Factors Affecting Conception Rate
Rory Lewandowski
Extension Educator, Ag/NR Athens County, Ohio

Why do some cows breed back more successfully than other cows in the same herd? Why do herd conception rates vary from year to year? Body condition and nutrition can offer some explanation. Research has demonstrated that cows in poor body condition and/or under nutrient stress will have lower conception rates and take longer to rebreed compared to cows in good body condition and provided with a ration meeting nutrient requirements. But, are there other factors that can affect re-breeding and conception rates? I want to summarize a presentation from Dr. James K. West, DVM and director of the embryo transfer unit veterinary service at Iowa State University, in which he lists both non-infectious and infectious causes for reduced conception rates in beef herd.

Some non-infectious factors that can reduce conception rates include: lethal genes, polyspermy, endocrine disorders, elevated blood urea nitrogen, heat stress and handling/transportation stress. Lethal genes and polyspermy (fertilization of the egg with more than one sperm, which is a lethal condition) both refer to genetic factors that do not allow a viable pregnancy to occur. Endocrine disorders result in short or irregular heat cycles or a condition where not enough progesterone is produced to sustain a pregnancy. With these 3 factors the producer has little control and culling is probably the best option for the producer.

Elevated blood urea nitrogen, heat stress and handling/transportation stress are other factors that can cause reduced conception rates. Producers may be able to minimize the detrimental effects of these factors through management practices. Elevated blood urea nitrogen can occur on lush pastures and is related to crude protein consumption. Crude protein content of pasture grass can be increased through nitrogen fertilization. High crude protein levels in the diet increase the blood urea nitrogen content which can bring about alterations in uterine secretions and a decrease in uterine pH that results in lower conception rates. Avoid nitrogen fertilization of pastures immediately before grazing lush pastures during the breeding season. Heat stress occurs when there are prolonged periods of temperatures over 90 degrees F combined with humidity of 40% or greater. Breeding during these conditions can result in early embryonic death, especially in the first 6 days after egg fertilization. Finally, reducing handling stress can be accomplished by working cattle in the cool part of the day, providing working facilities that are efficient, and working cattle in a calm and un-hurried manner.

Infectious diseases that cause reproductive problems include: Infectious Bovine Rhinotrachetis (IBR), Leptospirosis, and Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD). It is beyond the scope of this article to go into details about each of these diseases, but each can cause reduced conception rates, and, in many instances, abortions. Vaccines are available, often in combinations to provide protection against these diseases. Unfortunately, in the case of Leptospirosis and BVD, vaccines are not always effective.

High conception rates and full-term pregnancies are necessary to maintain a profitable beef herd. By recognizing non-infectious and infectious factors that can reduce conception rates and pregnancy, producers can adopt management practices that will provide cows the best opportunity for successful re-breeding.

Warm, Wet Weather Equals Parasite Problems
Dave Sparks, DVM
OSU Area Extension Food-Animal Quality and Health Specialist

Late spring and early summer bring temperatures that are ideal for internal parasite reproduction. When conditions are as wet as they have been this year, the problem will be even further amplified. Our primary goal this time of year is to keep parasite contamination of the pastures as minimal as possible for young cattle until the hot dry days of late summer can come to our aid.

To properly manage parasites you must have a basic understanding of their life cycle. Luckily, although exact times may differ slightly, all cattle round worms develop through a very similar cycle. The circle starts with adult worms in the animal’s digestive tract laying eggs that are then passed in the manure. At proper temperatures, the eggs hatch into larvae that crawl away from the manure pat and undergo changes to reach the infective larvae stage. The infective larvae climb up vegetation where they are ingested as the animal grazes. They are limited, however in the climb. The vegetation must be wet and the larvae can only climb a few inches. In fact, over 80% of the larvae are found in the first two inches of vegetation height. Avoiding grazing pastures short during early summer is a big factor in avoiding heavy parasite infestation. Once the larvae are in the digestive tract, they undergo further changes to reach the adult form. They then start to produce eggs and the cycle begins anew. How fast and how efficiently the proliferation develops depends on the environmental conditions. Under warm, wet conditions the entire cycle can happen in a matter of a few weeks, with each adult shedding thousands of eggs.

It usually is not economically feasible to deworm cows for the sake of their own performance, but keep in mind that they contribute much more manure than their calves. Therefore, they are the major source of pasture contamination. Deworming cows in the late spring or early summer will help to keep the pastures “parasite safe” for the youngsters grazing with them.

Calves are not as capable of limiting parasite loads as their mothers, because they have not had the opportunity for their immune system to develop a response over several summers. Also, their growth efficiency is the major factor affecting profitability. As a general rule, calves will start to consume a significant amount of forage at about 2 months of age or 200 lbs. of body weight. They start to pick up infective larvae at that time and will be shedding eggs about 4 weeks later. Multiple dewormings, about 4 weeks apart, will quite often be profitable until the weather turns hot and dry in the middle of summer.

Signs of excessive parasitism are rough hair coat, slow growth rates, pot bellies, and swelling under the jaws. Unfortunately, by the time you observe these signs, the economic damage to your operation has already been done.

A conversation with your local veterinarian will help you decide which product and what schedule is most suitable for your operation. With the dry conditions of the last few years parasites haven’t been as big a problem as usual, but this year, management to reduce parasitism has the potential to be a major economic factor.

Producers Should Make Natural Beef Decision Now
Greg Lardy, NDSU Extension Service beef cattle specialist

Producers thinking about raising their new calves the natural way
need to make that decision now, according to North Dakota State
University beef experts.

That's because what producers feed, implant or apply on their
animals could affect the cattle's eligibility to be sold as
naturally raised.

The definition of "natural" primarily is a marketing issue, says
Greg Lardy, NDSU Extension Service beef cattle specialist.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't have guidelines on how
cattle are raised for beef marketing purposes. Its definition of
natural focuses on the meat product. The USDA requires meat to be
only minimally processed, which means processing doesn't
fundamentally alter the raw product. Also, the meat must not
contain artificial ingredients or added color.

In the marketplace, the most generally accepted definition for
natural beef is "never-ever," which means the cattle have not
been treated with antibiotics or implants during their lifetime.
That standard is becoming more and more popular with consumers,
Lardy says.

A few companies market beef as being natural if the cattle didn't
receive antibiotics or hormone growth implants for a certain
number of days before they were slaughtered or if tests on the
meat show no traces of antibiotics or hormones. The latter is not
a common practice, he says.

Producers who follow the never-ever standard also try to give
their product a marketing edge by promoting certain practices,
for instance that their cattle are corn-fed or they handled their
animals in a particular manner. They also might try to appeal to
consumers by noting that the cattle were raised locally, in a
specific state or on a small, family ranch.

Lardy suggests producers check with a few markets to determine
what criteria they would need to follow to sell their cattle as
naturally raised.

Since the companies marketing the beef products basically define
the never-ever policy, producers should check with individual
companies on whether products such as dewormers, insecticides,
feed additives and compounds to synchronize estrus in heifers
would be allowed, says Karl Hoppe, Extension Service area
livestock specialist at North Dakota State University's
Carrington Research Extension Center. Specific policies vary
among companies.

Natural programs do not prohibit vaccinations. Instead, producers
are encouraged to vaccinate their calves to help ensure the
animals have a minimal amount of health problems related to
respiratory disease, Lardy says.

"Vaccines and antibiotics are very different," says NDSU
Extension veterinarian Charlie Stoltenow. "One is to prevent or
lessen the effects of an infection, while the other is to inhibit
or kill the infecting organism."

He adds that vaccinations are part of a good herd health program,
which is essential for a successful natural program.

Stoltenow also stresses that cattle that become ill must be
treated.

"Treating the animal may disqualify it from a natural program,
but it will be eligible for normal marketing programs," he says.

Hoppe says producers who opt to raise their cattle the natural
way need to keep accurate records of which animals receive
antibiotics or implants and separate them from other cattle going
to market as naturally raised cattle. Treating a few cattle with
antibiotics does not keep the rest of the herd from being sold to
the natural beef market as long as producers have adequate
records to verify the practices they implemented.

Markups Should Have Been No Surprise
Steve Kopperud
Brownfield Network

This week's series of House Ag Committee subcommittee markups, shot through with frustration and angst over repeated reminders "there is no money," should have been no surprise to anyone on the committee. The warnings that ag spending is being squeezed and that the "pay-go" rules aren't going to be lifted for Farm Bill spending have been issued and echoed for months.

But this week's inability by most members to offer amendments setting up new programs or expanding old is a classic manifestation of the old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it," meaning when the Democrats took power and pledged to slash the deficit, this collision of principle and practical application was inevitable.

To his credit, House Ag Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D, MN) has stuck to his guns, telling the commodity program folks early this week they'll have to "live with what they've got," meaning there will be no expanded spending on subsidies. At the same time, however, Peterson may have gotten a bit too feisty at the kick-off markup on the conservation title, admonishing his committee members to withhold spendy amendments. He was forced to retreat a bit, admitting he may have been a bit "too tight" on amendments, and he quickly set up a May 23 meeting with House Democrat leadership to talk about finding offsets to pay for new Farm Bill programs.

Some are already speculating that those early calls for simple extension of the 2002 Farm Bill might be the real-world path of least resistance. That's true, but it would also be almost total abrogation of the Committee's responsibility to reform, rewrite and expand federal farm and food policy.

This week's efforts have begun to flush out the really contentious issues that members will have to deal with, including dairy programs, specialty crop programs, how to bring our programs into compliance with WTO demands and the ever-popular bioenergy and cellulosic ethanol initiatives.

Having banged through roughly half of the titles of the impending farm program package, this week signals the real battles will come at full committee, giving truth to speculation that the subcommittee markup system Peterson's opted for is more rehearsal than opening night for this three-act drama. Peterson is also keenly aware that he has both House Democrats and GOPers ready and willing to rewrite anything his committee cobbles together on the House floor.

It also gives the freshman on the House Ag Committee their first taste of the reality of hammering out a Farm Bill. The reality of Farm Bill evolution, in my experience, is simple: The House writes a bill, the Senate writes a bill, there's much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth by various ag interests, then we go into conference committee and pretty much rewrite the whole thing.

You remember the old axiom, "There are two things you should never watch being made -- sausage and legislation"? Well, with all deference and respect to the sausage makers out there, most figure a Farm Bill is pretty much sausage making at its best.

What to Do With the Bull After the Breeding Season
Glenn Selk
OSU Extension Animal Reproduction Specialist

Maintaining a 60 to 75 day breeding and calving season can be one of the most important management tools for cow calf producers. A uniform, heavier, and more valuable calf crop is one key reason for keeping the breeding season short. Plus, more efficient cow supplementation and cow herd health programs are a product of a short breeding season.

However, many small producers lose all of these money-making advantages, just because they do not have a pen or trap that will hold the bull away from cows and heifers for 9 to 10 months of the year. A Southeastern United States beef cattle specialist shared the method of fencing that they use to separate bulls from their cows.

They use a minimum of 2 acres per bull for their bull pasture. Well-fertilized introduced pastures (such as bermudagrass with adequate rainfall) in Eastern Oklahoma can stand this stocking density. However, native grass situations will require more acreages per bull unless the producer wants to feed a great deal of hay and supplement during much of the year.

They use a five strand, high tensile fence with the strands spaced at 10 inches apart. High tensile wire is a heavy gauge, smooth wire that can be made as a permanent system with in-line wire stretchers. The first strand is 10 inches above the ground. The end result is a fence that is 50 inches tall.

The fence, of course, must be electrically charged. A GOOD high voltage, low amperage fence energizer or charger provides the energy source. The Southeastern design uses the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th wire as charged wires, with the first and the 4th wire attached to grounds. The grounds will be most effective if they are set deep into the soil. This will allow for good “grounding” even when summer droughts cause top soil to become quite dry. Different designs may fit different situations. Some designs electrify the first wire (from the bottom) and make the second wire a ground. See diagram below. Talking to a commercial representative from a reputable fencing supply company can be very helpful.

It is a good idea to have a bull pasture that is somewhat isolated. Bulls kept away from cows will remain quieter and will fight less. A pasture with adequate area also will encourage exercise and will reduce confrontations between bulls.

Being able to keep the bull away from the cows for 9 to 10 months of the year is a critical step to a more efficiently managed, profitable cow calf enterprise.

What Was May Not Need to Be What Is
Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist
NDSU Extension Service

Through the years of numerous opportunities to present
information at producer gatherings, I can honestly say the hope
was always that some learning would take place, but more
importantly, some thinking. The thinking is what ultimately
challenges us to evaluate, re-evaluate, change and start again.

"What was" may not need to be "what is." In other words, we
simply need to constantly challenge ourselves and, as we do
things, make sure they fit. In terms of cattle, the recent
discussions of smaller-framed cattle were to get us to think and,
from those thought processes, ask some good questions.

Based on those questions, we need to think through some answers.
I received a very good response from Brian McCulloh based on
those discussions. I would like to share his thoughts, as Brian
obviously spent time asking some questions, but also proposed
paths to solutions.

"I'm Brian McCulloh and we raise registered Angus. ... One of
your last columns dealt with a pen of 3- to 4-frame cattle. I
think we need to be careful describing cattle simply by referring
to them as a certain frame score. A more accurate description in
the current world of beef genetics would be to describe their
expected progeny differences (EPD) criteria. We have raised
4-frame cattle that were plus 80 pounds for yearling weight
(YEPD) along with 0.3 for IMF [intramuscular fat] EPD and 0.4 for
REA [ribeye area] EPD. That animal is much different than a 3- or
4-frame animal that is plus 35 for YEPD and minus 0.1 for IMF EPD
and below breed average for REA EPD.

"As serious breeders, we can affect the mature size of our cattle
by using objective rather than subjective genetic predictions.
Too often I hear producers talking about 'those small-frame,
low-growth cattle' or 'those high EPD, gutless, hard-doing,
carcass cattle.' My point is that we should describe cattle by
their EPD profile rather than their certain frame score category.
EPDs are the best cattle selection tool available when used
properly. We have made tremendous improvements in our cattle
during the past 25 years when we have stayed focused on our
breeding objectives, used EPDs properly and honestly evaluated
our own cattle for their strengths and weaknesses. I believe
frame score is overemphasized when referring to cattle and their
performance potential. Smaller-frame is not necessarily good or
bad and the same for larger-frame. EPDs will tell the more
accurate performance prediction. "

As Brian noted, we have some very good tools in the industry.
Simply categorizing cattle in generic classes, such as
small-frame or large-frame, does not provide solutions for
productive cattle producers. Rather, they need to utilize the
current tools to make work what their production units are trying
to achieve.

Let's look again at those frame score 4 cattle Brian references.
A plus 80 yearling weight EPD would place those cattle in the
upper 35 percent of the Angus breed. A 0.3 IMF EPD would be close
to the upper 15 percent and a 0.4 REA EPD would be close to the
upper 20 percent of the Angus breed.

Now that is something to think about. All that growth, marbling
and muscle packed into frame score 4 cattle. I would hope the
thinking machines kick in and, as producers, a good conversation
can be had about how cattle types fit individual production
units. The discussion of smaller-framed cattle was put forth to
have people think and convert those thoughts to facts and
answers.

Brian did just that. In contrast, too many discussions have been
held on cattle frame size, so we regroup, take a position and
start firing. All smalls are not small and all larges are not
large. We need to utilize the data to sort what is put before us
and then match that sort to the markets we sell to. Thank you,
Brian, for some good comments.

"Preg" Check and Cull Replacement Heifers Early
Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Animal Reproduction Specialist

Many Oklahoma ranchers choose to breed the replacement heifers about a month ahead of the mature cows in the herd. In addition, they like to use a shortened 45 to 60-day breeding season for the replacement heifers. The next logical step is to determine which of these heifers failed to conceive in their first breeding season. This is more important today than ever before.

As the bulls are being removed from the replacement heifers, this would be an ideal time to call and make arrangements with your local veterinarian to have those heifers evaluated for pregnancy in about 60 days. In two months, experienced palpaters should have no difficulty identifying which heifers are pregnant and which heifers are not pregnant (open). Those heifers that are determined to be "open" after this breeding season, should be strong candidates for culling. Culling these heifers immediately after pregnancy checking serves three very economically valuable purposes.

1) Identifying and culling open heifers early will remove sub-fertile females from the herd. Lifetime cow studies from Montana indicated that properly developed heifers that were exposed to fertile bulls, but DID NOT become pregnant were often sub-fertile compared to the heifers that did conceive. In fact, when the heifers that failed to breed in the first breeding season were followed throughout their lifetimes, they averaged a 55% yearly calf crop. Despite the fact that reproduction is not a highly heritable trait, it also makes sense to remove this genetic material from the herd so as to not proliferate females that are difficult to get bred.

2) Culling open heifers early will reduce summer forage and winter costs. If the rancher waits until next spring to find out which heifers do not calve, the pasture use and winter feed expense will still be lost and there will be no calf to help eventually help pay the bills. This is money that can better be spent in properly feeding cows that are pregnant and will be producing a salable product the following fall.

3) Identifying the open heifers shortly after (60 days) the breeding season is over will allow for marketing the heifers while still young enough to go to a feedlot and be fed for the choice beef market. The grading change of several years ago has a great impact on the merchandising of culled replacement heifers. "B" maturity carcasses (those estimated to be 30 months of age or older) are very unlikely to be graded Choice and cannot be graded Select. As a result, the heifers that are close to two years of age will suffer a price discount. Currently non-pregnant, yearling 875 pound heifers (shortly after a breeding season) are selling for about $94 per cwt. Therefore an 875 pound, culled replacement heifer is worth about $822. Non-pregnant two-year old cows are selling for about $65 to $70 per cwt. Open two-year old cows (those that could have been identified shortly after the breeding season) that weigh 1000 pounds would only sell for about $700 next spring.

The average expense for owning the cow is about $1 per day. So the total loss of keeping the open heifer would be about $200 in feed and forage and another $122 in lost value. The grand total expense for not culling open replacement heifers in today’s market is about $322 per head. Therefore, it is imperative to send heifers to the feedlot while they are young enough to be fed for 4 to 5 months and not be near the "B" maturity age group.

Certainly the percentage of open heifers will vary from ranch to ranch. Do not be concerned, if after a good heifer development program and adequate breeding season, that you find that 10% of the heifers still are not bred. These are the very heifers that you want to identify early and remove from the herd. It just makes good economic business sense to identify and cull non-pregnant replacement heifers as soon as possible.

Breeding Soundness Exams Good Investment
Charlie Stoltenow, Extension veterinarian NDSU

Bull breeding soundness exams may be an essential piece of the
beef cattle producer's herd fertility puzzle, North Dakota State
University Extension Service beef cattle experts say.

"Progressive beef cattle producers focus a great deal of
attention on managing their cow herd to improve fertility," says
Lisa Pederson, Extension beef quality assurance specialist.
"While management of the female is essential, concentrating
management entirely on the cows and not worrying about the bulls
could be a disaster. The importance of the bull in a cattle
breeding program is often underestimated."

A cow is responsible for half of the genetic makeup of one calf
per year, while the bull is responsible for half of the genetic
make up of 20 to 50 calves per year.

"The bull's ability to detect cows in heat and breed them is
clearly vital to a successful breeding program," Pederson says.
"One tool producers can use to assure this success is the
breeding soundness exam. Examining bulls for breeding soundness
before the breeding season will detect most bulls with potential
fertility problems."

For the exam to be successful, a veterinarian should evaluate the
bulls 30 to 60 days prior to the start of the breeding season,
says Charlie Stoltenow, Extension veterinarian. That will give
producers sufficient time to replace questionable bulls.

The exam consists of three parts: physical examination of overall
appearance, internal and external examination of the reproductive
tract and an evaluation of semen for normality and motility, or
its ability to move spontaneously and independently. The producer
can do the first part; a veterinarian should do the other two
exams.

The physical exam includes an evaluation of the feet, legs, eyes,
teeth and flesh cover.

"Sound feet and legs are very important because unsound bulls
have trouble traveling and mounting cows for mating," Stoltenow
says. "Bulls should be in good condition, ideally carrying enough
fat cover at the beginning of the breeding season so their ribs
appear smooth across their sides."

A body condition score of 6 is the target prior to the start of
the breeding season. That's on a scale where a 1 is emaciated and
9 is very obese. Stoltenow advises producers to observe their
bulls often throughout the breeding season to make sure the bull
is capable of traveling and breeding.

The reproductive tract evaluation should include measuring
scrotal circumference, palpation of the testes and palpation of
the seminal vesicles. The Beef Improvement Federation has adopted
the exam guidelines the Society of Theriogenology recommended.
The minimum criteria for passing the scrotal circumference and
semen evaluation are:
No chronic infections of the seminal vesicles or testes

Scrotal circumference exceeds the minimum for age: 15 to 18
months, 31 centimeters; 18 to 21 months, 32 cm; 21 to 24 months,
33 cm; and 24 months or older, 34 cm

Sperm motility of 30 percent (fair) or greater

Percentage of normal sperm is at least 70 percent

Costs of breeding soundness exams vary depending on a number of
factors, including location of test (on the farm or ranch versus
at the clinic,) number of bulls tested and facilities available.

Farm Bill by July 4? What year?
By Steve Kopperud
Brownfield Network

House Ag Committee Chair Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) said yesterday he's going to have a Farm Bill written, debated and ready for the floor by July 4. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying it.

Peterson is wrangling a committee with a membership that's so junior that fully 60% have never been through a Farm Bill before; his staff, with few exceptions, is greener than on previous iterations and these folks haven't had to "lead" on a Farm Bill in nearly a decade; he's challenged by more demands for more money than seen in previous Farm Bill debates, and the budgeteers have saddled him with not only a flat budget baseline, but further constrained his ability to fund new programs by imposing the new "pay-go" rule, meaning no new spending unless you cut an old program to pay for it.

His subcommittee begin marking up May 22, with the first title out of the chute being conservation. Now, while USDA may only spend about 11% of its budget on conservation programs, this title promises to be controversial if only because it's one of the protected children of Senate Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D, IA). Already in floating an idea about shifting something over $1 billion from the Conservation Security Program (CSP) to the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) -- a move supported by the ducks and pheasant crowd -- Peterson has ruffled the feathers of not only enviro and consumer groups who want to see conservation programs expanded, he's drawn public fire from Harkin who contends Peterson's approach "perpetuates the attacks on conservation and the environment of the last two congresses and the Bush Administration."

And his plan has flushed out those in the House who see an Ag Committee bill as an automatic rubber stamp on business as usual. Rep. Earl Blumenauer said this week he sees the bill the as the most important enviro legislation the House will consider this year, implying he will move to include provisions likely not on the slate of items to be considered by the Ag Committee.

Peterson has already signaled he won't be a happy chairman if non-committee members try to rewrite his committee's efforts on the floor. He called such a plan a "recipe for chaos." Well, tell that to Rep. Ron Kind (D, WI), who's ready to introduce his own farm bill, one that would shift big bucks by phasing out commodity programs, replace them with a smaller "safety net" and shift the money to renewable energy loan guarantees, nutiriton programs, and specialty crop promotion and marketing programs. Said Kind to a DC newspaper this week: "The Farm Bill is bigger than the committee. We only have one shot every five years." A similar bill offered by Kind in 2002 almost scuttled the committee-passed bill when it received 200 votes.

And even if the various titles sail through subcommittee markup, finding consensus at full committee may not be that easy. The GOP for its part is laying in the weeds, ready to "guide" the Democrats based on their deeper experience in crafting and passing farm bills.

And let us not forget the third rail in this effort -- the White House. For the first time in a long time, the Administration is coming out with not only proposals, but legislative language to implement those proposals. While it won't surprise anyone to see Peterson accept chunks of the USDA plan, some of those White House ideas may be rejected simply because they are White House ideas. This sets up a duke out in committee between the leadership and GOP champions of White House initiatives.

So far, there are alot of trial balloons in the air, and the proposals are just starting to emerge. Fingers crossed, here's hoping Peterson can get a Farm Bill to the floor by July 4 -- this year.

Add Flexibility to Your Federal Grazing Permits
Scott Jensen
University of Idaho Owyhee County Extension Agent

Options are limited for those of us carving a living on a livestock operation located in a desert range environment. We do not have access to the by-product feeds that higher rainfall and farming areas do. We have limited irrigated acreage to turn to and when things are tough for us they are generally just as tough or tougher for our neighbors. This limits the availability of leased pasture and feed in close proximity to our ranch. Because of this situation many have been investigating and practicing grazing irrigated pastures such as pivots with range cows. The irrigated pastures are used to compliment and plug the holes in their federal grazing permits.

As Leroy Etchegaray of Eureka, Nevada points out, “If outside pasture is available we can harvest hay on our pivots and sell that hay. If no outside pasture is available, such as last year with the fire situation, or this year with the drought, we can graze pairs on those pivots. It gives us flexibility.” Leroy’s sons Fred and John agree yet both admit they miss the lure of the outside rangelands and the wet saddle blankets that go along with rangeland grazing.

As John Etchegaray states, “There are advantages and disadvantages to pivot grazing. The big advantage is flexibility and increase production of the cows. We are no longer always backed in a corner to locate feed. The biggest disadvantage is riding the 4-wheeler instead of a horse. That takes some getting use to,” concludes Etchegaray.

“Grazing pivots is not cheap,” states Fred Etchegaray. “Given the current hay market, we could probably make more money selling hay than grazing cows. Raising cows is in our blood and that is what we want to do in life. Having pivots available to compliment our outside grazing allows us to do that.”

Dan Gralian, manager of the T lazy S ranch of Battle Mountain, Nevada agrees with the Etchegaray family as far as pivot grazing adding flexibility to federal grazing permits. “The recent fire season and the current drought are perfect examples. Without access to pivots we would be in a real bind. We were able to plug holes by simply harvesting less hay and diverting more cattle from our parched rangelands to the pivots.”

The learning curve can be fairly steep. Forage production on irrigated pastures as well as animal performance is directly related to your pasture management. You do not just turn cattle in on irrigated pasture and walk away. This can be one of the biggest challenges for producers accustomed to grazing range allotments where cattle are most often left to wander and graze the allotment as they please during a four to six week grazing period.

Plants in an irrigated pasture, if given the opportunity, can re-grow to be grazed a second and third time during the growing season. To maximize forage production as well as animal performance, most cool season grasses and forbs should be grazed no shorter than 3-4 inches. This will allow the plant sufficient photosynthetic sites to maximize growth if sufficient moisture is available.

To accomplish this and provide adequate pasture rest for re-growth, pastures should be divided/sub-divided so that the cattle are concentrated in one area while the remaining areas of the pasture are resting/re-growing. Good application of this concept can literally double annual forage production on irrigated pasture versus season-long grazing. In a time when grass and hay are in short supply, it makes good management sense (and cents) to increase forage production as much as possible. Actually, it makes sense even on the best of years!

Does it really work? Nancy Chester of Challis, Idaho states, “People are amazed by how much grass I can grow on the ground that I’ve got. I run 300 cow-calf pairs on 11 paddocks and I can keep them on grass until the middle of November before they have to be supplemented with hay.”

Joe Miller from central Idaho improved forage production and utilization on his ranch to the point that he reduced hay needs by 65 percent. This has translated into greatly increased profitability. On a 250 cow herd, Joe has paid down $200,000 of accumulated debt in just 4 years.

Yes, good management of irrigated pasture really does work. Is it easy? Well, not necessarily. You have to have a commitment to water and nitrogen management and concentration/stocking rate of cattle. You have to monitor and adjust according to the needs of both the cattle and the forage resource. The Lost Rivers Grazing Academy (LRGA) held in Salmon, Idaho, teaches these basic principles of grazing and irrigation management. Principles such as nutrient management, rotational grazing, and stocking rates are all taught at the academy. Now in its 7th year, the LRGA has had over 160 participants from 11 states and Canada.

The authors hope we have given you food for thought on the issue of drought management. If you are interested in learning more about utilizing pivots and intensive grazing of irrigated pasture consider attending the Lost Rivers Grazing Academy to be held on June 11-14 or September 10-13 in Salmon, Idaho. For more information about the grazing academy go to http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/owyhee/ or contact Scott Jensen at 208-896- 4104 scottj@uidaho.edu .

NIAA Announces Date, Location of Animal Identification Seminar
Press Release
May 15, 2007


The National Institute for Animal Agriculture's (NIAA) annual ID Info
Expo 2007 will be held in Kansas City, Missouri, August 28-30 at the
Westin Crown Center.

The theme of this year's event will be "Where Traceability Needs
Intersect: Animal Health, Country of Origin Labeling, Food Safety, and
Consumer Demand."

"While progress on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) will be discussed at this year's event, we
recognized that producers and animal agriculture are eager to consider
other aspects of livestock identification and food traceability," said
Robert Fourdraine, chair of the NIAA Animal Identification and
Information Systems Committee. "As producers and industry look at
creating greater value for their product, industry driven programs such
as source verification, quality assurance, and branding of products have
increased in importance.

"In addition to these producer and industry driven programs, the renewed
dialog on implementation of country of origin labeling, and recent
public concerns regarding pet food and similarly contaminated poultry
and swine feed have raised the level of debate in Congress regarding
product and food traceability," Foudraine said.

Grazing Livestock Affects Pasture Fertility
Rory Lewandowski
Extension Educator, Athens County, OH

At the February Ohio Forage and Grasslands Council annual conference, Dr. Dave Barker, an Ohio State University forage specialist, presented some of the research he is doing regarding the effects of livestock grazing upon pasture fertility. Probably the main message that came across in his presentation was that animals move nutrients. Grazing animals move nutrients within a pasture paddock, between pasture paddocks and move nutrients off the farm as animal product. One of the main effects of grazing from a pasture fertility standpoint is to concentrate nutrients into patches through urine and manure deposition.

The main nutrient contained in urine is nitrogen. Urine accounts for about 70% of the nitrogen returned to a pasture by grazing livestock. According to Dr. Barker, one urine patch can have a nitrogen application rate equivalent to about 1000 pounds/acre. This is too much nitrogen to be effectively used by grass growing in the area, so there are high nitrogen losses. Leaching losses, where nitrogen moves down through the soil and out of the rooting zone, account for nearly 50% of the nitrogen in a urine patch according to a German study cited by Dr. Barker. Another 22% of the nitrogen is lost to the air by volatilization as ammonia.

The manure or dung patch also concentrates nutrients where it is deposited by the animal. Research indicates that the phosphorus in a manure patch can be equivalent to 220 pounds/acre. In areas where livestock "camp" or hang out, the soil potassium levels can be 4 to 10 times higher than the pasture average. While nitrogen application rates can be similar to that applied to an area through urination, losses are much lower because the nitrogen is bound up in an organic form that is more stable. Nitrogen leaching losses under a dung patch were found to be only about 4% of the total nitrogen applied. Losses of nitrogen through volatilization measured about 5%.

Nutrients are moved within a pasture paddock and between pasture paddocks by livestock and their patterns of urine and manure deposition. Water tanks, shelter/shade areas, salt/mineral feeders and areas where hay is fed are all places where manure and urine are deposited more heavily. There are strategies that can be used to increase the uniformity of urine and manure deposition throughout a pasture field.

One of the most effective strategies is to increase the stocking rate so that livestock cover more surface area within a paddock. Another way to achieve this effect is to provide the same number of animals with a smaller paddock size. Salt and mineral feeders should be located away from the water source and from any trees/shade so that manure distribution is increased across the paddock. If there are high and low nutrient areas, use a grazing rotation and paddock structure that will move nutrients from the high nutrient areas to low nutrient areas.

Finally, recognize that nutrients are moved off the farm as animal products are sold. Those nutrients can be replaced as purchased feeds are brought on to the farm, fed to livestock and recycled through the manure and urine. Nutrients may also be replaced through fertilizer application. With the cost of nitrogen fertilizer continuing to move upward, livestock owners should also be increasing the legume content of their pastures to take advantage of the nitrogen fixing ability of leguminous plants.

Pasture fertility and nutrient concentrations within a pasture are not uniform, but are dynamic and changing, reflecting the movement of livestock using the pasture. Good grazing management can help to increase the uniformity of nutrient deposition leading to an increase in pasture productivity.

Acclimation and Adaptation of Cattle
Ron Torell
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Livestock Specialist

The video auctioneer shouted, “You will not find a better set of reputation-bred cows at a better price. They will work fer ya!” It was obvious the cattle were pasture raised and pampered. It was also obvious they would not work “fer ya” under all environmental conditions. How many times have you heard the same message from your seed stock producer selling you a bull, “He will work fer ya!” Yeah right.

Over the years there have been a high percentage of well bred cows and offspring of well bred bulls fail due to the inability of these animals and their offspring to adapt and acclimate to their new environment, especially if that new home is in a desert range 7 to 10 inch precipitation zone. Researchers at Utah State University have studied this subject extensively. Their work, led by Dr. Fred Provenza, is summarized in an excellent publication called “Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change.”

Have you ever considered why animals behave as they do and what it means for management? Why livestock moved from pastures or rangelands to confinement or vice versa lose their appetites, often get sick, and generally perform poorly for as little as a month or as long as 3 years, even when offered nutritious foods? Why wild and domestic animals moved to unfamiliar environments often suffer from predation, malnutrition and over ingestion of toxic plants? Why livestock on pastures and rangelands with only a few plant species perform less well than when they have a wide variety of plants to eat? Why some individuals know exactly which toxic plants to avoid while others don’t have a clue? Why changes in grazing management can reduce livestock performance for as many as 3 years? Backed by scientifically sound research, all these questions are addressed in this publication.

Researchers point out that there are four facets to the process of adaptation. They involve interactions between social learning from mother and peers and trial-and-error learning by individuals. Social interactions enable offspring to learn quickly to identify nutritious food and to avoid those that are toxic, just as people learn to recognize foods in a grocery store. In the process of foraging with mother, young animals learn to discriminate the foods mother eats from the foods mother avoids. Animals are wary of the unfamiliar such as foods, places and individuals of the same or different species.

Research outlined in this publication confirms what many of the old timers have told us for years, “Native and acclimated cattle have a huge advantage over introduced cattle.” Adaptation and acclimation of cattle is crucial for economic survival in the range cow business. Generally speaking, the tougher the range conditions, the longer the adaptation and acclimation period, regardless of the pedigree of the cow.

Cows are more successful if they learn at an early age how to walk on a cow trail and where those cow trails lead. Once a cow gets to the end of the trail it is important for her to know, based on past experiences, what feeds are good and which feeds are bad.

The next time you consider an auctioneer’s advice, “She will work fer ya”, consider where the cow is coming from, where she is going, and how much of an adjustment will be required for her to adapt to the new environment. Cow trails in an irrigated pasture situation are not very long, not very steep and end at a water trough and mineral or supplement feeder. The acclimation factor is not considered in that auctioneer or seed stock producer’s advice.

I encourage you to contact Utah State University and order a copy of “Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change.” In addition, if you ever have an opportunity to listen to Dr. Fred Provenza speak, do not pass it up. You will walk away with a better perspective on animal behavior.

The Principle of “Value of Added Gain”
Glenn Selk
OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

The decision to include a management practice that adds weaning weight to calves should be based on two parts of the business equation. 1) What is the value of the added weaning weight gain achieved from the new management practice? 2) How much did I spend on the practice to produce the added weaning weight available for sale?

The “value of added gain”
A commonly misunderstood principle in the cattle business is that of the "value of added gain." There is a natural tendency to believe that when the calf prices are good that any extra weight put on those calves will also have a very high price. Likewise, many producers cut back on management techniques that would add weight to calves when cattle prices are low. However, there are some financial principles during cattle cycles that make us constantly re-evaluate the current value of added gain.

When calves are selling for good prices ($1.20 per pound or more), there is usually a sizeable "price slide" or reduced selling price for heavier calves. On the other hand, when cattle prices are depressed, the "price slide" often lessens or (in a few rare instances) disappears entirely.

Let’s look at a couple of examples
Assume that on your ranch, average weaning weight without creep feed is about 525 pounds. Research data through the years gives us the information that typical improved gains from self-fed high energy creep feeds are about 50 to 60 pounds. Therefore the creep fed calves would sell at about 575 pounds.

With good cattle prices (according to USDA market news for Oklahoma this week, May 4 - 10: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/KO_LS794.txt ) the 525 pound calf could bring about $124.83 per hundredweight or $655.36 total. The 575 pound, fleshier calf would bring about $4.46 less per hundred weight at $120.37 per hundredweight or $692.13 total. Therefore the extra 50 pounds returned an extra $36.77. Consequently the value of each added pound was actually worth 73.5 cents. The added gain is not going to be worth the selling price of over $1.20 per pound!!

In 1995 with poorer calf prices the 525 pound calf would bring about $68.00 per hundred pounds or $357.00 dollars. With the less severe price slide, the heavier 575 pound calf sold for $66.50 per hundred or $382.75. The extra 50 pounds brought $25.75 and a value of each pound of added gain at 51.5 cents.

It is amazing how often the value of added gain is between 50 cents/pound and 75 cents/pound! We want to keep this “principle of value of added gain” in mind as we make management decisions that are aimed at increasing calf sale weights.

The turf battles begin...FDA and food safety "reform"
Steve Kopperud
Brownfield Network

In the wake of his announcement that subcommittees will begin marking up their respective titles of the 2007 Farm Bill starting May 21, some folks may have missed the less-than-subtle message House Ag Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D,MN) sent his House brethren. That message was this: Introduce as many independent bills as you want, but unless you've got a champion in this committee, get out of our way because the Ag Committee writes the Farm Bill, thank you very much.

Peterson, who's set to announce his formal schedule for action on the Farm Bill on May 17, pretty much had to stake out his turf given the number of "reform" bills aimed at various parts of USDA jurisdiction that have surfaced in the last several weeks. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D, CT), chair of the ag appropriations subcommittee, has her own farm bill proposal aimed at nutrition, food safety and organics; just about every other member of the House has an alternative "farm-based" fuels bill, and even his own committee members -- Rep. Ron Kind (D,WI) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R,AZ) -- have a "reform" package that pretty much ignores the subcommittee process in Peterson's domain.

The reality is harsh, however, meaning that Peterson can foreclose on letting these various and sundry measures sully his subcommittee-to-full committee process, but it just means the floor fight over the 2007 Farm Bill will be broader, deeper and uglier.

***

It may have started with pet food, expanded to pigs, chickens and now fish, but the reality of the ever-widening and seemingly never-ending pet food recall is that FDA's in for no small amount of "reform." So far, the pet food recall has resulted in legislation adopted by the Senate to set up pet food ingredient and processing standards, and sucked up time and manpower in about half a dozen subcommittee and full committee hearings on both sides of Captiol Hill, held in just about every committee that has anything to do with agriculture, food, feed, FDA, imports or food safety in the broadest possible sense.

And what started as a semi-focused, specific problem with pet food, it's now been amplified to include wholesale questioning of FDA's ability to protect the food supply, and not just from dangers within but from the dastardly deeds of overseas companies out to make a fast buck. Add to this the inevitable rhetoric any politician attaches to any "reform" effort, and you have a confused, if not concerned, consuming public.

The next shoe to drop on Capitol Hill will be a May 17 hearing in the House Energy & Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations. This gang won't be talking pet food or fish feed, but rather can the agency do its job? If it's hampered, is it ineptitude or lack of resources or both? They'll ask the questions, but likely have already written the answers.

The unfortunate result of such congressional navel gazing is inevitably this deliberative body tends to want to solve a problem through overregulation. If Congress decides to require inspection of all food and consumer products imported into the U.S., it better consider the cost to the government AND to the consumer. If it's going to set up new "alert" systems, again, it better determine the real value of such endeavors and what they cost to operate. And it better be darn sure such regulation and programs will work to improve, not impede, FDA's ability to protect the food supply.

Unfortunately, rather than examine root causes of any FDA constraint, e.g. money, manpower, or authority, Congress assumes the agency is near death before it's completed triage, or when accused of not doing its job, guilty until proven innocent.

Even in the wake of VIOXX, peanut butter, spinach and pet food recalls, I'm personally convinced the underlying problem with FDA is money and personnel, as in not enough money to run the programs it has, and not enough money to hire qualified folks to do the jobs.

Congress needs to step back and do a head-to-toe analysis of FDA needs, and once identified, fill those gaps. Then it can examine the need for new or expanded programs and regulation, but only then.