79.5 F
Waurika
Saturday, May 4, 2024
Advertisement

Lactating Cows Need More Protein and Energy . . .

As the spring calving season gets underway, we often feel a sense of relief when we get live calves on the ground and our attention then turns to the remaining cows that are yet to calve. However, we shouldn’t lose focus of the nursing cows and their increased dietary needs. Now, it requires protein and energy not only to maintain flesh and core body functions during inclement weather, but also to fuel milk production, and Mother Nature dictates that if a cow’s protein and energy requirements are not adequate to satisfy all these biological demands, she will sacrifice her body mass to provide for the newborn nursing calf. Dr. Glen Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist, offers a concise overview of the nursing cow’s increased protein and energy needs.

Beef cow owners have known for years that body condition at calving time is a critical determinant in the re-breeding performance of the cows during the next breeding season. Another key factor that impacts return to estrus cycles and re-breeding is the maintenance or loss of body condition after calving and before breeding. Cows losing body condition after calving and before the breeding season will be slower to return to heat cycles and rebreed at a lower rate. Therefore it is necessary that the cow manager understand the change in nutrient requirements of beef cows as they change from gestating cows to early lactation cows.

Using an example of a 1200 pound cow in late gestation, one can examine the nutrient increases as she delivers the calf and starts to lactate. Look in the Oklahoma State University Extension Circular E-974 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle. A 1200 pound late gestation cow requires 1.9 pounds of crude protein daily and 12.9 pounds of Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN). She can consume voluntarily 24 pounds of dry matter feed/day. The same cow after calving will weigh at least 100 pounds less (birth weight of calf, placenta, and fluid loss). An 1100 pound cow in early lactation requires 2.9 pounds of protein each day. That is a 52% increase in protein needs. Her energy requirements go up substantially as well.  She needs 16.8 pounds of TDN each day (if she is an average milking beef cow). This represents a 30% increase in energy intake per day.  Her daily dry matter intake also increases from 24 to 29 pounds but this represents only a 20% increase. If the 30% crude protein supplement being consumed is increased by 3.3 pounds, the protein requirement is met and most of the additional energy needs are fulfilled. Her voluntary increase of 2 pounds of hay per day should make up the remaining gap.

As we examine this example it is very clear that the cow will voluntarily consume a small increase in dry matter, however her needs in protein and energy both increase in larger percentages. Therefore an increase in both diet quality and quantity is necessary after calving to insure that body condition is maintained into and through the breeding season.

As a follow-up to Dr. Selk’s comments, I would remind you that cows can suffer some dietary deficiencies and still provide for the calf, but it will be at the expense of her own body condition and, as Dr. Selk points out, that has repercussions for recycling and rebreeding. In other words, the current body condition on nursing cows will have an impact on next year’s calf crop, and remember that reproductive efficiency is the most significant economic measure of a cow/calf operation.

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 Farm and Ranch Report

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.

Udder Soundness Affects Weaning Weights & Calf Health

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.

Limit-Grazing Wheat Pasture for the Cow Herd

Last week, we discussed limit-grazing as a management strategy to increase the efficiency of utilizing wheat pasture as a winter supplement program for the cow herd. In that vein of discussion, it is commonly thought that wheat pasture may cause reduced or delayed conception rates for heifers and cows during the spring breeding season. A recent article by Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist, in the OSU Extension Cow/Calf Corner Newsletter, addresses this subject.

Southern plains producers with cow calf operations may be looking to wheat pasture this winter as much of the winter feed supply.  Some producers may have questions about the utilization of wheat pasture for growing replacement heifers or cows before, during, and after the spring breeding season.  Anecdotal reports of unsatisfactory breeding performance have surfaced when replacement heifers have been exposed to bulls or AI while grazing wheat forages.  Therefore an Oklahoma State University study (http://afs.okstate.edu/research/reports/2009/page) was conducted to compare reproductive performance of heifers grazing wheat pasture before, and during breeding, with heifers grazing wheat pasture until approximately 3 weeks before breeding. 

In each of two years, 40 spring born Angus and Angus crossbred heifers were placed on wheat pasture in December and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups in mid- March.  Group one (Wheat Pasture; n=20) remained on wheat pasture (mean crude protein = 26.6 %) through estrus synchronization and fixed-time AI.  Group two (Dry Lot; n=20) was placed in drylot and had free choice access to a corn-based growing ration (11.1% crude protein) through estrus synchronization and fixed time AI.  The heifers were inseminated on about April 5 both years.  Heifers were exposed to fertile bulls starting 10 days after fixed time AI for 45 more days.  Fixed time AI conception was determined at 32 days after AI by ultrasonography.   

The percentage of heifers cycling at the start of estrous synchronization was 75% and 55% for Wheat Pasture and Dry Lot, respectively.  Weights of Dry Lot heifers were slightly heavier than Wheat Pasture heifers (897 vs. 867 pounds) at the time of AI but were similar at ultrasound (917 vs. 910 pounds).  Conception rate to fixed time AI was similar for Wheat Pasture (54%) and Dry Lot (43%) and final pregnancy rate was similar for Wheat Pasture (98%) and Dry Lot (88%).  Reproductive performance of heifers grazing wheat pasture during estrus synchronization and Fixed time AI was similar to heifers consuming a corn-based growing diet.  Source: Bryant and co-workers. 2011. February issue. The Professional Animal Scientist.  Most Oklahoma spring calving operations will begin the breeding season a little later in April when the wheat plant will be even more mature and lower in protein content. 

Kansas State University looked at grazing wheat pasture, before and during breeding with first and second calf cows.  They compared the fixed time AI and final pregnancy rates for cows on wheat with cows on native rangeland.  Five years of data were summarized in the 2011 KSU Cattlemen’s Day Report.  The AI pregnancy rates were 51.7% and 57.7% for wheat pasture and rangeland respectively.  The final pregnancy rates after a natural breeding clean up breeding season were very similar at 94.4% and 95.9% respectively.  They concluded: “This trial showed no evidence that the high protein diet of wheat pasture reduces pregnancy rate of beef cows. However, because timing of the breeding season remained constant, protein content of the diet may have moderated prior to breeding.” Source: Johnson, S.K. 2011 KSU Cattlemen’s Day Summary.

The take-home conclusion is that research has shown wheat pasture to have no adverse effect on conception rates of beef females. Wheat pasture remains an excellent winter forage supplement program and, if managed correctly, can be a cost-efficient alternative to traditional supplement programs.

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.

Is Your Mineral Program Sufficient?

0

The proper balance of protein, energy, vitamins and all nutritionally important minerals is needed to make a successful nutrition program. Nutrient balance is the key to any effective nutrition program. 

Minerals and vitamins account for a very small proportion of daily intake in cow diets and can be overlooked due to misunderstanding the importance of adequate mineral nutrition and because of the cost of supplementation. However, proper mineral and vitamin nutrition contributes to a strong immune system, reproductive efficiency, and weight gain. Mineral deficiencies often go undetected since visible reductions in performance are not visible immediately. In fact, visible signs such as decreased bred back percentages may not show up till the following year. Even though forages may be green and lush providing adequate protein and energy, most all forages are deficient in one or more trace minerals. 

As our knowledge of minerals grows, we are finding out that minerals may limit production in better-managed herds to a much greater extent than generally recognized. The most limiting factor in an operation dictates productivity. In many operations, the mineral program is the most limiting factor. In many grass pastures, phosphorus is frequently the most limiting nutrient. Whereas, in small grain pastures such as wheat or oats, calcium and/or magnesium are frequently more limiting. 

Forage surveys have suggested that the trace minerals, copper and zinc, may be limiting nutrients in many situations. In national and Oklahoma forage surveys (~6,300 samples), the average copper and zinc levels were 6.2 and 23.4 ppm, respectively, as compared to suggested requirements of 10 and 30 ppm. In forage samples (1,113 samples) collected by Britt Hick, OSU Extension Area Livestock Specialist over the last several years in Oklahoma and Texas, only 14.6% provided adequate zinc and 39.4% were adequate in copper. Cattle cannot perform to their genetic potential even if you meet over 100% of their protein and energy needs but fail to meet their mineral needs.

These surveys suggest that nearly all forages are deficient in one or more minerals and that there is a widespread occurrence of deficient levels of copper and zinc for beef cattle grazing forages. This is further complicated by the fact that the availability of minerals may be affected by the distribution and form of mineral in the feedstuff, as well as interactions with other minerals or dietary components that inhibit absorption or utilization of a given mineral.  Research has shown that mineral deficiencies in ruminants fed forages often result from low availability rather than low concentration of a given mineral. Just because minerals can be found in plants does not mean they are available to the animal. Soil mineral level, soil pH, climatic and seasonal conditions, plant species and stage of plant maturity all factor into mineral content and bioavailability in forages. For these reasons, it is important that cattle be on a good, balanced mineral program to optimize performance. 

Feeding a trace mineralized salt block is not a complete mineral program. The high salt content (often 90 to almost 100 percent salt) limits consumption substantially. In addition, such salt blocks generally contain extremely low levels of trace minerals. Salt blocks are cheaper and if cattle only consume a very small amount of it that makes it even cheaper. However, they are not more economical because cutting costs by feeding trace-mineralized salt instead of a complete free-choice mineral supplement can cost you quite a bit in the long run. In summary, adequate minerals should always be available in any operation. Recognize the role minerals play in good health as well as fertility and growth. Frequently, the first thing a producer cuts from his program during tight times is the mineral program. Cutting the mineral program is never recommended since minerals are important in maintaining reproduction and performance.  Cutting minerals out of a feeding program may reduce cost in the short term but will reduce returns and effectively increase cost over the long term. Some researchers would suggest that marginal deficiencies in minerals probably are more costly to producers than are the added profits from feed additive such as ionophores.

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.

Armyworm Control Measures . . .

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.

Buying vs. Raising Replacement Females

J.J. Jones, OSU Extension Area Ag Economist, offered the following article in the latest edition of the OSU S.E. Area News & Notes newsletter. 

It has been an age-old debate. Is it better to raise your replacement heifers or purchase them? The question brings a lot of opinions and arguments. There are both advantages and disadvantages for each. Producers must consider each of them before making their decision.

The first table below outlines some of the main advantages and disadvantages of raising versus buying replacement heifers. Some of these points will be more important than others for different producers. For example, the only advantage listed for raising replacements is that the producer knows the genetics of their heifers. This could be important for producers that have spent considerable effort in selecting for specific traits and attributes. But for a producer that has not been managing for specific genetic traits and has a common set of commercial cows this might not be as important.

Producers need to determine what is the most important for them and their operation and make the decision based on that criteria. For most producers, one of the more important criteria is cost. What is the cost of raising replacements versus buying them? The remainder of this article will focus on that very question.

The second table compares the costs associated with buying a 4-5 month bred cow and raising a heifer until her first calf is sold. It is assumed that the purchased cow will have two calves in the same time that it takes a weaned heifer to be bred, calve and wean that calf.

When comparing the returns and costs for the first two years of buying versus raising it shows that there is a slight cost advantage to raising replacements over buying them. Although, the results are close enough that one might consider it to be a wash. Keep in mind that no consideration was given to the possibility of calving difficulties, quality of first-born calf, poor breeding percentage, or poor growth rate. Everything is kept equal so just to consider the costs.

So, with the costs being about equal producers must consider the other ramifications of buying versus selling. Producers must consider their operations resources. Not only land availability, but also time availability and management. Producers need to consider the long-term effects on the operation’s cash flow from holding onto heifers instead of selling them. Can an operation withstand the decrease in revenue and be able to wait two years for the payoff? Producers will need to determine if they could improve the quality and production of their herd faster by purchasing replacements versus raising them from existing stock.

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.

Skid Steer Brush Control Considerations . . .

 With the recent increase in the popularity of skid steer attachments for brush removal, OSU has also seen an increase in the prevalence of questions related to chemically controlling re-sprouts that occur after the removal operation. While these pieces of equipment make the job easier, unfortunately, if used alone they also reduce the effectiveness of foliar herbicide applications on re-sprouting brush species in the near future.

While species such as Eastern redcedar can be fully controlled by cutting them below their green limbs, some species of trees will regrow from buds present on the crown or root. Examples of crown budding species are oak, hickory, elm and Osage orange, while commonly encountered root budding species are honey locust and persimmon. This indicates that while clipping these trees will temporarily remove them from the landscape, they will also re-sprout from existing rootstock and return in the very near future.

The shoots mirror the roots

In general agronomy terms, the shoots (aboveground plant portion) of an unmolested plant typically have similar mass to the roots. This basic of plant physiology allows for efficient uptake of foliar applied herbicides and subsequent translocation to the root system, achieving desired long-term control.

However, if we remove the top growth of a re-sprouting species, the ratio of leaf surface area in relation to root mass has been reduced drastically and sufficient root kill through a foliar application of herbicide is likely impossible. In addition, there is a disproportionately large root system now supplying the small “sprout” with all the elements needed for fast regrowth in the short term ( See Figure 1 below).

Over the next few years, although the re-sprout continues to grow extremely fast, the photosynthesis occurring in the leaves is insufficient to supply the energy needed by the large root mass and therefore a portion of the root system dies back to a sustainable level for the plant. It is at this point when foliar herbicide applications become an option on the table once more.

  For this reason, dealing with root or crown sprouting species necessitates these options in decreasing order of preference (combination of control level, time and economics):

1. Apply chemical to the freshly cut stump of re-sprouting tree species.

a. Usually mixed with fuel oil, apply within 30 minutes of cutting.

2. Use an approved product/method to control trees prior to mechanical removal.

a. This could include foliar sprays or basal treatments.

3. Apply a post-harvest soil active herbicide labeled for the offending species.

a. Relies on root uptake and therefore rainfall, not reliable on clay soils.

4. Allow at least 3-4 years of regrowth before using a foliar spray application.

a. Allows time for increased leaf area and decreased root mass.

5. Spray a broadcast treatment option for 2-3 years in a row on re-sprouts.

a. While effective, this method is costly.

So, if you’re contemplating using a skid steer for mechanical tree removal, they are a great option. However, remember to consider the growth habit of the tree species at hand before firing up. Identify what species are present and if they are notorious for re-sprouting. Determine the proper and least cost herbicide treatment for consistent root control. Some tree saw/shear options come with an onboard herbicide reservoir and pump, allowing you to treat the cut stump from the cab. (Source: Brian Pugh, OSU Extension Area Agronomist; June 2018 Timely Topics)

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.

FOLLOW US

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

RECENT POSTS