A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to 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 # 604
September 24, 2008
Forage Focus: Grazing Wind Damaged Corn Residue - Jeff McCutcheon, OSU Extension Educator, Knox County
To survive the current feed economy livestock producers need to graze their livestock as long as they can. Every day livestock are meeting their nutritional needs through grazing they are being fed as economically as possible. In Ohio, beef producers need to consider grazing corn residue. The recent wind damage has brought this into focus a little earlier than normal. Wind damaged fields are being harvested now. When corn stalks become available for grazing livestock producers need to move to take advantage of this resource.
Because the feed is in contact with the ground and deteriorating in the field you should start grazing corn residue as soon as the combine pulls out of the field. The nutrient value of residue declines the longer it is exposed to weathering. Sixty days after harvest is the window for maximum feed value. After 60 days it may not meet the needs of your livestock and you will need to provide supplemental feed. Grazing residue right away will provide a better feed.
Wind damaged fields can have more grain left in the field after harvest than normal. Check fields for excess grain before grazing. Too much corn left in the field can cause acidosis and founder. In these cases cattle need to be adapted to a higher grain ration before grazing. They should initially be turned into residue with their rumens full if a problem is expected.
Strip grazing will also force the animals to eat leaves, cobs, and stalks instead of just gleaning the grain. Giving animals only a few days or weeks worth of corn residue at a time utilizes the forage more efficiently. Strip grazing provides a more uniform diet. Leaving cattle in the entire field for a couple months or longer means the livestock will initially pick the grain and some of the leaves. Eventually they will only have the stalks, or the least nutritious plant part, left and will need to be supplemented.
Typically fence and water are the excuses used for not grazing corn residue. There are several inexpensive, temporary options for both. Check out Rory’s article on fencing which follows, and also “Watering Systems for Grazing Livestock” (http://www.iowabeefcenter.org/content/WateringSystemsForGrazingLivestockPub.pdf) and “Pumps and Watering Systems for Managed Beef Grazing” (http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/envqual/eq0380.htm) for ideas on the water.
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.
Livestock Producer Compliance with The COOL Interim Final Rule - Dr. Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Beef, VA Tech
Livestock producers are not directly regulated by the COOL interim final rule as livestock are not considered covered commodities. However, only producers have first hand knowledge concerning the origin of their animals. Definitive origin information must be provided to slaughter facilities so that meat covered commodities can be accurately labeled at retail. Presumption of origin by packers and other entities in the marketing chain is not permitted. For example, it is not acceptable to assume that if an animal has no ear tag and/or brands identifying that the animal was born and/or raised in Canada or Mexico, the animal is of U.S. origin.
The COOL law provides for the use of producer affidavits to provide origin information to packers. Thus, under the interim final rule, USDA will consider a producer affidavit as acceptable evidence on which a packer may rely upon to initiate an origin claim, as long as the affidavit is made by someone having first hand knowledge of the origin of the animal(s) and identifies the animal(s) unique to the transaction. Evidence that identifies the animal(s) unique to a transaction can include a tag ID system along with other information such as the type and sex of the animals, number of head involved in the transaction, the date of the transaction, and the name of the buyer.
With regard to what is considered first hand knowledge, a subsequent producer-buyer (e.g., backgrounder, feeder) that commingles animals from several sources is authorized to rely on previous producer affidavits as a basis for formulating their own affidavit for the origin of the new lot. Such affidavits must also identify the animals unique to the transaction. In contrast, first-hand knowledge would not include an affidavit made by someone such as a truck driver whose knowledge would be limited to where he picked up the load. The driver would not have sufficient information about the chain of custody and other information needed to provide the origin declaration. The responsible party (e.g., buyer) for commingling the animals would be the attester to the origin of the newly formed group of animals and would retain the original affidavits or other appropriate records, to substantiate claims made about the newly formed group.
Other records that may be used to assist in a COOL verification audit include birth records, receiving records, purchase records, animal health papers, sales receipts, animal inventory documents, feeding records, APHIS VS forms, segregation plans, State Brand requirements, breeding stock information, and other similar documents. In addition, participation in USDA Quality System Verification Programs (QSVP), such as the USDA Process Verified Program (PVP) and the Quality Systems Assessment (QSA) Program that contain a source verification component is also considered as acceptable evidence to substantiate COOL claims. These examples are not inclusive of all documents and records that may be useful to verify compliance with COOL, but they should provide a strong basis to substantiate a claim during a supply chain audit.
Ultimately, the packer, as the first handler of the covered commodity (meat), may require from their suppliers records or access to records in order to substantiate COOL claims made by the packer. However, if the producer participates in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), that is considered sufficient documentation of an animal’s origin. Participation in the NAIS program is voluntary, but does provide a livestock producer “safe harbor” for COOL compliance. The rule specifies that packers that slaughter animals that are part of a NAIS compliant system or other recognized official identification system (e.g., Canadian official system, Mexico official system) may rely on the presence of an official ear tag and/or the presence of any accompanying animal markings(i.e., “Can”, “M”) on which to base their origin claims. This provision also applies to such animals officially identified as a group lot. Reprinted from USDA-AMS http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool
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 on short covering. OCT’08LC futures were up $0.900/cwt at $102.450/cwt. However, this was $1.300/cwt lower than last Monday’s close. The DEC’08LC contract closed at $103.900/cwt up $0.650/cwt but $1.455/cwt lower than last Monday. October/December spreading was noted. The market followed through on last Friday’s bullish Cattle-on-Feed report from USDA amid lighter placement weights. U.S. Plain’s cash cattle were steady at $99/cwt while USDA placed the 5-area price average at $98.23/cwt. On Monday USDA put the choice boxed beef cutout at $159.28/cwt, off $0.52/cwt. Meanwhile in export news, Japan relisted Smithfield Beef Group’s Souderton, PA and National Beef’s Brawley, CA plants for exports to that country. They had been banned earlier. According to HedgersEdge.com, the estimated average packer margin was off $7.10/head from last week placed at a positive $12.40/head based on the average buy of $98.39/cwt vs. a breakeven of $99.35/cwt. Fundamentals are supportive while corn prices seem to have put in a seasonal bottom.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed up on Monday with the exception of the September contract. SEPT’08FC futures closed at $108.150cwt, off $0.100/cwt. The NOV’08FC contract finished up $1.175/cwt at $106.475/cwt. Gains in Live Cattle, short covering, and a discount to the CME Feeder Cattle index were supportive while higher corn prices put a damper on things. Oversold chart signals helped the bulls. October/Spreading was good for October stymieing the September contract. The latest CME Feeder Cattle index for September 18 was placed at $109.28/cwt. Corn inputs look like they are going to get pricier.
CORN futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) finished up Monday. The DEC’08 contract closed at $5.584/bu, up 16.25¢/bu from Friday but 3.75¢/bu lower than this time last week. MAR’09 corn futures closed at $5.762/bu; up 17.25¢/bu but 4.0¢/bu lower than a week ago. The U.S. government’s $700 bi dollar bail out to the lending division strengthened the market supporting a weak U.S. dollar and building crude oil prices. Many analysts see this as fueling inflation. Weather was good for corn in the U.S. Midwest while exports were supportive. USDA reported 33.139 bu of corn inspected for export vs. market expectations for between 30-35 mi bu. Large funds bought almost 6,000 contracts amid an estimated volume of 173,000 lots. 100,000 of these were noted in spreads. Chart signals are bullish. Open interest fell by some 9,400 after the December chart noted an Elliot 5-way sell signal amid a descending triangle with an upward price breakout. The supplement to CFTC’s Commitment of Traders report had large speculators cutting net bull positions by about 51,000 lots. Large speculators in net bear positions increased those by almost 2,500 lots. Cash corn in the U.S. Midwest was mixed while bids in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic States posted strong gains ranging 15.0¢/bu– 21.0¢/bu higher in most places. Even though there is not much fundamental news to support a bottom for the ’08 corn market one may have been established. Those who have up to 70% of the ’08 crop priced today are in good shape. However, it looks like there may be more pricing opportunities in the near future.
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
