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 # 656

October 7, 2009

Forage Focus: "The rest of the story" on harvesting and feeding crop residue! - Stan Smith, Fairfield County PA, OSU Extension

Last week in this publication we mentioned that with over 3 million acres of Ohio corn to harvest this fall, the opportunity is great for extending the brood cow grazing season well into fall and perhaps winter. While corn stover offers a considerable amount of digestible energy and fiber, it's always good to review the palatability and practicality of utilizing crop residues resulting from corn or soybean harvest as a significant feed source.

Of the two, certainly soybean stubble bales must be viewed as a last resort unless you have a bale processor and feed it in limited quantities to "dilute" other high quality feeds in the ration. In fact, if your vision for utilizing soybean residue is simply placing bales of the "feed" in bale feeders, it's probably not worth the time, fuel, wear on the machinery, and effort it takes to gather it. While it can have 35-40% TDN and nearly 4% protein, this is less than wheat straw (review the article linked here by Steve Boyles on feeding straw). Simply put, as soybeans increase in maturity they increase in lignin and lignin is not digested well in the rumen. Soybean stubble might make marginal bedding, but twigs gathered from trees in your yard might make comparable feed.

While corn stover has much more merit than soybean residue as a feed source and may be viewed as comparable to average grass hay, palatability of the stalks can be a problem. The husks and kernels of corn that fall during the process of harvest are the most palatable, and will be readily consumed. This lends itself very nicely to grazing as being by far the best method of harvesting corn residue, whereas, baling residue will likely cause loss of the kernels. Review the next article from Jeff McCutcheon and Dave Samples on grazing management of harvested corn fields.

When it comes to baling and transporting corn residue - and especially if you're thinking about traveling very far with it - consumption versus waste becomes a consideration worth pondering. The husk, leaf, and any kernels in the bales, which will likely be a small percentage of each bale, will be readily consumed. If you have a bale processor, much of the stalk may be consumed also. However, if you're simply placing corn residue bales in bale rings, the abundance of corn stalks which will remain after the more desirable parts of the bale are consumed will likely become bedding. If you must feed baled corn residue in this fashion, consider simply pushing the chopper or spreader on the back of the combine forward and dropping the residue that comes through the thresher in a "windrow" and then bale only these windrows. The resulting bales will be a much higher percentage of the palatable portions of the corn residue.

As you consider baling and transporting baled corn residue to your cows, carefully consider the harvest and transportation costs involved on a "per consumable and digestible ton of dry matter" basis. Simply feeding shelled corn may be more cost effective! In addition, review the article further below from Robert Mullen on the fertilizer nutrient value you will be removing and possibly leaving in a pile at the bottom of your bale ring.

Looking for Fall Feed? What About Corn Residue? - Jeff McCutcheon and Dave Samples, OSU Extension Agents

Ohio produces over 3 million acres of corn each year. Most of those acres are harvested for grain with the rest of the plant left in the field. In addition to the value of the grain, one acre of corn residue can supply enough forage to sustain a 1,000-pound cow or animal equivalent for 1.5 to 2 months. Any quick calculation you do, should lead to the conclusion that there is enough feed remaining on corn fields after harvest to significantly increase the grazing days for ruminant livestock. The use of corn residue offers producers increased flexibility for fall and winter pasture and helps reduce the overall feed costs.

Ideally corn fields should be used immediately after harvest for 30-60 days to take maximum advantage of the feed value of the residue. This would allow the permanent pastures to "stockpile" additional days of fall growth that could be grazed after the animals come off the corn fields. Grazing corn fields for an extended period, even all winter, is also an option if supplemental feed is provided and the fields remain dry.

Livestock will selectively graze the most palatable portions of the residue first, starting with the grain, leaves, and husks and then the cobs and stalks. Generally, animal grazing will leave 75-80% of total residue in the field, especially if animals are rotated to new areas before much of the cob and stalk material is consumed. With this in mind, one acre of corn residue will yield approximately 60 animal unit grazing days. This means that one acre of corn residue will provide 60 days of grazing for a 1,000-pound animal, or 30 days for two animals.

Limiting access by strip grazing will allow for an increased stocking rate and greater utilization of the residue. This can be accomplished by using portable electric fencing. Either a single break wire to the front, or double wires with one in front and one to follow can be used effectively, depending on the layout of the field and water sources. However, if strip grazing practices are used, and snow cover arrives before the field is grazed through, some of the best feed may be lost if the grain and husks cannot be recovered.

The easiest fit for grazing crop residue is with non-lactating, mature beef cows or ewes that are in the middle trimester of gestation and are in desirable body condition. Animals that have grain to select will consume a diet that is probably above 7% crude protein and as high as 70% Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN). If corn is visible in the manure, supplementation with anything other than vitamins and minerals is probably not needed. However, when most of the grain has been consumed, or little grain is left in the field, protein supplementation will probably be needed. Several studies have shown that dry cows will at least maintain body weight and may gain up to 1.0 pound per head daily while grazing corn stalks that have grain, husk, and leaves to select.

For other classes of livestock like first calf heifers, ewe lambs, fall calving beef cows, lambs, and calves, supplementation will be needed. These classes of animals have higher nutritional needs than average corn residue can provide and producers cannot afford to ignore those needs.

For more information check out the OSU Extension fact sheet on grazing corn stalks at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0010.html or call your local Extension Office.

Electric Fence Review - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County

For many graziers using rotational grazing, the electric fence is a critical component of the total system. I know of examples where just 1 or 2 strands of electrified high tensile wire are serving as a perimeter fence along a road. The grazier is trusting in the electrical system and the prior experience/training livestock have received to insure the fence is not crossed. In wet years, there are a lot of electrical fence systems that can do an adequate job. Soils with good moisture insure that the animal is well grounded, and when wet nose meets a wire, even if the voltage is not high, a good circuit is made and the resulting shock can convince an animal that the grass is not really greener on the other side. In dry years, like we are currently experiencing, marginal electrical fence systems may not maintain the desired voltage. Dry soils don't provide the same grounding between animal and fence. Fences that might not be challenged in a year with plentiful forage may be tested in dry years with limited forage growth. During dry years we talk about slowing rotations down and even holding animals in one paddock as a sacrifice area until grass growth allows the rotation to be resumed. Can your fence keep your livestock from moving to where the grass really is greener?

Although many graziers have learned the basics of electric fencing, most of us can benefit from a review every now and then. The basic components of your electric fence system that should be evaluated include: the fence energizer/charger, ground rods, and the fence wire. In grazing schools you will hear that the fence energizer/charger is the "heart" of the electric fence system. The beginning grazier will avoid some frustrations by spending the necessary money for high quality energizer/charger. When the time comes to replace the current energizer/charger this is not the place to cut budget corners.

Size the energizer/charger to handle your current fencing system, plus some room for growth. I know graziers that have significantly increased the amount of electric fence they are running over the years. Sometimes the fence has increased as a result of expanded pasture acreage; sometimes the fence has increased as a result of more internal divisions as paddock numbers increase. Sometimes, it is both. As the amount of fence grows, graziers should check to make sure that the energizer they have is adequate for the amount of fence they are asking it to charge.

Graziers should be checking the voltage on the fence to make sure it carries a voltage adequate to deter livestock from crossing. Figures that I have heard thrown around regarding voltage levels and various livestock species include 1600 to 2000 volts for cattle, 3000 volts minimum on electric netting for sheep and goats and 4000+ volts on high tensile fence for sheep/goats. I also know of sheep/goat producers who maintain 7000+ volts on their fence. The point here is to evaluate the charger/energizer as fencing needs grow/change and either fence to include another charger/energizer in the system, or add a larger charger/energizer to handle the increased fence. There are many ways to evaluate chargers/ energizers, but one method is to look at output in joules. Also remember that when a product is advertised by the miles of fence it can energize, this includes one wire. If multiple wires are energized, these must be added together. Four strands of high tensile wire around a mile perimeter with 2 hot strands accounts for 2 miles of energized wire.

One component of the electric fence system that is sometimes overlooked is the ground rods. The full capacity of the charger/energizer will not be utilized unless there is a good ground system in place. In a dry year, it is critical to have the correct number of ground rods, properly spaced installed to help keep enough voltage on fences. What is the correct ground rod system? A general rule of thumb says to install a minimum of 3 feet of ground rod per joule of energizer output capacity. For example, if I have a 15-joule energizer, this requires 45 feet of ground rods. Generally either galvanized or copper rods in 6 to 8 foot lengths are used. This energizer would require 6 to 8 ground rods depending upon if a 6 or 8-foot ground rod was used. If copper rods are used make sure to use a copper wire from the energizer ground terminal to the ground rod. If different metals are mixed, electrolysis can occur and the effectiveness of the grounding system is reduced, so stick with either galvanized or copper. Ground rods should be driven in their full length, or if rocky soils don't permit this, driven in at an angle so that essentially the rods are lying in a trench. Ground rods should be at least 10 feet apart and 40 to 50 feet away from any other existing grounds. Ground rods should be tied together in a system, connected with wire between rods. Try to locate ground rods in an area that is likely to stay moist. Northern exposures under building drip lines often work well. In drought situations, it may be a good idea to water your ground rod areas to increase the effectiveness of your electric fence.

Finally evaluate the fence itself. Remember that as the diameter of the fence wire decreases, there is more resistance to push electric current around the fence. Polywire is very handy stuff but it should not be used to carry the charge long distances. Use high tensile wire to carry the charge and for perimeter fencing and polywire to hook on to the high tensile wire for internal paddock divisions. Voltage will be dropping in the fence as distance and amount of fence increases. Check to make sure the galvanized coating on the fence wire is intact. Rust is an enemy of electric fences.

Electric fence technology has allowed many graziers to more effectively utilize pastures and their management ability. Graziers need to periodically evaluate the energizer, ground rods and fence wire components of their electric fence system to insure fences are operating efficiently and serving as effective barriers for livestock.

References:

Beef Cattle Handbook, BCH-6201: Fence Systems for Grazing Management

Kencove Farm Fence Supplies Catalog

Protein and Energy Supplementation of Crop Residues for Breeding Cattle - Francis L. Fluharty, Ph.D., Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

The 2007 summer's drought conditions in much of Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky caused much concern as many people were asking 'what can I feed' and 'what's the value of corn stover'? Since those are still relevant questions as cattlemen do what they can to reduce feed costs, here are a few thoughts to consider.

First, the good news is that we have several sources of alternative sources of high-energy feeds in this area including corn, distillers grains, and pelleted soybean hulls. However, the price and availability of these is not always cost effective. Additionally, many producers do not have the facilities to store distillers grains or soybean hulls, or the ability to purchase them in semi-load amounts. This has led many people to turn to corn stover or even soybean stubble bales as an alternative source of feed. Usually, our problem in this part of the country is meeting a cow or heifer's energy needs, because our grass/legume mixtures are relatively high in protein. When feeding corn stover or soybean stubble, this is NOT the case, and a readily digestible protein source must be used.

Cattle need adequate protein to grow, mount an immune response, reproduce, maintain a pregnancy, or give birth to and nurse a healthy calf. Adequate protein supplementation also facilitates the digestion of feed stuffs.

Forages have lignin, an indigestible complex chemical compound that gives strength to plant cell walls. Corn stalks have a higher percentage of lignin than leafy forages, and soybean stubble has much more lignin than corn stalks. Immature, leafy forages and grains don't have very much lignin, and thus their rate of digestion is much greater.

Two things must happen to aid in the digestion of low protein, high lignin feeds. Adequate supplemental protein must be provided and the particle size of the material should be reduced. This is why cattle 'chew their cud'. They are re-chewing forages to break down the particle size so that more surface area is available for fungi growth and bacterial attachment which results in digestion, as well as breaking down the particle size of lignin-bound material so that it can pass out of the rumen undigested.

If low-protein feeds that are high in lignin such as straw, corn stover, and soybean stubble are not chopped and supplemented with appropriate sources of protein, then animal performance is reduced.

All that being said, current economics mean that many producers are doing things differently than they have routinely done in order to keep feed costs under control. While some cattlemen are simply selling females, others are separating older cows from heifers and 2 year-old females, feeding twice daily, chopping or grinding forage, or feeding alternative sources of energy.

As we consider alternative feeds, it's very important to know the energy and protein levels in your feed, but it's just as important to take into account a feed's digestibility. If corn has a digestibility of 95%, and corn stover has a digestibility of 55%, which one is a better source of energy?

Put potential feed alternatives on a price per pound rather than simply comparing the bushel price of corn to the bale price of stover. If corn is $3.36 per bushel, it's $.06 per pound ($3.36 ÷ 56 lb = .06/lb). If a 1000 pound bale of stover costs $30, it's $.03 per pound ($30 ÷ 1000 lb = .03/lb). However, the net energy for maintenance (NEm) of stover is only 51% of that for corn (1.14 Mcal/kg versus 2.24 Mcal/kg). Therefore, on an energy basis for maintenance, they cost the same. However, the net energy for gain (NEg) of corn is 2.7 times higher than that of corn stover (1.55 Mcal/kg versus .58 Mcal/kg) making corn a more economical energy feed for gain.

If corn is $.06 per pound the price per pound of corn stover would have to be $.022 to be equivalent for gain ($.06 ÷ 2.7 = $.022), making the price of a 1000 pound bale of stover be $22 to be equal for energy. All of this assumes that corn stover and corn grain have the same digestibility, and protein content, which they don't. If corn grain is 95% digestible, and corn stover is 55% digestible, then poor feed intake becomes a problem with corn stover, due to the length of time that the stover remains in the rumen before it is digested or chewed to particle sizes small enough to pass out of the rumen, and the corn grain becomes even more economical.

This is just one example. When considering the value of other energy feeds such as distillers grains, corn gluten feed, or pelleted soybean hulls, it's still important to put things into perspective by looking at a price per pound of digestible nutrients.

In many parts of the world, straw is fed as a roughage source to ruminant animals. While long-stem straw has a very low digestibility, the grinding of straw increases consumption. This leads to higher digestible energy intakes.

This brings up an important thing to consider. As the result of work done by Dr. Steve Loerch here at The Ohio State University, one effective option producers rarely consider is hay chopping. Chopping hay allows the cows to eat 25-30% more energy. Costs of chopping hay (equipment, labor, etc.) should be compared to costs of purchasing supplemental energy. For some producers, this may be a cost effective option. We have come to realize the potential of hay chopping from an observation at the OARDC Beef Center in Wooster. Steers fed a chopped hay based diet gained 2.5 lbs/day while those fed round baled hay (same hay source) in a rack gained less than 1.5 lbs/day.

So, if you are using corn stover, baled soybean stubble, straw or similar low quality forages as a cow feed, here are some key points to remember:

* Dry beef cows will need a diet that is 8% protein in the middle third of pregnancy and 9% protein in the last third of pregnancy. Pregnant yearling heifers will need a diet that is at least 11-12% protein, and heifers and cows nursing calves will need a diet that contains at least 12% protein.

* If heifers and young cows are not separated from older cattle, they may be pushed aside when given supplemental feeds, and they may not receive the protein or energy they require.

* With low-quality feeds, it is best to feed combinations of ruminally available (urea, soybean meal) and ruminally escape (corn gluten meal, distillers dried grains, fishmeal) protein sources.

* Soybean meal is an excellent protein source with low-quality forages, because approximately 80% of the soybean meal is degraded in the rumen, and the rumen microbial population must be given a source of N so that they can reproduce, before they can digest the low-protein forages.

* If you are using corn stover, straw, or baled soybean stubble as the main source of forage, it may be necessary to supplement a high-energy feed to your cattle such as corn, DDGS, CGF, or SBH in order to keep the animals in the proper body condition.

* If labor is an issue, and it is not feasible to feed protein supplements daily, it might be appropriate to use protein tubs or protein kegs for supplementation with low-protein feeds such as straw, corn stover, or soybean stubble. However, expect to pay 2 to 4 times more for the same amount of protein than you would have paid if a soybean meal and distillers dried grain combination had been used as a top-dress.

* Keep in mind that the mineral nutrition of your cow herd should not be compromised due to using alternative feeds. Having a good mineral program will enhance performance, allow the animals to convert energy more efficiently, improve calf survivability and growth, and reduce the post-partum interval from calving to rebreeding.

EDITOR's NOTE: For a more detailed version of this article in either MS WORD or PDF, visit the Nutrition section of the OSU Beef Team web Library.

Fertilizer Nutrient Value of Corn Stover - Robert Mullen, OSU Extension Fertility Specialist

Some animal operations are interested in corn stover as a feed leading many crop producers to ask - what is the nutrient value of my corn stover?

From a pure fertilizer value, corn stover contains a little phosphorus (P2O5) and moderate amounts of nitrogen (N) and potassium (K2O). The actual amounts of N, P2O5, and K2O contained in a ton of corn stover are 16, 6, and 25 pounds, respectively. A 160 bushel per acre corn crop will produce 4.5 tons of stover per acre removing 72 pounds of N, 25 pounds of P2O5, and 113 pounds of K2O. Thus stover does have some fertilizer value especially with regard to potassium that may require some additional fertilizer input in subsequent years, but soil testing should be conducted to validate the need for additional nutrients.

Corn stover 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 stover may have negative repercussions in the long-run in the form of decreased soil organic matter, especially if some organic residue is not returned to the soil.

Monthly Market Profile: Cattle Feeders Double Down - Nevil Speer, Professor, Animal Science, Western Kentucky University

Have you ever fed a large group of hungry cows in the mud? If so, you know how futile that can seem. Rather than stopping to eat in a systematic manner, the cows often chase the truck or tractor - all the while they end up trampling the hay into the mud about as fast as you put it out. And you probably find yourself wondering if you're ever going to get far enough ahead of them to actually put some feed down.

The analogy isn't perfect but the feeling of futility might be tangible. Just about the time it appears there might be some promise of better prices, or at least the establishment of firmer footing, the market gets trampled back to lower levels. The past month demonstrates there's much work ahead and sustainable recovery will likely possess more semblance of feeding hay in the mud (messy, disorderly and, at times, frustrating) than pulling up to the bunk in a feed truck.

Labor Day's wait-and-see, tenuous attitude clung to weekly negotiations throughout September. As noted in last month's MMP, weakness stems from broader concerns about the direction of the overall economy. And such concerns are most readily evidenced by the wholesale beef market. The Choice cutout has oscillated between $135 and $145 all summer but took a markedly negative turn during the end of September (see the first chart below) - with the spot price actually falling below $135 for the first time since early-April.

The fed market's inability to seasonally work higher is the direct outcome of softness in the wholesale market. The second illustration highlights divergence of 2009. Normally, the expectation would be for a move to higher levels coming out of summer. Perhaps most troubling, though, is the continued modification, to the downside, at the CME. The October contract has yielded $10 since mid-July; December has relinquished nearly $7 during that same time frame and certainly isn't a picture of overwhelming bullishness given that it now stands only a couple of bucks ahead of current spot prices.

Where does that leave us? As noted last month, there's lots of heavy lifting ahead. Alternatively, I've heard the economic recovery being described as "slow motion". Most interesting to me, though, was an article in the most recent issue of Advisors Perspective (Oct 6) entitled, "Retailers Face the New Frugality". Author Robert Huebscher notes that consumer spending has dropped dramatically below historical trend and is forcing all types of retailing outlets to adapt. That's hit all industries, including agriculture - the publication included some perspective by James Wright, CEO, Tractor Supply Company (TSC). TSC has worked hard to reduce administrative, distribution and inventory costs but Mr. Wright points out that, "Until we see more clarity on the macro issues, we are taking it slower on growth." And that's precisely the point, it's very difficult right now to get much clarity on the macroeconomic picture - a principle which impacts every industry . . . including the beef complex.

Multiple times during the past year I've addressed the issue of declining revenue available to the production sector within the beef industry. That's a key consequence stemming from the financial crisis driven from a variety of sources. I outlined the issue in January like this:

Most importantly, that response indicates a spending slowdown across the consumer front. And as noted last month, the spending trough may prove to be deep and enduring as consumers retrench while undergoing fundamental transformation relative to their purchasing habits. Consumer behavior is especially important as it relates to food expenditures. The beef complex is not immune to that effect from both perspectives: volume (less beef being purchased) and value (trading down when purchasing). That's an important influence (both domestically and globally) because it means less overall revenue available to the industry.

The outcome possesses implications throughout the industry no matter your role.

Along the way I've also provided a graph which depicts the revenue trend at the last stage of the production sector's value chain - the feedyard. The third graph below illustrates estimated aggregate revenue for the feeding sector. Clearly, the trend is not favorable! For the year, through August, the production's top-line mark is off 10% compared to the 5-year average. That's equivalent to approximately $1.65 billion - or $2.5 billion annually. Admittedly, part of that shortfall has been compensated for by heavier weights (And partially explains cattle feeders' desire to keep on adding weight - it avoids assuming new risk associated with the swap while creating additional revenue. But that's another story for another day.)

The bottom-line, though, is that cash availability for the feeding sector has declined significantly. And that's especially important when working within a business that inherently possesses already-slim margins. Ultimately, diminished cash flowing into the feedyard gets translated back upstream - all the way to the cow/calf sector.

What's especially critical here is the wager that played out, somewhat inexplicably, in August. While feedyards are experiencing an unprecedented string of losses, feedyard managers have seemingly found renewed vigor in terms of risk tolerance. That is, the sector has been relatively aggressive purchasing new replacements in recent months. More specifically, the 6-month placement rate (roughly one turn of cattle) is nearly equal to last year's pace while marketings are approximately five-percent behind 2008.

And so feedyards have doubled down. One of two outcomes will occur. Favorably, they'll finally find some reward for betting on the come. An outlook for cheaper corn and hopes for improved economic conditions will pay off handsomely. Alternatively, heavier weights, bigger supply and continued sluggishness will not only hamper but likely confound the market. The outcome? Potentially sharp leverage decline for cattle feeders amidst weekly negotiations.

It's a showdown - how the cards play out remains to be seen. Either way, the final quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 may prove to be VERY significant.

Price Summary

EDITOR's NOTE: Could "Index Speculators" presently be the single most dominating force in the futures commondity markets? Be sure to read Speer's thoughts on the subject in his October Agsight column entitled "Fundamentals . . . or Index Speculators?."

Seasonal Feeder Cattle Marketings Ramp Up - Tim Petry, Livestock Economist, North Dakota State University Extension Service

The early fall run of yearlings off grass is in full swing at Northern Plains auction markets. The later fall calf run is just starting with heavy runs only weeks away. Last week, 85 percent of cattle sold at North and South Dakota auctions weighed over 600 pounds, but in one month from now only 30 percent will weigh over 600 pounds.

The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reports feeder cattle prices and numbers sold at markets throughout the country in its National Feeder and Stocker Summary report. The report is issued every Friday afternoon and is available on the AMS web site at: www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sj_ls850.txt.

Grass conditions were near ideal this year in much of the Northern Plains and many feeder steers are weighing over 800 pounds. Demand has been moderate to good for the many truckload lots being offered. A near record, if not record, corn crop in the Western Corn Belt has stimulated buyer interest. But prices have weakened over the last month as marketings have increased, fed cattle prices have stalled at $82-84, and corn futures prices have inched back up. For example, the CME Feeder Cattle Index, which is an average price for 650-850 lb steers sold in the U.S., declined from $98.68 on September 1 to $95.36 on October 1.

Calf prices among Northern Plains markets have been very uneven. At many markets too few calves are selling yet to generate buyer interest because truckload lots cannot be put together. Last year, there was a wide range in prices for the same weight and grade of calves sold at the same market, due to the many factors that affect calf value. Early indications are that the range will continue to be wide and could even be wider this year as buyers sort for value.

Un-weaned calves without vaccinations are likely to receive discounts, while weaned calves with appropriate vaccinations and that qualify for value added programs such as source and age verified and/or natural may receive premiums.

Last week, the average price for 550 to 600 pound medium and large 1 steers at auctions in the Dakotas was $104.60. But the range was from $93 at a market where only a few (7 head) were available to a top of $108.50 at several markets. The previous week a top of $118.50 was recorded on 550 to 600 pound calves labeled as "Fancy" by the market reporter.

Further weakness in calf prices is likely to occur as seasonal marketings increase. So producers should strive to market calves near the top of the range instead of near the bottom. Calf sellers are encouraged to contact their market soon for tips on marketing and management practices that can help bring the highest price possible for calves.

The Markets - A light to moderate fed cattle market developed last Thursday at prices $1 to $2 lower than the previous week. Live prices averaged $82.08 in the 5-area market with $81 to $82 prices prevalent in the North where supplies were plentiful, and ranging up to $83 in the South. Dressed prices averaged $127.64, almost $2 lower than the $129.54 recorded the previous week. Choice boxed beef values continued to decline with the continued macroeconomic woes and ample supplies of meat. Increased pressure on the choice beef was again evident as the choice-select spread narrowed to $5.34.

Both yearling and calf prices in Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma declined as marketings increased seasonally, corn prices crept up, and distant live cattle futures weakened.

Last Thursday, corn prices in Omaha increased another 3 cents per bushel after rallying 11 cents the previous week. Distillers gain prices continued to rally from their seasonal lows, with DDGS increasing over $6 per ton to $106.20 and WDGS advancing to $31.60.

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