73.3 F
Waurika
Friday, April 26, 2024
Advertisement
Home The Farm and Ranch Report

The Farm and Ranch Report

Most popular

Vesicular Stomatitis

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

We have been notified of the first cases of Vesicular Stomatitis in the United States in over three years. VS is considered a Foreign Animal Disease and is a Reportable Disease in Oklahoma.

So far cases have been discovered in Kinney County and Tom Green County in Texas, Weld County in Colorado, and Sandoval County in New Mexico. Oklahoma has been fortunate to not have cases of VS during the last few outbreaks, but we have had cases in the past and it is very possible we can have them this year.

Vesicular stomatitis (VS) is a viral disease that primarily affects horses and cattle and occasionally swine, sheep, goats, llamas, and alpacas. VS has been confirmed only in the Western Hemisphere.  It is known to be an endemic disease in the warmer regions of North, Central, and South America, and outbreaks of the disease in other temperate geographic parts of the hemisphere occur sporadically. The Southwestern and Western United States have experienced a number of vesicular stomatitis outbreaks, the most recent and largest VS outbreak occurred in 2015. Outbreaks usually occur during the warmer months, often along waterways.  The time from exposure to the onset of clinical signs is 2-8 days.

VS is spread by insect vectors and direct contact with infected animals. Black flies, sand flies, and midges are the known vectors of this disease, but other insects may also be capable of transmission. Infected animals shed the virus from the lesions (blisters) they develop, so direct contact with infected animals or water, feed, buckets, and other fomites contaminated with saliva from infected animals can also transmit the disease. The virus can also be spread on shoes, clothing, hands, and contaminated equipment.

In affected livestock, the incubation period for vesicular stomatitis ranges from 2 to 8 days. Often, excessive salivation is the first sign of the disease. Close examination of the mouth initially reveals blanched and raised vesicles or blister-like lesions on the inner surfaces of the lips, gums, tongue, and/or dental pad. In addition, these blister-like lesions can form on the lips, nostrils, coronary band, prepuce, vulva, and teats. The blisters swell and break, which causes oral pain and discomfort and reluctance to eat or drink. Lameness and severe weight loss may follow. Body temperature may rise immediately before or at the same time lesions fi rst appear. Dairy cattle often suffer from teat lesions and subsequent mastitis; a severe drop in milk production commonly occurs. Some affected dairy cattle can appear to be normal with no clearly visible signs of illness but may only eat about half of their normal feed intake. If there are no complications such as secondary infection, affected animals typically recover in about 2 weeks.

In horses, vesicular lesions generally occur on the upper surface of the tongue, the lips, around nostrils, corners of the mouth, and gums. Lesions in horses may also be expressed as crusting scabs on the muzzle, lips, or ventral abdomen.

Affected pigs usually first show signs of lameness caused by foot lesions.

There is no specific treatment or cure for vesicular stomatitis. Good sanitation and quarantine practices on affected farms usually contain the infection. When a definite diagnosis is made on a farm, the following procedures are recommended:

Separate animals with lesions from healthy animals, preferably by stabling. Animals on pastures tend to be affected more frequently with this disease.

As a precautionary measure, do not move animals from premises affected by vesicular stomatitis until at least 21 days after lesions in the last affected animal have healed.

Implement on-farm insect control programs that include the elimination or reduction of insect breeding areas and the use of insecticide sprays or insecticide-treated ear tags on animals.

Use personal protective measures when handling affected animals to avoid human exposure to this disease.

Please notify any of the regulatory veterinarians in Oklahoma if you suspect a patient has this disease.

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.

Not All Protein Ingredients are Created Equal

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

Crude protein is simply the percentage of nitrogen multiplied by 6.25. For beef cows, this simple measurement is adequate for formulating nutrient requirements. However, for growing animals it is important to understand that not all proteins are alike or preform the same. Crude protein in a ruminant animal can be broken down in the rumen (digestible protein), passed through the rumen to the other stomachs or to the hindgut for digestion (bypass protein), or is passed through the feces (undigestible protein).

When feeding ruminants, you are actually feeding two animals. The first being the microorganisms in the rumen and then feeding the animal. The microbes in the rumen require the protein to work efficiently at breaking down and digesting feedstuffs. The protein sources that feed the animal are the bypass protein, the volatile fatty acids and ammonia from microbe digestion, and the dead microbes themselves can be used as a protein in the hindgut.

Each feed ingredient has a certain amount of bypass protein that it contributes to the animal. Ingredients such as soybean meal, alfalfa hay, sunflower meal, feather meal, canola meal, peanut meal, and corn gluten feed contain only ten to thirty percent bypass protein. These feeds are commonly used when degradable protein is needed or when cost effective. A perfect time when one of these supplements is needed is in a situation with really low-quality forage (less than 4-5% crude protein), such as mature and dormant forage. The extra degradable protein these supplements provide will meet the protein requirements of the microbes.

Cottonseed meal and linseed meal are two very common ingredients used in ration formulation, and they contain between thirty to sixty percent bypass protein. We commonly compare soybean meal with cottonseed meal because of their availability and high levels of crude protein, but the degradable fractions of that protein are drastically different.

The feed ingredients with high levels of bypass protein are blood meal, fish meal, brewers grains, and distillers grains. The amount of bypass protein available is these supplements is the reason that they have become popular with producers growing stocker or feeder calves. They supply adequate amounts of protein to the rumen but also supply ample amounts of bypass protein to the animal for growth.

Ingredients such as urea and biuret are almost 100% degradable protein and provide no bypass protein to the animal. These ingredients do not supply any protein in the form of amino acids or peptides but only supply nitrogen to the microbes. Typically, animals consuming grain, silage, alfalfa, or lush pasture do not need to be supplement with rumen degradable protein.

So, when you are comparing supplements for your animals just remember that not all protein is the same. Find the protein source that best fits your situation at the most economical cost. If you have any questions about feeds and feeding, please contact your county’s OSU Extension office. (Source: Earl Ward, OSU Extension Area Livestock Specialist)

Reference: New Protein Values for Ingredients Used in Growing Cattle Rations. Fact Sheet G84-694. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=extensionhist

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.

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.

Is Your Mineral Program Sufficient?

By
Leland McDaniel
-
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.

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.

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.

Buying vs. Raising Replacement Females

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

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.

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.

Do Bigger Cows = More Weaning Weight and More Profit?

By
Leland McDaniel
-
0

 There is increasing concern about the long-term trend toward heavier beef cows. A recent study by Maples, Lusk and Peel (2016) shows that heavier carcasses have cost the U.S. beef industry $8.6 billion due to reduced consumer demand. Studies consistently find that consumers want thick-cut steaks. However, large ribeye and loin cross-sectional areas prevent retailers from serving thick steaks while maintaining desired portion size.

We recently evaluated how heavier cows impact the profitability of cow-calf producers. Data from the American Angus Association demonstrates that EPDs for mature weight have increased steadily since the late 1970s while frame size is unchanged. The data shows the genetic trend for Mature Height (MH) is relatively flat while Mature Weight (MW) has increased by nearly 40 pounds. Since frame size is un-changed, that means that the cow herd has added more muscle, bone, and visceral organ mass. Concurrent with the increase in weight, comes increased nutritional requirements and reduced stocking rates. The question then is: Are higher cow-weights economically justified given heavier weaning weights?

Using data on 3,000+ cows from three research stations in Oklahoma and Arkansas, we recently estimated calf weaning weights as a function of mature cow weight. The resulting function shows a less than linear increase in weaning weight as cow weight increases. This means that each additional pound of mature cow weight adds less to calf weaning weight. Weaning weights increase, but at a decreasing rate. So, increasing mature cow size from a 950# cow to a 1000# cow increases weaning weight by 6.8 pounds. However, increasing mature cow size from a 1750# cow to an 1800# cow increased weaning weight by only 4.7 pounds. Both increase mature weight by 50 pounds, but with different results.

Given that stocking rates decline as cow weight increases and weaning weights are concave in cow weight, heavier cows are unlikely to be the most profitable on a per acre basis—and our analysis confirmed this suspicion. Over all of the scenarios we considered (spring and fall calving, Angus cows and Brangus cows, native pasture and Bermuda pastures), lighter cows outperformed heavier cows over a ten-year time period when profits are computed per acre. Our model also considered the higher cull value of heavier cows, differences in stocking rates and supplemental feed costs, and price variations over time. In figure 3, per acre net present value of beef cows by mature weight is presented. Values fall from $39.75 per acre per head for 950# cows to $22.63 per acre per head for 1800# cows.

While results will differ for individual producers, the economics are pointing to reducing cow weights to improve economic returns. Even if our analyses are off by 20%, the economically-optimal mature cow weight is under 1200#.

So, how does a producer with heavy cows adjust cow weight? Just as it has taken the industry several years to reach the current situation, producers will need to adjust over time. Reestablish a maternal line in the herd. Breed cows with desirable phenotypic and genotypic traits to moderate

MW EPD bulls and retain heifer calves that are both phenotypically and genotypically attractive but have a lower projected mature weight. It could take up to ten years to replace heavy cows, but the economics point to improved profitability. (Source: OSU Extension Master Cattleman Quarterly newsletter; Volume 39, June 2018)

     The take home message is that heavier cows are not the path to heavier weaning weights. There is a point of diminishing returns and it is a very inefficient process. Put simply, in my best Economist language, more/bigger/heavier is not always better or more profitable. Just as “variety is the spice of life”, moderation is the key to longevity and sustainability.

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.

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.

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