 |
 |
|
|
|
Agriculture and Natural Resources Information PARTNERS - n - PROFITS NEWSLETTER This newsletter will be one of the primary ways I’ll try to keep you informed of relevant agriculture issues and the latest recommendations from the University of Kentucky. Call me at 270-821-3650 for further information.
Managing Cattle Under Drought Conditions June 2007 written by: Dr. John Johns & Mr. Kenny Burdine University of Kentucky College of Agriculture
The unusual weather conditions of 2007 are creating management problems for Kentucky beef producers. The late spring freeze severely damaged the first cutting of hay, reducing yields by as much as 50%. The hot, dry weather that has occurred since has limited pasture growth and has many producers very short of hay and out of pasture. Producers are wondering how they are going to cope with both issues at the same time. While good management decisions can not make it rain, they can help producers hang on in the most economical manner possible. The first step in good management is deciding if some cows should be culled. Generally we would say that the lower productivity cows and open cows should be sold when pasture and hay is limited. Most spring calving herds will only have had the bull turned in for about 30 days at this point and this is not sufficient time to make culling decisions based on reproduction. If a cow’s history indicates her calves to be below average weight at weaning, certainly she should be considered for culling. Any cow with a physical defect such as bad feet, arthritic joints, bottle teats or a broken down udder should also be considered for culling in short feed times. The fewer cattle that graze dry pasture or consume a short supply of hay, the better off the producer will be. A second consideration should be to determine if potential alternative feeds are available on the farm. Is there a corn crop on your or a neighbor’s farm that will make too little grain to justify harvest? If so, chopping this crop as silage may be a viable alternative. Drought silage is different than normal corn silage and requires different feeding management. Drought silage has less energy and generally higher crude protein content than normal silage. The energy value will likely be adequate for dry or lactating cows but not growing cattle. On a percentage basis, drought silage likely will have a higher crude protein content compared to normal silage but there will be lower values of true plant protein and more non-protein nitrogen forms in the drought silage. This means that supplements containing urea or other NPN compounds will not be well utilized with drought silage. Producers without silage equipment should consider using custom choppers and having the silage blown into bags or placed on the ground and covered with plastic. Drought stressed corn should not be cut and baled as dry hay, nor should it be grazed. The nitrate content of drought corn will likely be high, especially if heavy fertilization has been used. The nitrate content will not dissipate in the standing material or dry hay. If the nitrate content is high enough, toxicity will occur. When allowed to ferment as silage, the nitrate content can be reduced by 40 to 60% through the process of fermentation. Other crops such as soybeans can be baled and fed as dry hay without major nitrate concerns. Soybeans should be cut and rolled while all the leaves are still green for the best quality feed. As the leaves yellow and dry, the stem composes a greater percentage of the feed and stem digestibility is quite low compared to soybean leaves. When alternative feeds are not available on the farm, purchasing feeds must be considered. Hay may not be available for purchase and even if it is, producers must consider if it is the best purchase. Generally speaking, as the nutrient content of a feed increases, the cost per unit of that nutrient decreases. In other words, it may be cheaper to purchase nutrients from grains or commodity feeds than from forages. If grains or commodity feeds are used, feeding management must be considered. Whereas round rolls of hay can be fed free choice with little management, grains or commodity feeds cannot be. Rations composed of a high portion of grains or commodity feeds must be limit fed to prevent health problems and for best economic return. A 3 year summary of experiments comparing limit fed corn based rations to free choice round rolls of hay is shown in Table 1.
During the grazing season, all cows were pastured together. At the beginning of winter feeding, cows were separated into two groups with one group allowed free choice access to round rolls of hay. The second group was fed a level of nutrient intake formulated to meet their nutrient needs as defined by the NRC with the nutrients coming from whole shelled corn, a pelleted protein, mineral and vitamin supplement and sufficient long hay to meet rumen health needs. Total dry matter intake was much lower for the limited grain fed cattle; however, conception rates and average calf weaning weights were higher for the limit fed cattle.
Some commodity feeds can also be utilized in place of corn when they are available and priced competitively. The nutrient content of some available commodities are compared with corn in Table 3. Most commodities will not require protein supplementation as they generally contain adequate crude protein levels. Special attention must be paid to mineral nutrition as most commodities and grains are higher in their phosphorus content than calcium. Soybean hulls would be the exception to this. Many of the commodities are also high in their sulfur content. Excessive sulfur will decrease the availability of copper and selenium for cattle. When commodities are fed, a high quality complete mineral should be available for cattle.
The principle of increasing digestibility or feed utilization by restricting intake also applies to forage as well as high energy rations. This is illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. Data in Table 4 shows the results of restricting access to hay for cows nursing calves. Cows were allowed unlimited access or were allowed access to hay for only 4 or 8 hours daily. Cows with limited access to hay lost more weight and body condition compared to cows with unlimited access. Calf daily gain was not affected however. Cows provided access to hay for only 4 or 8 hours daily had a hay saving of 38 and 11% respectively. In the second experiment, Table 5, bred cows in the last trimester of gestation were given access to hay for either 3, 5 or 7 hours daily. As hours of access increased, body weight and condition increased although even the cows given only 3 hours of daily access had a positive weight gain and ate 23 % less hay than cows provided with 7 hours of access daily. Restricting feed intake increases digestibility because passage rate through the digestive system slows down and more can be digested. For the principle to work well on hay based rations, the hay should be of good quality and a hay feeding area must be available that cattle can be driven out of after the desired amount of time.
When trying to manage feed costs in drought times, this strategy is likely worth consideration. Clearly, a reduction in the amount of hay fed will stretch a short hay supply further and decrease the need for additional purchased feeds. For producers who are purchasing hay, it can represent a direct cost reduction. If hay is purchased at $80 per ton, a 13.6 lb. per day reduction in disappearance (as seen in Table 4) could save the producer more than $0.50 per cow for every day that hay is limit fed. Producers should also give consideration to early weaning of calves. This allows the cow to be turned dry which will greatly reduce her nutrient requirements and thus, the amount of feed needed. Most spring born calves will currently range from 70 to 120 days of age. Calves involved in most early weaning research fall within this age range. Some research has been successfully conducted with calves as young as 49 days of age. When properly fed, gain and pounds of calf to sell with early weaned calves will be equal to or greater than calves weaned at conventional times or ages. Feed conversion will be highly efficient in these young, light weight calves, generally between 4 and 5 pounds of feed required per pound of gain. Special management of early weaned calves will be necessary. Hot weather, youth, lighter weight and the probability of dusty conditions make early weaned calves good candidates for health problems. If at all possible, calves should be vaccinated for factors involved in the BRD complex as well as clostridia, treated for internal and external parasites and turned back on the cow for two weeks. After the two week time period, separate calves from the cows, booster the vaccines previously given and the internal parasite control if needed. Feed bunks and water troughs must be low enough to the ground so that the youngest calf can reach them for feed and water. Several good commercial rations for light weight calves are available or a home made one can be used. Example early weaning rations are shown in Table 6.
The most economical ration to feed would clearly depend on current feed prices. Table 7 below lists assumed feed prices at the time of this writing. Based on those prices and the assumption of 2 lbs. per day average daily gain, cost per lb of gain during the early weaning period is calculated at the bottom of Table 7. Based on those assumptions, rations V and VI appeared to be the most economical. However, producers are strongly encouraged to explore all feeding options in their area.
Even with some of the more expensive rations, early weaning likely would be a profitable way to grow calves to sale weight. And, just as importantly, it allows the producer to dry his cows and greatly reduce their nutrient needs. This means less dependence on scare pasture and feed resources. P.S. The following articles are available at the Hopkins County Extension Office between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm: **Producing Summer Annual Grasses for Emergency or Supplemental Forage **Using Corn for Livestock Grazing **Feeding Modified Distillers Dried Grains to Beef Cattle **Beef Cattle Management Alternatives for Coping with Short Pastures **Drought Management Strategies for Beef Cattle **Supplementation Strategies to Stretch Winter Forage Supplies for Beef Cattle **Ammonia Treatment of Low Quality Forages **Harvesting Soybeans for Hay
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
West Kentucky Grain Marketing Project August 13, 2007
Written by With the August crop report now history the market should be able to return to the major issues impacting price direction in the grain and soybean complex. The most immediate question is about production potential for U.S. soybeans. From a longer run perspective the important unknowns include: the response by South American farmers to very high soybean and corn prices, the response of farmers on a global scale to near record high wheat prices, the price of energy and finally the response by U.S. farmers on the question of the allocation of crop acres among the principal grain crops and soybeans for the 2008-09 marketing year.The most recent USDA reports were broadly supportive of a continuation of high prices, at least from a historical perspective, as they continue to show very tight supply/demand balances at the global level for wheat and corn and they forecast a sharp draw-down in global soybean stocks. The significant drop in U.S. soybean plantings this spring coupled with continued rapid increases in global consumption of soybeans (and soybean products) leaves little room for production problems with the 2007 U.S. crop. The hot dry weather of the past two weeks and uncertain predictions about weather the next month have the market’s attention. If soybean yield declines only 2 bu/acre from the August Crop Report projected ending stocks next August 31, assuming no change in consumption, would equal roughly 100 million bushels. The market should respond significantly if it appears such an event is likely. However, if weather turns less stressful very soon the large surplus left from the 2006 U.S. harvest and the prospect of a significant increase in South American production by next spring (5-10 percent increase in acres depending on the source) should serve to keep soybean prices from setting new contract highs.For corn, the USDA’s August World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report was price supportive, in spite of the 214 million bushel jump in projected 2007 U.S. corn production from the July report; because it indicated a sharp jump in projected U.S. corn exports to meet global needs due to poor global coarse grain, corn and wheat harvest.Grain markets are in an interesting time period – consumption is increasing in many countries due to improving incomes, energy is now competiting directly against food/feed needs for grains and world wheat production has not yet ramped up as corn and soybeans have. Corn, soybeans and wheat prices have probably moved to a “new level”. This is not to say that farmers will be in any better shape financially going forward than they have experienced most of their lives – cost are increasing rapidly as well. Rather, it is to suggest that pricing targets contained in well designed marketing plans probably need to be reexamined. It is not difficult to examine the data to find earlier time periods when price levels migrated upward. It is also not too difficult to find that a market influenced industry responds rapidly to changing price signals and government policy.If you thought the spring of 2007 was interesting for grain market participants watch the next couple of years. The market is responding, on a global scale, to the new situation. If energy demand for grains and oilseeds stays on-track (the price of energy and global government policies will be key) cropping patterns will continue to evolve. Prices for grain crops and soybeans are already being supported by expectations of grain traders about likely production and total consumption (with another huge increase expected in use of corn for ethanol) in 2008 and beyond. This outlook along with the record tight world wheat supply/demand balance is keeping a firm underpinning in the grain markets. This situation should allow farmers to store any un-priced grains and take a wait and see attitude. Stay alert on the soybeans. If the U.S. crop escapes August in decent condition and the South Americans dramatically increase acres prices could easily soften from their current lofty level. This is a case where the purchase of put options should be considered. Also don’t forget about pricing the 2008 and 2009 wheat crops – currently futures prices are above $5.75 per bushel. They may go somewhat higher as the December 2007 Chicago contract seems set to challenge all-time highs but it will take further production problems in major producing nations to propel price much beyond current levels.Finally, this is my last article for the University of Kentucky. I will retire from the University after 30 years and return to a small farm and a small consulting business. I wish each of you an exciting life. I can be reached at: steven645@gmail.comSteve Riggins
C-3 Ag Science Building North, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40546-0091; Terry Allen, UK Equal Opportunity Office, Room 8 Administration Building, Lexington KY 40506; or the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
