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 # 500
August 16, 2006
Forage Focus: Water should be an important part of your managed grazing system - Jeff McCutcheon, OSU Extension Ag & Natural Resources Educator, Knox County (originally published in Farm & Dairy, 6/15/06)
Over the years working with graziers, I have come to a realization. The most limiting factor in managed grazing systems is water. No, not rainfall, we can not control the weather. I am talking about water for livestock.
It is funny, one of the first things we teach children about raising animals is they need plenty of clean fresh water at all times. But as adults managing grazing, water is one of the last things we consider in the system.
Earlier this spring I visited with a young producer who wanted to mange his livestock grazing. He had many questions about what forages to plant, types of fencing and the schedule for moving the livestock. In a nutshell I suggested he manage what was there, use portable electric initially and to move based on forage growth.
Don't forget it. Then I asked about water. From the conversation that ensued, I gathered he had not even thought about how to supply water to his livestock in pasture.
Water is important. It makes up 60 percent to 70 percent of an animal's live weight. In the body, water performs many functions. A few that come to mind include:
- Water consumption will have an affect on dry matter intake. Dry matter intake is highly correlated with milk production or gain. Ruminants on a high forage diet produce enough saliva to fill the rumen each day. Water is needed for saliva production.
- Water is needed in milk production. Dairy producers have reported increases in milk production when cows have easy access to water. Typically two to five pounds of additional milk per cow, per day is observed.
Temperature regulation. Water is used in temperature regulation. Sometime this summer I will be asked about the need for shade in pasture. My first response will be to ask, do the livestock have plenty of clean fresh water?
For the animals' temperature regulation, this is more important than shade. If the answer is yes, then we can talk about shade.
Water has a huge influence on where animals graze. Have you ever walked through a paddock where the livestock were just removed?
The next time, start at the watering point and walk away from it. You may notice the residual height of the forage gets taller the further you are from the water source. Pasture utilization can be greatly enhanced when animals do not have to travel far for water.
Research backs up this observation. One study from Wyoming showed cattle do 77 percent of their grazing within 1,200 feet of their water source. In this study, approximately 65 percent of the pasture was more than 2,400 feet from water, but supported only 12 percent of the grazing usage. Having water close greatly influenced where the cows grazed.
Get it closer. Researchers in Missouri concluded that for the humid, temperate zone, like Ohio, water sources should be closer than the rangeland conditions found in Wyoming. For optimal forage utilization, water should be within 600-800 feet of all grazed areas.
Their study on 160 acres showed pasture carrying capacity could be increased an additional 14 percent by simply keeping livestock within 800 feet of water.
Where animals spend their time also influences manure distribution. Grazing livestock return a high percentage of the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium they eat to the pasture through manure and urine. If allowed, livestock will move those nutrients from the pasture to shaded areas or around water tanks.
Have you ever seen a grid map of soil test values from a crop field that had been a pasture field? If you have, it should not take long to pinpoint where the watering point was located. It is not unusual to see significantly higher phosphorus and potassium values in those areas.
Soil tells the story. Another study from Missouri tested phosphorus and potassium levels in relationship to water placement. Soil test levels were uniform in the paddocks when water was less than 500 feet from any part of the pasture. When stock had to travel 1,100 feet to water, changes in soil phosphorus and potassium were much greater nearer the water.
Water systems are expensive. Some quotes I have heard equal fence cost. Are they worth it? Let me share a recent example.
I have worked with a beef producer for several years who does a good job managing grazing. He has a herd of fall calving cows and weans the calves in the spring. Those weaned calves he treats as stockers and grazes them until fall or until the grass runs out.
This beef producer uses a 25 acre field to graze these 50 stockers. The field had two distant water sources away from either end of the field. On farm visits, this producer would ask what could be done to improve the operation.
Making the move. Over the years, several people suggested putting water in the paddocks with the calves. This field is on top of a hill. To get water there efficiently would mean drilling a well and piping it up to the field. Last year he finally did it. It cost around $6,000 for a well, pump, buried pipe and hydrants.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program through Natural Resources Conservation Service cost-shared the project so his cost was less.
Last year, the farmer estimated it translated into 50 extra pounds per calf or 2,500 pounds for the group. Was it worth it? He thinks so. Providing water close to where you want the animals to graze can have a big influence on the success of the grazing system.
For assistance in setting up a water system contact your local extension office, soil and water conservation district or natural resources conservation service or check out the Ohio Integrated Forage Management Team's Web site at http://forages.osu.edu.
What Does Value-Added Beef Production Mean for the Cow/Calf Producer? - John B. Hall, Extension Animal Scientist, Beef, Virginia Tech
Part 1 - Adding Value to Feeder Calves
Recently, considerable interest, discussion, articles, and programs have focused on various value-added beef production opportunities. Valued-added beef production means different things to different people. Quite simply, value-added is as a procedure or process that increases the value of your product to the customer for which they are willing to pay additional money.
We have many customers of the Virginia Beef Industry. Being a cow/calf and stocker state, our primary customers are the cattle feeders and beef packers. As a segment of the US beef industry, the US consumer is our ultimate customer. In addition, the predominant genetics of Virginia cattle give them the potential to meet the needs of the high quality export market.
A majority of beef producers could participate in value-added programs and increase returns to their operation. Value-added opportunities in Virginia range from low risk, moderate input, moderate potential return programs such as Virginia Quality Assured Feeder Cattle (VQA) to high risk, high input, high potential return programs such as direct marketing of pasture fed beef. Let's take a look at how to get started in several value-added marketing programs.
Deciding on a program: Producers need to honestly assess their current operation, and ask several questions relative to the future direction of their operation before seeking a value-added production/marketing option. Producers should review:
Questions should include:
Certainly, this list of questions or items to review is not exhaustive, but it is a place to start.
The next step is to review programs that are available and their requirements as well as risk verses potential reward. Programs fall roughly into five areas: Certified Feeder Cattle, Product Specified Feeder Cattle, Retained Ownership, Pasture to Plate Alliances, and Direct Marketing.
Types of programs: Certified Feeder Calf Programs - These programs usually have specific health and weaning criteria for calves. Some may also have source and age verification requirements. Specific genetic requirements (EPD requirements or breed composition) are also part of some programs. The goal of these programs is to add value to the cattle by minimizing illness in the feedlot and improving growth rate. In general, these are the best initial value-added programs for producers. Many other value-added programs build on this level of management.
The most familiar example of a certified feeder calf program in Virginia is the VQA (Virginia Quality Assured) Certified Feeder Calf program. The base of this program is a health program that completes all vaccinations for bovine respiratory complex (IBR, PI3, BVD) as well as other respiratory diseases a minimum of 14 days before sale. Other levels of the program include calves weaned and preconditioned for 45 days and/or sired by bulls that excel in growth as indicated by yearling weight EPD. The VQA program is a cooperative effort between the VA Cattlemen's Association, VA Cooperative Extension, and VA Dept. of Agriculture. Other similar programs are administered by animal companies, breed associations, and marketing groups; examples include Vacc-45, Sure-Health™, Select-Vacc®, and CHP-45.
Do these certified feeder cattle programs add value to cattle? Over the 9 years of the VQA program, premiums have averaged over $27 per animal for the 48,800+ animals marketed in the program. The table below shows the increased gross revenue for calves marketed during 2005 in the VQA program compared to those sold the same week in special graded sale. Costs to participate in the program including animal health products, eartags, and labor are estimated at $8 to $12 per calf. Tripling your money is a pretty good return on investment!
|
2005 VQA Feeder Cattle vs. Graded Sales (L%M1) | ||||
|
# of Head |
Avg. Wt. |
+/- $/Cwt. |
+/-Head | |
| Steers |
7825 |
675 |
$6.80 |
$45.90 |
| Heifers |
2970 |
609 |
$5.38 |
$32.76 |
| Weighted Average |
10795 |
657 |
$6.43 |
$42.25 |
| B.R. McKinnon, VA Cattlemen's Association, 2006 | ||||
The values shown above are average premiums per head. Highest premiums are received by 5 cwt to 7 cwt steers and 4 cwt to 6 cwt heifers. A producer that marketed 40 - 6 cwt steers through the VQA program received almost $1700 additional value to his production system.
Advantages:
Challenges/Costs
Product Specified Feeder Cattle Programs - This is a rather broad category that still allows producers to sell feeder cattle that meet specifications dictated by the program. Examples of these programs include breed specific (Angus Source®, Verified Hereford®, Smart Tag™ - Gelbvieh, Certified Red Angus, etc), "natural beef" (no hormones or antibiotics), certified organic, and breeder programs. Program requirements and premiums are highly variable among this group of programs.
Some require specific genetics such as breed association or breeder programs. Breeder programs refer to calf buy-back programs that sellers of commercial bulls offer their customers. Natural and organic programs dictate what can (or can't) be given to calves including certain animal health products and feeds. Therefore, the nature of these programs automatically limits the number of producers that can participate.
Economic costs and benefits to these programs are less transparent than programs such as VQA. This does not mean these programs are not honest or don't add value to the calves and the feeder calf producer's operation. It simply means that producers considering these options need to be more market and production savvy to weigh the value of these programs. For example, producers in "natural" programs must weigh the increase in price per cwt offered by the program against the lighter calf sale weights by not using implants.
Advantages
Challenges/Costs
Retained Ownership - The process of owning calves from birth or feeder cattle age through finishing is called retained ownership. By retaining ownership, producers gain the value of the cattle from weaning to finishing. However, they also incur the associated risks such as death loss, decrease in finished cattle price, and change in feed prices. Cattle are then sold directly to the packer either live or on a carcass basis.
There is greater risk with retained ownership that with value-added feeder cattle programs, but there is also an opportunity to increase returns to the operation. Retained ownership can add value to feeder cattle and the cow-calf operations when feeding cattle is profitable. However, it can also decrease returns to the cow-calf operation when conditions for feeding cattle are not favorable or cattle do not perform well in the feedlot.
The table below exemplifies the potential rewards and risks of retained ownership. This table summarizes the additional revenue added to the cow-calf operation by retained ownership through the VA Retained Ownership Program as compared to selling feeder calves on the graded feeder calf sales. Note that for producers in the top 1/3 of profitability there was considerable opportunity for profit. These cattle stayed healthy, grew well, and produced quality carcasses.
|
VA ROP Returns above feeder calf value of retained ownership to cow-calf operations | |||
|
Shipment |
Average |
High 1/3 |
Low 1/3 |
| Fall 2004 |
$108.00 |
$163.00 |
$54.00 |
| Fall 2003 |
$62.11 |
$142.91 |
-$22.83 |
| Fall 2002 |
$102.75 |
$168.99 |
$34.30 |
| Dec 1996 - Dec 2000 average |
-$4.62 |
$88.57 |
ND |
|
Adapted from Greiner, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 | |||
Advantages
Challenges/Costs
July is an excellent time to consider marketing options for the calf crop. For producers with spring calving cows, this is the time of year to conduct mid-summer vaccinations and deworming. These management practices have the potential to add value as well as pounds to your calves. Fall calving herds can begin to consider a value-added marketing program before the calves hit the ground.
Next Week: Part 2. Pasture to Plate Alliances, and Direct Marketing
Some useful links:
Certified feeder calf programs
http://vacattlemen.org/Marketing/Qassured.aspx
http://us.merial.com/producers/surehealth.asp
http://animalscience.tamu.edu/ANSC/publications/beefpubs/vac_vaccine.pdf
Breed based programs
http://www.angussource.com/audiofiles/AngusSource_flash.htm
http://www.herefordverified.com/LoginIndex.aspx
http://www.gelbvieh.org/commercial_marketing.htm
http://redangus.org/marketing/feeder-calf-sale-schedule/
Natural beef programs
http://www.laurasleanbeefcattle.com/
Retained ownership
http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/livestock/aps-05_08/aps-449.html
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/AgDM/livestock/pdf/b1-72.pdf
Livestock Grazing Field Day To Be Held
A special field day for all horse, cattle, sheep & goat owners, managers and other grass producers to help manage and establish pastures and hay fields is planned for Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at the University of Findlay. The field day, scheduled for 6:30 p.m., is located at the University of Findlay Center for Equine and PreVeterinary Studies at 11613 County Road 40 of Findlay, Ohio. The center is located approximately 3 miles south of Findlay.
A trade show will feature exhibitors promoting feeds and feeding, fence materials, equipment, and supplies. A food stand will also be available.
Program topics are as follows:
Grass Hay and Pasture Species Selection and Management - Held at grass plot research area comparing 35 different grass varieties and mixes. Grass Seed Company representatives will also be present.
Pasture Grazing Research - Summary of rotational vs. continuous grazing systems. Report on Research Project to determine horse grazing habits & forage preferences.
Converting Mud Lots to Effective Paddock Areas - Discussion of a newly developed pasture paddock system that utilizes geotextile cloth to convert unsightly mud lots to be more useable and manageable.
Managing Pastures with the Weather - Will involve on-site evaluation of pastures on how to adjust management techniques with changing weather patterns.
Featured speakers are Bob Hendershot, State Grassland Conservationist – NRCS; Jim Hoorman, OSU Extension Water Quality Specialist; and Gary Wilson, OSU Extension Educator – Hancock County.
This field day is free and open to the public. For more information contact Gary Wilson at 419-422-3851 or at wilson.26@osu.edu
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed down on Monday amid support from sagging grain markets and renewed exports to Japan, floor sources said. August gained on the October while the October continued to lose ground to other months. The AUG'06LC contract finished at $88.325/cwt, down $0.475/cwt from the previous close but $2.90/cwt higher than last week at this time. The OCT'06LC contract closed up $0.75/cwt at $91.80/cwt but $1.90/cwt higher than last Monday's closing price. Both the August and the October traded sideways. Some selling was noted amid talk of a short-term top in the market, especially the OCT'06LC. Contrasting sharply with Friday's activity volume was lightly traded in a narrow range most of the time. Two wild swans in Michigan tested positive for a low-pathogenic type H5N1 bird flu that is not dangerous to humans but could mutate into a much more potent strain of the disease, the USDA said on Monday. Higher cash prices, plus increased sales to Japan steered futures to fresh highs last week. However, hedgers took advantage of high prices in the OCT'06LC to hedge fall cattle normally hedged in December or February bringing them to the front-month of October and taking advantage of the strong basis. Those hedgers are expected to roll hedges later on, traders said. Cash cattle traded $3/cwt-$4/cwt higher last week in the southwest Plains at $85/cwt-$86.50/cwt. More gains may be in store for this week. USDA placed choice beef cutout at $150.49/cwt, up $1.50/cwt and the highest it's been since July 11. Also, USDA raised its 2006 export forecast for U.S. beef by 80 million lbs amid reports of 500 tonnes of beef going to Japan. Floors sources cited last Friday's USDA quarterly Cattle on Feed report as pressuring back months but thought most of those cattle were already in the market pipeline. Early estimates for cattle on feed as of August 1 for feedlots of 1,000 head or more ranged from 105.9%-107.9% of last year. July placement estimates ranged from 110%-121.8% and July marketings ranged from 101.3%-104% of last year. Cash sellers should continue to sell live cattle as soon as they can at the heaviest possible weights. Hedgers should seriously consider protecting December and February marketings. Corn users should not consider pricing more corn needs at this time.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME ended with the AUG'06FC closing at $116.05/cwt, off $1.300/cwt and the SEPT'06FC contract closing off $1.225/cwt at $116.275/cwt. These prices were still above a week ago. Lower live cattle weighed on price despite losses in CBOT corn. Pit selling developed in feeder cattle futures after a commission house was seen selling August 114,115, and 116 calls, floor sources stated. Feeder supplies in places other than feedlots remain very tight amid strong demand for feeders in light of good prices. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for Aug. 10 was placed at $115.94/cwt, up $0.42/cwt and the highest it's been since Dec. 12, 2005. Demand for heavy-weight feeders remained strong at the Oklahoma City feeder auction amid a tight supply for those types. Cattle feeders may still want to slow cash marketings carrying feeders to heavier weights while still hedging incoming cattle. Forward pricing of feed inputs can hold off for now.
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
