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 # 602
Forage Focus: Fall Grazing Management - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County
Fall grazing management is important because fall is when the grass plant needs to build up carbohydrate root reserves. The grass plants in the pasture are perennial plants, which means that they survive from year to year. Although seed production is one way that a perennial plant can survive from year to year, in pastures the more important way that plants survive is regrowth from buds located at the crown of the plant. It is during the short day, long night periods in the fall of the year that flower buds are formed/initiated on the crown of the plant. In the spring new growth comes from these buds that draw upon carbohydrate reserves stored in the roots, rhizomes, stolens and/or stem bases of the plants.
Carbohydrate root reserves are accumulated when the plant is in positive photosynthetic balance. In other words, when the plant is producing more food than it is using. In order for this to happen, the plant obviously needs a good quantity of healthy leaf tissue. For cool season grasses like orchardgrass and fescue that probably means a plant height in the 6 to 8 inch range. It is critical that the plant not be overgrazed during the fall period. Overgrazing severely restricts the photosynthetic process in the plant. The overgrazed plant actually has to use carbohydrate reserves from the roots to try to grow leaf tissue. In a worst case scenario the plant does not grow enough leaf tissue to reach a positive photosynthetic balance before it is either grazed again, or the growing season comes to an end. The grazing principle of take half, leave half should be practiced throughout the fall period. This will insure that there is sufficient leaf tissue to keep photosynthesizing and growing new leaf tissue without drawing on carbohydrate root reserves.
While the leaf tissue dies during the winter, the buds and roots of the plant remain as living tissues over the winter and continue to respire and burn energy. If root reserves are insufficient the plant may die over the winter. If the plant survives but root reserves are low, spring re-growth and vigor of the plant is reduced. Last years drought provided a good example of how overgrazing can damage pastures. Overgrazed pastures that went into the winter with low carbohydrate reserves were very slow to green up in the spring and exhibited slow growth rates once they did green up.
I sometimes get asked, at what point in the fall can grasses be grazed to soil level without harming the plant? This has to be once top growth has ceased and when soil temperature falls below 40 degrees F. Depending upon the year, that is likely in late November or even into early December in our area.
Fall is not the time to relax grazing management. It is a critical time for the plant to build carbohydrate reserves. Good grazing management in the fall is the first step to better grazing conditions next spring.
Fall Fertilization of Forage Crops - Dr. Doug Beegle, Penn State University Extension
This year many areas of the state have been reporting excellent forage yields. As a result, we can expect that nutrient removal by the crop may be up significantly too. This combined with increasing fertilizer prices, especially for potassium (K) has raised questions about the need for fall fertilization of forage stands.
The principal nutrients of concern for legume forages are P and K. An alfalfa crop, for example, removes approximately 15# P2O5 and 50# K2O per ton of yield and at a typical yield of 5 ton it will remove/require a total of 75 lbs and 250 lbs, respectively. This removal is built into the soil test recommendations. However, if yields are higher than anticipated when the soil test was run, even if the recommended nutrients have been applied earlier in the year, additional maintenance applications of P and K may need to be made to replace the higher removal. Fall is an excellent time to make this adjustment. In the late summer and fall, K especially becomes a nutrient of agronomic concern. Potash in the plant is largely found in the sap serving as a regulator of numerous metabolic processes. A major benefit of sufficient K in the soil is winter hardiness provided it is available in time for uptake by the crop before dormancy occurs. Thus if soil test levels are in the low optimum or below optimum range, K should be applied in the fall because this should help to improve winter survival for the long term benefit of the stand.
Legumes are not generally considered to be a good place for manure application mainly because the N in the manure is wasted on legumes, which reduces the economic return to the manure application. Also there are concerns with stand injury and the possibility of increased weed pressure. However, if it is necessary to apply manure to legume fields, fall is the best time to do it. This is a way to supply the additional nutrients that might be required, there is less chance of stimulating weeds, and there is good cover in these fields in the fall, over the winter and early spring to minimize nutrient losses to the environment. Usually we give priority to older stands for manure application because they are often more depleted in nutrients and if there are some negative effects from the manure application, there will be less long term impact on a stand that will soon be rotated compared to a new seeding.
Agronomists want to make sure that producers replace the higher removal of K if needed, but not overdo it because alfalfa is a luxury consumer of K. This means that if there is extra K available because soils are already high in K or unnecessary K applications are made, the crop will take it up whether is needs it or not. This can result in unnecessary fertilizer expense, high K levels in the forage, and less K available for future uptake.
If your forage fields have not been soil tested recently, this would be an excellent time to take a sample. Sampling now will indicate whether the higher yields have reduced soil K levels to the point where a fall fertilizer application is necessary. On the other hand, regardless of higher yield, if the soil reserves are still adequate the soil test can help reduce the cost of an unnecessary fertilizer application.
Dried Distillers Grains as a Winter Supplement for Beef Cows - Dr. Glenn Selk, Extension Cattle Specialist, Oklahoma State University
Cow/calf producers that live in the upper Midwest are acquainted with the use of ethanol by-product feeds as a supplement for winter feeds for cows. In the Southwest, where ethanol plants are rare, few cow calf producers have experience feeding dried distillers grains as cow supplements. However, these by-products should be considered when shopping for winter supplements. Dried distillers grains contain approximately 30% crude protein compared to 20% in corn gluten feed. Also distillers grains are higher in energy partly due to the high fat content. Fat content of distillers feeds have been reported in a range of 9% to 14% on a dry matter basis. Iowa State University nutritionists have provided recommendations of using dried distillers grains as a protein and energy supplement for cows grazing low quality roughages such as corn stalks. Corn stalks are low in protein, energy and minerals, similar to standing native forages, or low to medium quality hay in the southwest. The combinations of dried distillers grains and low quality roughages that would meet requirements for beef cows are listed below:
1. For dry, pregnant beef cows in the last 90 days of gestation, 3 pounds to 5 pounds of dried distillers grains per head per day should meet their protein and energy needs when they have access to adequate free choice standing grass and hay.
2. After calving, during early lactation, 6 pounds to 8 pounds of dried distillers grains will be needed to meet their protein and energy requirements. Again, it is necessary that the cows have access to free choice low to medium quality roughage.
3. Supplementation levels may need to be adjusted for size of cow, level of milk production, and for stressful weather conditions. The goal is always to have cows in adequate body condition score (BCS 5 to 6) at calving and to maintain that body condition into and through the breeding season.
Mineral supplementation may be need to be modified for cows receiving ethanol by-products feeds. Many of these supplements are very high in phosphorus. Some are high in sulfur. Visit with a university beef nutritionist about proper mineral supplementation for cows receiving by-product feeds. Learn more about ethanol by-products for cattle by visiting this Iowa State University fact sheet "Ethanol Co-products for Cattle" .
Evaluating Dried Distillers Grains As A Range Cow Supplement - Dr. Glenn Selk, Extension Cattle Specialist, Oklahoma State University
The high cost of cattle feeds have many cow calf producers out "window shopping" for the best buys in cow supplements for this winter. Feedlot and backgrounders have experience with the biofuel by-products such as dried distillers grains. Many cow calf producers are still uncertain about their use as supplements for cows on dormant winter grass. Therefore OSU nutritionists have studied the use of dried distillers grains (with solubles) as supplements for low quality forages for gestating cows. They compared (among other treatments) the feeding of a supplement made with cottonseed meal and wheat midds with a supplement made of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). The cottonseed/midds supplement was formulated to have the same protein content as the DDGS. Both supplements contained 31.5% crude protein. The DDGS had more fat and therefore had a higher energy value of 81% TDN compared to 69% TDN for the cottonseed/midds supplement.
Both feeds were fed at the calculated rate of 3.41 pounds per head per day during gestation. They were delivered to the cattle 3 times per week at 8 pounds per feeding starting in early December and continued to calving. After calving all cows received the same supplement but 4 times per week. All the cows had free choice access to the same prairie hay (5.1% crude protein). Weight change and body condition change during the winter before calving was negligible and very similar between the two supplement groups. The cottonseed/midds group lost 14 pounds from December to pre-calving. whereas the DDGS cows lost 7 pounds. Body condition score loss was .2 and .07 BCS, respectively. Apparently dried distiller grains with solubles can be fed as a cow supplement similar to conventional supplements that have comparable concentrations of protein. The best price per pound of protein and TDN should determine which supplement to buy. Source: Winterholler and co-workers. 2008 Oklahoma Cattleman's Association Young Cattleman's Conference.
Buy Feed by Value, Not Pounds - Kris Ringwall, NDSU Extension Beef Specialist
Wintering cattle requires feed. The current tight inventories of feed suggest that cow culling should be deep. Yet, once the culling is done, but the bales still don't add up, the time is right to contact a good beef cattle nutritionist. The nutritionist can help develop a "least cost" ration.
When developing the least-cost ration, feedstuffs may need to be purchased. One needs to be careful and review all options.
Through the years, most of us have witnessed the detrimental effects of underfeeding or the results of overfeeding. The important point is that the nutrient value of feed is what drives value and performance.
When I was fresh out of college, a producer preparing for calving was seeking a supplement to go along with his lower-quality grass hay. I asked if he had higher-quality hay that more likely would meet the requirements of a cow in late gestation or early lactation.
"No," the producer said.
"Don't you ever have any access to alfalfa hay?" I queried.
"Yes, but I fed that out when the cows came off pasture in October and November," the producer replied.
There were two red flags with this scenario. The first was the failure of the producer to understand the nutritional requirements of cattle at different stages of life. The second was the misallocation of current feed inventories.
A sound understanding of the nutritional requirements of cattle and the nutritional value of feed is needed. Chip Poland, Dickinson State University Department of Agriculture and Technical Studies chair and a well-educated beef cattle nutritionist, says the first step is to encourage producers to default back to the basics.
"We feed nutrients, not pounds, which is a tough concept to get across since we physically see pounds," Poland says. "Corn at $6.35 per bushel (local price in Dickinson on Aug. 20) equates to approximately 14 cents per pound of total digestible nutrients (TDN). Hay at $100 per ton to be delivered at approximately $15 per bale (roughly a 150- mile delivery) is priced at roughly 13 cents per pound of TDN."
The form that one buys feed in is price dependent. Using Poland's example, with both corn and hay priced high, there still are options as to how a producer obtains the energy and other nutrients that a cow needs.
"Hay was still cheaper, but, in the long haul after waste is figured in, that may or may not be true," Poland says. "I can limit feed corn with minimal waste. While storing and feeding round bales of hay, one should factor in to the price approximately 10 percent waste."
Another factor that needs to be addressed is transportation.
"What would corn cost if we looked at the source and moved it in unit volumes?" Poland asks. "A local elevator published corn prices at $4.60 and $4.80 per bushel for old and new corn, respectively, in today's newspaper. Using the same hauling price for hay (approximately $350 per load for a 60-mile trip), the per-bushel price increases about 45 cents to $5.05 and $5.25, respectively, or about 11 to 12 cents per pound of TDN from corn."
In a very simple scenario, we see high-priced corn may not be as high as it would appear. Conversely, hay may not be the only feed of choice at times.
This analogy, along with numerous other examples of shopping around for feeds stuffs, is required of producers this year if one is producing cattle in areas that are short of feed. Not only is the basic ingredient (feed) missing, all the costs have escalated greatly.
Producers need to make good, solid assumptions and keep in mind the answer will be different for each location and producer. However, producers need to price nutrients, not pounds of feed delivered and seek the help of a sound, well-educated beef cattle nutritionist.
Choices: Unintended Consequences Of The Ethanol Boom - Source: Choices Magazine, American Agricultural Economics Association, John D. Lawrence, James Mintert, John D. Anderson and David P. Anderson
A few short years ago, most analysts and policy makers contemplating a four- or five-fold increase in ethanol use would probably have envisioned an array of related external benefits: a reduction in harmful automobile emissions, a lessening of dependence on foreign petroleum, a boost in corn prices for farmers, and an abundance of cheap by-product feeds for live-stock producers. While increased ethanol production has certainly yielded some benefits, it has also carried with it a number of unintended consequences, particularly for the livestock sector.
Growth in ethanol production has made carryover feed grain sup-plies very tight by historical standards exposing livestock producers to more feed price risk than in the past. In turn, tight carryover supplies not only push average prices up, but also contribute greatly to corn price variability. Thus, increasing ethanol production means that livestock producers face far more feed cost risk than in the past.
One of the more dramatic con-sequences of the ethanol boom has been its impact on by-product prices. As corn prices have risen to historic levels, prices of substitutes for corn in livestock rations have increased sharply as well. Anderson, Anderson, and Sawyer (2008) note that the price of major corn by-product feeds expressed as a percentage of corn price trended lower over the last twenty-five years, suggesting that by-products have gotten a little cheaper relative to corn. However, with corn prices at record levels by-products, in absolute terms, are more expensive than ever before.
If the market for by-products is efficient, by-products will be priced competitive with corn, based on their feeding value. In the long run, then, the advantage to feeding by-products will be mostly for those producers of ruminant animals that are situated close enough to an ethanol plant to realize a transportation cost advantage. In the cattle industry, this suggests a shift of comparative advantage towards Northern Plains and Corn Belt feeders with better access to wet ethanol by-product feeds than Southern Plains feeders.
With respect to the competitive position of various livestock species, prior to the ethanol boom, conventional wisdom held that increased availability of by-products would favor cattle, since ruminants are well-adapted to using these feeds. Additionally, the beef industry has the opportunity to use more forages to feed cattle and, while forage values are rising, the cost increase so far has been smaller than for grains and proteins. Longer term, however, if by-product feeds and forages are priced more competitively with corn, the beef industry's advantage could erode. With higher feed prices across the board, efficiency of gain again becomes the key determinant of comparative advantage. Thus, it is possible that, in the long run, the ethanol boom may actually enhance the poultry industry's comparative advantage derived from its greater feed efficiency.
What has been a boon to crop prices has had serious unintended consequences for livestock producers. In fact, the livestock industry has absorbed all of the costs of ethanol and the consequences of those costs are still to be felt in the rest of the economy. For example, through mid-year 2008, all major milk and meat supplies were still higher than during the same period in 2007. But as production of animal proteins decline in response to higher costs, consumer prices will increase and rural communities where livestock and poultry are produced and processed will experience down-sizing and loss of economic activity that these sectors created. The new equilibrium in agriculture will have both livestock and renewable fuels. The challenge for animal agriculture is to survive the transition from the old equilibrium based on grain prices driven by the demand for domestic livestock feed and exports to the new equilibrium where demand for grain is driven by government policy and energy prices, which is expected to result in an industry providing a smaller supply of higher priced animal proteins to consumers.
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
