54.3 F
Waurika
Friday, April 19, 2024
Advertisement
Home The Farm and Ranch Report Page 2

The Farm and Ranch Report

Random

Controlling Blackberries in Pastures . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Blackberries if left unchecked can quickly spread in a pasture and reduce the amount of grazeable acres. The same competitive characteristics which make blackberries relatively easy to grow in a home or commercial setting make them a persistent foe in your pasture or rangeland.

If you plan on spraying blackberries, DO NOT, and I repeat DO NOT mow or burn them for 2 years prior to spraying! Chemical control is most effective during bloom and fruit set stages of growth. This is when they are most susceptible to chemical uptake and translocation.

Blackberry is a perennial, thicket-forming shrub which is very invasive in our area. Each plant has a large lateral-growing root system that can sprout and produce additional plants. The rhizomatous root system is perennial, while the aboveground canes are biennial (living for two years). The first year, the canes or “new wood” emerge and grow rapidly; the second year, the canes bud and produce flowers and fruit. The canes subsequently die after fruiting. This root system is what makes them so competitive and difficult to control.

Currently, several herbicides list blackberry on their label. The most effective herbicides are those which contain metsulfuron or triclopyr ester (Remedy Ultra, others). PastureGard HL (triclopyr + fluroxypyr) and triclopyr ester (Remedy Ultra, others) can safely be applied when blooming, but retreatment the following year will probably be required to achieve control near 100%. Remedy Ultra is very effective at a 1% solution for spot treatments, or 1-2 pints/acre for a broadcast treatment. Good control is dependent on good soil moisture and actively growing plants. Glyphosate is also effective as a 1-1.5% solution for spot-treatments. I have also had good luck using Tordon or Velpar as undiluted spot treatments, applied to the soil in a grid, on 5 ft. centers, at a rate of 9ccs per spot.

These herbicides cause rapid blackberry defoliation and are effective at controlling other weed and brush species. Complete blackberry eradication is probably not possible but acceptable results will likely require multiple applications/years and/or tactics.

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.

45-Day Weaning . . . Why?

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

I had a producer ask me the other day why some value-added calf programs, specifically the Oklahoma Quality Beef Network, required a 45-day post-weaning preconditioning period. Well, the short answer is that buyers are willing to pay for it, as evidenced by the $12-15/cwt premium that OQBN calves earn over they typical sale day run of calves. The reason, or justification, of that premium is detailed below, in an excerpt from an article by Glen Selk, OSU Emeritus Extension Beef Specialist, in a recent Cow/Calf Corner Newsletter.

“Data from Iowa from over a nine-year period in a couple of their feedout tests compared the health status of calves weaned less than 30 days to calves weaned longer than 30 days. Data from over 2000 calves were summarized. Calves that had been sent to a feedlot at a time less than 30 days had a higher incidence of bovine respiratory disease (28%) compared to calves weaned longer than 30 days (13%). The percentage of calves that required 3 or more treatments also was significantly different (6% versus 1%) in favor of calves that had been weaned more than 30 days. In fact, the calves weaned less than 30 days were not different in health attributes than calves that were weaned on the way to the feedlot. 

A summary of this lengthy study can be found on line at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/asl-1648.pdf.  Vac-45 calves apparently have a real advantage in terms of health compared to calves weaned for less than a month or those weaned on the way to the livestock market for sale date. Certainly, part of the “value” in value-added calves can be attributed to properly applied vaccinations. However, there is little doubt that a portion of the improved health is due to the length of time between weaning and the movement of calves to the next owner. 

Information about the Oklahoma Quality Beef Network (OQBN) value added calf sales can be found at http://oqbn.okstate.edu .”

In summary, immunologists say that research shows that a 45-day post-weaning preconditioning period ensures the maximum benefit of the weaning vaccination protocol and ensures that the calves are past the incubation period for any pathogen that the calves may have been exposed to before, at, or just after weaning.

Now is a good time to begin planning for next year’s OQBN sales and capturing significant premiums on your calf crop.

Increased Efficiency of the Wheat Pasture-Stocker Enterprise

As of this writing, the National Weather Service is promising predicting a 100% chance of rain, which should have fallen before you read this. So, maybe we can save some wheat fields and stockpile some grazeable forage prior to dormancy. With that thought in mind, there are ways to increase the efficiency of the wheat pasture/stocker enterprise.

  Research from Oklahoma State University has shown that we can achieve this increased efficiency while managing bloat. The Oklahoma Green Gold Supplementation Program was developed with the idea of providing a small package energy supplement to complement high protein wheat pasture. Wheat and other small grains pasture contain more protein than calves can utilize. By adding a small amount of energy to the nutrient profile, calves are better able to utilize the protein which in turn makes them more efficient in converting forage to weight gain. 

  Some producers are comfortable providing supplements free choice in a self-feeder, but others prefer to hand-feed supplements, allowing closer observation of animals and intake. The Green Gold Program works perfectly in a hand feeding system, allowing cattle to be fed an ionophore-containing supplement at a rate of two pounds/hd/day or four pounds/hd every other day. The base of the supplement would be energy feed sources such as corn, milo, wheat midds, or soybean hulls and a mineral package balanced to meet requirements of cattle on small grains pasture. Minerals of most concern for cattle on wheat pasture are calcium and phosphorus.  Blends can vary from one company to the next but calves on small grains pasture should provide a mineral blend with at least 12-16% calcium and no more than 6-8% phosphorus. In addition, ionophores such as Bovatec (Lasalocid) or Rumensin (Monensin), included at proper dosages would be icing on the cake to manage bloat and improve efficiency.

  An OSU study testing the Green Gold program found that steers receiving the monensin-containing energy supplement gained 0.25 pounds per steer per day more than those cattle consuming a only a free choice mineral without monensin.  Costs of mineral containing monensin can be high (~$1200/ton) and supplements can be expensive depending on the year.  However, if producers break down the cost of consumption on a per head basis, the costs are really minimal. Based on a consumption rate of 0.15 – 0.20 pounds per day and varying feed prices, costs are approximately $0.20 per animal each day. Improved daily gains of 0.20 – 0.40 pounds provides the economic incentive to consider a supplementation program if time and labor constraints allow. 

Why not consider options to manage risk and increase efficiency in your stocker calves this fall?  Call your local feed consultant to price products that would benefit stocker calves, then pencil the products into the budget to see how they might work in your specific operation.

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.


Armyworm Control Measures . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Well, we are deep into a Fall armyworm infestation that may be 3-4 times, or more, worse than I have ever seen. Established control thresholds are 2-3 caterpillars per foot of row in newly emergent small grains and 3-4 caterpillars in established pastures, such as Bermuda or small grains fields. I am seeing 15-20 caterpillars per square foot in many places! Many of you have already sprayed, but do not rest easy thinking this is the last you will have to worry about them.

Depending on when we get our first frost, there could be one or two more generations of these pests before Mother Nature provides some relief. Our average first frost is November 10, and given how the law of averages works it could be two weeks earlier or two weeks later in a given year. One complete life cycle of the Fall armyworm takes 2-3 weeks, about 10-14 days as feeding caterpillar, 8-9 days in the pupal stage, and 1-3 days as egg-laying adult moths. Once new eggs are lain, new caterpillars hatch about 3 days later to begin the feeding cycle again. So, if our first frost occurs near the November 10th average date, we could see at least one and possibly two more cycles. If we have a late frost, we could see three more generations.

 The decision to spray should be based on the cost of control versus the value of the forage in question. If the loss of the forage means a substantially increased reliance on feed and hay this winter or replanting small grains fields, then control is likely an economically feasible option. Beyond that, the choice of a control product labeled for Fall armyworm control is largely driven by the cost of application and availability. 

There are a multitude of products commercially available for the control of Fall armyworms and, unfortunately, most of them will only have a 2 or 3-day window of residual activity. Many of the products have no grazing or haying restrictions, but some will have a 3 to 14-day grazing or haying restriction.

The salient point is that I would advise scouting fields at least every other day until we get a frost, and maybe invest in a HUGE flock of chickens (weak attempt at humor). 

If you have questions regarding control strategies for Fall armyworms, feel free to contact me via phone (Carter County OSU Extension 580/223-6570; Jefferson County OSU Extension 580/228-2332) or email: Leland.mcdaniel@okstate.edu.

The Farm and Ranch Report

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Livestock Risk Protection Insurance

Listening to Derrell Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, speak this past week, one might conclude that profit margins may be a little tighter in the coming year or two. According to Derrell, we may have reached a plateau on the national cow herd expansion and, subsequently, the potential for higher prices. If so, and IF is a big word, it would seem that management and marketing skills will become much more prominent in determining the profitability of the cattle enterprise; or, in a worst-case scenario, minimizing the down-side risks of market prices.

 With those thoughts in mind, I found the following comments, courtesy of OSU Extension Area Ag Economist Trent Milack, of particular interest.

Livestock Risk Protection is an insurance product that protects against declines in cattle prices. In the past, the main focus when raising cattle has been on the production side. Arguably, this is still true. However, price is at the forefront of many producer’s minds due to recent cattle market volatility.

Livestock Risk Protection can be purchased through a livestock insurance agent. This product insures between 1 and 1,000 head at a time with a total of 2,000 insurable head per year. The length of the insurance coverage varies from 13, 17, 21, 26, 30, 34, 39, 43, 47, or 52 weeks. Insurance can be purchased on calves, steers or heifers, which fall in the weight classes of Weight 1 (under 600 pounds) or Weight 2 (600-900 pounds).

Coverage levels vary between 70 percent and 100 percent of the expected ending value of the animals. The coverage options available vary each day so it is important for producers to check the RMA website https://public.rma.usda.gov/livestockreports/main.aspx daily to determine which coverage options are available. The ending values of the policy are based upon the weighted average prices reported in the CME Group Feeder Cattle Index. This index is used to settle the Feeder cattle contracts.

An indemnity payment is triggered if the actual ending value is lower than the coverage price. This has nothing to do with what the producer receives for the animals in the cash market when he sells the cattle. Indemnity payments will only occur if the price declines below the coverage level during the coverage period. Also, the producer must own the cattle and have taken delivery of them in order to qualify for the insurance coverage.

An example of the insurance coverage includes a producer who wants to use LRP to put a floor on his 2019 steer crop. He normally sells in the middle of March and his steers currently weigh 500 pounds. His herd consists of 100 predominately Angus cross steers.

The insurance is purchased in October so he needs 26 weeks of coverage. The option he selects includes feeder cattle steers for the 2019 crop year with an expected ending value of $136.794 per cwt. He chooses a 99% coverage level with a coverage price of $135.040 per cwt. The premium will be $6.889 per cwt. He expects the steers to gain 250 pounds over the course of this coverage. The premium is calculated by multiplying the final weight in cwt. by the premium cost per cwt. and the number of head covered. So 7.5 cwt. X $6.889 X 100 hd. = $5,166.75. RMA subsidizes 13 percent of the premium cost so the producer will be responsible to pay $5,166.75 X .87 = $4,495.07.

In the event that on March 31st the actual value is below the coverage price of $135.040 per cwt., an indemnity payment will be triggered. If prices fall to $120.00 cwt., the producer would be paid a premium in the following example. The price decline in this example is $135.040 – $120.00 = $15.04. The producer’s payment is 100 hd. X 7.5 cwt. X $15.04 = $11,280.00. This farmer received an indemnity payment of $11,280.00 on 100 steers for the cost of $44.95 per head. While there is no way to know what the actual ending price will be, this is an option to manage downside price risk.

Perils not covered include death, government seizure, and forced destruction. If one of these events do occur, the producer is required to notify their insurance agent within 72 hours of the occurrence of the loss. By giving notice of the loss, the producer will have the affected livestock included if an indemnity is payable on the endorsement. Not giving notice of the loss will result in the affected livestock being excluded from the indemnity calculation and the premium will not be refunded.

Some producers are aware of hedging and the ways that they can manage price risk in the futures markets. There are many reasons, however, why producers do not utilize this option. They may not have enough cattle to fill an entire contract, they may be reluctant to pay brokerage fees and margin calls, or they just do not understand the complicated world of futures markets and are uncomfortable with that risk management system. Livestock Risk Protection allows a producer to tailor the insurance coverage to the number of cattle he needs to insure at a price where he will remain profitable.

The application for Livestock Risk Protection can be filled out at any time, but insurance does not come attached until a specific endorsement is made. The insurance coverage will begin when a specific endorsement is made and approved by RMA.

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.

Why is Body Condition Important in Cow/Calf Operations? . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Well, this year’s calving season is already in the books. At the very least, we are too far along to make any considerable body condition changes in those females that are still to calve. However, it is not too late to begin planning for next year and now is a good time to evaluate the impact of body condition and rebreeding success in the coming weeks. Let’s set the stage for this discussion.

Reproductive efficiency is the single most significant economic metric of a cow/calf enterprise. In layman’s terms, a beef cow’s primary function is to produce a healthy calf, but an efficient beef cow’s primary function is to produce a healthy calf every 365 days. If they are not producing a calf within a 365-day interval, something is amiss and profits are declining. So, what does this have to do with body condition? Answer: everything.

Nature dictates that a cow’s primary job, and therefore her priority for nutrient intake and utilization, is to provide for her calf. If nutrition is limiting, she will undertake this primary task at the expense of her own flesh, pulling energy reserves from stored fat (external and intermuscular fat depositions) to provide milk for the nursing calf. Nature further dictates that if she cannot adequately care for the nursing calf AND maintain her own body condition, she will not be allowed to conceive another calf. Nature says we must take care of the living first, before we can conceive another generation. Mother Nature is a wise old Dame.

Insuring that cows have adequate stored energy reserves (body condition) is the only way that we can give that cow an opportunity to be “efficient”, or to calve every year within that 365-day interval. So, to assess body condition, we have assigned a numerical system (1-9) to differentiate between various degrees of stored fat reserves. Extensive research has proven that there is a strong correlation between these Body Condition Scores and a cow’s ability to return to estrous and conceive in a timely manner. Considering that the gestation period for cattle is 9 months, which means she needs to cycle and rebreed within 60-90 days after calving if she is going to meet the 365-day calving interval. The following graph is a summary of six herds in four states, showing the effect of body condition on rebreeding success.

You can readily see that cows in a body condition score of 6 or higher, immediately prior to calving, rebreed in a timely manner at a rate of 50% greater than those cows in a body condition score of 4 or less. What is the end result? Simply put, it means that, in a 100-cow herd, 50 more cows will calve again within the 365-day interval, and that means more pounds of weaned calf weight to market and older, more developed heifers to select replacements from. To give some visual perspective, below are a couple images representing those two groups of females.

Mature cows should calve in a Body Condition Score of 5 or 6 and, due to their higher nutrient demand, first-calf heifers should calve at a BCS 6. Logically then, evaluating Body Condition Scores, on the spring-calving cows, again this fall at weaning time will give you some time to plan your winter supplement program so as to add some body condition prior to the throes of winter and late-gestation, when it becomes very difficult and expensive to add weight and condition to cows.

Stay tuned next week and we will discuss how a cow’s Body Condition Score also affects the health of her calf.

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 (student, faculty, or staff) 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

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

Udder Soundness Affects Weaning Weights & Calf Health

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Udder soundness and teat quality are one of my pet peeves, and it seems to me that the problem has become much worse over the last 30 years or so. I can only assume that our unending pursuit of increased milking ability, in our cow herds, has facilitated this situation, to a large degree. Dr. Glenn Selk, OSU Professor Emeritus, Oklahoma State University, wrote an excellent article in the most recent Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Services Cow/Calf Corner Newsletter.

Every year at “preg” checking time, ranchers evaluate cows and make decisions as which to remove from the herd. One criteria that should be examined to cull cows is udder quality. Beef cattle producers are not as likely to think about udder health and shape as are dairy producers, but this attribute affects cow productivity and should be considered. It may be easier to be accurate in your culling decisions, if you examine the udder soundness of the cows shortly after calving when they are at the peak of lactation and the udder is as large as at any time. Take time now during the peak of lactation to write down which spring-calving cows have unsound udders.  Record the cow numbers of those to be culled next fall due to unsound udders. Their heifer calves would be undesirable prospects to become replacement heifers for your herd.

The heritability estimates of udder characteristics are variable. A study done in Brahman cattle for the heritability of udder soundness indicated that progress could be made by selecting for udder soundness. They reported that 25% of the differences in udder soundness was due to genetics. Beef Improvement Federation Guidelines have suggested that the heritability of udder soundness in beef cattle is estimated at .16 to .22 which means that some progress can be made by selecting against unsound udders.

Recent research at Kansas State University (Bradford, 2014 KSU Cattlemen’s Day) with large numbers of Hereford data has given even greater hope that improvement in udder quality can be made. They found heritabilities of .32 for overall udder score, .31 for suspension, and .28 for teat size. Additionally, genetic correlations between traits were strong (.83). This means that selection for one trait (teat size or suspension) will result in improvement in the other trait.

An experiment conducted at the OSU Range Cow Research Center near Stillwater gives some indication as to the impact of mastitis on beef cow performance. They found that cows with one or two dry quarters had calves with severely reduced weaning weights (50 – 60 pounds) compared to cows with no dry quarters. This represents a sizeable economic loss at weaning time. 

An evaluation system for udder soundness has been developed and used by some breeds.  Teat shape and udder suspension are the two primary characteristics evaluated. Below are photos of unsound udders.

The first photo is an example of a cow with mastitic funnel-shaped teats. New-born calves will find it difficult to nurse such a teat, and some may be so severely infected that they become unproductive (dry). The second photo is an example of a weakened suspensory ligament. This udder may cause the teats to be very low to the ground and be difficult for the newborn calf to find to receive the colostrum that it needs in a timely manner.

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.

Why Hay Quality Matters and Have You Tested?

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

By and large, the 2019 hay crop is, as they say, “in the barn.” Meeting the supplemental protein needs for the cows and replacement heifers consuming that forage must be done properly and economically. Protein is a vital nutrient for the ruminant because protein is necessary for the multiplication of, and the feed digestion by the microbes in the rumen. The microbial population in the rumen of cows is largely responsible for digesting cellulose in standing or harvested forages.

Higher quality forages are more readily digested in the rumen and have higher rate of passage through the digestive tract of the cow than do lower quality roughages. Therefore, the cow can consume more of the high-quality forage on a daily basis and receives more total digestible nutrients (TDN) from each pound of feed consumed. If adequate protein is available to cows consuming lower quality roughages, then the rate of passage and the digestibility is improved compared to cows that are inadequately supplemented while consuming the same low-quality forage.

Producers may be surprised to know the large differences in protein supplement needed to meet the cow’s requirement depending on the quality of forage that makes up most of the diet. Below is a table of the pounds of 40% protein supplement needed daily for moderate-sized (1100 pound) beef cows in different stages of production and consuming differing quality of grass hays. Larger cows and cows that produce above average milk production will consume more forage and need even more supplement to match their requirements. The table above describes the protein-only needs of the beef cow. Energy deficiency may occur and result in some weight and body condition loss. Energy needs will be increased if cows are already in thin body condition and must be improved before calving next spring. Also, winter weather conditions can greatly increase energy needs. In many instances, the energy requirements can be met with lower protein supplements (for example 20% protein range supplements) fed at about twice the rate as noted in the table above.

Forage quality differences are important, whether the supplement choice is high protein (40%) or lower protein (20% protein). Learn about testing hay for protein content by visiting with your OSU County Extension Office or downloading Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet PSS- 2589 Collecting Forage Samples for Analysis.

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.

Bloat Management in Grazing Cattle . . .

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Recent rains and warming temperatures has spawned a flush of growth on dormant and drought-stressed wheat pasture. With the new lush growth and increased intake often comes an increased risk of bloat.

Ruminants are able to consume so many different types of ingredients because the rumen serves as a large fermentation vat that houses microbes that break down feeds into nutrients. This is a very effective way to convert grass and grain to milk or meat. This fermentation process produces large amounts of gas, which could cause a digestive problem known as ruminal tympany, aka “bloat”.

Normally the rumen gas is expelled by eructation (belching). Any condition that interferes with that release will cause an over-distension of the rumen and reticulum. This condition is most common in cattle, but can occur in sheep and goats as well.

There are two main types of bloat and each one is caused by a different mechanism. The primary tympany is also known as frothy bloat. This frothy bloat is when the small bubbles of fermented gas is trapped in a stable foam, which cannot be eructated. This type of bloat most commonly occurs in two situations; the first being animals on pastures, especially pastures containing legumes such as clover or alfalfa. Legumes are rapidly digested in the rumen and this results in a high concentration of fine particles that tend to trap gas bubbles, but it is not only animal’s digestive system that contributes to this problem, it is also the attributes of the plants containing soluble proteins that act as foaming agents. Animals being exposed to new lush forage growth, or animals that are moved in and out of the pasture are more prone to bloating on pasture. The second situation that frequently causes a frothy bloat is animals in feedlot environment, especially when animals are being fed high levels of finely ground grains. Digestion of the grain increases due to the grinding which also produces a multitude of fine particles that can trap gas bubbles. In addition, there are some microbes that can produce an insoluble slime that aides in producing a stable foam when fed a high concentrate diet.

The secondary tympany or free gas bloat is caused when an animal cannot eructate (belch) the free gas built up in the rumen. This is largely due to an obstruction in the esophagus such as foreign bodies, abscesses or tumors. Another possibility might be the animal’s posture. Too often we find animals laying with their backs downhill, and in this position the animal cannot physically eructate.

The clinical signs of bloat are easy to identify on an animal, as there will be large protrusion of the rumen showing prominently on the animal’s left side. The animal will show signs of anxiety and rapid breathing possibly with their neck extended with their tongue out. Once an animal exhibits staggering and lays down, death will occur rapidly. If an animal is bloated, it can be treated by inserting a trocar and cannula through the side of the animal into the rumen cavity. If the cannula is inserted and provides some relief, an antifoaming agent such as vegetable oils or mineral oils should be administered through the cannula into the rumen. Another option could be to pass a stomach tube with a large bore down the animal’s esophagus. This is another great opportunity to administer an antifoaming agent. In either case watch the animal closely for the next couple of hours. For a frothy bloat, switching the animal to a higher roughage diet will be advisement. Reducing the incidence of bloat can be accomplished with pasture and feed management and/or through the use of Poloxalene, which can be fed as a topdressing on feed, in a grain mixture, in liquid supplements, or in molasses blocks. Because poloxalene is relatively expensive, some producers reduce the dosage or eliminate its use after livestock have been grazing pasture for several weeks or the conditions that favor the incidence of bloat decline. Another common management practices is to provide supplements or molasses blocks containing a bloat-reducing ionophore (example: Rumensin®).

Some animals are just more prone to bloat than others and some are even considered chronic bloaters. Management and a producer’s best efforts will not show much improvement in a chronic animal’s condition.

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, U.S. Department of Agriculture, State and Local Governments Cooperating. The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of age, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, national origin, disability or status as a veteran, and is an equal opportunity employer.

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.

1234Page 2 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