their herds.

- A copy of the NAHMS, Dairy 2007 report on Johne's Disease can be found at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov/dairy/dairy07/Dairy2007_Johnes.pdf

- A table illustrating current diagnostic tests available at Ohio's ADDL and their potential uses, advantages, and disadvantages is available on our website at: http://vet.osu.edu/1985.htm

Supplement or Replacer - What's the Difference? - Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Beef Cattle specialist.

Beef cow calf producers occasionally will need to provide commercial colostrum to baby calves that are born to two-year old heifers with very little milk, or to calves after a difficult birth. Some of these calves are very sluggish and slow to get up and find the teat. Therefore, they may not get the colostrum that they need to achieve successful passive transfer unless colostrum is provided by the cattle manager. Knowing which products to use in different situations can be very helpful. Colostrum supplements are less expensive to purchase than colostrum replacers, but they may not be the best choice for the situation at hand.

The following excerpt from a Pennsylvania State University publication that is published on the E-Extension website helps to sort out the differences:

"Colostrum products that contain Immunoglobulin G (IgG) are regulated by the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics. Supplement products are unable to raise the blood concentration of IgG above the species standard, which is 10 mg/ml. Any product that is able to raise serum IgG concentration above 10 mg/ml may be called a colostrum replacer. Typically, colostrum supplements contain less than 100 g of IgG per dose and are composed of bovine colostrum, other milk products, or bovine serum. Colostrum supplements can be used to increase the amount of IgG fed to calves when only low or medium quality colostrum is available. However, supplements cannot replace high quality colostrum. Even when a supplement is added to low quality colostrum, the IgG is often absorbed poorly, and antibody absorption is reduced compared to high quality maternal colostrum.

A limited number of products designed to replace colostrum are now on the market. These are bovine serum-based products and contain at least 100 g of IgG per liter plus fat, protein, vitamins, and minerals needed by the newborn calf. Colostrum replacer contains more immunoglobulin than supplement products and provides more antibodies than poor or moderate quality colostrum. In research trials, calves fed colostrum replacer have performed as well as calves fed maternal colostrum with no differences in IgG levels, efficiency of IgG absorption, incidence of scours, or growth rates." (Source: E-Extension website "Colostrum Supplements and Replacer", Authors: Sylvia Kehoe, Coleen Jones, Jud Heinrichs, The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Dairy and Animal Science).

Forage Focus: How's Your Pasture? - David Dugan, OSU Extension Educator, Brown County

OK, before you think I have lost my mind, I am not talking about your pasture in February. I am talking about how was your pasture in the summer. How much of your pasture is grass? How much of your pasture is weeds late in the season? Pasture management is cheaper feed than the stored feed you are feeding now.

There are herbicides made for pasture that have had some good results. If your pasture is made up of weeds, then fertilizing the pasture is actually feeding the weeds to some extent unless you control them. Weeds can also be controlled by increasing the population of desired forages instead of herbicides. The decision should be based on how weedy the pasture gets during the summer. The last two summers have been so dry that many pastures were abused, and some of the desired forages may have died off.

If the weed pressure is determined to not be severe enough to use herbicide control, and seeding is the plan, you have some options. You can seed grasses that will tolerate grazing, legumes like clover, or a combination of grasses and legumes. An excellent source of information for seeding and managing pastures is the Ohio Agronomy Guide. The Agronomy Guide is available in hard copy at any OSU Extension Office, or you can access it online at http://ohioline.osu.edu under bulletins or click on search, and type in pasture or forage.

If seeding a legume, red clover is recommended for pastures. Adding a legume to the pasture will do three things for you and the pasture. Red clover will increase the quality of the forage by increasing the crude protein consumption for livestock grazing, it will hopefully reduce the weeds if it is established thick enough to choke out weeds, and legumes like clover produce nitrogen. This will reduce the need for applying nitrogen fertilizer to the pasture and that could save you money for a few years.

Now is a great time to sow clover. You can frost seed clover onto your pastures in February and early March. You can sow it onto snow covered ground to see where you have been easier, or just broadcast it on the pasture as it is. The freezing and thawing like we have experienced the first two weeks in February are ideal for getting the seed into the ground so it can germinate. Information about Frost Seeding can be found on Ohioline, too.

Webinar Focuses on Estrous Syncronization

Below is an opportunity to learn more about the understanding and application of estrous synchronization protocols for beef cows and heifers. With the breeding season quickly approaching, it is not too early to start the planning process. This webinar will help you sort out synchronizing protocols that are used for heifers and cows and application of those protocols.

This webinar will be presented by Dr. Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University and Dr. Les Anderson, University of Kentucky. Glenn and Les are beef cattle specialists with a focus in Beef Cattle Reproduction. They have a tremendous ability to help cattlemen understand this information and answer any questions that you might have.

You can view this webinar from your home or office computer. Join Glenn and Les for this webinar event scheduled March 25, 2009, 12:00 (noon) to 1:15 pm cst. At the meeting time, simply click on the following link or copy and paste it into your browser to enter the meeting: http://connect.extension.iastate.edu/beefcattle/

When you go to that URL you will find yourself at a login page. Simply enter your name under the "Enter as a Guest" heading. Click on "Enter Room." The instructions that detail how to join the integrated phone audio conference will be on the screen when you join the meeting.

Anytime before the meeting you can visit the following URL to confirm your ability to connect to the Connect server: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/testconnect/

This webinar is being presented by the Beef Cattle Clearinghouse eXtension Community of Practice.

Cattle on Feed: Supply is not the Problem - Derrell S. Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

The USDA February Cattle on Feed report showed that feedlot inventories on February 1 were 11.3 million head, down 5.6 percent from last year. January placements were 1.858 million head, up 4 percent from last year and January marketings were 1.737 million head, down 6 percent from one year ago. Both the placement and marketings numbers were slightly higher than expected and the resulting on-feed total was in line with pre-report estimates.

At face value, the decrease in feedlot inventories from last year ought to be bullish and yet fed cattle prices are currently $11 - $12/cwt. lower than this time last year. While fed cattle supplies do not seem to be at burdensome levels, clearly current production is more than adequate for the current level of demand. Since about mid-January the impact of the recession has been increasingly apparent with almost daily indications of demand meltdown and, unfortunately, no end in sight at the moment. Boxed beef prices have dropped $7/cwt. since mid-January. The decline has been larger for Choice relative to Select meat, a further indication of weak demand, with the result that the Choice-Select spread has been less than $1/cwt. several days recently.

The relatively large January placement value was not indicative of strong feeder demand as much as it was the result of feeder cattle carried over from last fall that needed to be moved combined with increasingly dry conditions in some regions, the Southern Plains in particular. We have continued to see relatively large Oklahoma auction runs in February as winter forage and wheat pasture supplies dwindled. We may see a relatively large placement level in February but there will be less feeder cattle movement in March and April as a result. The slight uptick in the estimated Janaury 1 feeder supplies was a short run timing issue as a result of feeder cattle being carried over from November and December into January and February. Feeder supplies will remain tight, particularly as we move past the first quarter of the year.

January feedlot marketings were down from last year but there was one less business day this year compared to 2008. Marketings as a percent of the on-feed total were actually slightly higher than one year ago. There is no strong indication that feedlot supply is a problem or the major cause of the current freefall in fed cattle prices. Some have worried that large carcass weights indicate that feedlots are backed up but these carcass weights are mostly a function of heavier placement weights and good feedlot performance with little winter weather impact on feedlots so far.

The problem is not that we are overfeeding cattle (or feeding too many cattle, in general). The fact is that the recession is severe enough to be impacting food demand generally and beef demand in particular in a much more severe manner than was expected as little as a month ago. Until there are solid signs that macroeconomic confidence is rebuilding, there is little room for optimism in cattle prices. The good news is that when such rebuilding takes place, the supply fundamentals should ensure that beef and cattle prices will respond very quickly.

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