Dear Ranch Hand Subscribers,

Transcription

1 Oct. 2011, Vol. 18, No. 10 In This Issue Dear Ranch Hand Subscribers Managing Hay to Reduce Waste Free-Trade Agreements NDSU Beef Research Report Available Backgrounding Meeting Online Research Corner Ranch Hand Top 10 We Need Your Help! Please send questions, comments or ideas for future newsletter topics to or call (701) Cover photo by Radu Carcoana, NDSU Dear Ranch Hand Subscribers, Hot and dry that s the way our past few weeks have been. When I started putting together this issue of the Ranch Hand, I included two articles about how corn was at varying stages of maturity when it froze and how this ultimately might affect dry-down. After 80-degree weather and 40 mile-per-hour winds for several days in September and early October, I took those articles out of the newsletter. I ve heard reports of some people shutting off the combines for a time because corn harvesting conditions were too dry. One thing to still keep in mind, though, is that there will be some light test-weight corn out there because not all plants were mature when the killing frost occurred. This lightweight corn may pencil out pretty well in a feeding or backgrounding program. Keep your eyes open. Although it doesn t quite feel like it, it is time to think about weaning calves and even bringing cows home in the not too distant future. Bringing cows home means feeding hay. This month, I ve included an article about sources of hay waste, both in storage and while feeding. Free-trade agreements recently were sent to Congress, so an article is included that details how these agreements impact the beef market. Additional articles talk about the NDSU Beef Cattle and Range Research Report and a meeting held recently on backgrounding calves in The beef report contains a summary of the beef research happening at NDSU. The report is written to explain these projects and the importance of their results to producer audiences. The meeting, which reviewed the costs, prices and possibilities of backgrounding calves this year, is available online at This month s Research Corner article features a novel strategy for wintering beef cows. It s too early to tell whether producers should try it at home, but we ll soon find out. For additional questions on the material covered in this newsletter or any other concerns on your operation, contact your county, area or state Extension personnel. We look forward to serving you! Sincerely, Carl Dahlen, Ph.D., Editor NDSU Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

2 Managing Hay to Reduce Waste Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Every year, producers wish for enough dry weather to harvest high-quality forages to feed their cattle during the winter. Continuous rain on cut hay does not bode well for feed quality. Once the hay is baled potential losses still exist during storage and feeding. Hay Storage Hay loss during storage is greatly affected by the location of hay and whether it is covered. Iowa State University summarized research evaluating hay loss and found an average dry-matter loss of 28 percent (range of 5 to 61 percent) for hay stored outside without a cover. The potential for hay loss is reduced as the climate gets drier. That s because precipitation, contact with wet ground and moisture from other bales are the driving forces of the hay loss. To minimize the loss of uncovered bales stored outside, place bales on a hard surface, in single rows, with bales stacked face to face; this eliminates moisture accumulation on the faces of bales and at points where bales touch when stacked in a pyramid. When hay was stored outside and covered, the loss fell to 13 percent, and bringing the hay into a building reduced the loss to around 5 percent. However, producers need to consider carefully the economic merit of building a structure to store hay or purchasing tarps and covering haystacks before beginning construction or making purchases. A hay storage cost comparison tool is available at a1-15haystoragecost.xls for producers who wish to explore the economic implications of different storage techniques. Hay Feeding Studies at NDSU, the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University have evaluated four critical comparisons that influence hay waste: 1) rolling out bales compared with shredding hay through a bale processor, 2) feeding hay directly on the ground compared with feeding in some type of structure, 3) different types of bale feeding structures and 4) amount of time cows have access to hay. Cows consuming bales that were processed and windrowed consumed more hay and had a 16-pound weight gain advantage during a 60-day feeding period compared with cows fed bales that were rolled out. In addition, the amount of wasted hay was slightly greater when bales were rolled out compared with processed bales. However, an economic analysis showed the cost of feeding was greater when a bale processor was used compared with rolling bales out for feeding. Producers evaluating the two scenarios need to consider whether additional pounds gained when feeding processed hay are worth the added expense. In cases where greater intake is desired (for example, thin cows that need to put on weight), the added expense may be worthwhile. Feeding bales in a hay ring resulted in less waste compared with rolling bales out on the ground. In addition, feeding processed hay in a bunk resulted in less waste compared with feeding processed hay on Managing Hay to Reduce Waste (continued on page 3) 2 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

3 Managing Hay to Reduce Waste (continued from page 2) the ground. Interestingly, in all cases, the hay intake was similar (around 26 pounds of hay, dry-matter basis). The average waste for either of the ground feeding methods was around 18 percent, whereas the average waste from feeding in some type of structure was around 5 percent. Feeding large round bales into a tapered-cone hay ring resulted in more weight gain compared with rolling bales out on the ground and in cheaper overall feed costs compared with rolling hay on the ground and processing bales. Tapered-cone hay rings also have shown promise when compared with other types of hay feeders. When compared with cows eating from traditional hay rings, hay trailers or hay cradles, cows eating from a tapered-cone ring wasted fewer pounds of hay but had similar hay intake. Authors of one report recommend that bales fed through a tapered-cone ring must be wrapped tightly and twine must not be removed to realize the waste-saving benefit from this type of feeder. Reducing the amount of time cows had access to hay also was an effective strategy to reduce hay intake and waste. When cows were given access to hay for six, 14 or 24 hours per day, cows with hay access for six hours wasted the least amount of hay compared with the other groups. However, body weight gain was impacted by restricting access to hay. Cows with unlimited access to hay gained 20 pounds more than cows with restricted access to hay (six or 14 hours). While this method of managing cows could reduce overall feed consumption and hay waste, the long-term implications of such a management strategy are unknown. Producers who decide to limit-feed cows in some fashion need to ensure that the feeding area is large enough so all cows can have access to the feed when it is delivered. The combination of limiting access to feed and restricting the time cattle have access to feed may leave cows on the lower end of the social hierarchy without a meal. Hay loss and feed waste are inevitable components of most beef production systems. Understanding the sources of hay loss from storage and feeding, as well as the impacts of restricting access to hay, can allow producers to develop strategies to optimize feed utilization on their operations. 3 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

4 Free-trade Agreements From In the Cattle Markets John D. Anderson, Senior Economist, American Farm Bureau Federation Last week, the three long-pending free-trade agreements with Panama, Columbia and South Korea were sent to Congress for a vote. Expectations are that from this point, the agreements will quickly receive an affirmative vote and finally become law. While all three of these deals are important for agricultural trade in general, for the beef and pork industries in particular, the big prize has clearly been South Korea. That agreement has been a high priority for both the beef and pork industries for some time. South Korea represents a large and relatively affluent consumer market for U.S. meat. South Korea already is an important export destination for U.S. beef and pork. In 2010, South Korea was the fourth largest importer of U.S. beef and veal by value, with imports valuing almost half a billion dollars. In addition, South Korea was also the fourth largest importer of U.S. pork by value, with imports valuing about $172 million dollars. So far in 2011, meat exports to South Korea are well ahead of last year s pace. On a volume basis, through July, beef exports to South Korea were up by 53 percent. Pork exports were up by 130 percent. Domestic beef and pork industries in South Korea have been severely impacted by an outbreak of footand-mouth disease (FMD) that began last November. The pork industry has borne the brunt of the outbreak. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Foreign Agricultural Service, about 30 percent of the South Korean swine herd and about 5 percent of the cow herd has been depopulated as a result of FMD. Looking forward, pork exports to South Korea should remain above historic norms for the next year or two as the domestic industry there goes through the slow process of rebuilding its productive capacity. It clearly would have been preferable to have had the South Korean free-trade agreement passed long ago, even years ago, to have stayed ahead of key competitors in the phasing out of import restrictions. Still, it is good news that the deal is now finally all but passed. As has been noted before in this space, in coming years, the U.S. beef industry will be looking to export markets like never before to achieve demand growth. Markets like South Korea will thus be increasingly important to the economic health of the U.S. industry. While the belated advancement of a trio of free-trade agreements helped highlight the positive story of export demand for meats, the U.S. employment situation report on Friday illustrated the continued headwinds for domestic demand created by a weak general economy. Friday s employment report actually wasn t terrible. The unemployment rate was steady at 9.1 percent. The economy actually added 103,000 jobs in September, a number that included 45,000 Verizon workers returning from a strike. The sobering thing about the report is that it continues to show a U.S. economy that is essentially drifting sideways. Even counting the returning Verizon workers (which is probably an overly generous way to count), the economy is just maybe adding enough workers to keep unemployment stable. There is little sign of it heading down. Wages are also relatively flat. Hourly earnings were up in September by just enough to offset the decline from August. Similarly, the average workweek increased slightly in September, by 0.1 hour, the same amount by which it had declined in August. In short, the overall economic picture may not be looking much worse, but it is hard to say it s looking much better, either. So far, beef demand has weathered the weak economic conditions pretty well. Rather than having to count on that continuing, it would be nice to see things start to pick up a bit. 4 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

5 NDSU Beef Research Report Available Kendall Swanson, NDSU Associate Professor, Beef Production Cattle producers can replace some hay with a limited-intake distillers dried grain supplement without negatively affecting cow or calf performance, North Dakota State University have researchers found. They determined that using a self-fed, limited-intake supplement as a forage replacement resulted in late-gestation/early lactation cow performance, reproductive efficiency and calf performance compared with that in animals fed an all-hay diet. NDSU researchers also have discovered that a two-step weaning process may be less stressful for calves than the conventional weaning process, restricting the nutrients supplied to ewes during gestation affects the dams and their offspring negatively, and restaurant goers are willing to pay higher prices for steaks from cattle raised in North Dakota. The conventional weaning method, which involves removing calves from dams and their mother s milk suddenly, can be very stressful for young calves because they experience a loss of maternal contact, new diets and novel social environments, as well as transportation to new housing facilities. In the two-step weaning process, producers place anti-suckling nose tags on the calves. These devices allow calves to adjust to being removed from their mother s milk before being separated from their mother. These are among the findings featured in NDSU s 2011 Beef Cattle and Range Research Report, which is available online at The NDSU Beef Cattle and Range Research Report provides valuable information to producers and beef cattle industry personnel on the most recent beef cattle research conducted by NDSU faculty, scientists, staff and students. The report also includes articles about NDSU s new Beef Cattle Research Complex, the results of the Eastern Dakota Cattle Feedout project, research suggesting that cattle harvested with the kosher method produce less tender meat, and an analysis of using cattle shows as a way to identify breeding stock for the beef industry. Carrington Research Extension Center Central Grasslands Research Extension Center Department of Animal Sciences Department of Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences Hettinger Research Extension Center N.D. Agricultural Experiment Station NDSU Extension Service North Dakota State University August 2011 BEEF CATTLE RANGE AND RESEARCH REPORT Backgrounding Meeting Online Backgrounding Cattle 2011: Costs, Prices and Possibilities, a videoconference held earlier this month to give producers an opportunity to learn more about backgrounding and how it might work for their operation, is available online at NDSU Extension livestock specialists discuss the outlook for cattle prices, feed efficiencies and feed/coproduct prices, cost of gain and budgeting, and adding value to calves through strategies such as age and source verification and vaccinations. 5 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

6 The Research Corner Alternate Feeding: Hay One Day, Distillers Grain the Next Research in Progress Sharnae Klein, Graduate Research Assistant Beef Cattle Specialist The North Dakota Center for Career and Technical Education reported that feed cost accounted for 73 percent of the direct expense on North Dakota beef operations in Producers concerned with escalating costs strive to refine management, reduce waste and make their entire operation more efficient. Although 2011 brought plenty of moisture to the northern Plains, this has not always been the case in past years and certainly is not the case with Southern states this year. In years of limited forage supply, efficiently utilizing available forages is vital for producers. We are testing a novel supplementation strategy that has potential to reduce forage intake and forageassociated costs, alter efficiency of feed utilization and position producers to take advantage of available dried distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS). Our strategy was to alternate days of feeding, with cattle receiving only hay one day, followed by only distillers grains the next. This pattern of feeding was continued through our first experiment using four ruminally, duodenally and ileally cannulated steers for a metabolism study. These steers allowed us to conduct detailed evaluations of feed intake, rumen fermentation, microbial efficiency and several measures of diet digestibility. Four treatments were compared in the study, with each treatment representing a different supplementation strategy: 1) steers received hay only, 2) steers receive hay and 5 pounds of dried distillers grain (DDG) every day, 3) steers received hay daily and 10 pounds of DDGS every other day and 4) steers received hay only or 10 pounds of DDGS only on alternate days. Each steer was managed on each strategy for a period of 21 days. Samples of feed; feces; rumen fluid; digesta from the rumen, duodenum and ileum; and blood were collected to characterize the effects of our treatments. Steers that were fed alternating days of hay and DDGS had lower overall intake compared with all other treatments. In addition, steers on the alternate-day treatment had lower concentrations of the volatile fatty acid (VFA) acetic acid and greater concentrations of propionic acid on days when they received DDGS compared with all other treatments. Shifting the production of VFAs away from acetic acid and toward propionic acid is important because propionic acid provides more energy than acetic acid. Rumen ph also was affected by treatment, both on days that steers were fed DDGS and those when they were not. Steers fed using the alternate-day feeding system started supplemented days with a ph lower than on all other treatments. However, by the end of the day, their ph was greater than that of all other treatments. If ph drops too low, cattle will develop acidosis, but the ph of the steers on the alternate-day feeding strategy did not fall to these levels. The Research Corner (continued on page 7) 6 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

7 The Research Corner (continued from page 6) The interesting part of these data is the fact that steers overcompensated for a reduction in ph early in the day with a higher ph later in the day. Consequently, on days when steers on the alternateday strategy were fed only hay, their ph started higher than that of all other treatments but was similar to that of others by the end of the day. Overall, steers on the alternate-day feeding strategy had more variation in ph (the up and down swings with each day) compared with all other treatments. The long-term effects of this variation are unknown. We also collected data on diet digestibility, rumen microbial efficiency, rumen ammonia, and blood concentrations of glucose, urea nitrogen, insulin, IGF 1 and non-esterified fatty acids. These samples will give us a complete picture of what is happening to both the animals and the feed they consume when we implement an alternate-day feeding strategy. Results from this research effort showed some fundamental changes in rumen fermentation patterns that result from alternate-day feeding. The changes in intake, ph and concentrations of VFAs highlighted in this report show our feeding strategy does, indeed, have potential to be implemented in beef production scenarios. However, we are cautious about extrapolating data from this limited study all the way to commercial production. Intake differences were observed but we had only four observations per treatment. Therefore, our next step is to test the strategy of alternate-day feeding using a greater number of late-gestation beef cows as an experimental model. Forty-eight late-gestation cows recently were placed in the NDSU Beef Cattle Research Complex and each soon will begin receiving one of the four treatment diets fed in our metabolism study. We will evaluate feed intake, feed efficiency, changes in body composition and calving data from this group of cows. Results from this larger study, graciously funded by the North Dakota Corn Council and POET Nutrition, will allow us to evaluate the impacts of managing wintering beef cows with an alternate-day feeding strategies. Only after we have these results can we make recommendations as to whether commercial producers should consider this management strategy. 7 The Ranch Hand, October 2011

8 The Ranch Hand TOP 10 Management strategies to consider in the coming month: 1. Haul bales home, build/repair fence, prepare lots and wintering areas for cattle 2. Visit with market outlets about current market conditions and marketing options 3. Test feeds and develop rations for all classes of cattle maintained; call your county Extension agent for help 4. Evaluate feed costs, current markets and break-even scenarios when deciding whether to background calves 5. Finalize cull-cow lists: old, open, ornery, bad feet, bad udders, bad mouths 6. Wean calves, pregnancy check cows, replace lost ID tags, give vaccinations per veterinary recommendations 7. Apply pour-on to cows as they come off grass to keep them clean until spring turnout 8. Separate thin, old and young cows and feed separately from the rest of the herd; select replacement heifers 9. Take advantage of available crop residues for grazing cows in good body condition; remember to supplement 10. Watch calves for signs of illness and treat if needed; calves respond to treatment and perform better if treated early More Information NDSU Extension Service agents or specialists: NDSU Department of Animal Sciences: CattleDocs: For more information on this and other topics, see NDSU encourages you to use and share this content, but please do so under the conditions of our Creative Commons license. You may copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work as long as you give full attribution, don t use the work for commercial purposes and share your resulting work similarly. For more information, visit County commissions, North Dakota State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender expression/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or status as a U.S. veteran. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701) This publication will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities upon request, (701)