Southeast Cattle Advisor

Transcription

1 october 2009 Southeast Cattle Advisor Cattle Outlook and Marketing Considerations Curt Lacy and Walt Prevatt, Extension Livestock Economists, University of Georgia and Auburn University Fall is here, and many producers are trying to make decisions concerning their calf crop. At the same time, crop or other producers may be evaluating the economics of stockering this fall. In order to make informed decisions, producers need information about the price outlook for the remainder of this fall, forecast prices for next spring and input costs. Figure 1: Average Prices for Medium-Large 1-2 Bulls and Steers Georgia Weekly Auction Markets, Fall 2009 Outlook Prices for most classes of feeder cattle typically bottom-out in the fall (Figure 1). This fall should be no exception. Though we are unlikely to see a major collapse in the cattle market like we saw in 2008, prices are expected to drift seasonally lower through October and November. Major risks to prices continue to be weaker beef demand (seen in lower live-cattle prices) and continued uncertainty about the corn crop (input prices for cattle feeders). Demand for stocker cattle could be stronger this fall if more wheat is planted in the Southern Plains. Also, calf prices could be stronger if the demand for live cattle improves. Live-cattle prices are expected to remain where they are with the possibility of slight improvement. The major drags on this market continue to be the slow global economy (fewer exports), weaker beef demand and adequate supplies of cattle on feed. Item Sales Prices Price Cattle and Beef Prices as reported by USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service and Georgia Department of Agriculture GA lbs. steer ($/Cwt.) $91.34 GA lbs. steer ($/Cwt.) $78.25 GA 80-85% lean slaughter cow ($/Cwt.) $44.25 GA Bred cow, Med.-Lrg, 1-2, 4-6 mos. bred ($/head) $ GA Cow-calf pairs, Med.-Lrg, 1-2, ($/pair) $ area Live Cattle Price ($/Cwt.) $83.49 Choice Boxed Beef Cutout ($/Cwt.) $ Choice-Select Spread ($/Cwt.) $5.61 Inputs Farm Diesel ($/gallon), less than 1,000 gallons $1.92-$2.20 Feed Stuffs as reported by USDA-Alabama Department of Agriculture Market News, FOB Central AL unless otherwise denoted. Hay for cows, Good quality (9-13% CP),($/1,000 lbs. roll) $30.00 #2 Yellow corn ($/bushel) $3.90-$4.15 Soybean hull pellets, bulk ($/ton) $120-$140 Corn Gluten pellets, 21% protein, bulk ($/ton) $ Whole Cottonseed, FOB Gin ($/ton)$165 $175-$220 Distillers Dry Grain, FOB Central GA ($/ ton) $165 Cottonseed Meal FOB Central GA ($/ton) $335 Fertilizer prices as reported by USDA-Alabama Department of Agriculture Market News. All prices $/ton unless otherwise noted. Ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) $305-$380 DAP ( ) $320-$515 Muriate of Potash (0-0-60) $610-$780 Lime (spread) $30-$45 For week ended: October 2,

2 Spring 2010 Outlook Looking forward to 2010, prices are expected to improve as the economy begins to hopefully recover and the full impacts of continued herd liquidations become more apparent. Input Prices Compared to last year, most input prices should be lower this fall as nitrogen and phosphorous prices are down 35 percent to 50 percent and potash is down 15 percent. Most fertilizer-price analysts predict steady to lower prices through the fall and into next spring. As a result, grazing costs should be lower this fall and winter. University of Georgia estimates place winter grazing costs in the $150 to $200 per acre range as opposed to the $250 to $300 range last year. Feed costs should also be somewhat lower this fall. However, keep in mind the corn market had already started its slide by this time last year. All indications are that corn and related energy-product prices will be lower this fall. However, due to high soybean prices, protein sources could be more expensive. Producers are encouraged to shop around on their feed needs to determine the most economical sources of supplements. Depending on your location, the availability of by-products can certainly lower your feed bill. Figure 2: Cull -Cow Price Seasonality Average Prices of Slaughter Cows in Georgia Auctions Comparison of Marketing Alternatives Based on these sales and input price projections, it appears that stockering or feeding cattle this fall/winter may hold some profit potential. However, holding cattle to heavier weights much later in the fall will not likely yield many dividends. Cattlemen who would like to perform a side-by-side comparison may want to download a copy of the UGA Marketing Alternatives Calculator available at Agriculture/agecon/cmpdec.htm. Cull-Cow Marketing Income from cull cows accounts for 15 percent to 20 percent of the income in most cattle operations. However, most producers put little if any thought into the marketing of these animals. Most producers sell their cull cows in the fall. Generally speaking, this is the worst time of year to market cull cows (Figure 2). Demand for cow-beef is typically lower at this time, and there is usually an excess supply of cows. Producers who have access to the required resources like land, forage and feed have the potential to increase their income by stockering or feeding cows for 60 days to 120 days for October-November to February-March. Numerous published and unpublished studies from various universities have shown that producers can usually recover $2 to $55 by placing otherwise healthy but thin, or Body Condition Score less than 4, cows in some type of forage-based growing program and carrying the cows to BCS of 5 to 6. Cattlemen can make money in several ways with cull cows. First, the cows gain additional weight (selling additional weight). Some cull cows will improve a quality grade due to better condition and weight and sell for a higher price. Also, unlike calves, thin cows actually bring a lower price than moderately fleshed (or BCS of 4 to 6) cows. Lastly, there is typically some price improvement from the fall through late winter and early spring. Marketing Methods for Cows In addition to stocker programs and knowing the seasonalities of cow prices, cattlemen may also be able to add value to the cull cows by: Providing source verification on the cattle. Some plants that process cows are paying premiums for cows that can be source-verified. Marketing cows of similar type and weight in truck-load lots. There have even been instances where small groups of producers joined together to conduct comingled cow sales similar to many of the preconditioned calf sales that are so popular now. Marketing the cattle on a dressed basis. Cattlemen with sufficient numbers of cows can deal with some packers directly and market the cows on a carcass basis. Since there are no government standards of cow carcass grades, the individual packer determines the grade. However, producers with adequately muscled, medium-fleshed cows may consider this alternative. Southeast Cattle Advisor october

3 Preconditioning Adding Value to Calves Brian L. Beer and Lee VanVlake, Area Livestock Agents, Clemson University Extension Service Preconditioning programs are an excellent tool to add value to Southeastern calves. Preconditioning is defined as weaning, along with short-term feeding and herd-health procedures that prepare calves for entry into the feedlot environment. The program must improve the calf s immune system to cope with the disease challenges they will face at the feedlot, and prepare the calf to eat from a feed bunk and drink from a water trough or fountain. Management and Herd Health Production loss and death loss of calves at weaning time is second only to the losses at calving. Most of this can be contributed to respiratory disease. Digestive problems such as coccidiosis and acidosis are also common diseases that can cause severe problems for weaned calves. Vaccines are very important and can help prevent some of the death loss associated with weaning. Cattle producers should have their cattle and calves on a good vaccination plan, which can help prevent some of the death loss associated with weaning. Vaccination alone is not the cure-all and should be viewed as a tool to aid in reducing disease and preventing death. It is a good idea to vaccinate a calf while it is still nursing, before weaning. Less stress allows the animal to respond better to the immunization. A booster is recommended at weaning or shortly thereafter. Besides calving, the most stressful period in the life of a calf is weaning. Do not castrate/dehorn at weaning. This will only compound a stressful period with more stress. By minimizing the number of procedures Cattle working schedule Time Calves Cows/Bull Preweaning Weaning Vaccinate: IBR/PI-3/ BVD/BRSV Booster 7-way Clostridial (Blackleg) vaccine Booster IBR/PI-3/ BVD/BRSV Treat for internal and external parasites used at weaning, disease occurrence can be minimized. Research shows that high stress levels suppress the immune system and make the influence of disease much greater. The key to reducing stress during the weaning process is utilizing key management practices before weaning that will keep calves calm and eating. Whether your weaning consists of total separation of cows and calves or the relatively new low-stress technique of fenceline weaning, make sure you address nutrition and health measures. During fenceline weaning, cows and calves are placed on opposite sides of a strong fence (woven wire or multiple strand hi-tensile wire). Cows are moved and calves remain in the initial pasture. By doing this, cows and calves have nose contact but spend the majority of time grazing away from the fence in their respective pastures. Fenceline weaning is a gradual process where the cows and calves frequent the fence less often over time. This reduces the amount of bawling and stress on calves. Fenceline weaning usually takes around 7 Pregnancy examination Optional: Yearly blood test for Johne s disease and/or Brucellosis Sell open and cull cows Treat for lice and grubs in late fall days to 10 days to complete. Studies have shown that fenceline-weaned calves gain more weight initially. Nutrition & Feeding Management Feeding cost is 70 percent to 80 percent of the preconditioning program budget. Proper nutrition and feeding is extremely important. While feed costs are moving lower, they are still historically high. What to feed, how much to feed and how much will it cost are frequent questions, even from seasoned preconditioning operation. There are two common methods of feeding calves during a preconditioning program. The most common is to limit-feed a set amount of ration once or twice daily to cattle. This takes some time and labor to complete, but allows you to control feed intake. A second is to allow calves to eat a free-choice ration from a self feeder. This method is preferred by operations that do not have the time or labor to feed calves daily. Free-choice rations must be formulated with a higher fiber content to limit intake and reduce the risk of bloating. Often the rate of gain is higher on free-choice rations than with limit-feeding. One disadvantage of free-choice rations is the rate of feed consumption will be much higher. By the end of the preconditioning period a 700 pound calf can consume as much as 16 pounds to 18 pounds of feed per head per day. The self feeder must be checked frequently, assuring continued on next page Southeast Cattle Advisor october

4 it is adjusted properly in order to prevent feed waste. The beef herd at Clemson s Edisto Research and Education Center has tracked preconditioning cost and profitability since The management plan for the center s preconditioning program is representative of practices on South Carolina farms that precondition calves. They use a 12 percent to 14 percent protein, 75 percent to 77 percent TDN commercially produced commodity based feed. Feeding rate is 10 pounds to 12 pounds per head per day (about 1.5 percent of body weight). The cost of preconditioning is something that we must document in order to determine if the venture was worth the effort. Edisto Research Center information shows the recent four-year ( ) average cost for preconditioning crossbred steers is $58.50 per head. This is crude cost estimation, accounting for only feed cost and medication (vaccines, dewormer, etc.) associated with the preconditioning program. What does spending $58.50 a head get us in return? The recent four-year average rate of gain is 98 pounds per head during the 45-plus day preconditioning program. This is consistent with 2 pound to 2.5 pound per head per day, which is a good rate of gain to target. This is where the bulk of profitability from preconditioning lies: selling a calf that is 90 pounds to 100 pounds heavier than a calf sold straight off the cow. Profitability from Edisto s preconditioning program (ending calf value (calf value at weaning + preconditioning costs)) for the recent four years is $81 per head. Preconditioning increases calf value by adding weight to the calf and by gaining price advantages of marketing in truckload lots. Weight gain is essential to the profitability of preconditioning programs. Implementing a preconditioning program is an investment in time, money and facilities. Many producers see an increase in calf value sufficient to cover the investment. What is the Value of Management in a Cow-Calf Enterprise? Walt Prevatt and Curt Lacy, Extension Livestock Economists, Auburn University and University of Georgia Management in the cow-calf business uses land, labor and capital inputs to produce feeder calves. These feeder calves are sold to generate revenue from the cow-calf enterprise. A simple cowboy s definition of management is using what you ve got (land, labor, feed and other inputs) to get what you want (net farm income). Three common levels of management often seen on Southern cow-calf farms are described in Table 1. A threebull unit cow-calf enterprise of 100 cows is used to illustrate the impact of management on cow-calf revenues. A terminal breeding program is assumed for each management scenario. Thus, all feeder calves are sold at weaning. For simplicity, all replacement heifers are assumed purchased. In the below-average management scenario, the brood cows are assumed to be in Body Condition Scores, or BCS, of 2s, 3s and 4s, or critically less than desirable body condition for maintenance, gestation, milk production, rebreeding, etc. Therefore, the feedercalf weaning percent is assumed to be 60 percent, resulting in only 60 calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the calves is estimated at 400 pounds per head. The calf crop total weight of all 60 calves is 24,000 pounds (60 hd. * 400 lbs./hd.). The 10-year average feeder calf market price is $1.07 per pound for 450-pound feeder calves that are small-medium frame and #3 muscle score. The calf crop total revenue for this farm was $25,680 (60 hd. * 400 lbs/hd.* $1.07/ lb.). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre for this operation was $ and $ per head, respectively. In the average-management scenario, the brood cows are assumed to be BCS of 4s and 5s, or slightly less than desirable for maintenance, gestation, milk production, rebreeding, etc. The feeder-calf weaning percent is assumed to be 75 percent resulting in 75 calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the calves is estimated at 500 pounds per head. The total weight of the 75 calves was 37,500 pounds (75 hd. * 500 lbs./hd.). The market price per pound was assumed to be $1 per pound for 500-pound feeder calves that are an average of medium frame and #2 muscle score. The calf crop total revenue for this farm was $37,500 (75 hd. * 500 lbs./hd. * $1.00/lb.). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre for this operation was $375 and , respectively. Lastly, in the above-average management scenario, the brood cows are assumed to be BCS of 5s and 6s, or desirable for maintenance, gestation, milk production, rebreeding, etc. The feeder-calf weaning percent is assumed to be 90 percent resulting in 90 calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the calves is estimated at 600 pounds per head. The total weight of the 90 calves was 54,000 pounds (90 hd. * 600 lbs./hd.). The market was assumed to be 95 cents per pound for 600-pound feeder calves that are of medium and large frame and #1 and #2 muscle scores. The calf crop total revenue for this farm was $51,300 (90 hd. * 600 lbs./ continued on next page Southeast Cattle Advisor october

5 hd. * $0.950/lb.). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre for this operation was $513 and $256.50, respectively. Let s use this data to evaluate the impact of improving management. When comparing the farm that has average management with the below-average management farm, we find that the farm with average management realized an increase in weaning percent from 60 percent to 75 percent (+15%) or 15 more calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the feeder calves increased from 400 pounds per calf to 500 pounds per calf (+100 pounds or +25%). Therefore, the calf crop total weight with heavier weaning weights and 15 more calves increased 13,500 pounds (37,500 lbs. 24,000 lbs. or +56%). However, the market price received for the feeder calves declined 7 cents per pound ($1.00/lb. - $1.07/lb. or 7%) due to the heavier weight per calf of the feeder calves. The calf crop total revenue increased by $11,820 ($37,500-$25,680 or +46%). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre increased $59.10 (+46%) and $69.00 (+46%), respectively. Next, let s use the data from the above-average management and average management scenarios to evaluate the impact of improving management between these two scenarios. We find that the farm with above-average management realized an increase in weaning percent from 75 percent to 90 percent (+15%) or 15 more calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the feeder calves increased from 500 pounds per calf to 600 pounds per calf (+100 pounds or +20%). Therefore, the calf crop total weight with heavier weaning weights and 15 more calves increased 16,500 pounds (54,000 lbs. 37,500 lbs. or +44%). However, the market price received for the feeder calves declined 5 cents per pound (95 cents/ lb. - $1/lb. or 5%) due to the heavier weight per calf of the feeder calves. The calf crop total revenue increased by $13,800 ($51,300 - $37,500 or +37%). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre increased $59.10 (+37%) and $69.00 (+37%), respectively. Lastly, let s use the data from the above-average management and below-average management scenarios to evaluate the impact of improving management between these two scenarios. We find that the farm with above-average management realized an increase in weaning percent from 60 percent to 90 percent (+30%) or 30 more calves being weaned. The average weaning weight of the feeder calves increased from 400 pounds per calf to 600 pounds per calf (+200 pounds or +50%). Therefore, the calf crop total weight with heavier weaning weights and 30 more calves increased 30,000 pounds (54,000 lbs. 24,000 lbs. or +125%). However, the market price received for the feeder calves declined 12 cents per pound ($0.95/lb. - $1.07/lb. or 11%) due to the heavier weight per calf of the feeder calves. The calf crop total revenue increased by $25,620 ($51,300 - $25,680 or +100%). The revenue per brood cow and revenue per acre increased $ (+100%) and $69.00 (+100%), respectively. As you can easily see, the calf crop total revenue can be significantly increased as you move from belowaverage management to either average management or aboveaverage management. In most situations, it will cost something to attain these higher levels of performance and revenue, while for some operations it may merely be a matter of providing more attention to management strategies such as genetic selection, providing the correct amount of feed at the correct times, wasting less feed, improving forage utilization, comparison shopping for feed, fertilizer and other inputs, improving labor utilization and scheduling and implementing management practices. If it does cost something to increase your total revenue, you want to be sure not to spend more than you expect to get back. In other words, be sure that you can improve your cow-calf operation for less than the differences noted in Table 1. The value of management in the cow-calf enterprise presented here may be understated for some operations where cattle farmers can achieve higher than 90 percent weaning rates and/or higher than 600 pound weaning weights. Also, this analysis used a 10-year average of feeder calf prices. A cattle farmer who can market his feeder calves at higher than the 10-year average feeder-calf market prices due to quality, health, truckload units, preconditioning will realize even larger levels of improvement in calf crop total revenues. If you are not keeping production and financial records on your cow-calf operation, now is a good time to get started. These records will help guide you to make more profitable decisions each year. If you need help, call your local Cooperative Extension office for information. Good luck with your cow-calf enterprise and may your pastures grow grass abundantly and all your cows wean calves. Southeast Cattle Advisor october

6 Planning Your Winter Feeding Program Lawton Stewart, Extension Beef Specialist, University of Georgia Producers are now looking forward to their winter feeding program. The good news for some is we ve had more moisture than in years past. Feed and fertilizer prices are lower than last year, but are still volatile. I have had a range of calls asking about potential feeds and what can and can t be fed to a cow. The truth of the matter is there is no silver bullet, and although the feed prices are a pain in the wallet, it is forcing us to take a look at our nutrition programs and improve our overall efficiency. Our best strategy to reduce feed costs is to emphasize our forage program and put the rumen back in ruminants. To improve efficiency, we can basically break down our nutrition program in three steps: 1. understand your production system. The nutrient demands of a brood cow change significantly throughout a 365-day production cycle (Figure 1). If we can understand where exactly we are in the cycle, we can better fit our nutrients and changing nutrient requirements. 2. understand your forage program. In Georgia, we have the potential to grow forages throughout most of the year with proper management. With testing of our pastures and hay, we can form the backbone or our nutrition program. In some cases, we will be able to provide the majority or all of the nutrients needed. 3. Develop an economically supplement. When forages are limited, supplementation is needed to meet the requirements of the herd and should be expected from time to time. The key here is to identify feeds that supply the nutrients needed and evaluate these feeds on a price-per-nutrient basis (i.e. correct for moisture and nutrient content). Table 1 shows a few common byproduct feeds compared to corn and soybean meal on a price per pound of TDN and CP. A feed cost calculator is available at www. ugabeef.caes.uga.edu/nutrition. html to assist in comparing feeds. Please note that with the volatility of today s market, these prices change on a daily basis. Given these prices, it is logical to supplement with corngluten feed when protein is limited and a blend of one of the former with soyhulls if energy is limited. Figure 1 Now that we have a plan of how to address our nutritional needs it is important to look at these three concepts together. Table 2 illustrates supplementation needs based on the quality of available forage (pasture or hay) and stage of production. As you can see, supplementation cost can be up to 50 cents per cow per day more on poor versus excellent forages. As we re battling through a tough economic period, it s obvious feed is one of the highest input costs for cattle producers. This reemphasizes the need for evaluating all aspects of management, especially forage management, to minimize feed cost. For more information contact your local Cooperative Extension office. Table 1 Table 2 Southeast Cattle Advisor october

7 Fall Forage Management Coastal Plain, Piedmont and Mountains: Seeding Rates for Winter Annual Forages Dennis Hancock, Extension Forage Specialist, University of Georgia One thing that constantly amazes me is the high seeding rates that some folks use when establishing their winter annual forage crops. I ve heard folks say they plant 90 pounds of ryegrass seed to the acre and three and a half bushels of oats per acre. When pressed, they frequently say, That s the way we ve always done it. The seed salesmen must love those folks. The cost of seed in 2008 caused many folks to back off of some of those extremely high seeding rates. In general, they found that those higher seeding rates were unnecessary, and they got just as good of a stand and yields with rates more in line with our recommendations. Though the cost of seed has decreased sharply off of last year s highs, seed costs are still a significant part of the cost associated with planting winter annual forage crops. In today s cattle industry, we need to find ways to pinch pennies, and one area we might be able to do this is in our winter annual seeding rates. Table 1 lists the recommended seeding rates for the primary winter annual grasses and legumes used in the Southeast. The seeding rate is provided as a range, rather than a specific value. This allows you, the manager, to make a decision based on the planting conditions, the method used for planting and any other factors that may affect seed survival and seedling vigor. If planting conditions are good and the seed are to be drilled, either sod-seeded with a no-till drill or drilled into a prepared seedbed, the low Table 1. Recommended seeding rates for selected winter annual forage crops when they are grown alone or in mixtures. Species Grown Alone* (lbs seed/acre) Mixture* (lbs seed/acre) Grasses Ryegrass Oats Wheat Rye Legumes Arrowleaf Crimson * Use the low end of the range when planting conditions are good and the seed are drilled (either no-till or conventional). end of the range would provide an appropriate seeding rate. However, if planting conditions are poor and/or the seed are to be broadcast rather than seeded, the high end of the seeding rate range would be appropriate. In addition, the seeding rates for these individual species are provided for instances when they are grown alone and for situations when two or more of the species are to be planted together. Of course, as with just about any rule, there are some exceptions to the strict adherence to these seeding rates. Sometimes a producer may try to get a thicker stand so as to allow for fall grazing -- perhaps as early as November or early December. This is usually the case when dealing with prepared ground. In these cases, it may be beneficial to increase the seeding rate beyond these ranges by as much as 20 percent. However, increases in seeding rate beyond that amount are unlikely to result in any additional forage yield. Further, this seeding rate increase is only justifiable if the producer needs that earlier grazing. If yields were taken over the entire season, one would find that the higher seeding rate would not result in significantly higher yields. Central and South Florida: Warm-season Grasses Grazing Management Joe Vendramini and Lynn Sollenberger, University of Florida Grazing management can be defined as the manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. The desired result depends upon the enterprise, but for most producers economic goals are of primary continued on next page Southeast Cattle Advisor october

8 importance. Decisions regarding what grazing management to use are based on the characteristics of the forage being grazed, animal requirements, input costs associated with adopting a particular system and the probability of return on investment. In the Southeast, warm-season perennial grasses are the basis for cow-calf operations. If managed properly, warm-season grasses have excellent production and acceptable nutritive value during the spring, summer and early fall. The most critical grazing management decision to optimize forage quantity and nutritive value is stocking rate. Stocking rate is defined as the amount of land allotted to each animal during the grazing season. The stocking rate adopted can affect how much leaf area is remaining after grazing and how many growing points are available to provide regrowth. The most accurate procedure to determine stocking rate is matching the existent forage mass with adequate cattle liveweight exposed to the pasture. Research shows that for most warm-season grasses during Table 2. Target stubble height for persistence of warm-season grasses in Florida. Adapted from Mislevy, Species Bahiagrass 2 Bermudagrass 3-4 Stargrass 6-8 Limpograss 8-10 Target stubble height (inches) the growing season, 1 pound forage DM is necessary to maintain 1 pound of animal liveweight exposed to the pasture. Although many producers have access to measure or estimate the animal liveweight, accurate forage mass determination may be challenging. Under the circumstances of difficulties to estimate forage mass, stocking rate decisions should be made based on forage stubble height. Generally, tall-growing, bunch grasses that elevate their leaves and growing points should be grazed to a taller stubble height than low-growing grasses, like bahiagrass. The recommended grazing stubble height for the most used warmseason grasses species in Florida is described in Table 2. The low-growing grasses typically have leaves and growing points at or very close to the soil surface to protect them from being overgrazed. For the animal, closer grazing forces them to eat more stem. Stem is less nutritious than leaf, so close grazing will result in lower weight gain or milk production per animal. Undergrazing allows animals to select leaf to eat and does not stress the plant, but it results in poor utilization of the pasture resource. Although meat or milk production per animal may be high when pastures are undergrazed, production per acre will be low. Grazing method (rotational or continuous grazing) is another important decision to be made in grazing systems. Production of new growth after grazing depends upon the amount of residual leaf and carbohydrate reserves because they will supply energy for plant growth. Rotational grazing with the correct stocking rate will maintain adequate stubble height and carbohydrate reserves after grazing to maximize forage regrowth. In addition to increased regrowth rates, rotational grazing at the proper stocking rate also aids in pasture persistence by allowing better stubble height control. Controlling target stubble height on rotationally grazed pastures is important, not only to maximize forage regrowth, but also to extend the life span of the pastures. Overgrazing can result in loss of desirable species and an increase in weeds. In continuously grazed pastures, a greater proportion of forage is trampled, soiled and rejected by the animals than in rotationally grazed pastures. In general, grazing method does not affect average daily gain of beef cattle grazing warm-season grasses. However, the greater forage production and utilization allow greater stocking rates that typically result in greater liveweight gain per unit of land. In summary, stocking rate decisions should be made on the existent forage mass on the pasture and controlled based on the recommended stubble height. Rotational grazing with adequate stocking rate potentially facilitates stubble height control, increases forage production and persistence and may result in greater liveweight gain per unit of land. Overgrazing is detrimental to forage production, pasture persistence and animal performance. This newsletter is a collaborative effort between cooperating universities, USDA-CSREES and the Southern Region Risk Management Education Center. The University of Georgia is committed to principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action CAES Office of Communications FY09 Southeast Cattle Advisor october