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 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 # 605

October 1, 2008

Forage Focus: Forage Feeding Losses Can Add Up - Dr. Rick Rasby, Professor of Animal Science Animal Science, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

A lot of long hours and expense are invested into harvesting quality forages and storing them for use at a later time. As a producer, you wouldn't dream of throwing away one-third of the forages that were intended to be fed to the cow herd. Many times, that's what happens when livestock are allowed unlimited access to hay in a feeding situation. Livestock trample, over consume, foul on, and use for bedding 25 to 45 percent of the hay when it is fed with no restrictions or is not processed. As forage feeding systems are incorporated into the feeding system to reduce feeding losses to the lowest possible, the financial commitment will increase. The key is to balance the financial outlay to implement a feeding system to reduce forage losses with the dollars saved in reducing the amount of forage needed. Many times this is dependent on the cost of the forage and, as the cost of the harvested forage increases, it appears easier to justify the cost of machinery and feeding devises.

Feeding Frequency and Amount: Hay loss and waste can be reduced by feeding hay daily according to diet needs. Compared to feeding a several-day supply each time hay is provided, daily feeding will force livestock to eat hay they might otherwise refuse, over consume, trample and waste. Cattle will waste less hay when the amount fed is limited to what is needed in a single day. One-fourth more hay is needed when a 4-day supply of hay is fed with free access than when a 1-day supply is fed.

Excessive hay consumption can be a major problem when large hay packages are fed without restriction. A dry, pregnant cow can eat up to 15 to 20 percent more hay than her needs when allowed free access to a good quality hay. A cow that is 1200 lb consuming 27 lb daily as is, with free access to the forage could consume 31 lb daily. This can amount to almost 500 pounds per cow over a 4-month feeding period for spring calving cows. A 100-cow herd may over consume 24 tons of hay if the cows have free access to hay. This is in addition to the extra needed to replace wasted hay when fed free access.

Devises To Reduce Forage Losses: Feeding losses when hay is fed daily in bunks can be kept in the 3% to 14% range. Well designed feeders (with solid bottom panels) will have losses in the 3% to 10% range for an average forage loss of about 6%. Large bales fed free choice without a rack or feeder in muddy conditions can result in forage losses exceeding 45%. Feed bunks are excellent for feeding small square bales. Round bales can be fed in specially designed racks. Loose or compressed hay stacks can have collapsible racks or electric wire around them to reduce trampling the hay around the edges. No matter how hay is fed, efforts that limit the amount of hay accessible to trampling will save feed. Feed hay at a well drained site and firm ground when possible. Hay racks or bale feeders with solid barriers at the bottom prevent livestock from pulling hay out to be stepped on. Some producers have fed forages on an up-slope with the hay next to an electric fence. Their observation is that, when the hay is spread in a long line so that all cows have access next to the electric fence, forage losses due to trampling are minimal.

The type of forage presented to the cattle can impact the amount lost during the feeding process. Allowing cattle free access to forages that have a thicker stalk or stem results in greater forages losses during feeding compared to thin stemmed forages like hays. When cattle are fed forages like sorghum-sudan hay and the feeding method and access are not controlled, they tend to select the leaves and upper parts of the stalk and not the lower part of the stalk resulting in greater feeding losses. When feeding method and amount that cows have access to is controlled, feeding losses are not much different among forage types.

Even if big-round-bale feeders are used to reduce forage feeding losses, there still can be substantial losses. There is not a lot of data on bale packaging quality on feeding losses. It appears loosely packaged bales fed in a bale feeder can result in high feeding losses. Cows pull the loose hay through the feeder and forage is deposited on the ground around the feeder.

Dry matter losses occur when handling hay from field to feeding. By the time the hay is fed, losses can be substantial, and can essentially increase the amount of production needed from the original standing crop by 35 percent. By effectively controlling the amount of hay lost and wasted during harvest, storage, and feeding, production costs can be reduced and hay making more profitable.

Grinding or Processing: There are some misconceptions that grinding forages will increase forages quality. This is not true. In some grinding situations, quality may decrease, especially if the hay is ground on a windy day. Grinding decrease particle size and when particle size is decreased, the amount of time that the ground forage needs to stay in the rumen to be digested decreases. A decrease in rumen retention time means that forage intake will increase. This means that a cow can consume more of the forage. This concept becomes important when feeding cows a low quality forage and intake is restricted because it will not pass through the rumen at a very rapid rate because it takes so long to digest. Grinding or processing hay in a bale processor is a method to increase consumption of low to medium quality forages. Grinding different forages together will allow to combine forages of differing quality for best use in a cow feeding diet. It also allows a way to manage problem forages such as forages that contain nitrate levels that are at the potentially toxic level.

Controlling forage feeding losses is important. It must also be recognized that as forage feeding losses move closer to zero, money will be invested on extra equipment or material such as bunks, feeding racks, inverted tires, etc. If the forage is ground, a feed wagon and/or loader on the tractor is needed. Costs need to be balanced with savings.

Cone Feeders Make For Less Hay Waste - Daniel Buskirk, MSU Department of Animal Science

Beef cows in their study were allotted to one of eight pens with four feeder designs: cone, ring, trailer or cradle. All feeder types provided about 14.5 in. of linear feeder space/animal. Alfalfa and orchardgrass round bales were weighed and sampled before feeding.

Hay that fell onto the concrete surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected and sampled daily. At the end of a seven-day period, each feeder type was assigned to a different pen for a second, seven-day period.

* Dry matter hay waste was 3.5%, 6.1%, 11.4% and 14.6% for the cone, ring, trailer and cradle feeders, respectively.

* Calculated dry matter intake of hay ranged from 1.8% to 2% of body weight and did not differ by feeder type.

* Percentage of organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and crude protein were all lower, and acid detergent lignin was higher, in the recovered waste compared to the hay fed.

* Cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions (behavior resulting in displacement of another cow from the feeder) and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types.

* Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances and feeder occupancy rate.

* Use of the ring feeder resulted in nearly twice the amount of waste compared to the cone feeder, whereas the trailer and cradle feeders resulted in four times the waste per animal compared to the cone design.

* Hay waste, as a percentage of hay disappearance, was less for the cone and ring feeders compared to the trailer and cradle feeders.

* Cattle eating from the cone and ring feeders were able to more closely mimic a grazing position than those eating from the trailer and cradle feeder.

* Feed losses were similar for bales stored inside (12.4%) or covered with plastic outside (13.4 to 14.5%), but higher for bales stored uncovered outside (24.7%).

* Slanted bar designs encourage animals to keep their heads in the feeder opening by providing some constraint.

Limiting Access Time to Hay Can Stretch the Roll - Dr. Jeff Lehmkuhler, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky

Being in Kentucky a couple months now, I'm picking up on some of the local terminology. One of those local synonyms being "roll" was quickly discovered as I attended my first few meetings. The lack of precipitation again has folks asking how to manage cattle on limited forage resources. In these challenging times, it does not hurt to discuss strategies to conserve precious inputs.

There are several strategies that can assist in reducing forage needs which include timely culling of open cows, selling calves early, feeding grains or co-products, proper bale storage, hay feeder type and limiting access to hay. The following will discuss how hay supplies may be stretched by limiting the time cows have access to hay as a conservation approach.

Having weaned calves in the fall from spring calving cows reduces nutrient needs of cows as milk production is eliminated and fetal growth during mid-gestation is slow. Therefore, production and nutrient needs are lowest during this time frame with nutrient needs increasing as cows advance to late gestation. This period of low nutrient demand is a key time frame to implement forage conserving strategies. The following option assumes cows are in good condition and thin cows should not be managed under these strategies rather they should be separated from the herd. Thin cows will not regain body condition prior to calving needed decreasing their odds of rebreeding the following season.

Researchers at Purdue investigated restricting cow access to hay. When mature cows were allowed access to hay for 4, 8, 12, or 24 hours, hay disappearance which includes both hay waste and consumption was decreased with reduced access time. Body weight change did not differ between 8, 12 or 24 hours of access while restricting access to only 4 hours resulted in decreased weight gain over the 50 day trial. For mature cows, to maintain body weight gain in this trial, restricting access to only 8 hours was adequate.

Restricting access time to hay resulted in a linear decrease in body weight gain in young, second calf cows. Keep in mind that these young cows are still growing to reach their mature size and have greater nutrient requirements during the dry period than older, mature cows. In this work, restricting access to hay to 8 hours reduced hay disappearance by approximately 15% while not effecting weight change/gains. Restricting time further to only 4 hours resulted in reduced intakes but also impacted cow body weight gain and this is not ideal for thin, mature cows needing to regain body condition score or young, growing cows. Reducing time access to hay may restrict growth and body condition impacting future production and these younger and thinner cows should be sorted from the herd and managed separately if this strategy is to be employed.

Need more proof that this works? Recently, researchers at the University of Illinois reported findings from a similar trial involving restricting access time to hay. Two trials were conducted lasting 87 and 89 days using third trimester Simmental cows. Access to hay in this study was ad libitum (free-choice), 9, 6 or 3 hours. Hay disappearance decreased from 34 lbs of dry matter for free choice cows to approximately 18 lbs for cows having only 3 hours of hay access. Hay waste was similar and averaged 32% and calculated hay intake was reduced from 21 lbs of dry matter to 12 lbs. Cow body weight gains were 94, 87, 73 and 54 lbs for free-choice, 9, 6 and 3 hour access, respectively. Body condition score changes followed similar trends to weight changes with cows maintaining body condition with an increase of 0.1 body condition score when cows had only 3 hours of access to hay.

In the second trial conducted by University of Illinois researchers, hay access was restricted to 6 or 9 hours. Again, hay disappearance decreased as access time was limited decreasing by 13% and 17% in comparison to free-choice for 9 and 6 hours of access. Hay waste was lower in this trial averaging 14%. Body weight and body condition score changes were not impacted by restricting hay access in this trial.

These trials indicate that when forage supplies are tight or for producers looking to reduce annual cow costs associated with stored feeds, restricting the time that cows have access to hay can reduce hay disappearance by approximately 15% with little impact on animal performance. Depending upon forage quality, cow body condition score and environmental stress, hay savings may be even greater if time restriction is reduced to 3-4 hours. However, it is not recommended that access be restricted for developing replacement heifers, lactating females, young or thin cows as this may impact future productivity. Additionally, the degree of restriction will be influenced by the quality of the hay. If you are considering this hay saving strategy, it is advised that you test your forages. For information on this and other related topics, contact your local county extension agricultural agent.

How Much Are Corn Stalks Worth In The Field? - Charles Wortmann, Extension Nutrient Management Specialist and Charles Shapiro, Extension Soils Specialist, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

A recently published NebGuide, Harvesting Crop Residues, G1846, addresses the question of how much value you lose when removing corn stalks from the field. It covers the implications of stover harvest for the value of nutrients removed, maintenance of soil organic matter and soil productivity, wind and water erosion, and runoff and evaporation. Tillage and cropping systems also are important considerations.

The amount of crop residue produced is related to grain production.

Approximately 1 ton of crop residue (at 10% moisture) is produced with 40 bushels of corn or grain sorghum (56 lb/bu at 15.5%), 30 bushels of soybean, and 20 bushels of wheat. One of the easiest costs to estimate relative to crop residue harvest is the value of the nutrients removed. The concentration of nutrients in crop residues varies with season, management practice, time of harvest, and location. In addition, crop residue components differ in nutrient concentration, with most elements concentrated more in leaves and husks than stalks. The typical nutrient content for corn or sorghum is about 17 lb nitrogen, 4 lb P₂O₅, 50 lb K₂O, and 3 lb sulfur per ton of dry harvested residue.

NebGuide 1846 contains a worksheet for calculating the total cost of harvesting crop residue. Since its publication, the costs of several nutrients have changed significantly. The chart below represents figures that may be more accurate at this time.

G1846 is available online at http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/sendIt/g1846.pdf

Cattle AI School: Steps to Better Genetics, Performance - OSU News & Media Services

Learn ways to boost the genetics and performance of your cattle at Ohio State University's Cattle Artificial Insemination (A.I.) School, Oct. 20-22, at the Eastern Agricultural Research Station in Belle Valley, Ohio.

Among the topics: Reproductive physiology, cattle heat synchronization, and utilization of insemination equipment and practices.

"By using the techniques learned at A.I. School, a cattle producer will be able to introduce improved production traits and increased performance," said Clif Little of OSU Extension's Guernsey County office. "Farmers tell us, because of the training they received, they are able to utilize A.I. on their own farms and introduce improved genetics."

The schedule:

* 9 a.m.-2 p.m., Monday, Oct. 20: Reproductive tract anatomy and physiology; estrous synchronization. Speaker: Mike Day, Department of Animal Sciences, OARDC.

* 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 21: Basic A.I. instruction. Speakers: Little and Carol Wheeler, OSU Extension emeritus.

* 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 22: Cattle artificial insemination. Speakers: Little, Wheeler and John Groah, DVM, McConnelsville, Ohio.

Registration, due by Oct. 13, costs $75 and includes program materials and lunch. Space is limited to the first 20 registrants.

Registrants will be notified when they are accepted into the class. The registration fee is non-refundable. Space will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

For more information or to register, contact Little, (740) 432-9300, little.16@osu.edu; or Kaye Clay in OSU Extension's Guernsey County, (740) 489-5300, clay.89@cfaes.osu.edu.

The Eastern Agricultural Research Station is at 16870 Township Road 126 in Noble County. Take exit 28 off Interstate 77. Go south on State Route 821. Turn left (east) on State Route 215. Go about one mile. Turn right onto Band Ridge Road (Township Road 126). The station will be on the right. Signs will be posted.

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

With the exception of the May '09 Lean hog contract commodity prices were stridently lower across the board on Monday amid concerns over uncertainty that the U.S. House would reject the government bailout proposal. In these volatile times it seems the chart signals and fundamentals are at the mercy of politicasters and an economy that, according to Greenspan was once quite "exuberant."

Don't know if a quote by Laurel and Hardy is seen much in a market report but I feel it appropriate to say to someone, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" - Oliver Hardy in Another Fine Mess (1930)

CORN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) finished limit down on Monday. The DEC'08 contract closed at $5.130/bu, down 30.0^�/bu from Friday and 45.5^�/bu lower than a week ago. MAR'09 corn futures closed at $5.310/bu; off 30.0^�/bu and 45.25^�/bu lower than this time last Monday. The 30.0^�/bu trading limit will be increased to 45.0^�/bu for Tuesday's trading. Spillover uncertainty about U.S. and world economic outlook amid good crop weather and no prospects for frost in the near future pressured commodities. However, not all is gloomy, near the end of trading cash bids for corn strengthened because of end-user interest in these lower prices. Late Monday USDA put the U.S. corn crop at 9% harvested vs. a 21% 5-year average for this time of year and 29% rate this time last year. Corn-inspected-for-export was placed at 40.164 mi bu vs. 28-32 mi bu due to a weakened U.S. dollar. CFTC's Commitment of Traders report dated 9/23 had large speculators increasing net bull positions by 12,200 to 62,927 lots. The next report will most likely show a decrease in net bull positions as funds sold between 7,000 and 8,000 lots as they liquidate positions while the money flows out of financial markets. Those who have up to 70% of the '08 crop priced today are in good shape.

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were off Monday on long liquidation. OCT'08LC futures were down $2.900/cwt at $98.050/cwt; $4.400/cwt lower than a week ago. The DEC'08LC contract closed at $99.875/cwt off $0.650/cwt but $2.925/cwt lower than last Monday and $4.025/cwt lower than last Monday. Synthetic trading was noted. As with grains and oilseed markets, active selling took control of the markets on news that the U.S. House had rejected the financial bailout package. According to six floor sources thinking that lower corn prices were in the making pressured deferred fat cattle contracts because cattle production might increase. Don't think I agree with that one yet but I wasn't in the pit trading with them. USDA placed the choice boxed beef cutout at $155.49/cwt, up $0.07/cwt. The 5-area average cash price was lowered $0.24/cwt from a week ago to $97.99/cwt. Even though processors snapped up supplies they are seen as hesitant to raise bids because of sharp declines in futures. Packer margins were lowered $33.90/head from last Monday to a negative $21.50/head, according to HedgersEdge.com. This was based on the average buy of $97.98/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $96.35/cwt. It is probably a very good idea to sell cattle when ready while looking for feed pricing opportunities on volatile market swings.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed off on Monday. OCT'08FC futures closed at $102.80/cwt, off $3.000/cwt. The NOV'08FC contract finished up $3.000/cwt at $102.575/cwt; $3.900/cwt lower than a week ago. Feeder cattle suffered major losses in October through March closing limit down on chart-based liquidation in a market with few buyers. Over 200 limit down offers for October and 400 for the November remained on the table at the close. Reports from Oklahoma City were that feeders ranged $3-$5/cwt lower. The same credit-crunch woes affecting all markets weighed on feeders. The latest CME Feeder Cattle index for September 25 was placed at $107.74/cwt, up $0.11/cwt. Corn inputs just got better.

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