A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
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 # 561
November 7, 2007
Cancer Report Recommendations regarding Red Meat and Cancer Unsubstantiated - Elizabeth Harsh, Executive Director, Ohio Beef Council
The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research released a report last week on diet, lifestyle and the prevention of cancer. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Prevention of Cancer included 10 recommendations for the prevention of cancer from a panel of recognized experts in the area of nutrition and cancer. The report included recommendations to avoid obesity, limit alcohol consumption and limit red meat consumption, among other diet and lifestyle recommendations to reduce the risk of cancer. NCBA and the Ohio Beef Council are aggressively defending beef's place on the plate in light of this report. What consumers need to hear from us and other experts is reassurance that they can continue to enjoy safe, wholesome and nutritious beef. And that's what we are working hard to do: Give consumers that reassurance.
Beef Checkoff funded activities have included:
* Completed a comprehensive checkoff funded assessment of the scientific literature on red meat and cancer
* Provided experts - from doctors to dietitians - to provide scientific perspectives to reporters.
* The beef industry had experts and staff available at the U.S. launch, providing information and interviews to reporters.
* The beef industry has briefed beef retailers and restaurants - our first point of contact with consumers - to help make sure we are speaking with a consistent voice.
The following talking points can be used to discuss the report with friends, family and fellow producers:
* As a beef producer, I am confident in the safety of beef. There is nothing new in this report that should change the way we enjoy beef in a healthy, balanced diet. The vast volumes of research supporting the benefits of lean beef far outweigh anything in this report.
* As beef producers and consumers, we wanted to know if there was anything in the science that would change the way we enjoy beef in a healthy diet, so we asked a group of independent scientists to review the studies on read meat and cancer and tell us what they found. The good news is this review did not reveal any relationship between red meat and cancer that would change the way people enjoy beef as part of a healthy diet.
* The most important advice to reduce the risk of cancer is to maintain a healthy weight, don't smoke, drink in moderation and follow USDA's 2005 Dietary Guidelines, which recommend eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, low- and non-fat dairy products and lean meat (5.5 oz of lean protein every day, including lean beef).
* Consumers love beef, and they believe they are eating beef in appropriate amounts. In fact, Americans red meat consumption is already well within the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, averaging about 2.3 ounces per day.
For more detailed information, including media statements, and nutrition fact sheets, click on the World Cancer Research Fund link on the Ohio Beef Council website www.ohiobeef.org or visit www.beefnutrition.org.
What's Your Goal for This Winter? - Dr. Roy Burris, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky
The current feed shortage has stimulated a lot of "panic buying" of low quality feeds and producers are baling anything that will roll up. We have to ask the question "what is your goal for this winter?" Some people would say "just keep 'em alive until spring". In that case, you might be okay. But, if the goal is to maintain a productive herd, some feedstuffs which are very low in their nutrient content will be a problem. If we don't address this problem, Kentucky beef producers will see the effects of the '07 drought on their 2008 and 2009 calf crops.
There are at least three areas of concern for this coming winter/spring. They are: (1) very low protein levels prior to calving can cause weak calves, (2) low energy levels and poor body condition can cause cows to produce low quality colostrum milk that is much lower in maternal antibodies causing lower calf survival rates, and (3) poor body condition of the cows in the spring will dramatically decrease pregnancy rates.
These problems can be anticipated with extended feeding of corn stalks, CRP residue and soybean stubble. These "feeds" are generally lower than 5% crude protein and 50% TDN. Intake by cows will also be much lower than for good quality hay. In a demonstration at Princeton, cows which were offered 28 lb of baled corn stalks daily actually consumed about 18 lb and refused (wasted) 10 lb of the stalks.
According to NRC requirements, an 1100 lb cow would have the following nutrient needs according to her stage of production:
| Stage | CP,
lb/day |
TDN,
lb/day |
| Mid 1/3 Gestation | 1.4 | 10.0 |
| Last 1/3 Gestation | 1.6 | 11.1 |
| First 60 days Lactation (20 lb milk) | 2.9 | 15.9 |
There is a dramatic increase in nutritional needs of the postpartum cow during the first 60 days of lactation. About 18 lb of stalks, for example, will provide only 0.9 lb CP and 9 lb of TDN compared to the required 2.9 and 15.9 lb of CP and TDN, respectively. That leaves a lot of protein and energy which must come from other sources. This difference can not be met by simply providing a pound or so of a protein supplement. Cows will lose weight/condition rapidly without a great deal of supplementation after calving. We simply must meet their energy and protein needs at this time.
In my opinion, the best approach is to limit feed good quality hay and provide the needed supplementation. Low quality feedstuffs can also be limit-fed successfully but are worth considerably less than good hay and require a lot of supplementation. On a "per nutrient basis" commercial feeds are also a better buy than low quality roughage at current prices.
If we don't feed the cows adequately this winter, we can expect increased calving losses in 2008 and decreased pregnancy rates in the spring which will impact the 2009 calf crop. The following table illustrates the effect that body condition at breeding can have on pregnancy rates:
| BCS | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| % Pregnancy | 51 | 76 | 92 | 100 |
* JAVMA 207:1292
If cows are permitted to lose weight or if thin cows don't regain weight before calving, low pregnancy rates will result. Body condition scores of 3 may not be uncommon on many Kentucky farms. Thus, pregnancy rates of about 50% can be expected unless we (1) purchase more nutritionally dense feeds than the nontraditional feedstuffs like corn stalks, (2) have good quality hay available, or (3) feed limited amounts of roughage with adequate energy and protein supplementation. It's really a matter of "pay now or pay (more) later".
Forage Focus: Corn Stalks and a Protein Block . . . That All You Got? - Kevin Laurent, Beef Extension Associate, University of Kentucky
Feeding the cow herd this winter will be a challenge that will have farmers looking at all options for meeting the nutritional needs of their cattle. Corn fields are dotted with large rolls of baled corn stalks, which have prompted even non-farm folks to wonder about this unusual sight. We know from the numerous questions we get that many producers plan to use stalks as a significant part of their winter feeding program.
How good are rolled corn stalks as winter feed? Will stalks and a protein block be enough? How much stalks will a cow eat? These are just a few of the many questions we are receiving daily.
To help answer these questions, we decided to do a quick demonstration with four cows at the research farm in Princeton. Not a controlled trial but just a quick test to get a handle on how cows would adjust and perform when placed on a rolled corn stalk diet.
Jay Stone, CEA in Christian County, was very helpful in locating, delivering and ultimately donating the stalks for the trial. The bales weighed from 30 to 40 lbs each and were weighed individually before feeding each day. Feed bunks were cleaned each day and stalks that the cattle refused were also weighed to get an estimate of waste or refusal. A certain amount of stalks were pulled out of the bunk and into the pen and was not weighed due to soiling by the cattle. The cattle chosen for the trial were two dry cows with an average weight of 1265 lbs. and two lactating cows with newborn fall calves that averaged 1280 lbs. The pairs were penned separately from the dry cows and both pens had access to a 37% protein block (19%NPN) throughout the three week period. The pens had concrete floors and were bedded with sawdust so cows had access to no other feed or dry matter.
The results of this 3 week trial are in the table below:
Performance and Intake of Cows Fed Rolled Corn Stalks
| Dry Cows | Lactating Cows | |
| Beginning wt, lbs | 1265 | 1280 |
| Ending wt, lbs | 1274 | 1264 |
| ADG, lbs | .43 | -.76 |
| Corn Stalks intake, lbs | 13.5 | 13.6 |
| Protein intake, lbs | 2.2 | 2.8 |
| % refused or wasted | 29.2% | 37.2 |
| Intake last 10 days, lbs | 17.9 | 19.8 |
These data indicate that building a winter feeding program around rolled stalks and protein blocks is not a very sound option. Energy supplementation will be needed to allow even dry cows to gain adequate weight for spring calving. A very high degree of waste or refusal will likely be associated with feeding rolled stalks. Cattle performance may even be worse for producers using CRP hay. Most of the CRP hay samples have been consistently yielding TDN values lower than corn stalks. Following are sample scenarios using rations calculated with the UKBRF program.
|
Feeding Examples: 90 Days to Calving - Corn Stalks |
| * 1100 lb dry cow mid-gestation BCS 4.0
- Needs to gain 200 lbs by February |
| * Ration 1: Stalks + 2.2 lbs of 37% protein block
- Predict ADG .83 lbs/day = 75 lbs, (125 lbs short of 200!) |
| * Ration 2: Stalks + Protein Block + 5 lbs soyhulls
- Predict ADG 2.0 lbs/day = 180 lbs, (20 lbs short of 200) |
|
Feeding Examples: 90 Days to Calving - Poor Hay |
| * 1100 lb dry cow mid-gestation BCS 4.0
- Needs to gain 200 lbs by February |
| * Ration 1: Poor Hay + 2.2 lbs of 37% protein block
- Predict ADG -.15 lbs/day = -14 lbs, (214 lbs short of desired weight) |
| * Ration 2: Poor Hay + Protein Block + 7.5 lbs soyhulls
- Predict ADG 2.0 lbs/day = 180 lbs, (20 lbs short of desired weight) |
The next 90 days will be very critical for producers with spring-calving herds to ensure that their dry cow feeding program adds enough condition to drought stressed cattle.
EDITOR's NOTE: Concerns mentioned in the previous two articles will be a portion of the focus during the series of "Strategies for producers dealing with the drought of 2007" meetings which began this week in various locations around Ohio. Find more details about these meetings, and the complete schedule of times and locations in last week's BEEF Cattle letter.
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. DEC'07LC futures finished up $1.125/cwt at $95.850/cwt and $0.500/cwt higher than last week at this time. The FEB'08LC contract closed at $98.750/cwt, up $1.150/cwt. Prices may be starting to work higher due to upcoming holidays and tighter supplies. Futures were supported early by hedge lifting and short covering. Cash, fat cattle were steady near $93/cwt in the Plains. The 5-area price was placed at $91.77/cwt. Packers were paying up for cattle despite negative cutout margins. According to HedgersEdge.com, the average beef plant margin for Monday was around a negative $80.25/head, $3.30/head worse than Friday and $8.10/head worse than last Monday. Processing rates were lower than expected prompting USDA to revise Saturday's rate downward. USDA estimated Monday's slaughter at 122,000 head vs. estimates for between 126,000 - 129,000 head. 130,000 head were processed this time last week and 127,000 head this time last year. Boxed beef rose somewhat. USDA put the choice beef boxed beef cutout at $139.34/cwt, up $1.35/cwt. Cash sellers should try to sell on these rallies while packers are willing to pay.
FEEDER CATTLE contracts at the CME were up on Monday. NOV'07FC futures closed at $109.125/cwt, $0.775/cwt higher than last Friday but $0.125/cwt lower than this time last week. The JAN'08FC contract showed signs of strengthening finishing at $109.075/cwt, up $1.150/cwt and $0.850/cwt higher than a week ago. Feeders followed fat cattle on short covering amid buy stops in some contracts and sliding corn prices. Feeders were somewhat near oversold providing additional strength. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for November 1 came in at $110.15/cwt, down $0.250/cwt. Feeder sellers ought to consider pricing some cattle sales and short term corn inputs this week.
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
