A Publication of:

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 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 # 621

January 28, 2009

Easier to Haul Home a New Bull Than a New Cow Herd - Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist, NDSU Extension Service

A fundamental question was asked the other day. Why not pay more attention to the offspring of the bull when a producer is re-evaluating the bull pen rather than the current predicted performance of the bull?

This question is a very good and relevant question in the context of overall beef production. The reality of managing a beef cattle operation has many daily demands in terms of inputs and outputs.

There is no simple process to place a calf up for sale, so, for at least today, let's continue to focus on genetics because the bull buying season is upon us. The evaluation of a bull's progeny would be and is another component of understanding if a bull is the right one.

Unfortunately, the question is a lot easier to ask than answer. These concerns should lead a producer to a fork in the road. One fork points to breed associations and utilizes their expertise in sorting and reporting correct genetic feedback.

The other fork points to cow management and calf evaluations. These are two unique and different data functions and clearly have different outcomes.

Bull buying focuses on the first fork, so the information only is as good as the ability of the breed associations to analyze the data and report results. Once calculated and expressed as an expected progeny difference (EPD), the ability to predict the genetic potential of a particular bull is excellent.

The second fork is in the herd process. As genes are placed in the cow herd, the performance of those genes is dependent on cow herd management. The associated records collected within a cow herd are more related to managerial questions, not genetic questions. Therefore, most records have the management of the herd and the genetics of the herd confounded.

In other words, as a producer, you really do not know if the individual animal performance is more a function of selected genes or unique management. Both are important.

The obvious response would be that what a producer sees is what a producer gets. The overwhelming comfort level tends to accept what is seen over what the EPDs predicted.

Normally, they do agree, but not always. However, it is better to accept the breed association's predictions when evaluating the progeny of a bull. Yes, that causes consternation, but, amazingly, large data sets do predict with great accuracy the answer to the question.

Use EPDs generated by breed associations to buy bulls. Use herd management records to manage cows. In a pure world, all the bulls would be individually mated to a known group of cows. The calves would all be tagged and documented and the data collected. However, most cattle are group mated. In other words, more than one bull is turned out to a group of cows or the bulls are rotated. This provides some level of assurance that the cows will be exposed to a fertile bull.

In these cases, the individual sire of the calves is not known and most cattle are not randomly mated within a herd. In other words, when comparing calves, the parents of those calves were selected through specific mating plans and the evaluation of the calf is an affirmation of the plan.

If the calf does not meet expectations, it is the plan that needs to be revised, not the data going into the plan. Both the cow and bull contribute to the plan, but the known accuracy of a genetic prediction generally is greater for the sire than the dam.

In addition, a yearling bull that conceives a calf will be 2 years old when the calf is born. He will be 3 years old when the calf is more than likely harvested and he already will have conceived his third set of calves before the harvest data is analyzed from the first set of calves the bull sired.

No wonder the data needs to be right at the time of purchase. Finally, although predicted performance is utilized to buy bulls and to re-evaluate bulls, cow performance is important.

However, in the big picture, a cow herd is the product of bull genetics and it is a lot easier to haul home a new bull than a new cow herd.

Time to Double Check Your Heifer Development Program - Dr. Les Anderson, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky

The first part of January is an extremely important "check-point" in spring heifer development programs. The key to proper heifer development lies in understanding the factors that influence conception in yearling heifers. One key factor regulating heifer fertility is age at puberty. Most producers don't consider age at puberty of their heifers to be a major problem, yet few know how many heifers are actually cyclic at the beginning of the breeding season. A Nebraska study demonstrated that the proportion of heifers that were pubertal on the first day of the breeding season varied greatly over 5 consecutive years in a single a herd. The percentage of heifers that were pubertal on the first day of the breeding season ranged from only 21% to as high as 64% over the 5-year period. For maximum fertility and reproductive performance, heifers must have had at least one estrus before the beginning of the breeding season. Our goal then is to incorporate reproductive management techniques to reduce the age of puberty, increase fertility, and shorten the interval to conception.

One of the largest factors that regulate puberty in the heifer is weight. For puberty to occur, heifers must weigh at least 65% of their mature weight. This weight is referred to as their target weight. Most heifer development programs require that heifers reach their target weight, approximately 65% of their expected mature weight, by the onset of their first breeding season. Because fertility increases until the third estrus after puberty, heifers should reach their target weight at least 30 days before the start of the breeding season. I refer to this date as the target date.

January is the time to determine if your heifers are "on track". Most yearling heifers will need to reach 700-800 pounds (their projected target weight) by mid-April to ensure high fertility assuming that the heifer breeding season starts about mid-May. Weigh your heifers to determine how much they have left to gain to reach their target weight. If the heifers weighed on average 600 pounds and their target weight is 750 pounds then they will need to gain 150 pounds or 1.5 - 1.6 pounds each day to reach their target weight by mid-April. Heifers should reach a BCS of 5.0-5.5 by their target date.

The next important phase in heifer development occurs one month prior to the start of the breeding season. At this time, heifers should be vaccinated (Vibrio fetus, Leptospirosis, and the respiratory disease complex which includes PI3, BRSV, BVD and IBR; modified-live vaccine is preferred), dewormed, and pelvic area measurements should be obtained. Heifers with small pelvic areas and especially large heifers will small pelvic areas tend to have greater difficulty calving. Now is the time to contact you local veterinarian to schedule this pre-breeding work.

Producers should consider estrus synchronization and/or AI. Estrus synchronization and AI has many advantages which include: higher pregnancy rates, heavier, more uniform calves at weaning, and increase production and labor efficiency. The greatest advantage of AI is the ability to use superior, more predictable sires. Since a majority of calving problems in a herd occur when calving first-calf heifers, it seems only logical to synchronize and AI your heifers to proven calving ease bulls. Contact your local AI technician to schedule a time to breed your heifers. Next month, I will discuss various methods for estrus synchronization.

Proper heifer development is one of the key components to profitability in a beef cattle operation. Understanding the principles of heifer development can enable producers to incorporate management techniques to improve the efficiency of the operation.

Passive Immune Status Within 24 Hours Of Birth - Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

You have heard the warning: "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas!!!" Perhaps you have not heard: "What happens in the first 24 hours, impacts the rest of a calf's life"! Veterinary scientists, while with the USDA experiment station at Clay Center, Nebraska monitored health events and growth performance in a population of range beef calves in order to identify associations of production factors with baby calf passive immune status.

Blood samples were collected at 24 hours after calving from 263 crossbred calves to determine the amount of passive maternal immunity that had been obtained from colostrum. Colostrum is the first milk produced by a cow upon giving birth. The baby calves were classified with "Inadequate" or "Adequate" Passive Immune status based on that blood sample at 24 hours of age. Growth performance and health events in the study population were monitored from birth to weaning, and after weaning throughout the feedlot phase.

The lowest levels of passive immunity were observed among calves that were sick or died prior to weaning. Calves with "inadequate" passive immunity had a 5.4 times greater risk of death prior to weaning, 6.4 times greater risk of being sick during the first 28 days of life, and 3.2 times greater risk of being sick any time prior to weaning when compared to calves with "adequate" passive transfer. Based on 24 hour proteins (most of which are antibodies or immunoglobulins) in the blood, the risk of being sick in the feedlot was also three times greater for "Inadequate" compared to "Adequate" calves. Passive immune status was also indirectly associated with growth rates through its effects on calf health. Sickness during the first 28 days of life was associated with a 35 pound lower expected weaning weight. Respiratory disease in the feedlot resulted in a .09 lb lower expected average daily gain.

Thus, passive immunity obtained from colostrum was an important factor determining the health of calves both pre- and post-weaning, and indirectly influenced calf growth rate during the same periods. Therefore, the cow calf producers can help themselves and the future owners of their calves, by properly growing replacement heifers, providing a good health program for cows and heifers, and providing natural or commercial colostrum replacers to calves that do not receive it in adequate quantities on their own. Remember that most of the transfer of antibodies from colostrum to the calf happens in the first 6 hours. The first day sets the stage for the rest of his life. (Source: Wittum and Perino. 1995. Amer. Jour. Of Vet. Research. 56:1149.)

Managing Dynamic Change in the Beef Industry

The 4 week series, Managing Dynamic Change in the Beef Cattle Industry, begins next Wednesday February 4 in Hillsboro, and Thursday February 5 at Albany in Athens County. The realities of today's beef cattle industry with a focus on the economic forecast will be the agenda for the first session. Featured speakers will be Duane Lenz from Cattle Fax and Matt Roberts from The Ohio State University Extension.

While reservations are encouraged in order to accommodate food and handouts for those who attend, walk-in attendees will also be welcomed at 6:30 p.m. at either location. Subsequent weekly sessions will be:

Session 2, February 11, 12: Optimizing Whole-Herd Profitability

Cow Herd Profitability: Tom Fields, National Cattleman's Beef Association; John Grimes, OSU Extension: Providing Seedstock that FIT the Industry Now and in the Future

Session 3, February 18, 19: Feeder Calves: Buying, Selling and Merchandising

Feeder Calf Marketing: Nevil Speer, Western Kentucky University; Working in Alliances: Ed Smolder, West Virginia University Extension and Steve Casto, Feeder Calf Grader and Beef Producer, Jackson County, West Virginia

Session 4, February 25, 26: Planning For the Future: Trends, Habits and Winds of Change

Panel Discussion and presentations including representatives from Wolf's Neck; Sam Roberts, UPI; Grass-Fed Regulations with Francis Fluharty, OSU Extension; Certifications and Value Added Marketing, Dan Frobose, OSU Extension and Sam Roberts from United Producers.

Find more details regarding the entire program as well as registration information in the November 12, issue #610, of the Ohio BEEF Cattle letter.

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

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were down below moving averages on Monday. FEB'09LC futures closed down $0.325/cwt at $82.350/cwt. The APR'09LC contract closed at $83.825/cwt; off $0.350/cwt. The sour economy weighed on prices despite fund buying last Friday. Even though USDA reported bullish numbers on Friday the break in the US Stock market late Monday was too much to ask to hold gains. USDA put 11.234 mi head on feed (93% compared to a year ago) while marketings were up 2% from a year ago at 1.683 mi head. Placements were 1.647 mi head; 97% of this time last year. A big setback in lean hogs also weighed on prices. USDA put choice boxed beef at $14.85/cwt, off $0.46/cwt. Cash cattle were off with USDA 5-area price being placed at $81.93/cwt, off $1-$2/cwt. Packer demand was steady amid packer profits. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average packer margin was raised $71.40/head from two weeks ago to a positive $54.30/head based on the average buy of $83.14/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $87.33/cwt. It might be a good idea to hold cattle a little longer if you can.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed down on Monday with the exception of the nearby January contract. The JAN'09FC contract settled at $93.750/cwt; up $0.100/cwt. MAR'09 futures were down $1.025/cwt to $91.725/cwt. Feeders followed live cattle with corn futures and the break in the stock market weighing prices. January gained due to a narrowing discount to the CME Feeder Cattle Index. That Index for January 22 was reported at $95.34/lb, down $0.18/lb. The January contract will expire on Thursday. Technical spreading of March/June and sell stops in the March contract did not help. Cash feeder prices in Oklahoma City were weaker to $2/cwt. Hopefully a couple months of feed was bought on advice two weeks ago.

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