Here is the entire newsletter for the week.
A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the OSU Extension BEEF Team
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to this weekly BEEF Cattle letter by sending a blank e-mail to
[email protected]
Issue # 523
January 31, 2007
Animal Identification, a Reality or Simply a Perception - Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist, NDSU Extension Service
There is a point of frustration in the beef industry. The U.S. currently produces healthy, wholesome beef, ready for American consumption and export to the world. Yet, as an industry, we produce our own barriers and then commence to trip over them in a seemingly endless array of missed opportunities.
There always should be something substantial and factual to what we read or spend much time listening to. The future really needs to be guided by facts that substantiate reality and are clearly different than positioned perception.
In the animal world, the problem is that there seems to be a strong desire to function in the world of perception, relegating the reality of animal identification and traceback to desired obscurity. One should ask how many times does the system need to fail.
As one grows up and before one really knows any facts, we all live in the assumption that all that is around us is real. The house we live in has been there forever, the food that appears at mealtime never ends and there always will be another cookie on the plate. At some point, this perception of the world gradually gives way to reality.
The reality is that the world around us can be harsh, not all people get along and bad things can happen. How long the animal world can avoid the realities of a very dynamic world and continue to live in the clouds of perception is not known. Perhaps a long time, but the point still remains, the current perceptions within the environment of the animal industry are tenacious, with various factions of the industry anchored to ideals and principles with very little connection to reality. The finger pointing is excessive, regardless of what segment of the industry currently is at the podium.
The latest bit of news regarding the questionable origin of cattle slaughtered last fall, but only noted this year, continues to call for some type of explanation. The reality is there is no answer.
The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. beef industry has a very antiquated system of tags, paper and files, and limited people to even think about coming up with any sort of answer in any reasonable response time. The answer is even more distant, when one concludes that the typical animal marketed loses all identity at sale, may be commingled with several, if not hundreds, of other similar looking animals and then joins the ranks of the unknown.
And then there is concern when a problem arises. You said, no he said, no she said or maybe I think, but I don't really know which black calf it was. The reality is we don't know. The U.S. has a very wholesome, reputable beef industry, an industry that must be healthy as a whole, not as factions.
No one group can have cattle that are more wholesome than the next. No country can have cattle that are more wholesome than the next and no producer, company or cooperative can produce food that is more wholesome or healthy than the next. The bottom line is that people expect all food to be wholesome and contribute to their health and wellness. And so, the current squabble continues.
The irony is that the foundation of the beef industry prides itself on individualism. Yet individualism only survives along side responsibility. It is this responsibility, nested within cooperation, that needs to rise up and solve the task at hand.
The industry needs a modern, effective system of individual accountability, a system respectful of local concerns, but responsive to industry needs and consumer desires. Amongst the never-ending confusion, positioning and jostling, one can only hope some light will come to the podium.
Re-warming Methods for Cold-stressed Newborn Calves - Dr. Glenn Selk, Extension Cattle Specialist, Oklahoma State University
Recently an Oklahoma rancher called to tell of the success he had noticed in using a warm water bath to revive new born calves that had been severely cold stressed. A quick check of the scientific data on that subject bears out his observation. Canadian animal scientists compared methods of reviving hypothermic or cold stressed baby calves. Heat production and rectal temperature were measured in 19 newborn calves during hypothermia (cold stress) and recovery when four different means of assistance were provided. Hypothermia of 86o F rectal temperature was induced by immersion in cold water. Calves were rewarmed in a 68 to 77o F air environment where thermal assistance was provided by added thermal insulation or by supplemental heat from infrared lamps. Other calves were rewarmed by immersion in warm water (100oF), with or without a 40cc drench of 20% ethanol in water. Normal rectal temperatures before cold stress were 103 oF. The time required to regain normal body temperature from a rectal temperature of 86oF was longer for calves with added insulation and those exposed to heat lamps than for the calves in the warm water and warm water plus ethanol treatments (90 and 92 vs 59 and 63, respectively). During recovery, the calves rewarmed with the added insulation and heat lamps produced more heat metabolically than the calves rewarmed in warm water. Total heat production during recovery was nearly twice as great for the calves with added insulation, exposed to the heat lamps than for calves in warm water and in warm water plus an oral drench of ethanol, respectively. By immersion of hypothermic calves in warm (100 oF) water, normal body temperature was regained most rapidly and with minimal metabolic effort; no advantage was evident from oral administration of ethanol. When immersing these baby calves, do not forget to support the head above the water to avoid drowning the calf that you are trying to save.
Source: Robinson and Young. Univ. of Alberta. J. Anim. Sci., 1988.
Dried Distiller's Grains Can Help Produce More Beef - Kay Ledbetter, Texas A&M Extension Center
Supplemental feeding of dried distiller's grains to cattle can help produce more beef in grazing programs, a Texas Agricultural Experiment Station researcher said.
After a summer and fall feeding study done with both heifers and steers, Dr. Jim MacDonald, Experiment Station beef nutritionist, said he believes this by-product of ethanol production will be useful in more than just feedlot or dairy operations.
In the next few years, an additional 200 to 600 million gallons of ethanol are expected to be produced in the High Plains, MacDonald said. Production will utilize up to 214 million bushels of corn or sorghum and result in 1.71 million tons of distiller's grains.
"A majority will likely be utilized by feedyards and dairies, but due to the sheer increase in availability, there should be opportunities for cow/calf and stocker operations to use it as well," he said.
The most promising opportunity may be in the situation where lightweight calves are held for a couple of months before they go onto wheat, MacDonald said.
The summer grazing study using heifers averaging 600 pounds compared feeding 3 pounds of dried distiller's grain per head per day, or approximately 0.5 percent of the animal's body weight, to no supplement, MacDonald said.
Results showed an improvement in gain of a quarter of a pound per head per day over the control calves, he said.
In the fall dormant range study, steers weighing approximately 400 pounds were compared at unsupplemented, 1-pound, 2-pound and 3-pound per head per day rates, MacDonald said.
Gain improved from just over one-half pound per head per day at the 1-pound rate to 1.75 pound per head per day at the highest level of supplementation, he said.
"However, the effect was quadratic in that the more you supplemented, the incremental gain was lower," MacDonald said. "In other words, at the 1-pound rate, the efficiency of gain was about 50 percent, where at the highest rate, it was 40 percent."
During the summer trial, the efficiency was only about 10 percent, he said, because both sets of animals were eating well on grass and the supplementation did not make as big a difference.
"So supplementation is more efficient on dormant range, as you would expect," MacDonald said.
The economics of supplementing with distiller's grains will depend on the cost of the product compared to the value of gain, he said.
MacDonald paid $118 per ton for the distiller's grains, which equated to a $12.50 per head investment for $18.80 per head in return over the 63 days the heifers were fed.
As corn prices have risen over the past month or so, so has that of distiller's grain, he said. The same scenario now would have the producer paying $175 per ton, which would result in a $18.96 per head investment for a $16.20 per head return.
"Producers need to run the economics in their situation to see if it is a good fit," he said.
The 56-day fall trial, using the $175 per ton rate for the distiller's grains, resulted in at $16.33 per head investment at the highest level of supplementation, MacDonald said. That investment was worth $68.25 per head.
"The economics would say in the fall or winter scenario, producers will want to supplement at as high levels as possible," he said.
"And even though this research is conducted with stocker calves, I think there is opportunity for cow/calf producers to utilize the distiller's grains as well," MacDonald said. "The supplemental fat has shown to improve reproduction, as well as providing energy to maintain or improve body condition score."
However, potential dangers exist if animals are fed at extreme rates due to fat and sulfur content, he said. Excessive fat can reduce forage digestibility. Also, sulfur can tie up minerals such as copper, creating a deficiency. Excessive sulfur may cause polioencephalomalacia, also known as "brainers."
Producers who use distiller's grains need to be cognizant of all sulfur sources, including water, MacDonald said. If a producer is feeding distiller's grains high in sulfur and also have sulfur in their water, it could be enough to cause trouble.
The supplementation trials were only the first step in MacDonald's study, he said.
Comparisons of distiller's grains to more traditional supplementation and following the calves onto wheat pasture need to done, he said.
"I'm very much enthused about using distiller's grains to produce more beef on a fixed-land base," he said. "The caveat will be to see what previous supplementation does to subsequent wheat grazing gains. We'll have some data on that in the spring."
EDITOR's NOTE: Two opportunities in Ohio during February remain to learn about the use of DDGs in beef cattle rations during the series of OCA District meetings. "Ethanol By-products: What Can They Do for Your Operation" is presented by Dr. Francis Fluharty. Visit the OSU Beef Team web calendar for a complete listing of these and other beef cattle management meetings.
Forage Focus: Ohio Forage and Grassland Council Conference
The 2007 Ohio Forage and Grassland Council annual meeting and conference will be held on Friday, February 9 at the Ohio Department of Agriculture in Reynoldsburg. The theme of this years conference is: "Soil Fertility: Affecting Your Forages and Affecting Your Nutrition". The complete conference agenda may be found at: http://forages.osu.edu/education/OFGCannualmeeting.pdf Cost is $30 for OFGC members, and $40 for non-members. You may pre-register on-line at: http://www.smallfarminstitute.org/OFGCAnnualRegl.html. For more information, contact Leah Miller at Small Farm Institute at 740-545-6349.
Feedlot Inventories Continue to Shrink - Dr. Derrell S. Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist
USDA's January Cattle on Feed report confirmed that feedlot placements in December continued at the slow pace of recent months. Despite a marketing level that was down 5 percent from one year ago, the 9 percent reduction in placements resulted in a January 1 feedlot inventory of 11.974 million head, 101 percent of the 2006 level.
Feedlot numbers continue to drop as a result of limited feeder supplies aggravated by sharply higher feed prices at the end of 2006. I believe tight feeder supplies are the main factor and will continue to be in the first half of 2007. After all, high corn prices don't cause feedlots to stop demanding feeder cattle as much as they change the kind of cattle that feedlots want to place…and the price they are willing to pay for them!
Looking ahead to next month there is no doubt that placements will continue to be small on a year to year basis. January placements will be further aggravated by the severe weather and horrible feedlot conditions that now exist. Feedlots are not interested in placing cattle in the midst of all the ice and mud. Although January marketings will also be down for the same reasons, the February 1 on-feed total should drop below year earlier levels.
Today's USDA reports may also provide some tantalizing clues into next week's annual Cattle report. The Slaughter report issued today showed a slight increase in heifer slaughter along with an 18 percent increase in beef cow slaughter in 2006 compared to 2005. The Cattle on Feed report showed that the January 1 inventory of heifers on feed was up 3.8 percent compared to last year. These numbers all suggest limited cyclical expansion. If my expectations are at all close, the report next week will show a very limited increased in the beef cow herd, the calf crop and estimated feeder cattle supplies for January 1.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed mostly off on Monday. The only contact closing up was the FEB'07LC, closing at $90.600/cwt, up $0.375/cwt and up $0.350/cwt from last Monday's close. Last Friday's USDA Cattle on Feed report pushed deferreds lower a range of $0.10/cwt - $0.375/cwt with the APR'07LC closing off $0.175/cwt at $93.400/cwt. However, this is still higher than last week at this time by $1.025/cwt. The report showed larger than expected December placements and record on-feed supplies for January 1. Fund buying drove the FEB'07LC contract up on lower corn futures and worries about more cold weather in the forecast this week. The weather is expected to slow feedlot cattle performance again. Traders rolled short positions from the February to the April, also showing support for the lead month. Some June/April spreading was noted early on Monday. Cash cattle traded $0.50/cwt to $1.00/cwt lower on Monday in the 5-area average. USDA put the choice boxed beef cutout at $144.55/cwt, off $1.71/cwt and the lowest it's been since December 29. According the HedgersEdge.com, the average beef plant margin for Monday was estimated at $2.95/head, off $8.65/head from Friday and down $13.05/head from last week at this time. Cash sellers are still encouraged to push marketings if they can get them out of the pens at the right weights. It is still wise to consider protecting a portion of 3rd quarter '07 marketings at this time. Corn users should look for more pricing opportunities in near-term corn inputs now.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed higher across the board on Monday. The MAR'07FC contract finished at $95.400/cwt, up $1.300/cwt and up $3.025/cwt from last week at this time. It looks like ground that was given up two weeks ago was taken back today. The APR'07FC contract finished up $1.075/cwt at $97.525/cwt. Gains in feeders were fueled by lower corn futures and reports of buying interest in big feedlots. New fund buying was triggered on the rally in feeders amid other technical support signs. Also, changes in the way that the feeder cattle index is now calculated include higher priced calves lifting the index. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for Jan. 25 was $94.11/cwt; down $0.38/cwt. Cash sellers are still encouraged to put a few more pounds on those feeder calves in order to take advantage of these prices. Hedgers may be wise to consider protecting a portion of 1st quarter '07 and 2nd quarter '07 marketings. Corn users should look for more pricing opportunities in near-term corn inputs now.
BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868
Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources
