A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

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 # 606

October 15, 2008

Forage Focus: Testing Forages for Quality Can Save Dollars and Makes Cents When Designing Feeding Programs for the Herd - Dr. Rick Rasby, Professor of Animal Science Animal Science, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

As producers strive to reduce feed costs by investigating avenues to increase grazing days, many still have to use harvested forages in their year-round feeding program. Sampling and testing forages for quality can make designing a feeding program easy and economical. Nutrient concentration can vary considerably in feeds, especially forages. Protein in alfalfa hay can range from 10 to 25 percent of the dry matter and grass hay will contain between four and 18 percent protein. Beef cattle are most productive when fed or consuming a diet balanced according to their nutrient needs. When designing diets using harvested feeds, many rations are balanced using average values for each feedstuff and these "book values" often result in over- or under-feeding certain nutrients. More economical and better balanced rations can be formulated using nutrient concentrations determined from feed analysis.

From a forage standpoint, as plants mature, fiber concentration increases. Fiber is less digestible than other plant parts and fiber digestibility declines as plants mature. Both these factors cause the concentration of energy in plants to decline as maturity advances. In addition, as plants mature, the increase in fiber and bulkiness reduces the amount of the forage an animal can consume. For an example, cows don't quit eating straw because they don't like it, they quit because they can't stuff anymore into their rumen because of straw's low digestibility due to the high fiber content. Protein concentration also declines as plants mature. The three factors that impact forage quality are 1. maturity at harvest; 2. maturity at harvest; 3. maturity at harvest.

Getting a representative sample, packaging it properly for transport, knowing what to test for and understanding the number in the analysis are critical. These are the items that I plan to address. In the final segment of this article there will a discussion on nitrates in forages.

Sampling and Packaging: It is important that samples closely resemble the entire "lot" of forage. Each sample must represent only one "lot" of forage. A "lot" of forage consists of forage harvested from one field at the same cutting and maturity. All forage from the same "lot" should be similar for: type of plant(s), field (soil type), cutting date, maturity, and variety. Variation in any of these characteristics can cause substantial differences in the nutrient value of the forage.

Sample baled hay after curing (usually 17 to 21 days after baling), using a core sampler or probe. Such an instrument is essential for collecting a representative sample and most commercial labs will not accept a "grab sample" of hay. For large round and square bales, the probe should penetrate at least 18 inches into the bale and have an internal diameter of at least 3/8-inch. If the probe is 18 inches long or longer, 15 large round bales should be adequate if the "lot" size is 30 to 40 bales. Collect one sample from each bale by coring straight in from the center of the end of square bales and from the wrapped circumference of round bales. Place the entire sample into a plastic bag and seal tightly. For loose or compressed hay stacks, use a hay probe at least 24 inches long to collect 15 or more samples from each "lot". Sample loose hay stacks from the top and from the side. Compressed loaf stacks require six sampling locations: 1) top front, 2) top middle, 3) top rear, 4) lower front side, 5) lower middle side, and 6) lower rear side. For chopped or ground hay collect about 10 small samples during grinding process and place all the samples into one plastic bag and seal tightly. If you are sampling previously ground or chopped hay, collect about one-fourth of the samples from the top half of the pile and the rest from the lower half. Avoid allowing fines to sift between fingers.

Label the bag with your name, address, lot ID, and type of material. Most testing labs provide a description sheet to report this information and to request the desired tests. Place samples in polyethylene freezer bags, squeeze the air out of the bag, and seal tightly. If you are sending a sample of silage, double bag silage samples for extra protection. Use extra caution if subdividing a large hay sample because sub-sampling dry hay can result in loss of fines and leaves. Freeze samples containing over 15 percent moisture until shipping; store dry samples in a cool location.

Nitrates: High nitrates could be a problem for cattle producers planning to feed or graze annual forages such as corn, cane, grain sorghum, millet and Sudangrass. When plants are growing normally, they absorb nitrates from the soil, but stress factors, such as drought or hail, interrupt plant growth, reducing photosynthesis and conversion of nitrates to plant proteins. High nitrate levels in forages can cause nitrate toxicity in cattle, which can kill the animal or cause abortions in pregnant cows. Weeds such as pigweed, lambsquarter, ragweed and to a lesser extent, Russian thistle, have the potential to be high in nitrates. When reading a nitrate analysis report, producers should look at how the nitrate levels are expressed. The method used in expressing nitrates will determine what level is toxic to an animal.

With proper management, high nitrate forages can be fed safely. Dilute high nitrate feeds with safe (low nitrate) feeds. Also adapt cattle to diets that contain nitrates. Most losses from nitrates occur when hungry cattle are exposed to feeds that are high in nitrate. Some producers may feed drought stricken corn as "green chop". If you do this management practice, set the chopper head up to avoid the bottom 6 to 8 inches of the corn stalk. Most of the nitrates reside in the lower portion of the stalk. Assume that there are nitrates present, so adapt slowly. Chop only what will be fed in one feeding and do not let green chop sit in the wagon over night to feed the next day. Green chop that contains nitrates and sits overnight, the nitrate will be converted to nitrites and nitrites are more toxic to the animal than are nitrates.

EDITOR's NOTE: For more on Forage Testing for Beef Cattle, review the Ohio State University Extension publication by the same name at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0002.html

The "Positive Associative Effect" of High Protein Supplements - Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

As you drive across much of Oklahoma this fall you see many big round bales of hay stored for winter feed. If you are a frequent traveler down the same roads, you may have noted some of these bales are left over from last winter. The high cost of grains and protein commodities are influencing many cattle producers to look to feeding hay as the primary winter feed for beef cows. The quality of this hay will vary a great deal. Frankly, some of it will be low in protein content and therefore low in digestibility. The micro-organisms in the rumen of beef cows and replacement heifers require readily available protein to multiply and exist in large enough quantities to digest the cellulose in low quality roughages. Protein supplementation of low-quality, low protein forages results in a "positive associative effect". This "positive associative effect" occurs as supplemental protein available to the "bugs" in the rumen allows them to grow, multiply, and digest the forage more completely and more rapidly. Therefore the cow gets more out of the hay she consumes, she digests it more quickly and is ready to eat more hay in a shorter period of time. Data from Oklahoma State University illustrates this (Table 1). The prairie hay used in this study was less than 5% crude protein. When the ration was supplemented with 1.75 lbs of cottonseed meal, retention time of the forage was reduced 32% which resulted in an increase in feed intake of 27%. Because hay intake was increased, the animal has a better chance of meeting both the protein and energy requirement without supplementing other feeds. Because retention time was decreased, one could postulate the protein supplementation in this situation also increased digestibility of the hay.

Table 1. Effect of Cottonseed Meal Supplementation on Ruminal Retention Time and Intake of Low-Quality Prairie Hay

As producers prepare their winter supplement strategies, they can see the importance of providing enough protein in the diet of the cows to feed the "bugs" in the rumen. If the hay is low in protein (less than 8 % crude protein), a small amount of supplemental protein such as cottonseed meal, soybean meal, or one of the higher protein by-product feeds, could increase the amount and digestibility of the hay being fed. This strategy requires that ample forage is available to take advantage of the "positive associative effect". As the table above illustrates, properly supplemented cows or replacement heifers will voluntarily consume about 27% more hay if they were provided adequate protein. As long as enough forage is available, this is a positive effect of a small amount of protein supplement.

Eliminating Costs is Always Better Than Reducing Costs - Jim Gerrish, Americangrazinglands.com

In the past we've reviewed how continually rising costs force us to keep our management strategies always one step ahead of the next price increase. Fuel and fertilizer costs are a couple of the biggest culprits in the current cost-price squeeze. It seems to me we give too much attention to reducing costs and not nearly enough to eliminating costs. If you just reduce costs, you still have to wrestle with the same beast every time that particular item makes another price leap.

Most of you know both Stockman Grass Farmer and Jim Gerrish devote a lot of time and energy towards the goal of making and feeding no hay. This is a prime example of eliminating a cost rather than just reducing it. If hay is no longer a necessary ingredient in your livestock operation, it is a cost you don't have to manage anymore. If, on the other hand, you just reduce hay feeding from 120 days to 45 days, it is still a cost you must contend with.

I've seen a lot of producers who were very proud of the fact they had trimmed their hay feeding way back from what it used to be. But did they sell their equipment? No, they still have it and rather than making 500 tons of hay a year, they only make 150 tons. A lot less operating cost generated every year, but no real reduction in the overhead cost of owning equipment. The cost per ton of hay is now likely to be even higher than it was before. If the equipment had been sold, the overhead cost would also have been eliminated and the income from equipment sales could have likely financed much of the fence and water infrastructure development.

Another downside of keeping the equipment is you can easily be tempted to start making hay at the drop of a hat. Got a little extra grass this year? Bale it up. Made some extra hay last year? Let's feed a little longer. Pretty soon you're right back in the same rut. Enslaved by the hay paradigm.

What did Agamemnon, King of the Greeks, do on the shores of Troy? What did Hernan Cortes do on the shores of Mexico? They burned their ships so there would be no going back. If they had been really serious businessmen, they would have sold their boats to some other conqueror and used the income to finance their further adventures. The moral here is don't just burn your equipment, market it in an effective manner.

There are some regions where year-around grazing is very easy, while there are other areas where even I'll admit it to be a much greater challenge. In those areas you might be faced with the question of making the hay you need or buying it. If hay can be bought routinely for under $60/ton, it's hardly even worth discussing the options. At today's N-P-K prices, a ton of hay contains almost $60 worth of fertilizer without even considering the calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, zinc, and other trace minerals as well as the roughly 800 lb of organic matter that will get excreted on your property. At $60/ton, you're either getting the hay or the fertilizer for free. Take your pick.

If hay is costing between $60-100/ton, you're still ahead to buy hay as the latest university figures suggest just the operating cost to harvest a ton of hay to be between $35-40. Lots of farmers who insist on putting up their own hay use the argument they can do a better job of 'putting it up right'. If you do it yourself, you may be spending that $40 to put up rained on, over mature garbage. Buy the hay and you actually have better control over quality.

In some parts of the US and Canada, the cost of buying hay is two to three times what it was just a couple of years ago. Currently in our neighborhood, hay right out of the field is selling for $140-180/ton. In areas where hay costs this much, I have a little bit harder time making the argument to buy your hay. It makes the argument for eliminating hay a lot more convincing, though.

In the past I've used nitrogen fertilizer as an example of another input cost that may have priced itself right out of practicality. Some farmers and ranchers wonder how they can ever get the production they need without using N fertilizer. Many of you who have heard me speak at conferences already know there were only three times we ever used N-fertilizer in the 23 years we were on our grass farm in Missouri. Did we have low producing, thin pastures? No, we ran twice the county average stocking rate. We ran on legumes and an effective nutrient cycle. Yes we limed some pastures and used phosphorus, potash, sulfur, and boron when needed. Last

month we talked about those nutrients as being long term investments in contrast to the very ephemeral nature of N fertilizer.

We can talk all we want about cost reduction, but the real step forward comes when we embrace cost elimination. I don't believe Mother Nature worries too much about what the banker thinks she should do. One more reason to look to Mother for an example.

Ohio Livestock Coalition Offers LEAP I Online through Ohio State

The Ohio Livestock Coalition has announced that it is now offering Ohio Livestock Environmental Assurance Program (LEAP I) training online. LEAP I offers livestock producers an opportunity to take a pro-active approach in blending sound production economics with concern about environmental quality. The goal of the program is to minimize government regulations by providing producers with an educational program that addresses relevant environmental issues.

The program's curriculum and educational materials are designed for beef and dairy cattle, sheep, swine and poultry producers. It is being coordinated by the Ohio Livestock Coalition (OLC) in cooperation with the Ohio State University Extension (OSUE), Menke Consulting, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' (ODNR) Division of Soil & Water Conservation, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), and various commodity and farm organizations.

The LEAP curriculum includes the following:

* Introduction to the environment - covers the importance of a sound environment to the livestock industry and how improved environmental practices can help consumers view the industry more positively.

* On-farm inventory - provides a quick checklist to rate environmental priority areas on individual farms.

* Key environmental management information - discusses management of nutrients, facilities, air quality, odor and community relations.

* An environmental plan - uses the on-farm inventory and local expertise, such as OSUE, NRCS, SWCD professionals, and private consultants, to develop an environmental management plan.

* State and local regulations - discusses what is required for environmental compliance and how to reduce liability.

* Cost-share programs - covers programs, such as Environmental Quality Incentives Programs (EQIP), that can help pay for environmental improvements on farms.

To register for LEAP I online: 1) Please send a check for $25 made out to THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 2) Along with the check, include a note with your name, address, e-mail address, and phone number to the following address: Stephen Boyles, The Ohio State University, 2027 Coffey Rd. Columbus, OH 43210-1094

Upon successful completion of the program, OLC will be notified and the participant will receive their certificate of completion.

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

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were up Monday. OCT'08LC futures were up $1.875/cwt at $91.000/cwt; $1.600/cwt lower than a week ago. The DEC'08LC contract closed at $93.000/cwt up $1.70/cwt but $1.775/cwt lower than last Monday. Even though a rally in the stock market and late October/December spreading was supportive, fears that hard economic times would slow retail beef demand put pressure on prices. However, lower fed cattle numbers in feedlots was supportive. Technically oversold conditions attracted some buyers. USDA put the Choice Beef cutout at $149.51/cwt, down $0.66/cwt. The 5-area average in Monday's light trade was placed at $91.32/cwt, $4.73/cwt lower than this time last week. Packers continued to operate at a loss. Margins were raised $22.65/head from last Monday to a negative $6.50/head, according to HedgersEdge.com. This was based on the average buy of $93.15/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $92.69/cwt. It is still a good idea to sell cattle when ready.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME were gainers on Monday. OCT'08FC futures closed at $96.950/cwt, up $1.500/cwt but $0.725/cwt lower than a week ago. The NOV'08FC contract finished at $96.175/cwt, up $1.125/cwt but $1.625/cwt lower than this time last week. Feeders were supported by live cattle prices. Oversold conditions, short covering, and relieved fears about the sagging economy jump started feeders to limit-up moves as trading began. Record volume was set on Friday. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for October 9 was placed at $100.55/cwt, down $0.30/cwt.

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