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

Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter

Issue # 658

October 28, 2009

Why All the Fuss Over Issue 2? - John Grimes, OSU Extension Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources

In case you hadn't noticed, Ohio voters will be considering issues besides whether or not we should have casinos in Ohio. The fact that we are voting on Issue 2 in November is a perfect example of how today's consumer is currently impacting agriculture and will continue to do so in the future. They want to know more about how their food is produced on the farm and that it is safe, nutritious, and affordable. They certainly have the right to know.

Why is Issue 2 on the ballot? Out-of-state animal rights activist groups such as HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) have brought ballot initiatives to states such as Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and California to radically change how livestock and poultry are housed. In general, they are opposed to the confinement housing systems used for poultry, swine, and veal calves. The ballot issues in these states passed in favor of the animal rights groups and now livestock producers in the states are faced with significant changes in their production systems. Ballot initiatives are not the only method in which livestock producers have been impacted. Michigan legislators are in the process of banning many currently accepted housing systems for poultry, swine, and veal through legislation.

Earlier this year, leaders from HSUS came to Ohio to meet representatives from the Ohio livestock organizations and other farm groups. HSUS informed this group that they intended to bring a similar ballot initiative to Ohio that had run in the earlier states. The livestock groups which represent producers of all sizes, with the support of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, wanted to take a proactive approach on this issue so the state legislature was approached to put the creation of a Livestock Care Standards Board on the November ballot. This was passed by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate and signed off by the Governor in July.

If Issue 2 is passed, a Livestock Care Standards Board will be established to set standards for livestock and poultry care that will take into account issues of food safety, local availability and affordability of food and best management practices for animal well-being. The Board will be comprised of 12 members: three family farmers, two veterinarians (one of whom is the state veterinarian), a food safety expert, a representative of a local humane society, two members representing state farm organizations, the Dean of an Ohio agriculture college, two members representing Ohio consumers, and the Ohio Director of Agriculture who will serve ex officio as the 13th member and Chairman of the Board.

Ten members will be appointed by the Governor. The House and the Senate will each appoint a member. There will not be more than seven members of the same political party on the Board at any given time. Issue 2 authorizes the Ohio Department of Agriculture to administer and enforce the standards established by the board, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.

As with any political issue, there has been plenty of political debate on both sides of Issue 2. The general public may speculate why agriculture, which tends to be very independent in nature, would want to approve an oversight group such as the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Supporters of Issue 2 view the Board as an effective means to assure Ohio's farm families have a safe, locally-grown food supply, bring together Ohio's animal care experts to ensure excellent care of the state's flocks and herds, and maintain the viability of Ohio agriculture which is the state's number one economic contributor.

There are plenty of examples in our society where an industry polices itself. Doctors are subject to medical review boards if malpractice has taken place. Lawyers and judges are scrutinized by ethics boards. Individuals in education are peer reviewed in order to receive promotions. The list of examples of this type of self-scrutiny is quite lengthy.

Many of the people that I have heard voicing an opposition to Issue 2 talk about wanting less government involvement. I can certainly respect that opinion because I often feel there is way too much government in our lives. However, I believe that trends are already in place that government is going to be more actively involved in the oversight of our food production. I already pointed out the ballot measures passed in other states restricting livestock production systems. Michigan legislators have taken a nearly direct opposite approach to dealing with threats from HSUS when compared to Ohio.

People have complained that another government board to oversee by the state will just cost the taxpayers more money. I do agree that there will be costs involved. The legislation that Michigan has passed will require that some agency be in place to enforce their new restrictions. There will be costs to the taxpayers in that scenario as well.

Complaints have been that we don't need to add another agency to our Ohio constitution. This process is enabled by the constitution and there are plenty of agencies that have been created to help deal with issues in specific areas of concern. Several other boards including the state board of education, the Ohio tuition trust fund, and the Ohio ballot board are housed in our state constitution. Issue 2 also preserves the right of legislative action and initiative law and constitutional amendments.

The ultimate issue here is a philosophical difference between very diverse groups. Supporters of groups such as HSUS and PETA believe in animal rights. Supporters of Issue 2 believe in animal welfare. Please note the difference between the two phrases: animal rights vs. animal welfare. Any farmer knows that for an animal to be healthy and productive, they must utilize science-based, factual information that will insure the general welfare of the animal. Anything that jeopardizes the welfare of the animal will reflect negatively in the end product for the consumer.

Dr. Bobby Moser, Dean of The College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) states, "The Ohio State University has historically been an advocate for food animal care and well-being, for maintaining a safe and adequate food supply, for protecting the safety of farm workers, and for providing Ohioans with access to locally raised food."

OSU believes in taking a proactive, comprehensive approach to animal care in this ever-evolving field. Education of those who directly manage animals is the most consistently successful approach to improving animal care and well-being. As such, producer education and the education of 4-H youth in the area of animal care have been and will continue to be a high priority. The college advocates an approach that is research based.

Through this article, I have tried to inform you about the history and potential impacts of Issue 2. It is your duty as a voter to fully understand this issue before you vote. The results of the vote on Issue 2 will definitely impact agriculture for years to come.

Forage Focus: Forage Analysis: Sampling and Interpretation of Results - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County

This past summer's weather, while good for forage growth, was not conducive to making high quality hay. Farmers had to work around frequent rain showers and sometimes it was a question of delaying cutting while the forage continued to mature and lose quality, or cut and then watch as the crop was rained on. Either way, there is some poor quality hay that will get fed this winter.

The economics of feeding livestock are improved by matching the nutrient needs of the animal to forage quality. When forage quality comes up short of the animal's nutrient needs then the ration must be supplemented. The only way to really have a good handle on forage quality is through forage testing. Reliable results depend upon submitting a good sample. Here are some tips for collecting a hay sample:

* Use a hay probe to collect the sample. Reaching into a bale of hay with your hand and pulling out a sample is not accurate. A hay probe allows you to take a good cross section of the bale, getting a representative sample of both leaves and stems. Check with your county extension office about a hay probe. Many offices have one that can be signed out and used to collect a forage sample.

* Take cores from 15-20 bales within a lot of hay to get a more accurate average of hay quality. On large round bales, if the outer layer is weathered and not going to be eaten by livestock then pull away the weathered layer and sample from that point going in towards the core of the bale. It is important to try to mimic in your sampling what the animal is actually going to consume.

* A lot of hay can be determined by species, cutting date and location. For example, 1st cutting fescue hay vs. 1st cutting orchardgrass hay would be two different lots of hay, requiring two different samples submitted for testing. A first cutting orchardgrass hay baled on May 20th vs. a 1st cutting orchardgrass hay baled on June 20th are far enough apart in quality that separate samples should be submitted even though both are 1st cutting. A 1st cutting hay baled from a high fertility field vs. a 1st cutting hay purchased from a neighbor's rarely fertilized field should be considered as two different samples even if the hay was cut and baled about the same time and has similar species.

* As you sample, empty the forage cores into a plastic bag. Usually a 1 quart ziplock bag works well. Make sure the bag is clearly labeled. If you are sampling silage or baleage and there is going to be a time lag between sampling and delivery to whatever office may be sending off the sample for analysis, then refrigerate or freeze the sample.

What kind of forage analysis do you need? A basic forage analysis that I recommend for most livestock owners includes moisture content, crude protein (CP), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF), Total Digestible Nutrient (TDN) content, and Net Energy (NE). For dairy producers who may want to pay more attention to Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) when balancing a ration, or for anyone who wants more forage quality information, then the next level of forage analysis provides all the information in the basic forage analysis plus Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), Digestible Dry Matter (DDM), Dry Matter Intake (DMI) and Relative Feed Value (RFV).

Once the results of the forage analysis come back you need to be able to interpret the results and make some sense of the numbers. We'll start with a simple definition and explanation of some basic forage quality terminology.

* Moisture content: No forage is 100% dry matter, even though animal intake, nutrient requirements, forage nutrient contents and rations are based on 100% dry matter so that forages can be compared equally with one another. The moisture content can also tell you something about the quality of that forage. For example, if the moisture content of a large round bale is above 15%, or a small square bale above 18%, there is likely to be some storage and mold problems.

* Crude Protein (CP): This figure is the nitrogen content x 6.25. Protein is needed for amino acid production and growth. Livestock nutrient requirements are based on a percentage of the diet composed of CP, or a given weight of CP that needs to be consumed each day.

* Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN): TDN is used as a measure of energy. It is calculated from the ADF percentage. Often livestock energy requirements are stated in terms of percent of the diet that should be TDN or in pound of TDN that should be consumed per day.

* Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF): This is a measure of the amount of hemi cellulose, cellulose and lignin contained in the forage. NDF is inversely correlated with intake, that is, as NDF levels increase, intake decreases.

* Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF): This is a measure of the amount of cellulose and lignin contained in forage. ADF is used in digestibility calculations and is inversely correlated with digestibility.

* Relative Feed Value (RFV): This is a calculated value, using the percent digestible dry matter (DDM) and dry matter intakes (DMI), which themselves are calculated values that use ADF and NDF. RFV is generally used to compare forage quality between lots of hay. Full bloom alfalfa and grass hay at the seed head stage will have a RFV around 100.

Now on to the actual numbers themselves. The following tables have been excerpted from an OSU Extension Fact Sheet entitled "Forages for Dairy Cattle", and will provide some typical forage analysis ranges for various quality terms.

1. Legumes

2. Grasses and Grass/Legume mixtures

Notice that while the ADF figures for quality are similar between legumes and grasses of equal maturity, the NDF content of grasses is significantly higher than the NDF content of legumes of a similar maturity. When I see grass hay NDF levels that are above 70 I know that intake of that forage will be limited and rate of passage through the rumen will be slow.

Of course, while a forage analysis may be interesting in and of itself, the real value is using the results to balance the livestock ration. Guessing about the need for supplementation can be expensive. For more information about forage sampling, testing and interpretation of results, contact your county extension office, or a member of the OSU Extension Beef Team.

Cattle Feeding Losses and Fall Calf Prices (10/21/09) - Dillon M. Feuz, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Applied Economics, Utah State University

As I look at feeder cattle markets across the country and as I have opportunities to talk with cattle producers, it become very apparent that feeder cattle prices have dropped sharply and unexpectedly. In the last month, prices for 5 and 6 weight calves have dropped about $10 per cwt, or $50-60 per head. If you compare prices from July-August to now, the price decline has been about $20 per cwt, over $100 per head. That price decline is substantially more than is typical based on historic seasonal patterns. Because of the large fall calf runs, some price weakness is to be expected, but this is more than that. It is not only cow-calf producers who have been somewhat surprised by this market weakness, but many market analysts as well. I for one expected fall calf prices to be about $8-10 stronger than current levels.

What is the source of this new weakness in calf prices? One culprit is the weather. We had a record corn crop growing all year, but everyone has known it was late and at risk for an early freeze. That early freeze did occur in the northern corn belt and wet weather has delayed harvest progress. The result has been that corn price has increased about $0.50 per bushel. That certainly has pressured feeder cattle prices lower. The other on-going and worsening situation is there continues to be no money in feeding cattle. While it appeared back in the spring that feedlots were poised to finally start making a little money feeding cattle, that hope disappeared through the summer and early fall. The accompanying chart shows the estimated returns to feeding cattle in Nebraska based on buying and selling cattle on the average cash market. In other words, no price protection is assumed. As can be seen, with the exception of 4 weeks in the last two years, close-outs have been negative. I really thought, and I am sure feedlots thought, that they had bought feeder cattle cheap enough to be making money at this point in time. But the price of fed cattle has also declined from expectations. Rather than selling fed cattle in the upper $80's this fall, as was expected last spring, we have struggled in the low $80's per cwt. That difference in expected versus actual price would be enough to have most feedlots making money rather than losing money on close-outs.

These feedlot losses are not trivial and have taken a toll on the industry. Dr. Mark wrote a couple of weeks ago, of feedlots in some areas being out of business. Certainly, those who remain in business have limited ability to bid up feeder cattle prices. While cow-calf producers never want to sell their calves too cheap to feedlots, they may actually want to this year, or there may be no feedlots left to buy their calves next year.

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

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were off on Monday. The OCT'09LC contract, scheduled to expire on Friday, closed off $0.225/cwt at $86.125/cwt. DEC'09LC futures closed at $87.150/cwt; down $0.250/cwt. Profit taking attacked the December contract amid strong technical resistance as spreading in the June/December added pressure on the later. Cash cattle were stronger with the 5-area USDA average price placed at $84.59/cwt; $3.73/cwt higher than this time last week. USDA early on Monday put the choice beef cutout at $139.93/cwt; up $0.91/cwt. According to HedgersEdge.com, average packer margins were lowered $11.00from a week ago to a negative $3.25/head based on the average buy of $83.74/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $83.49/cwt.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME finished mixed on Monday. The OCT'09FC contract closed at $93.850/cwt; off $0.400/cwt. NOV'09FC futures closed at $95.875/cwt; up $0.400/cwt. MAR'10FC futures finished at $96.675/cwt; even with Friday's close. The October contract moved lower ahead of expiration. Other contracts were supported by lower grain prices. The latest CME feeder cattle index was $93.27/lb; up $0.02/lb.

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