75.9 F
Waurika
Thursday, May 2, 2024
Advertisement
Home The Farm and Ranch Report

The Farm and Ranch Report

7 days popular

Keep yourself and your animals healthy during pandemic

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

You may have heard that some tigers in a New York zoo, and subsequently two house cats, have tested positive for COVID-19.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses associated with respiratory illness in birds and mammals. COVID-19 is a member of the coronavirus family. Other coronaviruses can cause illness in certain animals, including dogs, cats, cattle, camels, ferrets and bats. Coronaviruses that com­monly infect dogs and cats do not infect humans.

Vaccines routinely used to help protect animals from coronaviruses offer no protection in humans and should not be used to prevent COVID-19. Do not self-medicate or self-test for COVID-19.

There have been a very small number of pets, including dogs and cats reported to be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 after close contact with people with COVID-19. At the time of this writing, there is no known animal-to-human spread of COVID-19 involving pets. On­going research to understand how and if different animals could be affected by COVID-19 is being conducted.

The most effective method of disease prevention is to avoid exposure to the virus.

• Avoid close contact—stay at home, putting at least a 6-foot distance between yourself and others.

• Clean hands often—wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Hand sanitizers with at least 60% alcohol may be used if soap and water are unavailable.

• Cover your mouth and nose with a face cover if you must be around others.

• Cover coughs and sneezes by coughing or sneezing into your elbow/sleeve or into a disposable tissue.

• Clean and disinfect—surfaces should be cleaned and disinfected often. COVID-19 is susceptible to most common household disinfectants.

While the primary concern of the COVID-19 pandemic is human health, animal owners should have plans to ensure proper care of their animals in an emergency. As individuals prepare for the unexpected, they also should develop plans for their animals. Pet owners should have more than one option for pet care in their plan in the event the usual pet sitter or boarding facility is unavailable. Animal food, medications and health records, as well as transport options, should readily be available. Farmers and ranchers should make similar considerations specific to their operation. Considerations for supplying feed and water, as well as routine health care, should be planned in advance. All animal owners should coordinate with their veterinarian.

If you are sick with COVID-19 (either suspected or con­firmed), out of an abundance of caution, restrict contact with pets and other animals, just like you would around people. It is recommended people sick with COVID-19 limit contact with animals until more information is known about the virus. This can help ensure both you and your animals stay healthy. When possible, have another mem­ber of your household care for your animals while you are sick. Avoid direct contact with animals until the illness resolves. Do not pet, snuggle, groom or otherwise touch animals unless necessary. If you have a service animal or must care for your animals while you are sick, wash your hands before and after you interact with them. A face cover over your mouth and nose should be considered as well. Any sign of animal illness should be reported to a veterinarian immediately.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

OSU Extension Office Remains Accessible

 I hope this writing finds you and yours safe and well. I wanted to remind you that, although we may be working remotely, your OSU Extension Office personnel are still available and working to meet your needs. Drop boxes are available, all day on Tuesdays and from 8am to noon on Fridays, for soil, forage, and water samples. Please fill out the forms provided at the drop box.

We can be reached by phone voice mail (580/228-2332), or our personal email addresses and other information can be found on our Web page: https://extension.okstate.edu/county/jefferson/jefferson.html

Wheat Demonstration Plot Tour Slated

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

The public is invited to a wheat plot demonstration tour on Thursday, May 9 at 10 am. The plot is located on the Larry and Amyx James Farm. Directions are as follows:

  • Go west of Waurika on Hwy. 70 to the Waurika Cemetery
  • Go 6 miles south on N2780 Rd (“Noble Wray Rd.”)
  • Go 1.7 miles west on E2030 Rd.

The intent of the demonstration was to evaluate the effects of lime and phosphorus on wheat forage yields and, more specifically, to compare broadcast phosphorus applications with phosphorus banded in the seed row. In theory, because phosphorus is not mobile in the soil profile and because seed-row banded phosphorus can be a substitute for liming (in low pH soils), we wanted to determine if we can increase forage yields and reduce input costs by banding phosphorus in the seed-row, as opposed to applying lime and broadcasting phosphorus.

Brian Arnall, OSU State Extension Precision Nutrient Specialist, and Heath Sanders, OSU Extension Area Agronomist will be on hand to discuss the demonstration protocols and results, as well as to answer questions.

The tour will conclude by noon. All are invited, and bring a neighbor!

Calculating the pros and cons of Creep Feeding

Feed conversions of calves fed creep feeds have been quite variable to say the least.  Conversions of 5:1 or 5 pounds of grain consumed to 1 extra pound of calf weight are very rare and the optimum that can be expected when producers are using a “typical” high energy creep feed. Conversions may get as poor as 15:1 (or worse) in some situations. Therefore, it is obvious that several factors come in to play to determine the amount of creep feed that is consumed for each additional pound of gain.

Cows that give large amounts of milk to their calves will provide enough protein and energy to meet the growth potential of their calves. In that scenario, it is reasonable to assume that the feed conversion from creep feeding could be quite poor (10:1 or worse). If, however, the milk production of the cows is limited for any reason, then the added energy and protein from the creep feed provides needed nutrients to allow calves to reach closer to their genetic maximum capability for growth. Calves from poor milking cows may convert the creep feed at a rate of about 7 pounds of feed for each pound of additional calf weight. Poor milking can be a result of genetically low milk production or restricted nutritional status. Nutritional restriction due to drought situations often adversely affects milk production and therefore calf weaning weights. 

Shortened hay supplies and reduced standing forage due to drought or severe winter weather often set the stage for the best results from creep feeding. These feed conversion ratios become important when making the decision to buy and put out creep feed for spring born calves. As you are calculating the cost of creep feeds, remember to include the depreciation cost of the feeders and the delivery of the feed. Then of course, it is important to compare that cost of creep feeding to the realistic “value of added gain”.  

To calculate the value of added gain, determine the actual per head price of the calf after the added weight gain (due to the creep feed). Then subtract the price per head of the calf if it was sold at the lighter weight (not fed creep feed). Divide the difference in dollars by the amount of added weight. Although 500-pound steer calves may bring $1.80/lb at the market, and a 550-pound steer brings $1.71/lb, the value of added gain is about 80 cents per pound. Therefore, the estimated creep feeding cost per pound of added gain must be less than 80 cents for the practice to be projected to be profitable

Different ranching operations will come to different conclusions about the value of creep feeding. In fact, different conclusions may apply to different groups of cows within the same herd. Creep feeding may be more beneficial to calves from thin, young cows and less efficient to calves reared by mature cows that are in better body condition and producing more milk.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Find out what is happening in OSU Extension at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures.  This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

Spring vs. Fall Calving Seasons; or Both?

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

The debate over spring-calving or fall-calving seasons is a common topic in Oklahoma, and Southern Plains producers have alternatives for calving seasons that producers in more northern climes do not. Spring and fall are the seasons of choice.  Traditionally many herds have been bred to calve in February and March, to take advantage of summer forage greenup when the lactating cows and new calf crop most need high quality forage. Some fall calving seasons have arisen from elongated spring seasons or were initiated by “rolling over” females that failed to become pregnant in the spring breeding season.  Most fall-calving herds were created by design to take advantage of improved cow condition at calving, improved market conditions when calves and cull cows are sold, and less weather (heat) stress on cows and bulls during the breeding season. Due to our mild winters and ability to winter nursing cows reasonably efficiently, south-central Oklahoma is ideally situated to take advantage of a fall-calving system, and historical market trends make it appealing. However, it does not have to be an “either, or” scenario. Having two calving seasons spreads cash flow through the year and offers flexibility to respond to market signals or, in other words, allows producers options to avoid “putting all their eggs in one basket.”

Deciding on the use of one calving season or two calving seasons is a big first decision when commercial producers are choosing calving seasons.  Research has shown that buyers are willing to pay premiums for larger lot sizes of uniform calves. Consequently, two calving seasons may be more advantageous for herds of 80 cows or more.  To take full advantage of the economies of scale, a ranch needs to produce at least 20 steer calves in the same season to realize the price advantage associated with increased lot size.  Therefore, having forty cows in each season as a minimum seems to make some sense.

Using two seasons instead of just one can reduce bull costs a great deal.  Properly developed and cared-for bulls can be used in both the fall and the spring, therefore reducing the bull battery by about half.   If bulls are used twice per year, they must be given adequate nutrition to maintain body condition and should be required to pass a breeding soundness exam at least yearly.

Another small advantage to having two calving seasons is the capability of taking fall-born heifers and holding them another few months to go into the spring season and vice versa.  Because of this, replacement heifers are always 2 1/2 years at first calving instead of 2 years old.  These heifers should be more likely to breed early in the breeding season and have slightly less calving difficulty.  Research (Goodrich, et al., 1985 OSU Research Report) has shown that these differences are very small, therefore the cost of the other six months feed must be minimal to make this a paying proposition.  A disadvantage to breeding heifers to calve at 30 months is found when “open” heifers are culled.  They are too old to go the feedlot and produce high grading carcasses.  Therefore, the older heifers will be discounted (price per pound) when marketed after an unsuccessful attempt to get them bred.

Some producers like the dual calving seasons because of the spread of the marketing risk.  Having half of the calf crop sold at two different times allows for some smoothing of the cattle market roller coaster ride.  It is important that an adequate number of calves be born together to a make a marketable package that will not be discounted because of small lot size.

Labor requirements and increased pastures must also be considered.  More days of the calendar year are involved with checking cows and heifers during the calving season if split seasons are utilized.  Fall-calving often conflicts with wheat planting during September or October.  More pastures are required to keep cows in the same stage of production together when there are two calving seasons.  Non-lactating cows need less energy and protein than do lactating cows to maintain body condition.  Feeding both together would be very inefficient.

There are advantages and disadvantages to a split calving season.  Having a split calving season is NOT for everybody but may be an alternative for some Southern Plains producers. 

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Required Training Offered for Fruit and Vegetable Growers . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

 If you are a fruit and/or vegetable grower, you are required by law, pursuant to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that requires “At least one supervisor or responsible party for your farm must have successfully completed food safety training at least equivalent to that received under standardized curriculum recognized as adequate by the Food and Drug Administration.” The good news is that a one-day Grower Training Course, designed to satisfy this FMSA produce safety rule requirement, will be offered locally, at the OSU-IAB (on Sam Noble Parkway/Hwy. 199, about ½ mile east of the Southern Technology Center) on June 7, beginning at 8:30 am. The training is offered and conducted by the OSU Food & Agricultural Products Center (FAPC) staff.

Fruit and vegetable growers and others will receive information about:

· Produce Safety

· Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Produce Safety Rule

· Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)

· Co-management of Natural Resources

· Food Safety

The cost is $15/person for Oklahoma residents and includes lunch, snacks, and materials. Registration can be found online at fapc.biz/workshops/produce-safety-alliance-grower-training-course or to register and pay by phone you may call Karen Smith at 405-744-6277.

 Last Call for Ranch Tour! . . . If you are interested in this unique opportunity to see some of south-central Oklahoma’s more notable ranches, and learn from some progressive beef cattle producers, registration will likely close Monday, May 28.

Cost is $30 per participant. Online registration is available at http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/marketplace through the OSU Department of Animal Science.

On May 30, the vans will depart at 12:15 p.m. from the Ardmore Convention Center, located at 2401 Rockford Rd. and travel to the Chuckwagon Barbecue Restaurant, located at 101 Hargrove St. and State Highway 7 in Velma, prior to continuing on to the first ranch site.

 Out of respect to our gracious ranch hosts and in the interest of logistics, we ask participants to ride in the vans provided. If you must caravan in your own vehicle, please drive a pickup able to handle the terrain and carpool as much as possible.

The vans will return to the Ardmore Convention Center at approximately 8 p.m. The second day of the tour will kick off at 8 a.m. and finish early in the afternoon of May 31.

Ranch sites on the tour include Sugar Loaf Ranch in Velma, Sparks Ranch in Hennepin, Coffey Ranch in Davis, Daube Ranch in Ardmore, Eddie Parker Angus Ranch in Waurika, Wilson Cattle Company in Ringling and Howard Cattle Company in Claypool.

Anyone interested in obtaining additional information about the tour should contact me by email at leland.mcdaniel@okstate.edu or by phone at either 580-223-6570 or 580-228-2332, or visit my Facebook page.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Find out what is happening in OSU Extension at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures.  This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

Feeding Cows for Cold Weather

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

 By the time you read this, the recent blast of cold, wintry mix of snow, sleet, and freezing rain will be in the rear view mirror; in other words, it will be like George Washington . . . it will be history. However, considering this is the midst of winter in Oklahoma, we will likely see a repeat in the near future. So, with that in mind, here are some simple concepts, offered by Glen Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist, to help you meet the additional energy needs of your cattle the next time a cold front approaches. I might add, when increasing energy intake for cold weather, it is more effective to begin a couple days before a front hits, as well as extending for a few days after nicer weather has returned.

Thus far, most of Oklahoma has experienced a relatively mild start to winter.  Nonetheless, colder weather is likely to occur before spring time and green grass.  The major effect of cold on nutrient requirement of cows is increased need for energy. To determine magnitude of cold, lower critical temperature for beef cows must first be estimated. For cows with a dry winter hair coat the lower critical temperature is considered to be 32 degrees F.  In general, researchers have used the rule of thumb that cows’ energy requirements increase 1% for each degree the wind chill is below the 32-degree lower critical temperature. In this example, the TV weatherman has predicted that wind chills will average about 4 degrees F.  Therefore, the calculation example for a cow with a winter dry hair coat would be:

 Step 1: Cow’s lower critical temperature is 32 degrees F. 

Step 2: Expected wind-chill from weather reports (4 degrees wind chill in this example) 

Step 3: Calculate the magnitude of the cold as the difference between the lower critical temperature and the wind chill: 32 degrees – 4 degrees = 28 degrees 

Step 4: Energy adjustment is 1% for each degree magnitude of cold or 28%. 

Step 5: Feed cows 128% of daily energy amount. (if cow was to receive 16 pounds of high quality grass/legume hay; then feed 20.5 pounds of hay during the cold weather event).

 Research has indicated that energy requirement for maintenance of beef cows with a wet hair coat is much greater. Cows that are exposed to falling precipitation and have the wet hair coats are considered to have reached the lower critical temperature at 59 degrees F. In addition, the requirements change twice as much for each degree change in wind-chill factor. In other words, the energy requirement actually increases 2% for each degree below 59 degrees F. To calculate the magnitude of the cold when the cow is wet would be the difference between 59 degrees minus 4 degrees = 55 degrees. True energy requirements to maintain a wet cow in this weather would be 2% X 55 degrees or 110 % increase in energy (which would mean that over twice the normal energy intake is needed.)

This amount of energy change is virtually impossible to accomplish with feedstuffs available on ranches. In addition, this amount of energy change in the diet of cows accustomed to a high roughage diet must be made very gradually to avoid severe digestive disorders. Therefore, the more common-sense approach is a smaller increase in energy requirements during wet cold weather and extending the increase into more pleasant weather to help regain energy lost during the storm.

Cows that were consuming 16 pounds of grass hay per day and 5 pounds of 20% range cubes could be increased to 20 pounds of grass hay offered per day plus 6 to 7 pounds of range cubes during the severe weather event. This is not a doubling of the energy intake but by extending this amount for a couple of days after the storm may help overcome some of the energy loss during the storm and done in a manner that does not cause digestive disorders. 

The fact that it is not feasible to feed a wet, very cold cow enough to maintain her current body condition, underscores the need for cows to be in “good” body condition at the start of winter.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Find out what is happening in OSU Extension at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures.  This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

When is the Best Time (Age) to Castrate Bull Calves? . . .

By
Curtis Plant
-
0

Britt Hicks, OSU Extension Area Livestock Specialist, recently offered a good discussion of when to castrate bull calves and I wanted to share it.

Beef Quality Assurance Guidelines recommend that bull calves that are not herd sire prospects be castrated as early in life as possible (preferably, between birth and four months of age).  It has been speculated that delaying castration until weaning may improve performance since intact bull calves may grow more rapidly than steer calves.  However, several studies suggest that there is no lifetime performance advantage to waiting to castrate calves until weaning.  In fact, most research show that late castration (at weaning) decreases feedlot arrival gains and increases morbidity (sickness).

In 2011, University of Florida research investigated whether timing of castration in nursing calves affected calf performance and weaning weight.  In this study, 93 Angus and Brangus calves were either surgically castrated early (average age of 36 days) or late (average age of 131 days).  The age of the early castrated calves ranged from 3 to 73 days and the age of the late castrated calves ranged from 84 to 180 days.  At the time of castration, the average body weight of the late castrated calves was 356 lb.  Actual weaning weight (456 vs. 452 lb), adjusted 205-day weaning weight (512 vs. 504 lb), and average daily gain from birth to weaning (2.00 vs. 1.92 lb) were all similar between early and late castrate treatments, respectively.  These researchers concluded that this data indicates that producers have some degree of flexibility in determining when to implement castration.  The data showed that castration at or near birth did not have a detrimental effect on calf performance or weaning weight.  These authors also suggested that producers should realize that delaying castration until calves are approximately 131 days old will not bring added weight at weaning despite some producer philosophies and marketing claims that endorse such management practices.

In 2015, joint research between the University of Arkansas and West Texas A&M University (WTAMU) evaluated the effect of castration timing (near birth or at weaning) on lifetime growth performance and carcass quality of beef calves.  In this study, calves were surgically castrated near birth or at weaning.  All calves were weaned at day 214 of the study to undergo a 56-day weaning period.  For the first 28 days after weaning, the calves were fed hay ad libitum and a supplemental ration intended to achieve approximately 1.5 lb of gain per day.  After 28 days, the calves were moved to a mixed-grass pasture to be maintained for an additional 28-day period to complete the 56-day weaning phase of the study.  After this weaning phase, the calves were shipped 480 miles to the WTAMU Nance Ranch and grazed on native grass and sorghum-Sudan grass for a 111-day backgrounding period until entry into the adjacent WTAMU Research Feedlot.  The calves were fed a common feedlot ration throughout the finishing period (average length of 128 days) and harvested at a commercial processing plant.

These researchers reported that average daily gain from birth to weaning (214 days) was similar between treatments (1.81 vs. 1.85 lb/day for steers and bull calves, respectively).  Furthermore, there was no difference in weaning weight between the bulls left intact (483 lb) or the non-implanted steers castrated near birth (475 lb).  These authors suggest that this observation indicates that testosterone-enhanced growth in bulls vs. steer cohorts is not realized until bulls reach ages beyond the typical weaning age.  However, during the 56 day weaning period, calves castrated near birth gained faster than calves castrate at weaning (2.25 vs. 2.04 lb/day, P = 0.04).  Summer grazing and feedlot finishing performance and carcass measurements did not differ between treatments.  Theses researchers concluded that the results of this study indicate that castration procedures should be performed as early in life as possible to minimize performance loss.

Research from Nebraska (2005) has shown that as age of castration increases, weight loss resulting from the procedure increases (Figure 1).  In addition, reviews of marketing data show that bull calves marketed through conventional channels have historically suffered a price discount of ~5% compared to steer calves (~$5.00 to $7.00/cwt discounts) since surgical castration of calves after arrival at a feedlot decreases daily gains and increases morbidity.

Research conducted at the University of California, Davis (2017) assessed the effect of age on healing and pain sensitivity after surgical castration of beef calves.  In this study, beef calves were surgically castrated at 3 days of age (range of 0 to 8 days) or 73 days of age (range of 69 to 80 days).  The results of this study showed that calves castrated soon after birth experienced more tissue swelling and showed more signs of pain, but their incisions healed sooner (39 vs. 61 days) and their weight gain 77 days after castration was greater (1.54 vs. 0.66 lb/day), when compared to animals castrated around 73 days of age.

Collectively, these studies suggest that there is no lifetime performance advantage to waiting to castrate calves until weaning, but there is a high probability of receiving lower prices when marketing intact calves through conventional channels. When considering how age at castration affects animal welfare, the consensus is that the younger the calf is at time of castration, the less impact castration has on its welfare and performance.

Find out what’s happening on the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Calendar at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/#/?i=2

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

The Political Polarization of Meat

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

This is a venture outside the normal “technical” or “management” theme of this column, but I found the following blog by Jason Lusk, Food and Agricultural Economist, former Professor of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University, and current Department Head for Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, particularly interesting within the context of how political subscription may influence beef demand in the future. I am sharing it in its entirety.

“There is growing criticism of meat production industries in popular culture and mainstream media. Examples include the recent release of the EAT-Lancet report, the World Health Organization pronouncement on red meat and cancer, the proposed Green New Deal and “farting cows,” and much more. The result is an increasing number of news stories linking beef consumption with climate change and other adverse environmental impacts. As shown in this report (co-authored by Glynn Tonsor, Ted Schroeder, and myself), the number of news stories mentioning beef and climate change increased almost 800% since the early 2000s.    

Here’s the thing. We know climate change is a politically polarized issue. Might linking beef and meat consumption to a politically polarized issue in turn cause meat consumption itself to become politically polarized? As I’ve shown in previous posts (e.g., see here or here), self defined political ideology (on a scale of very liberal to very conservative) is one of the strongest predictions of whether someone says they are a vegetarian or vegan.

To investigate this issue, I turned to the body of work that referred to as the Cultural Cognition Project that is most associated with Dan Kahan at Yale. The basic idea is that individuals conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural identities (or match their tribe). In one of the most interesting demonstrations of this concept, Kahan shows that the likelihood of agreeing with the statement “There is solid evidence of recent global warming due mostly to human activity such as burning fossil fuels” is increasing in a person’s measured scientific intelligence (essentially a score on a science quiz) but only for people who identify as liberal democrats. For people who identify as conservative republicans, higher scientific intelligence is associated with a reduced likelihood of agreeing with the above sentence. The result is that (unlike what we’d expect if “more education” was the answer), the greatest disagreements are among the most scientifically literate but of opposite political parties. One take home message from these sorts of findings is that the smarter you are, the easier it is to fool yourself.

Ok, back to meat. As readers of this blog likely know, I ran the Food Demand Survey (FooDS), which surveyed 1,000 consumers every month (different samples of consumers were drawn every month) for five years. On the survey, we asked every respondent to answer 9 simulated shopping questions in which they choose between two beef, two pork, two chicken, and two vegetarian meal options at different prices (or a “I wouldn’t buy any of these” option). These data can be used to construct a very simple measure of demand, in which we simply count the number of times (across the nine choices) beef or any meat product was chosen (see this post for some discussion on these data). For reference beef (either ground beef or steak) was chosen about 2.2 times on average across the nine choices and any meat option was chosen a bit less than 7 times on average across the nine choices. (One important note is that despite all the negative news about beef alluded to at the beginning of this post, we do not find overall downward trends in beef demand in recent years; this is also consistent with Tonsor’s demand indices).

The question is how these measures of demand relate to political ideology and education (I use education because, unlike Kahan, I did not ask a scientific intelligence quiz on my surveys). I estimated equations that relate beef or overall meat demand to an extensive set of demographics (age, income, gender, region of residence, household size, etc.), political ideology (I asked both a party affiliation question and a very liberal to very conservative scale from which I create two groups: liberal democrats and conservative republicans), education, a time trend, and interactions between the last three sets of variables. The sample size is about 60,000 observations.

Below is a graphical illustration of the results for beef. Beef demand is higher for conservative republicans than liberal democrats (holding constant all other demographic factors), and this demand gap grows with education. Liberal democrats reduce their demand for beef as their education increases, but for conservative republicans, beef demand is essentially flat across education levels. The other interesting result, shown in the bottom panel, is that beef demand is becoming increasingly politically polarized over time. The beef demand gap between the average conservative republican and liberal democrat is increasing over time.

Below is the same analysis for overall meat demand (beef + pork + chicken). The results here are even stronger. There is very little partisan gap among lower educated liberals and conservatives, but a large gap in meat demand among liberal democrats and conservative republicans who have a graduate degree. The gap results mainly from liberal democrats reducing meat demand as education increases. Again, the partisan gap is growing over time.

What does all this mean? Unfortunately, I suspect it implies conversations about the meat consumption will become more difficult and tumultuous in the coming years. It may also mean that disagreements about the impacts of meat consumption on the environment and health are less likely to be “settled” by science because they are becoming wrapped up in people’s cultural values and tribe identities. Fortunately, there are a number of resources provided via the Cultural Cognition Project that provide insights about effective communication in this polarized world.”

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Find out what is happening in OSU Extension at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures.  This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

Corona Virus Food Assistance Program (CFAP)

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

As you have probably heard, the USDA Farm Service Agency is administering a payment program for COVID-19 related losses associated with certain crops and livestock.

The Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) opened up on May 26 for applications and will close on August 28, 2020. Applications can be submitted by phone or email at Farm Service Agency county offices across the country. Producers can find their local FSA office, and much more CFAP information, at www.farmers.gov/cfap. In addition to the CFAP application, a producer may need to submit forms and documentation to determine their eligibility for the program and agree to basic conservation requirements, which are required for all USDA programs. There is also a form for direct deposit. Anyone who used the drought program (Livestock Forage Program, or LFP) in 2014 or other years will be familiar with the process.

Once a producer’s total CFAP payment is calculated, they will receive a direct deposit for 80% of that payment relatively quickly. However, the remaining 20% will only be paid if enough funds are available. This assures that CFAP funds are spread across as many eligible livestock and crop producers as possible. Let’s be frank, $16 billion sounds like a lot of funds until you consider how much production of livestock, crops and specialty crops it is being spread across.

Let’s break down the payments for cattle producers further. First, producers will need to know their sales and their inventory. USDA is allowing both to be self-certified but have your documentation on hand and be prepared to produce it if asked. Cattle producers that sold cattle between January 15 and April 15 are eligible for a payment out of the CARES Act funds, provided those cattle were unpriced. USDA defined ‘unpriced cattle’ as those cattle that were ‘not subject to an agreed-upon price in the future through a forward contract, agreement, or similar binding document’. However, if you had another risk management instrument such as a Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) or put option in place the cattle are still eligible sales under CFAP.

If you did not have any sales in that window, then you may still be eligible for receiving a payment on the highest daily inventory between April 16 and May 14 out of CCC funds. Again, this is a self-certified inventory. Cattle producers will receive $33/head for that inventory.

Also, pay attention to the definitions of each category of cattle to sort them into the correct boxes. All of the breeding herd falls into ‘all other cattle’. Cull cows and bulls fall into ‘slaughter cattle – mature’. Calves, including unweaned calves, fall into ‘feeder cattle under 600 pounds’. Stockers you may have sold will fall into one of the two feeder cattle categories, depending on their weight. Fed cattle with average weights until 1400 pounds fall into ‘feeder cattle 600 pounds or greater’ for now, although that definition is under review.

This program allows producers to offset market losses for those cattle that still had risk exposure during the 2020 market decline. Don’t let the process scare you off, many producers have reported that, once they had their numbers in hand, it didn’t take long to apply. Get your application in as soon as possible.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

Comparing Weaning Dates for Fall-Born Calves . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Producers with fall-calving herds have traditionally weaned the calves at 9 to 10 months of age. When forage growth is limited due to drought, questions arise about the feasibility of weaning the calves at an earlier date. The effect on the cow as well as weaning weight of the calf must be considered when the impact of the weaning date is considered.

Oklahoma State University animal scientists evaluated weaning dates of 158 Angus fall-calving cows over a 4 year period. Cows were allowed to nurse their calves for about 210 days (April Weaning) or 300 days (July Weaning). All cows calved in September or October and were weaned in mid-April (April Wean) or mid-July (July Wean). April-weaned young cows had greater re-breeding percentages (98.4% versus 89.3%) than July weaned young cows. However, there was no advantage in the re-breeding performance of April-weaned mature cows compared to July-weaned mature cows (90.2% versus 96.7%). April-weaned cows were heavier and fleshier at calving than July weaned cows.

Calves weaned in July were 90 days older and 204 pounds heavier (642 lb versus 438 lb) when weaned than were the April-weaned calves. The April-weaned calves were allowed to graze native pasture after wean-ing and weighed 607 pounds in mid-July. For most years, it appears more advantageous to delay weaning of calves born to cows 4 years or older to July while maintaining April weaning for cows 3 years of age or younger.

Drought conditions (or burned pastures) in some areas of the Southern Plains very well may suggest the earlier weaning date could be considered for all ages of cows. In those areas of Oklahoma that have received adequate rainfall this winter and spring, the answer may be different. In those regions, the prospects of good forage growth would suggest that the later weaning date would result in heavier sale weights of calves and still excellent re-breeding of adult cows. Source: Hudson and co-workers. Journal of Anim. Sci. 2010 vol. 88:1577.

A Sad Goodbye

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

 I am not good at Goodbyes, but time marches on and circumstances bring change. It is with mixed emotions that I say “So long” to the people of Jefferson County. As of July 1, my job title and description will officially change, and I will no longer be serving Jefferson County on a regular basis. The new fiscal year brings changes in OSU Extension budgetary guidelines and, consequently, changes in staffing to adjust to budgetary restrictions, both at the local and state levels.

      Beginning July 1, my job title will be 50% Agriculture Educator for Carter County and 50% Regional Forage Specialist for nine counties in south-central Oklahoma, including Love, Carter, Murry, Garvin, McClain, Cleveland, Grady, Stephens and Jefferson Counties. So, as you can see, I will still have a presence in Jefferson County, but it will be in a much more limited and focused capacity.

      While I look forward to the new challenges, in the twilight of my professional career, I will sorely miss the personal and professional relationships that I established and developed with the Jefferson County citizenship over the last 3.5 years. I will always cherish the friendships that I carry with me and Jefferson County will always occupy a special place in my heart and memory. I am anxious and excited to continue serving the Jefferson County agricultural community in my new capacity.

Thanks for allowing me to serve you these past few years and here’s to seeing you down the road. (obligatory handshake and wave!)

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

1234Page 1 of 4

FOLLOW US

2,900FansLike
630FollowersFollow
264FollowersFollow
66SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

The Waurika News Journal
Serving the citizens of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, and readers around the world.
Contact us: waurikanewsjournal@gmail.com
© Copyright 2017-2023 Waurika News Journal & The Ryan Leader