April - May 2008

In This Issue:

Dear Beef Producer,

            As I write this newsletter at the end of March, our pastures are starting to green up, but it has not been the early spring that was hoped for.  I know of a number of beef producers who had to reduce herd size due to short forage supplies and I have heard many similar stories from around Ohio.  According to the USDA February 15, 2008 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry report from economic research service, inventories of beef cattle, beef replacement heifers and feeder cattle are lower across the nation.  I’m sure the drought that occurred in Ohio and other parts of the country in 2007 was a factor.

        A major story in the beef industry in early March was the purchase by JBS of National Beef Packing Co., Smithfield Beef Group and the Australian Tasman Group (6 beef processing plants) all within a 24-hour period.  This follows up on a purchase by JBS last May of Swift & Company.  In addition, the purchase of the Smithfield Beef Group includes the Five Rivers Ranch cattle feeding business, the largest cattle feedlot operation in the U.S. with a one-time feeding capacity of 811,000 head.  These purchases by JBS, a Brazil based business, makes JBS the largest U.S. beef packer and limits large scale beef processing competition in the U.S. to essentially JBS, Tyson Foods and Cargill Meat Solutions.

        What does it all mean for the average beef producer?  Reduced beef supplies, if beef demand holds would suggest steady if not higher prices.  Consolidation of beef processing plants could signify less competition in the market place and exert downward pressure on prices.  Yet, this type of simple analysis does not explain all the forces at work in the market place and I have read predictions that vary across the board as forecasters grapple with various models and factors.  Other factors that would seem to support reasons for steady or increasing prices include:

    On the other hand, there are factors that would seem to suggest beef prices will decline in the future, despite reduced supply.  These include:

        How all of these factors interact and play out will bear watching throughout the year.  In this business climate, good management skills become ever more important.

Sincerely,

Rory Lewandowski

Extension Educator, Ag/NR

MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR CONTROLLING SCOURS

By: William P. Shulaw DVM, OSU Extension Veterinarian

Taken from the OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 578, 3-12-08

        Calf scours is one of the most common animal health concerns of Ohio producers at this time of year. Various studies have suggested that scours are the cause of 15-20% of all calf deaths prior to weaning. Scours are caused by bacteria (E. coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium perfringens), viruses (coronavirus, rotavirus) and protozoa (Cryptosporidium parvum, or "crypto", and in older calves - coccidia of the Eimeria spp.). Most of these infections are actually carried and spread in manure and on body surfaces by healthy-appearing adult cows. Disease results when management and environmental conditions favor their transmission and the calf's resistance is reduced. In fact many of these organisms are present on many, if not MOST, farms (dairy and beef) but may not cause enough loss to be recognized until conditions are favorable for an outbreak of scours. As an example, in an Ohio State study of Cryptosporidium on dairy farms, all four farms studied were infected, and over 85% of all calves on each farm became infected during the first 3 weeks of life. Calf scours were not identified as a significant problem except on one farm on which Salmonella in scouring calves was also identified. Other studies have revealed similar data. Reports of studies by the National Animal Health Monitoring System suggest that at least 40% of cow/calf operations have Cryptosporidia infections. Cold and wet weather, mud, overcrowding, poor sanitation, poor nutrition of the cows, and dystocia (or calving difficulty) are all factors that favor the development of scours.

        When a scours outbreak occurs, producers often focus a great deal of labor and money on treatment of calves with fluids and antibiotics, but the environment may not be recognized as an important part of the problem. Once the first case of scours develops, even a clean environment often becomes extremely contaminated very quickly. Calves with E. coli scours may be shedding billions of bacteria in a single stool. A similar situation occurs with the viruses where it has been estimated that within three days of infection, a calf may be shedding 500,000,000,000 virus particles in a teaspoon of stool material. In our work with crypto, we measured the shedding of Cryptosporidium parvum as high as 17 million oocysts per cc of stool in some calves. With this organism, infection may occur with ingestion of as few as 10 oocysts. Cows carry scour-causing organisms on their udder, hair coat, and feet and legs and spread them around the environment ensuring that other susceptible calves are exposed unless something is done to reduce the potential for calf exposure.

        Over the years, several strategies to limit environmental contamination and calf exposure to scours pathogens have been described. Because calves born to heifers are often more at risk, it is a good idea to feed and calve heifers in separate areas from the cowherd. Various strategies have suggested moving pregnant cows from the wintering area to a clean calving area one to two weeks before calving begins. If the herd is large and approximate breeding dates are known, dividing it into smaller, more manageable groups may be helpful. In one of these systems, producers are advised to move cow-calf pairs to different nursery areas within a day of calving and manage them as small groups. If scours breaks out in one of these groups, no new calves are added to the group and care is taken not to spread the contamination from that group by equipment or people. (People can be efficient spreaders of disease-causing organisms.) The idea is to try to limit the infection and pathogen load, as well as the labor of treatment, to one area. When the calves in these groups are three to four weeks old, they may then be moved to spring/summer grazing areas.

        Over the last four to five years, Dr. David Smith and his colleagues at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have developed and demonstrated the Sandhills Calving System (sometimes called the "Sandhills Shuffle") as a tool for preventing or reducing calf scours. The objective of this system is to prevent "effective contact" of calves with calf scours pathogens (germs). An effective contact is defined as an exposure of the calf to pathogens in a dose, or for a duration of time, sufficient to cause disease. In the Sandhills system, effective contacts are minimized by 1) segregating calves by age to prevent transmission of pathogens from older to younger calves; and 2) scheduled movement of pregnant cows to clean calving pastures. The overall idea is to re-create the more ideal conditions that are usually present at the start of calving season at each subsequent week of the calving season.

        The system uses several clean pastures for calving rather than a high animal density lot or pasture. In practice, the cows are turned into the first pasture as soon as the first cow calves, and calving continues for two weeks. At the end of two weeks, the cows that have not calved are moved to a second pasture and the existing cow/calf pairs stay in the first pasture. After a week of calving in the second pasture, pregnant cows are again moved to a third pasture and the cows that calved remain in pasture two. Each subsequent week, cows that have not yet calved are moved to a new pasture thus distributing cows with calves within one week-of-age of each other in separate groups. Cattle from different pastures may be commingled after the youngest calf in a group is four weeks old. Generally, calves of this age are at low risk for scours.

        The success of this system relies on two key principles. Age segregation of calves helps prevent the transmission of pathogens from older calves to younger calves and assists in management of scours outbreaks within groups if this does happen. The routine movement of pregnant cows to fresh calving pastures helps prevent the buildup of scours-causing germs in the calving environment that often leads to exposure of the youngest calves to overwhelming doses in more conventional systems where cow/calf pairs are not segregated.

        Moving pregnant cows can be easier and less disruptive than moving cow/calf pairs, and each week the number of cows in the group that has to be watched for calving is reduced. If pregnancy examination information is available, cows that are expected to calve later in the calving season can be maintained as a separate group and added to the system as appropriate.

        This system should be planned well ahead of the calving season to maximize its potential. It may be somewhat difficult for some farms to adopt it because of pasture, water, or shelter limitations. In addition, the planning has to take into account potential weather conditions likely to occur during the calving season and the potential for damage to pastures if it turns wet and muddy. However, with some "tweaking" of the system, many Ohio herd owners could develop a farm-specific plan that utilizes the basic principles of the Sandhills system. Combined with a sound nutrition program; an effective reproductive management program, including breeding soundness exams in bulls; a vaccination program; and a biosecurity program, the negative impact of calf scours can be minimized.

RE-SEEDING/RENOVATING PASTURES

            Between last years drought that lead to overgrazing of pastures, and the late fall/winter rains that kept soils saturated and lead to trampled pastures turning into mud, there is a need on many farms to re-seed or renovate at least some pasture paddocks.  Like every other input cost, the price of grass and legume seed has increased.  What are the options to get these abused pasture paddocks back into a productive forage?  In this article I will present several options and management strategies that can be considered.

            One low cost option, at least in terms of out-of-pocket expenses, is to do nothing.  Nature abhors a vacuum; something will re-grow in these muddy, trampled paddocks if given enough time.  The cost in this option is time.  If you have the land base to set aside those torn up paddocks through the spring and early summer, they will renovate themselves.  We generally have plenty of seed bank in the soil.  Whether that seed bank contains desirable plants, or what percentage of desirable plants will make-up the re-growth are questions to be considered.  It is likely that in those paddocks where the sod base was torn up, that summer annual species like pigweed, ragweed, barnyard grass and goose grass will show up in heavy numbers in addition to the grasses and clovers that had been present in the sod base.  Clipping the summer annual weeds off before they go to seed will allow more light into the grasses and clovers that are coming back.  By mid to late summer a light grazing pass could be made on these paddocks.  If they are not tore up again in the next winter, the sod base will continue to thicken and good rotational grazing management can put them back into productive pasture paddocks the following year.  The main question that must be answered in this option is; do you have the time and land resource base to be able to wait for the paddock to heal itself and lose a grazing season of productivity?

            The next option to consider is seeding.  Seeding offers the possibility to increase pasture productivity and to bring a new mix of forages into the pasture paddock.  When Bob Hendershot, NRCS State Grasslands Specialist, spoke to the Athens area grazing council in early March, one of the points he made related to pasture genetics.  Bob pointed out that row crop producers use new and improved genetics to increase crop yields, as livestock producers we seek to improve our livestock genetic base, but we don’t give that same attention to pasture genetics.  Bob asked, “How old are the genetics in your pasture forages?”  There have been advances in forages; grasses and legumes bred to better tolerate grazing, genetics that allow plants to be more palatable and productive.  A sacrifice paddock that was overgrazed during last year’s drought and/or tore up during this winters soggy conditions may be an opportunity to bring some new and improved forage genetics into the pasture mix.

        Talk with your seed representative about a pasture mix or give me a call here at the Athens County Extension office to talk about specific species.  As we look at nitrogen prices, I would encourage all graziers to aim for a 30% evenly distributed legume species throughout a grass stand.  At this level supplemental fertilizer nitrogen should not be needed.  If the area to be planted needs to get a quick cover due to erosion concerns and/or some quicker production is needed for grazing, then include some annual ryegrass seed in the seeding mixture.  Adding around 4 pounds of annual ryegrass/acre should provide some early cover and an early grazing pass because it is quick to germinate and grow.  If you decide to seed, line up your seed supplies as soon as possible, there have been rumblings about some forage seed shortages in the coming year.  As I have talked with some seed representatives the shortages are not across the board, but more likely for certain species or varieties within species.

            Once you decide to add some new forage seed to your pasture paddock, how you answer the next question may determine when you plant that seed.  What is the soil pH and what are the soil fertility levels in the paddock you intend to seed?  Seed is not cheap and buying the new and improved grass and legume genetics will cost you more than older genetics.  Make sure that seed, once planted has a chance to become a productive plant and maximize its genetic potential.  That begins with soil pH and soil fertility.  Soil pH should be above 6.0, with a goal of 6.5.  Soil phosphorus (P) level should be at 25 ppm and in Athens County, given our average cation exchange capacity (C.E.C.); soil potassium (K) level should be 100 to 120 ppm.  If your soil is not close to these numbers it may be worthwhile to put off a spring seeding, apply the needed lime and fertilizer this spring and aim for a late summer seeding.  In those paddocks that are severely tore up, it offers the rare opportunity in a pasture situation to spread lime and/or fertilizer and then use tillage to incorporate it into the root zone while smoothing out the soil surface and preparing a seed bed.

            According to the Ohio Agronomy Guide, a spring seeding should be completed by April 20 to 25.  Earlier is better.  As we move past mid-March frost seeding is no longer a seeding method option, and in any case is not a good seeding method for grasses.  That leaves us with conventional drilling, use of a no-till drill or a broadcast seeding following by some type of cultipacking.  The key concepts to keep in mind any time a forage seeding is made are:

• Reduce weed or sod competition for the new seedling.  This relates to soil preparation.  If the pasture paddock has been excessively trampled and tore up, it may only be necessary to do some leveling off of the ruts before running a drill over the paddock.  Broadcasting the seed and then running a cultipacker over the surface can also work well.  When broadcasting seed, consider seeding half the rate length-wise over the paddock and then the other half cross-wise over the paddock to get better seed distribution.   On a sod base, make sure the forage has been grazed down tight, down into the soil surface.  A no-till drill works well in this situation.  If the sod is thin, but has not been able to be grazed down tight before seeding, then application of a herbicide to kill the sod back should be considered.  Application of glyphosate 7 to 10 days before seeding can be used.

• Do not seed too deep!  Many stand failures can be traced back to planting the forage seed too deep.  Seed should be planted about one-quarter of an inch deep.  It is better to err on the side of planting shallower rather than deeper.

• Pay attention to seeding rates.  For example, according to the Ohio Agronomy guide an orchardgrass, red clover, and white clover mixture would be seeded at a per acre rate of 7 pounds of orchardgrass, 4 pounds of red clover and 2 pounds of white clover on a pure live seed basis.  Check the label to determine the percentage of pure live seed and adjust seeding rates accordingly.  In our example if orchardgrass had a pure live seed percentage of 85, and red clover and white clover had a pure live seed percentage of 70, then our actual seeding rate per acre of these seeds are: 8.25 lbs of orchardgrass, 5.75 lbs of red clover and 2.85 lbs of white clover.  Calibrate the seeder!

• If the specific legume species you are planting has not been in the pasture paddock for a few years, make sure the seed is inoculated with the correct rhizobial bacteria to insure the plants will be effective in fixing nitrogen.  Sometimes, legume seed will come with a coating that contains the rhizobial bacteria.  Be aware that this coating changes the seeding rate.  Generally you will have to seed more pounds per acre of this coated seed to get the targeted non-coated seed rate.  Read the label and calibrate the seeder!

        It takes about 6 to 8 weeks for a new seeding to become established.  Ideally the new seedlings can develop a good root system while soil moisture is plentiful and before summer temperatures arrive.  This is the reason behind setting the spring seeding date target around April 20^th.  After the seeding has emerged and begun to grow and once the grass plants get about 6 inches tall, it is beneficial to the stand to either do a clipping or a light grazing pass that takes off the top couple of inches.  This will allow light to get down to the young clover seedlings so they get better growth and the clipping/grazing will also stimulate tiller formation in the grass seedlings.  Do not graze or clip off the young clover seedlings.  After about 8 weeks of growth, or towards the end of June, begin to manage the stand using good rotational grazing principles.

        In some cases it may be advantageous to delay the planting until late summer.  The target dates for a late summer seeding are mid to late August.  Reasons for this delay may be to improve soil pH and soil fertility levels before the perennial seeding, or reduce competition pressure from weeds or an aggressive fescue sod base.  This does not mean that this paddock must remain unproductive during this time.  A short term crop can be planted that will provide some summer grazing while helping to reduce weed pressure and/or kill back a fescue sod.  This might be the place to use annual ryegrass.  As mentioned earlier in this article, it germinates fast and provides the quickest grazing of our grass options.  It needs to be managed to prevent it from going to seed, so frequent, short duration grazing passes work.   Another option in this scenario is to seed a forage turnip during April, possibly along with a cereal grain like winter wheat.  In about 6 weeks there should be high quality forage to graze.  Under rotational grazing principles, you might get a several grazing passes before the mid to late August summer seeding of your perennial grass/legume mixture.  A third option would be to seed a sorghum x sudangrass hybrid or brown mid-rib variety of sudangrass in the later part of May.  The tall, vigorous growth out competes a fescue sod base while providing a high tonnage, good quality forage that will be ready to graze before mid-July.  Under good rotational grazing principles, several grazing passes can be made before it is time to make the late summer seeding.

        There are options available that allow beaten up pasture paddocks to recover and become productive grazing paddocks again.  The specific option chosen depends upon the resource base of the producer, farm forage goals, and timing.  Regardless of the option used, planning, management and some cooperation from Mother Nature are necessary to achieve success.

ANALYZING THE COST OF A BULL

By: Scott P. Greiner, Extension Beef Specialist, VA Tech and Matthew Miller, Extension Farm Business Management Agent, VA Tech

            Taken from the OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 577, 3-05-08 

        With the steady increase in input costs for cow-calf operations, beef producers will look to save money and cut costs in multiple fashions. One area often targeted for cost-cutting measures is money spent on bulls. Often producers focus on the initial cost of a sire, and realize "sticker shock" when purchase prices move upward. Considering that the herd sire has significant impact on numerous of traits with economic importance (coat color, calf vigor, weaning weight, carcass grade), an individual sire has a pronounced impact on profitability. Bull purchase price needs to be put in perspective by evaluating price relative to years of useful service the cost per cow exposed. Table 1 compares the cost per cow or a bull with a $2500 purchase price and one with a $1500 purchase price. Assumptions are as follows: 4 years of service, salvage weight of 2000 lbs, salvage price of $50 cwt. Cost per cow exposed is shown for each purchase price given the number of cows exposed. This table considers all annual costs for the bull, and includes purchase price, annual carrying cost, and health/veterinary expenses. It is important to note that initial purchase price typically only represents 20-40% of annual bull costs, and this percentage decreases the longer the bull is in use. The majority of bull costs are incurred in feed costs. No consideration is given to genetic merit differences between the bulls. While it is unrealistic to assume a bull will breed 60 to 80 cows in a given breeding season, many producers utilize two calving seasons and therefore the higher number of cows exposed apply to breeders calving in both the fall and spring and utilizing the same bull for two separate calving seasons.

Table 1: Impact of Bull Purchase Price on Cow Breeding Cost

        Assuming the average Virginia herd size of approximately 30 cows we see that there is a $9 per cow exposed cost difference between the bulls. Does this mean that the cheaper bull saves you approximately $270 a year ($9 x 30 cows per year)? If the bulls are identical in genetic merit this may be the case, however the difference in purchase price is likely attributable to superior genetics offered by the higher-priced bull. As an example, if we assume a weaning weight advantage of 15 lbs on 25 calves for the $2500 bull, and an average value of $0.80 for each additional pound of weight, this equates to a $12 per head advantage. This $12 per head advantage more than offsets the difference in breeding costs, and quickly puts into perspective the minor difference in the real cost between the bulls. In fact, the less expensive bull actually cost more money all things considered in this scenario.

        Quality of the herd sire almost always is undervalued. The differences described in the table above are very small considering the many opportunities to derive return on investment for the superior bull. If the $2500 bull is superior in calving ease, which results in one more live calf to market, the difference in purchase price has paid for itself.

        Although more difficult to measure, daughters of a superior sire have favorable impacts on future calf crops. Thus the compounded effects a sire has on his calf crops and those of his daughters warrant consideration.

        In most situations, sound investments in superior bulls 'don't cost, it pays." As we embark on what many consider a new era in the cattle business, which will partly be defined by producers' ability to control costs, a close examination of opportunities to do so is warranted. Costs associated with genetics are likely not an area to cut corners. In fact, it is likely that the market differentiation between the "good ones" and "average ones" will continue to grow, and the ability to produce the "good ones" is directly related to genetics and management.

ADJUSTING TO A NEW ECONOMIC REALITY

            Unless they have been off vacationing on some remote tropical island the past 3 to 4 months, beef producers realize that they are operating with a whole new set of economic realities.  Of course, that vacation scheme implies a different set of economic realities as well.  Back to beef production economics.  Surplus hay supplies are limited to non-existent; $120/ton sounded like a bargain this past winter and now into early spring.  I guess it might be if some of the prices I have heard for small square hay bales are correct at $6-$9 /bale.  If bales are 50 pounds, that figures out to $240 - $360 per ton!  The cost of mineral, particularly phosphorus is also climbing rapidly. Remember $2.00/bushel corn?  It’s fluctuating around the $5.00/bushel mark now.  Are you ready to fertilize hay and pasture fields?  How does $0.75 + per pound nitrogen sound?  Phosphorus (P₂O₅) costs are similar and continuing to increase, potassium (K₂O) is around $0.50 per pound.  I had better date this (3-26-08) because prices are likely to be higher by time you read this.  As if high feed and fertilizer costs were not enough of a challenge, fuel continues its climb into the record books.  An important question to ask in the face of these high input costs is: Are these high prices an aberration, a temporary fluctuation, or are they here to stay?  If the answer is that these prices reflect a new “normal” or “business as usual” model, then beef producers need to make some management adjustments to stay in step with these new economic realities.

            A number of livestock owners attended the recently completed the two weeknight short courses that dealt with the topic of these new economic realities.  I want to summarize here some of the management adjustments that were suggested by speakers and participants at these meetings.  While all of these suggestions will not fit each and every cattle enterprise, they hopefully will stimulate some discussion and thinking that will lead to profitability on the farm.  I’ll divide the suggestions into several broad topic areas: Pasture/Hay, Alternative Forages, Grain and By-Product Feeds, Cattle.

Pasture/Hay

            The days of cheap forage are gone.  Just looking at the nutrient removal costs in a ton of hay will push hay prices to over $70 /ton.  By time machinery costs and labor are figured in $100/ton is about the breakeven price of producing hay.  This has several management implications.

            First, grazing management becomes more important.  The forage produced in your pasture is not a cheap forage, it should be valued at least the equivalent of hay. Livestock harvesting of forage is much more economical than machine harvesting. Given these statements, what can be done to utilize this resource more effectively?  Some suggestions include:

• Increase the number of paddocks on the farm.  More paddocks on a given area means smaller paddock size.  Putting the same number of animals into a smaller space increases stocking density.  Increased stocking density results in more uniform grazing, better forage utilization and more uniform manure distribution.  This can help to increase pasture organic matter content.  Increasing the organic matter content by 1% adds 20,000 pounds of organic matter per acre to the soil. Organic matter can hold up to 90% of its weight in water.  So a 1% increase in soil organic matter can result in an additional 2000+ gallons of water per acre.  In addition, each percent of organic matter in the soil releases on a per acre basis 20 to 30 pounds of nitrogen, 4.5 to 6.6 pounds of P₂O₅, and 2 to 3 pounds of sulfur per year.

• Use soil sampling to make more effective and efficient use of purchased fertilizer.  Grazing animals move nutrients and concentrate nutrients in pasture areas, particularly if paddock size is large and/or stocking density is low.  Even if pastures are not divided into smaller paddock subdivisions, divide the pasture into smaller soil sampling units.  The idea is to do some type of grid sampling that will permit variable rates of fertilizer to be spread across a pasture according to need.  Soil sampling is cheaper than either over or under applying fertilizer over a large area.

• Add legumes to the pasture mix.  A paddock containing 25 to 30% evenly distributed legumes, such as red or white clover will provide the nitrogen needs for the grass and eliminate the need for purchased nitrogen fertilizer.

• Develop a plan to protect the sod base during periods when soils are saturated with moisture.  This could be either a heavy use-feeding pad or a specific sacrifice pasture paddock.  The advantage of a heavy use-feeding pad is that it will allow you to move and spread manure to other areas of the farm.

            Since hay is no longer a cheap feed, what can be done to reduce waste and loss of that feed source?   How can hay be used more effectively?  Some suggestions include:

• Look at how hay is being stored.  The greatest loss occurs on hay stored in the open on the ground.  A first step is to get it off the ground.  Stone or pallets can be used.  After that storage that provides some cover can further reduce losses.  It may be economical to build a storage structure.

• Reduce feeding waste.  Use hay savers in bale rings.  Consider feeding on a heavy use pad.  Feed smaller amounts of hay at one time.

• Make use of hay testing.  When feed and mineral were less expensive, over supplementing had smaller economic consequences.  Hay quality should be matched to animal nutrient requirements.  A small investment in hay testing can pay some big returns.

• Feed low quality hay after weaning.  For many spring calving herds that means September.  During this time let your pastures stockpile.  Stockpiled forage is typically higher quality than most of the first cutting grass hay in our area.  Use this stockpiled forage in the winter.

Alternative Forages

      Annual forages can provide options to help get pasture paddocks re-seeded and can fill in cool season pasture production gaps.  The downside to annual forage use is that they require some type of soil preparation, there is an annual seed cost, and to take full advantage of their production some additional management skills often have to be practiced.  In Athens County the biggest hurdle on that list is finding some level ground where they can be planted.  Some suggestions to consider include:

• Brown mid-rib (BMR) sorghum x sudangrass or sudangrass forages planted in late May can be ready for grazing in early to mid-July.  In one on-farm trial in Athens County in 2007, BMR sudangrass that was grazed beginning mid-July through the end of August yielded approximately 3000 lbs of dry matter in each of two grazing passes.  Forage quality was 20% Crude Protein with a TDN value of 68.  With more intensive strip grazing, it should be possible to get 3 to 4 grazing passes.  It fills in the cool season grass summer slump.  Surplus forage could be chopped and put into silage bags or baled and wrapped as baleage.

• Forage turnips can be planted in April or through early May and will provide a source of grazing about 6 weeks after germination.  Frequent, short duration grazing can be used to provide several grazing passes, again helping to fill in the summer slump period.

• Annual ryegrass can be planted in areas that have been tore up to provide some quick cover and allow grazing about 4 weeks after germination.  Once again, frequent, short duration grazing is the way to manage.

• Corn silage is a high quality feedstuff that is often cheaper than hay with a better energy content.  The best situation is to contract with a crop producer to grow some silage corn, chop it and then bag it in a silage bag on your farm.  Bunk feeding is the best method to get good feed utilization.

• Six years of work with summer planted oats in Fairfield County have demonstrated that oats may be the most productive alternative forage option available; under the right conditions.  Oats work very well doubled cropped after wheat.  When planted in the late July through late August time frame, oats put growth into leaves and do not produce seed.  Oats can be grazed through the winter months, or, some producers are harvesting oat forage for hay or cutting and wrapping as a baleage product.  Quality analysis has shown that oats hold on to the quality they had at the point when growth is stopped due to freezing weather.  It does not appear that oats can be no tilled seeded into an existing pasture sod and expected to produce the same tonnage as oats after wheat.  So, at this point, unless oats can be planted under a tillage situation or no-tilled into a field where there will not be sod competition it may be best to look at other options.

Grain and By-product Feeds

      In times of short forage supplies and expensive hay, grains and by-product feeds such as distiller’s grains, soy hulls and wheat midds may provide more economical options to feed beef cattle.  However, even these by-product feeds fluctuate in price and availability.  In order to make best use of grain and by-product feeds; the following suggestions need to be considered:

• Corn grain, even at $5.00 per bushel is often the most economical feed choice to stretch limited hay supplies and a better buy than purchased hay.  Corn contains about twice the energy as hay, so when nutrients are compared on a cost/lb of dry matter basis, corn is more economical.  Thought needs to be given about how to feed corn.  Feeding underneath an electric wire is an effective means of reducing waste to virtually zero.  Another option is bunk feeding.

• If by-product feeds are going to be an option in the feeding program, then they must be bought when they are at a low point in their price cycle.  This low price point may not be when the extra feed is needed in the beef producer’s calendar.  Therefore, to take advantage of the price and time of availability, the producer must have a way to store the by-product feed.  Stan Smith in the new economic realities meetings, talked about hay sheds that could also be used as commodity structures to store other feed products.

• Is it time to think about bunk feeders?  Bunk feeders will allow more feeding options as ways to feed grain, by product feeds, corn silage and chopped forages.  If a beef producer is committed to feeding the lowest cost ration during times when grazing isn’t possible and/or hay supplies are limited, then bunk feeders allow many different kinds of alternative feeds to be fed with the greatest efficiency and least amount of waste.

Cattle

      Much attention has been focused on alternatives and options within a conventional spring cow/calf operation.  Are there some changes that could be made from the animal side of the enterprise that should be examined in light of these new economic realities?  Some suggestions to consider include:

• Fall calving.  Could moving to fall calving increase productivity and profitability?  John Grimes, Extension Educator in Highland County, provided some reasons for this management practice.  Some of those reasons include: generally more favorable weather conditions such as less mud, and warmer temperatures, more favorable temperature conditions to re-breed cows/ higher conception rates, and good use of stockpiled forages.

• Forage-based genetics.  Make sure your cows have the genetics/are adapted to growing and being productive on a forage base without needing supplementation.  Frame scores should be moderate.  Large animals have higher maintenance requirements compared to smaller animals.

    There are probably other suggestions that came up at the meetings that I am not recalling at this time, but the point is that there are management adjustments that can be made to cope and survive in these new economic realities.  For more information about any of the suggestions presented here, contact the Athens County Extension office at 593-8555.

OHIO BEEF CATTLE BREEDER CONFERENCE

            Mark Wednesday, April 30 on your calendars to attend the Ohio Beef Cattle Breeder Conference being hosted on the Campus of Ohio State University by Dr. Tom Turner and staff of the American Simmental Association. Focus of the conference will be utilizing "Tools to make better cattle and better beef".

            In the history of the world, no one has made more effort to characterize and compare beef genetics than the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska. The challenge is to effectively interpret and utilize their data in a fashion that optimizes a cattleman's returns to genetic improvement afforded by maximizing heterosis. In light of our present high feed cost environment, our future success depends on using all the tools available to make better cattle and beef.

            Throughout the program, seven "truths of the cattle business" will be explored. These include:

• Systems

• Systems to produce cattle will use less and less labor

• Small herds will continue to disappear

• Service will become a larger factor of seedstock sales

• Many herds will access heterosis through composite seedstock

• Both seedstock and commercial herds will use cooperative-business for greater success

• Seedstock will be bred and selected using economic indexes (assisted with genomics)

• Feedyards and packers will continue to contract for predictable supplies

        This futuristic program will begin in the Animal Science Building auditorium on the main campus of The Ohio State University at 3:00 p.m. The program is free, but reservations are requested and may be made by contacting Stan Smith at smith.263@osu.edu or 740.653.5419 X 24.

GRAZING COUNCIL MEETING

            The May grazing council meeting/pasture walk will be held at the Joe and Donna Marks farm located at 17222 Lawson Road in Lodi Township.  The meeting is scheduled for May 22 at 6:30 pm.  Joe and Donna raise beef cattle.  One of the topics that will be discussed at the meeting are methods to renovate and restore pasture paddocks that have been trampled and tore up during wet, soggy periods.  More details about the meeting will be available as the meeting date approaches.  Anyone interested in pasture management is invited to attend.  For more information, contact the Athens County Extension office at 593-8555.