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 the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu
Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter
Issue # 642
Animal Care Bill - Peggy Kirk Hall, Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program, Ohio State University Extension
Last week the Ohio Senate has introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution to address the care of livestock.
Here's a quick summary of the proposed constitutional amendment:
* Creates a thirteen member Livestock Care Standards Board consisting of the Director of the Department of Agriculture, ten members appointed by the Governor, a family farmer appointed by the Speaker of the House and a family farmer appointed by the President of the Senate.
* Grants the Livestock Care Standards Board the authority to establish and implement standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry.
* Directs the Board to "endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families" and to consider factors such as agricultural best management practices for care and well-being, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers.
* Grants the Ohio Department of Agriculture authority for overseeing and enforcing the standards established by the Board.
If passed by a three-fifths majority of the House and Senate, the proposed constitutional amendment will be submitted to Ohio voters on the November 3 ballot.
Hearings on the resolution begin this week in the Senate Agriculture Committee. You may access the joint resolution here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_SJR_6
Managing Genetic Defects in Beef Cattle - Dr. Bob Weaber, Missouri State Extension Specialist, Beef Genetics
Over the last five years the beef seedstock sector has had to deal with a number of recessive genetic defects. The utilization of assisted reproductive technologies including embryo transfer and artificial insemination has allowed breeders to concentrate selection to a relatively small number of animals. While many breeders avoid matings of half-sibs or sires to daughters to reduce the accumulation of inbreeding, it is not unusual for very prominent sires to appear several generations back in pedigrees of both the sire and dam of a particular individual. It is in this case when there is an increased chance for the appearance of a progeny affected by a recessive genetic defect.
Autosomal recessive genetic defects are inherited congenital abnormalities. These genetic mutations occur on one of the 29 pairs of autosomal (non-sex coding) chromosomes. Animals that inherit a single defective or mutated gene and one normal copy of the gene are called heterozygotes and are not affected by the disease but are carriers of the defect passing it on to half of their progeny on average. Animals that have two copies of the normal or unmutated gene are called homozygous normal. Animals that inherit two copies of the defective gene are homozygous for the recessive forms of the gene and are phenotypically affected by the abnormality. The carriers (heterozygotes) and homozygous normal animals do not exhibit the deleterious condition and are phenotypically indistinguishable. The fact that the normal animals and heterozygotes are indistinguishable makes phenotypic selection to eliminate defect carriers ineffective.
To illustrate this difficulty in phenotypic selection to eliminate recessive carriers consider a more common trait like coat color. Both homozygous black animals and heterozygous black (red carriers) are phenotypically black and indistinguishable. Only when two black animals produce a red calf can we infer the genetic makeup of the color parents as both being heterozygotes (red carriers).
All breeds carry some genetic defects. Presumably some of the autosomal recessive lethal genetic conditions affect embryos during gestation and cause early embryonic loss. These defects are difficult to detect and may simply be diagnosed as 'reproductive failure.' A number of defects have been documented in beef breeds, several quite recently. A brief description of several genetic defects are listed below. Due to space limitations this is not a complete listing of defects.
| Condition | Description | Breeds Affected |
| Tibial Hemimelia (TH) | Affected calves are born with twisted rear legs with fused joints, malformed or missing tibia, have large abdominal hernias and/or a skull deformity. DNA test available to identify carriers. | Shorthorn, Maine-Anjou, Chianina |
| Pulmonary Hypoplasia with Anasarca (PHA) | Underdeveloped heart and lungs, marked increase in calf size caused by fluid retention (anasarca) of fetus. DNA test available to identify carriers. | Shorthorn, Maine-Anjou, Chianina |
| Ideopathic Epilepsey (IE) | A neurological disorder in which affected calves have seizures. DNA test available to identify carriers. | Hereford |
| Arthrogryposis
-Multiplex (AM)* |
Many environmentally caused forms appear but one form is inherited as a simple recessive trait. The joints of all four legs are fixed symmetrically and a cleft palate is present. AM in Angus includes twisted malformation of spine and fixed leg joints. DNA test available to identify carriers. | Charolais, Angus* |
| Dwarfism | At least three types of dwarfism documented in cattle and thought to be caused by different simply inherited recessive genes. | Angus, Hereford, Brahman, Dexter |
| Hypotrichosis (Hairlessness) | Partial to complete lack of hair. Hair grows in and falls out so affected animals may have varying appearance over time. DNA test being validated to identify carriers. | Hereford |
| Protoporphyria | Light sensitivity causing open sores and scabs. Liver function is also affected and animals may suffer from seizures. Inherited as simple recessive. DNA test available to identify carriers. | Limousin |
| Osteopetrosis (Marble Bone) | Long bones are solid and without developed marrow. Bones are brittle and break easily. Calves are usually born dead 2 to 4 weeks pre-terms. DNA test available to identify carriers in Red Angus. | Angus, Red Angus, Holstein |
|
Excessive fluid in brain ventricles (internal) or in cranium (external). DNA test available to identify NH carriers. |
|
Management of genetic defects in seedstock or commercial beef herds can be quite challenging. In the case of seedstock herds, suspect animals or those known to be the progeny of carriers should be tested when DNA diagnostic tools are available and economically practical. Carrier animal's maybe retained in the breeding herd, but breeders should test all progeny to determine carrier status prior to marketing as breeding stock. Carrier calves should only be sold to feeders and designated for slaughter only. Table 1 details the expected results if a homozygous normal sire is mated to a carrier (heterozygote) cow the resulting progeny will include on average one-half defect free and one-half carrier calves with no affected calves. Also included in Table 1 is the expected proportion of progeny of various genotypes when a carrier sire is mated to a carrier dam. On average one-quarter of the calves will be free of the defect, one-half will be carriers and one-quarter will be affected. If the animals are affected by a lethal defect, the surviving animals will include one-third defect free calves and two-thirds will be carriers of the defect. If you have a calf born with a suspected congenital defect, photograph the affected calf and contact your breed association immediately to arrange for tissue collection and reporting instructions.
In a commercial herd that has had affected calves or is striving to prevent introduction of a known defect, bulls should be DNA tested as the primary means of control. Pedigree inspection and reduction of matings of closely related animals may provide reductions in the production of affected calves but not as effective as DNA marker testing. Mating of carrier cows to non-carrier or clean bulls will result in the production of no affected calves. It is frequently not economically practical to cull commercial cows on the basis of their carrier status. If a DNA test is available, all new sire purchases or semen used for AI should be from sires that are not carriers. Non-carriers may also be determined by pedigree if both sire and dam have tested free of the defect. If a DNA test for a defect is not available, the strategic use of a planned crossbreeding system may eliminate the appearance of affected calves. Care should be taken to select a breed that has not had any calves produced in recent generations that are affected by the same defect one is trying to eliminate. At the commercial level, autosomal recessive defects can be effectively managed through careful sire and/or breed selection without extensive culling of the beef cow herd.
Table 1. A.) Expected calf genotypic frequencies from mating of non-carrier sire to carrier dam for deleterious recessive genetic defect. B.) Expected calf genotypic frequencies from mating of carrier sire to carrier dam.
|
Table 1. A. | ||
| Non-carrier Sire Genotype (AA) | ||
| Carrier Dam Genotype (Aa) | A | A |
| A | AA | AA |
| a | Aa | Aa |
| Genotypes | Frequency | |
| AA (homo. Normal) | 50% | |
| Aa (hetero. Carrier) | 50% | |
| aa (Homo. Recessive Affected) | 0% | |
|
Table 1. B. | ||
| Carrier Sire Genotype (Aa) | ||
| Carrier Dam Genotype (Aa) | A | a |
| A | AA | Aa |
| a | Aa | aa |
| Genotypes | Frequency | |
| AA (homo. Normal) | 25% | |
| Aa (hetero. Carrier) | 50% | |
| aa (Homo. Recessive Affected) | 25% | |
| Phenotypes | Frequency | Frequency in Surviving Calves |
| AA (Normal) | 25% | 33% |
| Aa (Normal) | 50% | 67% |
| aa (affected-dead) | 25% | NA |
Forage Focus: Nutrient Value and Removal of Wheat Straw - Robert Mullen, Edwin Lentz, Keith Diedrick, OSU Extension
As wheat harvest approaches some producers are curious about the economics of baling wheat straw versus leaving it in the field as residue. This leads to the question - what is the nutrient value of the straw being removed and should removal lead to increased fertilizer applications in subsequent years?
From a pure fertilizer value, wheat straw contains very little in the way of phosphorus (P2O5) but moderate amounts of nitrogen (N) and potassium (K2O). The actual amounts of N, P2O5, and K2O contained in a ton of wheat straw are 11, 3, and 20 pounds, respectively. A sixty bushel wheat crop might produce upwards of 2.2 tons of straw per acre (assuming a harvest index of 0.45 - meaning that 45% of the total biomass grown in the field was grain), removing 30 pounds of N, 9 pounds of P2O5, and 44 pounds of K2O. Thus, straw does have some fertilizer value especially with regard to potassium and may require some additional fertilizer input in subsequent years, but, soil testing should be conducted to validate the need for additional nutrients.
Wheat straw residue also contains organic matter that when returned to the soil does have value, but it is difficult to put a dollar value on it. Continued removal of the above-ground biomass may have negative repercussions in the long-run in the form of decreased organic matter, especially if some organic residue is not returned to the soil.
Grazing Bites, June 2009 - Victor Shelton, NRCS Grazing Specialist
It seems to me that we have had more than our share of rain lately. Though it is certainly not as big an issue with forages as it is with row crops, it certainly has it's drawbacks for forage management. Much of Indiana has been relentlessly hammered by "timely" rains all spring making it very difficult to find a long enough dry period . . . or dry enough soil to get corn and soybeans planted and hay successfully put up . . . dry. I personally have only seen three very tight windows to get any dry hay done and two were really pushing it. If you have the equipment for making balage then you were ahead of anyone else trying to put up dry hay. Heavy, thick forages on very damp ground is not a good combination.
I have seen quite a range of pastures this spring so far and even ones that were grazed harder than they should have been last year don't look too bad. If you don't have much forage in a field right now, then the cows have stayed too long or there are too many on it. The "fuel" has certainly been thrown on the fire - the pastures and hay fields have leaped forward quickly and many now are running wild. If your pastures are properly stocked then you most likely have fields getting ahead of you. This is somewhat the norm for most years at this time, but with all the extra rains, it is more of an issue this year. The first thing that comes to mind to most is - we need to make hay out of all this growth and that is true to a certain degree. We need to make sure we have enough hay stored away before next winter but we don't need to get carried away either. You can do the math, figure about 3% body weight with say an average 70% feeding efficiency for most dry hay (figuring rot, wastage, etc. - the better the quality and storage, the higher the efficiency); that works out to be about 43 pounds of dry matter . . . hay per 1000 pound cow per day. How many days is she going to be eating hay? Hopefully, not too many since you are trying to extend that grazing season and using less stored "feed". Number of cows x hay needed x days divided by bale size and you have an idea of hay needs.
Anyone that has been around me much or heard me talk at a field day will start guessing my next thoughts. Ok, you cut some hay, you have figured out somewhere along the way how much you are going to need with a little extra. Now, stop looking across that field and thinking about selling off a bunch of that forage . . . how much could you get for it? I see a lot of fairly good grass hay selling for $30-$40 per 1500 pound bale. If you figure in true costs for mowing, raking, baling and nutrient removal, you will need at least $44 a bale just to break even at today's prices…it was worse last year and that is figuring that most nitrogen was naturally fixed. If you include nitrogen into the picture, then you may need up to $60 to break even.
I hear a lot of things when I'm out and about and some would certainly surprise you . . . perhaps. It surprises me how many producers don't consider nutrient removal when they are making hay . . . and selling it. You need to have enough hay to get the livestock through the winter and a little maybe for a possible dry period, but even if you are not selling any hay, you are moving nutrients from one spot to another and most likely to a spot where the nutrient load is already high. Goes back to the same old thing - better to graze it and leave nutrients in the same spot than to have to move them back or replace them.
If you cut too much hay during one time period, you might find yourself short of anything to graze, if all of a sudden, the rain shuts off, and things start drying up. This certainly happened some last year and will probably happen again this year. At least this year, our spring stands are, for the most part, thicker and healthier looking. Last spring many fields were thin and weak.
I really believe that you should somewhat stagger your hay cuttings and "stage" your fields so you know you will have something to graze, in the proper form and quality when you need it. So instead of cutting the majority or all your pastures for hay, I would strongly recommend just clipping or topping at least half of the pasture to keep it vegetative and in good quality which will be good grazing fairly quickly without losing quality from it maturing and leave fields cut for hay for later grazing. If the fields start to get ahead of you again later on, and if you still need some hay for winter, cut it, but if you don't, again consider just clipping it or grazing it a little harder - higher concentration for shorter time periods and then longer rests and it will pay dividends in the long run. Clipping also evens out the stand if done at the right height and will help the livestock to graze more evenly next time around. So to answer a question I hear a lot, "What height do I clip at?"; clip to even out the stand, clip to remove all or potential seed heads, clip as high as you can to get the job done.
I recently visited a site with a producer with little equipment and he was concerned about his grass getting away from the animals. It is certainly a little more difficult to jump in there and rescue a field preventing it from losing quality as the summer approaches when you can't clip or hay it when you need to. If this is the case, concentrate the animals as much as possible and keep as much of the pasture as possible in good form, circling back as needed or possible to do so. As the remaining paddocks start maturing and losing nutritional value continue grazing the fields you kept vegetative with lactating and growing animals as much as possible and put any maintenance animals you might have on the maturing paddocks and graze them short duration but concentrated to allow them to eat what they want in a short time period and trample down the rest and them move them on. This will concentrate manure and urine, help utilize extra forage material for growing more forage and do a better job of improving quality later on.
Keep on grazing and keep it green!
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report -
Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia TechLIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were mixed on Monday. Deferreds did not show much price optimism. The JUNE'09LC contract closed at $81.475/cwt; up $0.550/cwt and $1.575/cwt higher than last report. The AUG'09LC contract closed up $0.725/cwt at $82.850/cwt and $2.025/cwt higher than this time last week. DEC'09LC futures closed at $87.825/cwt; down $1.000/cwt and $0.775/cwt lower than last report. The USDA Cattle on Feed report published last Friday was supportive. Placements were noted at a 13-year low and feedlot supplies registered a 10-year low. In addition, a large part of the cattle placed in May were notably lighter. Cattle marketings for May were down 9% from this time last year and the smallest since 1996. A surging dollar, a lower stock market and sliding outside commodity markets weighed on prices. Bull spreading long nearbys/short deferreds was noted. Cash cattle were steady with USDA placing the 5-area price at $81.78/cwt; $0.06/cwt lower than this time last week. USDA pushed the Choice Boxed beef up $0.50/cwt at $140.09/cwt and $0.57/cwt higher than a week ago. According to HedgersEdge.com average packer margins were lowered $8.00/head to a positive $8.70/head based on the average buy of $81.93/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $82.62/cwt. It is a good idea to hold cattle to heavier weights if you can. U.S. corn prices appear to be headed for the seasonal slump. Avoid feed purchases for a while if you can. They should be cheaper.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME were up on Monday. AUG'09FC futures finished at $98.925/cwt; up $0.825/cwt and $1.725/cwt higher than last report. The OCT'09FC contract closed at $99.050/cwt; up $0.650/cwt from last Friday's close and $1.225/cwt higher than this time last week. Feeders were supported on lower corn prices and shrinking supplies. The number USDA registered on feed last month came in less than what the market expected and prices leapt on the opening. Feeder cattle in the Oklahoma City market were up $2/cwt in fair volume. USDA noted U.S. feeder sales volume at 9,400 head vs. 7,944 head a year ago. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index for June 18 was off $0.22/cwt to $96.37cwt but $0.18/cwt higher than a week ago. Corn prices are expected to weaken further.
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
