A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130

and the

OSU Extension BEEF Team

BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor

You may subscribe to this weekly BEEF Cattle letter by sending a blank e-mail to beef-cattle-on@ag.osu.edu

Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter

Issue # 567

December 19, 2007

Winter Manure Application - Tami Combs and Jon Rausch, Ohio State University Extension, Environmental Management Program

Over the past several years, manure nutrient recycling has come under scrutiny, particularly when applied on frozen or snow covered ground. Producers should take additional precautions when applying manure under less than ideal field conditions. This is especially true during the winter.

Protecting water quality should be a primary objective when applying nutrients. Sudden changes in weather that are typical of late fall/early winter and late winter/early spring increase the potential of manure to move off-sight. Sudden weather changes may lead to manure runoff from farm fields that can pollute nearby creeks, streams and waterways. This impacts the environment, the public's image of production agriculture and reduces the available nutrients for the next crop. Ultimately, any manure entering our water resources is violation of the state's agricultural pollution abatement laws.

Best Management Practices identified by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practice Standard 633, Waste Utilization can help avoid these situations. By following the guidelines in this Practice Standard, manure nutrients can be efficiently recycled and the risk of pollution significantly reduced. However, producers should keep in mind that manure applied in the winter has a higher risk of moving off-sight than will manure that has been incorporated under ideal conditions. Application of manure to frozen or snow covered ground is not recommended and should be done only when deemed necessary due to extreme situations.

Such situations typically arise from a lack of storage capacity or inflexibility in spreading schedule due to limited storage. Some producers also take advantage of the availability of labor and equipment and the reduction of compaction on frozen soils to apply manure. A rule of thumb for those with manure storage to adopt and follow is to check your manure storage structures before fall harvest. If there is not enough capacity remaining to hold manure for the next six months, then hauling manure should be a priority.

For operations that have a frequent hauling schedule (daily to monthly) or less than six months of storage, manure must either be applied or stockpiled during the winter months. Planning now for these winter events is critical. Identify those fields with the lowest risk of manure moving off-site and plant a cover crop early enough in the summer to achieve at least 90% cover by the end of the growing season. Local OSU Extension or SWCD offices can provide assistance.

If manure application is necessary on frozen or snow-covered soils, only enough manure should be applied to address storage limitations until non-frozen soils become available and only when ALL of the following criteria are met:

* Application rates are limited to10 wet tons/acre for solid manure more than 50% moisture and 5 wet tons for manure less than 50% moisture. For liquid manure the application rate is limited to 5,000 gallons/acre.

* Applications are to be made on land with at least 90% surface residue cover (e.g. good quality hay or pasture field, all corn grain residues remaining after harvest, all wheat residue cover remaining after harvest, well established cover crop).

* Manure shall not be applied on more than 20 contiguous acres. Each 20 acre block should be separated by a break of at least 200 feet.

* Utilize fields which are furthest from streams, ditches, waterways, surface inlets, etc. and are least likely to have manure move in a concentrated flow toward and into our water resources.

* Increase the application setback distance to a minimum of 200 feet from environmentally sensitive areas and areas of concentrated flow such as grassed waterways, surface drainage ditches, streams, surface inlets and water bodies. This distance may need to be greater when local conditions warrant (e.g. - fields with more slope).

* Manure applied on frozen or snow covered ground should not exceed the nitrogen need of the next growing crop, or the crop removal rate for P2O5 for the next crop (not to exceed 250 lb/ac), or the crop K20 needs (not to exceed 500 lb/ac) or 10 wet tons < 50% moisture; 5 wet tons > 50% moisture; or 5,000 gallons of liquid manure per acre. Application rates are based upon the most limiting of these options.

For fields with slopes greater than 6% manure should be applied in alternating strips 60 to 200 feet wide generally on the contour, or in the case of contour strips on alternating strips at rates identified above. Application rates, cover and set-back requirements also apply.

There are additional measures farmers can take to minimize the need for winter application of manure. For some, increasing storage capacity may help, and cost-share assistance may be available through the local USDA-NRCS or SWCD offices. Technical assistance is also available to help implement the Best Management Practices for recycling manure nutrients.

Others may need to modify crop rotations to better manage manure application windows. A manure management plan with manure storage should not plan for routine winter application. Winter manure application should only be used because of extenuating circumstances, and only apply enough manure to address storage limitations until non-frozen soils are available.

For those without long-term storage, winter application and/or stockpiling manure may be necessary. However, prior planning to identify those fields to receive manure is necessary and adequate cover is achieved prior to winter.

Although some states have prohibited manure application on frozen or snow-covered ground, it's still permitted under very careful management in Ohio. However, producers are at risk of losing this sometimes-necessary option if pollution problems resulting from wintertime application of manure continue. For more information on winter manure application contact your local SWCD, NRCS or OSU Extension office or USDA-NRCS, Practice Standard 633.

Forage Focus: Evaluate Hay Storage Losses on Large Round Bales - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County

Storage losses in any hay production system are unavoidable, but what level or degree of loss is acceptable with a large round bale? Like the answer to many questions, it depends. It may depend upon the price/availability of hay, how storage losses affect animal performance, alternative storage options, and may even boil down to the goals/objectives of the producer.

A drive around the roads that surround the fields and farms of Athens County will reveal a common sight; large round bales stored out in the open in fields and farmyards. Bales stored in this manner and exposed to the elements develop a weathered layer. The depth of the weathered layer and yield loss associated with outdoor storage of bales depends upon both weather and site conditions. Yield loss is highest on bales in direct contact with the ground and in situations of high rainfall and/or where water can collect in the bale storage site. This weathered layer can represent a significant loss in terms of yield if animals refuse to eat it. The following table taken from a University of Kentucky Extension publication entitled "Round Bale Hay Storage in Kentucky" illustrates the percentage of bale volume that is affected for various sized round bales and depth of the weathered layer:

Percentage of Bale Volume in Weathered Layer

Even if cattle will eat the weathered layer, it still represents a loss in forage quality with digestibility decreasing and fiber concentration increasing as compared to the unweathered interior portion of the bale. This table, taken from the University of Kentucky publication mentioned previously demonstrates this loss of quality.

In years like this, with forage in short supply, it is hard to see these kind of losses due simply to weathering from storing bales outside. In years when hay is abundant and/or can be purchased cheaply, more hay can be fed to make up for the losses and the hay that is not eaten might even be thought of as a cheap source of nutrients. However, it is much harder to justify these losses when hay is expensive or extra hay is not available to feed. Producers may want to think about other storage methods to reduce dry matter and forage quality losses.

As might be expected when comparing storage options, bales stored outside on the ground have the highest dry matter losses. Up to 35% of the bale dry matter can be lost. By selecting a well drained site and getting bales out of direct contact with the ground by using pallets, tires, crushed rock or other materials, losses may be reduced to 25%. Using net wrap on outdoor stored bales instead of twine can reduce losses by another 10%, bringing the total dry matter loss into the 15 to 25% range. In terms of storage options that have been found to result in the lowest dry matter losses, plastic wrapped bales, bale sleeves, bales stored on a pad with a tarp, or a roofed structure have all been found to keep dry matter losses in the 4 to 7% range.

When deciding what storage option to use, factors that should be considered are: cost of the storage option, price of hay, environmental impact, and your goals/objectives as a producer. According to the University of Kentucky publication mentioned previously, a storage structure can be built for anywhere from $37 to $80 per ton depending upon the design and materials used. I know producers in Athens County who have used lumber cut and sawed on the farm combined with some re-used roofing materials to build some in-expensive hay storage. If this structure has a useful life of 20 years, then (using the University of Kentucky numbers) this figures out to $1.85 to $4.00 per ton per year in storage cost. Plastic wrap and net wrap are listed at a cost of $3.00 per ton. This would also be the yearly cost per ton since these materials are not re-usable. Twine tied bales stored on the ground outside are listed at a yearly cost of $1.50 per ton.

Now we need to figure the storage costs in terms of dry matter (DM) saved with relation to the price of hay. For the purposes of this example, lets assume dry matter (DM) losses of 25% for twine tied hay stored outside, 15% for net wrapped hay, and 5% for plastic wrapped hay and hay stored inside a structure. Let's look at the economics if hay price is $40 or $60 per ton. The results are shown in this table:

After subtracting the cost of net wrap, plastic wrap and structure from the savings/ton column, all of the alternative storage options pay for themselves by reducing storage dry matter losses, even at a hay price of $40/ton. The greatest savings are made by the plastic wrap and structure storage options. Choosing which of these to use might come down to an environmental consideration or cash flow situation.

Plastic is dependent upon petroleum resources, and can only be used for one year, so disposal must be thought about. A structure is probably more environmentally friendly, but it might be easier for some producers to come up with the dollars needed each year for plastic wrapping as compared to coming up with a large one-time dollar expense for a structure.

Finally, the decision on what type of round bale storage is used may come down to individual goals/objectives. If the cattle operation is more of a hobby than a business, the losses may not matter as much, or, if hay costs get excessive, it may be easier to sell off animals rather than think about putting dollars into alternative storage options. Possibly the producer is approaching the end of his/her cattle production life and does not want to invest in any long-term costs. On the other hand, the producer may be in the cattle business for the long haul and willing to make long-term investments to improve the economics of the enterprise.

Regardless of the decision that is made, cattle producers need to be aware of potential storage losses when using large round bales and the options and economics of various storage systems.

Reference: Round Bale Hay Storage in Kentucky, Publication AGR-171

Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech

LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) closed up on Monday with deferreds off. DEC'07LC futures finished up $0.275/cwt at $92.875/cwt but $1.525/cwt lower than last week at this time. The FEB'08LC contract closed at $95.625/cwt, up $0.150/cwt but $1.500/cwt lower than last Monday. Higher wholesale beef prices were supportive early Monday. Cash cattle can expect firm prices if further gains are posted in futures. USDA's 5-area price was about $0.50/cwt lower this week over last at $92.68/cwt for steers and $92.56/cwt for heifers. USDA reported the choice beef cutout at $151.69/cwt, up $2.90/cwt. Some processors alerted sellers they were thinking about cutting production later in the week. USDA placed estimated slaughter at 95,000 head last week compared to 130,000 head a week ago and 121,000 head last year at this time. Even though packers are taking steps to cut back some of that reduction was not on purpose and could be blamed on the winter weather. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average beef plant margin for Monday was estimated at a negative $35.95/head, $11.30/head better than last Friday and $10.80/head better than a week ago. Cash sellers should take profits on these rallying prices. Corn prices are due for a major break if on nothing else but technical selling. If you have to buy corn, buy it; just don't buy too far out. Try to price on the technical breaks.

FEEDER CATTLE contracts at the CME were up on Monday chasing live cattle. JAN'08FC futures closed at $106.125/cwt, $0.175/cwt higher than last Friday but $2.225/cwt lower than last Monday. The MAR'08FC contract finished at $107.700/cwt, up $0.250/cwt but $1.100/cwt lower than a week ago. Fears of colder weather and higher corn started the market out with losses in early trading but higher prices in live cattle produced gains for feeders near week ago levels. Cash feeder average price on the CME for Friday, December 7 was $106.86/cwt, down $0.120/cwt. An oversold condition in the JAN'08FC contract provided some support. A contract is said to be oversold with a Relative Strength Index (RSI) of 30 or below. The January 10-day RSI closed at 29.69. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index for December 6 was noted at $106.98/cwt, up $0.10/cwt. Feeder sellers ought to hold off cattle sales until the cold snap breaks if you have pasture. Immediate feed needs may be running short if you haven't priced corn on sags last week. If you did, you might consider trying to price corn on the downside dips as we go through the week.

Feeder sellers should consider selling cattle on these upticks. You might consider holding off on feed purchases except when corn breaks on technical selling.

FARM BILL 2007 (or '08): On another topic not usually seen in this report is the farm bill. On the heels of a new Energy bill, the Senate passed its version of a new $286 billion farm bill last Friday, December 14th on a 79-14 vote. The Senate version generally keeps current commodity and conservation programs in place. Senate leaders passed the bill after throwing out certain amendments to avoid taking work into the holidays. The House version of a farm bill was passed back in July. The President has promised to veto the legislation as a budget buster. One component kept in the Senate version of the bill would restrict packer ownership, feeding, and otherwise controlling livestock more than 14 days prior to processing. The House version doesn't include this requirement. Also included in the Senate bill is language that reduces producer paper for mandatory country-of-labeling (COOL) while adding additional language that includes poultry to the mandatory reporting requirement. The bill allows all cattle in the U.S. as of January 1, 2008, to qualify for a U.S. origin label. The bill will now go into conference where it will be distilled to a product that will then be sent to the President for signature (or not). These formal negotiations are not expected to take place until everyone is back at work after the holidays (mid-to-late January, 2008). Good luck.

Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events

BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868

Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources