Grass is Not Free
Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist
NDSU Extension Service

Summer in the beef business is turn out time. If we are not careful, some would
conclude that it is the time of year when we don't need to feed the cows.

Summer would seem to be the time when cash costs are less and the pocketbook is
not being called upon as frequently to pay the bills. The summer focus is the
processing, hauling and storage of next winter's feed.

However, summer can be expensive. The costs of raising crops and forage are
working their way into the system. The cow still is eating and those bites of
grass in the pasture are not free.

The 2006 report of the North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management program
(http://www.ndfarmmanagement.com) detailed cow feed costs. The typical producer
spent $257.83 feeding the cow. A little more than 31 percent of that total was
related to pasture costs.

Sorted on net return per cow-calf pair, the low 20 percent spent more on total
feed ($292.59), with 29 percent ($85.08) of the bill attributed to pasture
costs. The middle 40 percent to 60 percent spent $256.95, with 35 percent
($89.96) of the total feed bill attributed to pasture costs.

The 20 percent of herds that had the greatest net return spent a total of
$227.31 on total feed, with a little less than 30 percent ($67.60) of the total
feed costs attributed to summer grazing for the cow-calf pair.

The assignment of a value to pasture is important and relevant to the analysis
of the total operation. The costs do influence the bottom line of cattle
operations.

In terms of cost per animal unit month (AUM) as reported to the North Dakota
Farm and Ranch Business Management program, the average cost, based on net
return per cow, is $13.23 per AUM. The bottom 20 percent paid $14.06, the middle
40 percent to 60 percent paid $15.30 and the top 20 percent paid $11.17.

These numbers are not all based on market demand because not all producers are
actively bidding for pasture. Some are assigning a value to their own pasture.

An exact cost conclusion is difficult, but cow-calf producers are focused on
pasture and range production. This was the second priority for producers, as
documented in the publication "Priorities First: Identifying Management
Priorities in the Commercial Cow-Calf Business," summarized and authored by Tom
Field, Ph.D., Fort Collins, Colo.

What is interesting, when it comes to pasture and range, is that the stocking
rate was the highest ranking subcategory, followed closely by timing and
duration of grazing. Monitoring cattle performance and plant species ranked
considerably lower than the first two subcategories.

In commercial cow-calf production, the stocking rate is compared with calf
weight to feeders. The bottom line is that pounds and stocking rate, at least to
the naked eye, are equivalent to the pounds of beef on a given amount of land.

The duration of grazing determines how long the pounds will be (not can be) on a
given amount of land. This creates a dilemma.

While pasture and range are a very high priority, there is no indication of
long-term grazing practices being beneficial to the health of the plant
community. In the same breath, the associated appropriate stocking rate and
grazing duration that produce a realistic quantity of beef need to be in the
same equation.

In a perfect world, all four subcategories should rank the same. In reality,
calf performance and plant species composition are essential for monitoring
stocking rate, and timing and duration of grazing.

But that is the perfect world. We all know that pasture and range are very
complicated fundamental aspects of beef production. It is reassuring that they
rank high.

New Mexico cattle found to have TB
By The Associated Press
Las Cruces Sun-News
June 15, 2007


SANTA FE — Bovine tuberculosis has been detected in dairy cattle in
eastern New Mexico, state officials said Thursday.

State Agriculture Secretary Miley Gonzalez confirmed that animals in a
herd in Curry County had the disease.

He said it will likely lead to the destruction of the herd, but that the
federal government will compensate the owners. He was uncertain of the
exact size of the herd, but said it was at least two dozen cattle.

Bovine TB is rarely passed to humans but workers at the dairy, which was
not identified, will be tested, Gonzalez said.

The outbreak could threaten New Mexico's status as a bovine
tuberculosis-free state.


Full text:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_6149339


See also:

Governor Bill Richardson Announces Effort to Deal with Bovine TB
Diagnosis in Curry County
Press Release
June 14, 2007


SANTA FE – Governor Bill Richardson announced that the state is taking
aggressive action to minimize the impact of a dairy cattle herd in Curry
County that has been diagnosed as having bovine Tuberculosis. Bovine TB
is a bacterial disease that affects primarily the upper respiratory
tract of cattle.

In addition to the infected cattle herd in Curry County, two other
dairies in Curry County are also being inspected by the New Mexico
Department of Agriculture, the New Mexico Livestock Board and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

In response to the news of the bovine TB diagnosis, Governor Richardson
has formed a Bovine TB Intervention Group, led by State Department of
Agriculture Secretary Miley Gonzalez. Other members of the Intervention
Group include:

· State Veterinarian Dave Fly
· Bill King, Chairman of the New Mexico Livestock Board
· Caren Cowen, Executive Director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association
· Sharon Lombardi, Executive Director of the Dairy Producers of New Mexico

“All appropriate steps are being been taken to track down the infected
cattle,” Governor Bill Richardson said. “This is a serious issue that
could have negative implications for our livestock and dairy industries.
I want this Intervention Group to take aggressive steps to, not only
identify the potential sources of the infection, but also to make sure
that eliminate the risks to other cattle herds.”

Oats, planted late, aren't your Grandpa's oats!
Stan Smith, PA, Fairfield County OSU Extension

With five years of experience under our belts planting oats after the first of July with the intent of creating as much high quality forage as possible, it's apparent there is not a better alternative. When oats are planted in July or early August, we have consistently experienced production of 4 to 7 tons of dry matter with 18+/-% protein.

To put this into perspective, the average production of hay harvested from perennial forages in Ohio is LESS THAN HALF of that! Without including land or harvest costs, those 5+/- tons of oat forage come at a TOTAL COST of less than $25 per ton even at today's fertilizer prices.

Suffice to say, oats planted after July 1 when the days are growing shorter are not the same oats you used to help your Grandpa plant in March! Even though we are using the same varieties of oats one would plant in early spring for the purpose of harvesting grain, when planted in the summer, oats consistently become a nutrient dense, highly vegetative forage. These late planted oats will remain in the vegetative state until a significant freeze stops them in late November or December, while seldom making a seed head. If they do, the seed hulls are empty with no grain.

As you consider your options to replace the forage production we've already lost this year, consider what we've learned over the past five years about growing oats for forage

When planted this late, oat variety appears to have little impact on forage yields. In fact, we've used bin run seed, certified seed, treated seed, U.S. grown feed oats and Canadian feed oats and found essentially no difference in the resulting forage production.

Oats are a "scavenger" for nutrients and require little additional fertilizer. We've applied 18 to 50 units of supplemental nitrogen to July and early August planted oats and experienced similar yields with each rate. While each ton of oats that are removed from the field will take ~14 pounds of phosphorus and ~ 50 pounds of K with it, we have not seen a yield boost when these nutrients were applied at planting.

No-tilled seeding rates of from 80 pounds to 100 pounds of oats have resulted in optimum forage yields.

Oats planted into dust, or into significant moisture have both yielded comparably. Oats planted in July/August seem to tolerate dry weather very well. Some of our best yields have been experienced when July, August and September precipitation has been below normal.

Depending on precipitation and planting date, 60 to 90 days of growth are sufficient to optimize yields.

While strip grazing is the most efficient method of harvest, baling dry hay and creating ensilage have also been successful.

When strip grazing or mechanical harvest is delayed, the quality of oat forage is maintained well into winter. On March 11, 2003, we found that August of 2002 planted oats which were still being strip grazed had 11.12% protein. A nearby fescue field that was also being grazed had 8.19% protein on the same day.

While not experiencing the high yields described earlier, oats have been flown into standing corn and soybean fields in August and September and resulted in yields of from 500 up to 3200 pounds of dry matter per acre without the benefit of any supplemental nitrogen. Seeding rates for aerial seedings have been boosted to 120 pounds per acre. Despite this, total costs for the seed and the aerial application will still be less than $30 per acre. An additional benefit to interseeding oats into standing corn is the high quality (protein) oats will help make the corn residue more palatable when strip grazing harvested corn fields.

With many small grain fields soon to be harvested and likely sitting idle, the opportunity of flying seed into standing row crops, or early harvested silage fields becoming available later this summer, cattlemen still have excellent opportunities to create high quality forages that may be mechanically harvested or grazed well into winter and even next spring. If you've yet to attend any of our field days to see for yourself the results of summer seeded oats, this web link has photos and data of several of the past years' attempts at the alternatives described above: http://fairfield.osu.edu/ag/graze/wntrgraz.htm

IS SIZE STILL INCREASING IN ALL BREEDS?
Dr. Steve Hammack, Professor and Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Emeritus
Texas A&M

First, what is “size”? The best measure of size or body mass is weight, not height or some other dimension. Weight is what is involved in nutritional requirements, and also what is sold. So, it’s how big, not how tall. Somewhere in the 1960s, our established breeds started selecting for bigger cattle. Most of the Continental European breeds imported starting in the late 60s were bigger than established breeds. And selection for increased size has generally continued, in varying degrees. Let’s look at what has happened in two of our most numerous breeds, a British and a Continental.

Since 1980, genetic trend in Angus has increased 38 lb for Weaning EPD and 71 lb for Yearling EPD, with a steady increase for both. (Over the same period, averaged for bulls and heifers, actual reported weaning weight has gone up over 125 lb and yearling weight almost 200 lb.) Change has been slower in most Continentals but, since 1980, Simmental EPD has increased 11 lb for weaning, essentially stabilizing since about 1990, and 24 lb for yearling. (The U. S. Meat Animal Research Center says most of our most numerous breeds currently weigh about the same.) Similar trends can be seen in all of the more numerous breeds.

However, I recently ran across data for a less numerous breed, Red Poll. Since 1980, EPD for weaning has increased only 4 lb and yearling only 5 lb, and cattle of this breed were relatively small to begin with. There are probably some other lesser know breeds with similar trends. Is this good or bad? It depends, on what sort of genetics you want. But it does seem there is still plenty of genetic variation to choose from among breeds, as well as within breeds, so you should be able to find whatever is needed or wanted. (Genetic evaluation data from American Angus Association, American Simmental Association, and American Red Poll Association.)

The K-State Beef Conference will be held on August 9-10, 2007. This conference is designed to provide take-home knowledge that will enhance the ability of cow/calf producers to improve profitability. The conference will be held in Weber Hall on the K-State campus. Registration fee is $150 per participant and is due by August 3. A registration form and details are available at www.asi.ksu.edu/beefconference.
The focus of the conference is “Adding Value to Calves” which will include presentations from several industry leaders sharing various options for doing just that and producers who participate in these value-added programs. The conference will also include sessions on animal handling and practical cow feeding. For more information, contact Larry Hollis (lhollis@ksu.edu; 785-532-1246) or Twig Marston (twig@ksu.edu; 785-532-5428).

Dueling Farm Bills...Sen. Clinton's Priorities
Inside DC with Steve Kopperud
Brownfield Network

The farm policy shoot-out of 2002 is about to be replayed during the 2007 Farm Bill magilla, once again proving that in DC there are very few new issues, just old ones recycled.

Rep. Ron Kind (D,WI), along with Reps. Jeff Flake (R, AZ), Joe Crowley (D, NY) and Dave Reichert (R, WA) dropped the FARM 21 bill this week, the rebirth and rework of Kind's 2002 farm policy rewrite. Kind's press release says, "It's time to reform our farm and food policies. Commodity prices are high, farm income is stable and the debt-to-asset ratio in farm country is the lowest it has ever been," going on to say what many others are saying, namely most of the farm payments are going to those who need them least -- "multi-million dollar commodity producers."

Kind would scrap the current farm payment program, replacing it with producer "risk management accounts," (RMAs) described as similar to an IRA for farmers. These RMAs would be held jointly with USDA, with traditional payments continuing but declining over seven years, with an increasing proportion of each year's payment directed to the farmer's RMA. Farmers could deposit their own money as well, using the RMA to cover losses not covered by crop and revenue insurance policies.

Kind says his approach will save the government $20 billion over five years and $50 billion over the next decade, allowing the money to be spent on rural development, environment (increasing outlays by $6 billion over five years, including expanding EQIP to more than $2 billion), energy (research would get an additional $1 billion over five years, and $5 billion in loan guarantees), promoting "healthy food choices" (promoting consumption of fruits and veggies by spending $400 million over five years), anti-hunger programs (increasing food stamps by $5 billion over five years), and reducing the national debt ($5 billion over five years and $20 billion over a decade).

The updated Kind proposal was first floated five years ago, and when first introduced, most gave it no chance of being taken seriously. However, Kind sent a real wake-up call when he offered his program as a substitute to the House Ag Committee's bill and darn near succeeded on the House floor.

Supporting Kind's proposal are Bread for the World, the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense, OxFam, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste and the Grocery Manufacturers Assn.

Hmmmm...

***

Next out of the box with an eight-page press release this week is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY), touting a recent letter to Senate Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D, IA) and Ranking Member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) outlining her priorities for the 2007 Farm Bill. Ms. Clinton would "continue the programs that work and fix those that don't," saying she is "excited to seize this opportunity to secure the future of our farming families and communties."

With no details and some of most carefully worded statements I've seen in a long time, Ms. Clinton wants to see the following: Continue the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC); "proper implentation" of country-of-origin labeling (COOL); a "strong counter-cyclical safety net"; improved credit opportunities; more food inspectors and "reorganization" of food safety efforts between FDA and USDA; strengthening and enforcing USDA's buying of local products for feeding and nutrition programs, along with specialty crop programs, a solution to the honey bee disappearance "crisis," innovative energy programs and $20 million and a new USDA undersecretary to get Internet broadband service "into all corners of rural America."

Again -- hmmmmm

The Center for Animal Disease Modeling and Surveillance (CADMS) in the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis, has launched a nationwide research study aimed at protecting the livestock industry from the devastating consequences of foot-and-mouth disease.

Livestock producers throughout the nation are asked to participate in an online survey to gather data on animal movements and husbandry practices that will be used in a simulation model to predict the duration and magnitude of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, as well as determine the best strategies for containment. This project is being conducted in collaboration with the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Diseases (FAZD) and is supported by the USDA and the Department of Homeland Security.

Foot-and-mouth (FMD) is one of the most highly contagious diseases affecting cloven-hoofed animals such as cattle, swine, sheep, goats and deer. In 2001 an outbreak of FMD in the UK resulted in catastrophic economic losses exceeding $15 billion. As a result, at least 6 million animals were slaughtered. In the US, the economic impact of an outbreak is estimated to be as high as $13 billion and every segment of the livestock industry would be severely affected.

FMD is on the top of the Department of Homeland Security's list for a bioterrorist attack on US agriculture. "Because it spreads so quickly and it is easily transmitted, the threat of FMD to the US is very serious and we need to be prepared," said Dr. Tim Carpenter, director of the study. "Our model will provide decision-makers with a valuable tool for rapid response and will help determine the best strategies, including vaccination, to contain an outbreak and minimize impact to the livestock industry".

With no recent cases of FMD in the US to use as an example (the last was in 1929) it is hard to predict how an outbreak might spread in today's globalized environment. Information about the distribution of livestock nationwide, animal movements and husbandry practices in the US is not up to date. This lack of current information hampers the implementation of an effective response strategy.

According to Dr. Carpenter, "the online survey will allow us to develop a model based on real, up-to-date data for animal movements and current practices that could determine how the disease spreads. Only livestock producers can provide us with this information. This model would put the US at the forefront in preparedness for not only foot-and-mouth but also other foreign animal diseases".

CADMS guarantees that all the information will be kept confidential and will only be used for modeling purposes.

The online survey can be found at: http://www.cadms.ucdavis.edu

For more information please contact Pelayo Alvarez at: (530) 554-2988.

It's Deja Vu . . . all over again!
Stan Smith, PA, Fairfield County OSU Extension

In the words of old Yankee Hall of Famer number 8, Yogi Berra, it sure seems like deja vu all over again. Much of Ohio and many parts of the Midwest saw it in 1999, and 2002, and again in 2005 . . . significantly below normal precipitation in spring and early summer which set the stage for below normal production of hay and pasture.

After experiencing a very wet fall and winter, this year's 3 inch below normal precipitation in May was preceded by an extraordinary freeze in early April. All that adds up to what many are describing as only 30-60% of normal spring forage production.

The most recent USDA Ohio Crop Weather Highlights shows nearly three fourths of our top soils are short or very short on moisture. At the same time, at least 50% of our hay and pastures were rated as only "fair" or worse. Despite a tenth inch to as much as an inch of rain throughout Ohio during last weekend, it's unlikely we'll see compensatory forage growth that replaces what's already been lost. While the NOAA Drought Information Center is calling only the southern half of Ohio "Abnormally Dry" the recent above normal temperatures combined with the lack of timely precipitation has certainly taken it's toll on the cool season grasses and even the alfalfa. Adding insult to injury are feedgrain prices that have attracted some of our hay acres into corn production. But then Yogi probably said it best when he suggested "it ain't over til it's over" . . . and in this case, that means there's still time to MANAGE!!

All that being said, it's apparent that it's time to be considering the alternatives for managing around these poor producing pasture and hay fields. Certainly it's never too early in the summer to take a look at your forage and feed resources, and give some thought to alternatives that will hold you until cooler temperatures and timely rains return to Ohio. Consider some of these alternatives which will help best utilize limited resources:

Wean early spring born calves soon if not already. Review the thoughts later in this letter by Dr. Turner on the subject of "early weaning."
People have mentioned that feeding corn is too expensive. Is it? Do the math. For easy figuring assume that one pound of corn replaces about 2 pounds of hay nutritionally. Plus, it's a whole bunch easier and less expensive per ton to haul. As an alternative to offering what will likely be "expensive" supplemental hay at a time now when cows could easily utilize a little more energy, feed the cows 2-3 pounds of whole corn per head per day. Feed it on the dry ground under an electric fence wire and the cows and calves won't waste any. If you have adequate bunk space, wheat midds might be an alternative that's less expensive than corn.
If you do still have forage that's suitable for grazing, allow at least 2-3 inches of top growth to remain in the field. Also, extend rest periods now to 35 or more days for most forage species.
If your forage growth has stopped, pull the cows off pasture and feed hay or silage. Overgrazed plants won't recover very well when precipitation and cooler temperatures do return. Roots transport moisture and nutrients to growing plants. See Jeff McCutcheon's thoughts on this below. During the 1999 drought, an Amanda (Ohio) area cattleman pulled his cows from the pastures in late July and August and fed them from a corn silage bag. His rested pastures recovered much more quickly that fall, and were significantly more productive than others' in the County that were allowed to be grazed down to the soil. Manage for the long haul - don't destroy a productive pasture just to survive the short term!
If a pasture must be overgrazed and abused, make sure it's a mature, well established one. It will recover more quickly than younger seedings.
Wheat harvest is upon us and this will provide vacant fields that you might want to consider planting oats on. During the extremely dry summer of 2002, you will recall the Wolfingers from Fairfield County planted oats into a harvested wheat field in early August and then strip grazed from it about 5 tons of high quality dry matter per acre beginning in November, and continuing into March. Fields of oats without fence have been mechanically harvested in the fall, consistently yielding 5+/- tons.
After the calves are weaned and the cow's nutrient requirements are reduced, if you don't get your harvested wheat fields seeded to oats, you may plan to graze wheat stubble and the volunteer wheat that emerges when some showers do occur. If you have a decent stand of volunteer forage, you might even consider applying a little ammonium nitrate to these fields to enhance growth. Beyond that, begin planning to graze corn stalks after corn harvest.
Palpate and cull now before everyone else does. Moving culls now will not only save feed, but prices are also pretty good . . . cull now, beat the rush.
Assuming it will rain again, plan to apply ammonium nitrate to resting pastures - especially the fescue - sometime around August 1.
When a little pasture top growth does return, don't be impatient about grazing it. If you must graze on it, only top graze it lightly and move the cattle on.

Beginning below we are committing this week's letter to Forage Focus as we explore some of the alternatives mentioned above in more detail. If dry weather persists, look for more management suggestions in coming weeks. Also in the mean time, visit the OSU Extension "Drought '02" website at http://corn.osu.edu/drought02 for more detail on managing in times of expensive and limited feed supply.

Mushrooms - Success is in the Details
By Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist
NDSU Extension Service

It's a mushroom spring. Nature, for many, can be very broad and
often times simply can be stated as brown or green, dry or wet,
cold or hot, dead or alive. For those who succumb to such broad
brushes, the fine points of nature often are missed and the joy
of piecing together the detail simply is brushed aside.

Those thoughts come to mind while reading the recent publication
"Priorities First: Identifying Management Priorities in the
Commercial Cow-Calf Business." The report, summarized and
authored by Tom Field, Ph.D., Fort Collins, Colo., identified
herd nutrition as the No. 1 priority for cow-calf operations.

The publication does an excellent job of stimulating additional
thoughts. Cow-herd nutrition is a very large subject and much
like defining nature. Feed can be yellow or green, wet or dry,
present or absent, but it is more than that.

In beef production, as in most businesses, the "success is in the
details." Field notes cow-calf producers and industry specialists
who responded to a survey prioritized defined subcategories of
herd nutrition as well.

Field noted that annual cowherd nutrition during the last third
of pregnancy, during calving to weaning and replacement heifer
nutrition, were all relatively high on the priority listing.

The lower two subcategories were the middle third of pregnancy
and bull nutrition. These primary and subcategories provide
insight into how cow-calf producers think, strategize and react.
Reviewing the survey results offers an opportunity for insight,
evaluation and change in individual cow-calf operations.

The No. 1 priority, nutrition, is a good place to start. The
allocation of nutritional resources is critical, more so than
determining if feed is present or absent.

Even in the big picture, if one reviews the 2006 report of the
North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management program
(www.ndfarmmanagement.com), there is a $232.23 spread in net
return over direct and overhead expenses in North Dakota cow-calf
operations. The $232.23 difference certainly should point to a
need to set priorities.

Jerry Tuhy, adult farm management instructor in southwestern
North Dakota, said, "The difference in overhead expenses per cow
between the high 20 percent and the low 20 percent of cow-calf
operations ($310.21 versus $405.12) sorted on net return per unit
was $94.91. More than 68 percent ($65.28) of that difference is
in the difference in total feed between the same high 20 percent
and the low 20 percent."

Nutrition is No. 1. This is a mushroom spring. Lee Manske,
Dickinson Research Extension Center range specialist, and I were
checking for fairy rings in the grass. It didn't take long to
find the fruiting bodies (commonly called mushrooms) of the
chlorophyllum. The walk turned up a large number of hygrophorus,
amanita, russula, armillarius, mycena, panacolus and cortinarius
mushrooms.

We stopped looking because, in the world of the mycologist,
mycelium is never noticed. For most of us, we are too busy
painting with too big a brush. But nutrition and mushrooms have a
lot in common, just like steak and mushrooms.

Success is in the details; not all steaks fit the grill and half
the mushrooms we saw potentially were poisonous. Cow herd
nutrition is a top priority and puts money in the pocket.
However, don't forget, properly fed bulls breed more cows and
cows in poor condition gain well after weaning.

Nutritional success is in the details. Pay attention to the
nutritional needs of the herd, feed the bulls and thin cows and
enjoy a good steak supper with a few mushrooms.

However, don't pick the poisonous mushrooms. They are best left
to please the eye, not the palate.

Hay Quality versus Hay Quantity
Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

Harvest date is a very important factor that determines the quality of the hay cut from native grass meadows. After a couple of drought years and below average hay supplies, ranchers may be tempted to go for maximum hay tonnage at any cost. However, producers should strive for the best combination of quantity and quality of forage from the hay that they store for winter feed supplies.

Research from Kansas State University range and pasture researchers sheds light on the optimum native range cutting dates. They harvested native grass meadows in early June, July, August, and September. The June and September dates were clearly less desirable as the June date produced about half as much tonnage as the early August cutting and the September hay quality was extremely low and produced a hay product that would be difficult for cattle to digest easily and yield little in terms of nutritional value. Therefore the decision of cutting time boiled down to the early July versus early August dates. The July harvest produced about 2400 pounds of dry matter forage per acre compared to 2800 pounds per acre in August. The July cutting was tested at about 7% crude protein and the August cutting was about half as good for protein content (3%).

As the calculations of amount of hay and quality are combined, we learn that the earlier cut hay produced about 168 pounds of crude protein per acre and the later cut hay produced only 84 pounds of crude protein per acre. Assuming typical total digestible nutrient content for these hays we would expect to find about 55% TDN in the July hay and 46% TDN in the August hay. Once again we make the calculations to see how much energy (TDN) is harvested to be fed to the cows. The July hay crop produced about 1320 pounds of TDN per acre and the August hay produced 1288 pounds of TDN per acre. Even though the producer hauled more tonnage from the field to the storage area and back out to the cattle with the later cut hay, he moved considerable less nutrients than he would have if the hay had been cut one month earlier. Nobody likes to haul hay that badly. If we are going to harvest and feed hay, we might as well have protein and energy (things the cows need) going along on the hay ride.

There’s still life in immigration, House Farm Bill Evolution
Inside DC with Steve Kopperud
Brownfield Network

Watching the Senate struggle and then flounder over immigration reform was another exercise in legislation as sausage making. Leaders of both parties tried to drag members to the finish line through a series of procedural shenanigans, only to face a revolt that scuttled the bill. However, the reports of the effort’s demise are premature. I’m expecting this show to resume later this summer.

Now, sitting Senate leaders have never called me to ask what strategy they should follow in a floor debate. If they had, here’s what I would have told them. You don’t start at the philosophical extremes of both parties in hopes of dragging the moderate middle to your way of thinking. You should have consolidated the moderate centrist members around a core bill, and then worked your way out to the extremes, knowing full well at some point you’d have to draw a hard line in the sand when it came to amendments.

To follow this scenario would be to put together a package that more directly reflected the constituencies which care about immigration. Most folks will accept a reasonable attempt to solve a problem, and in the case of immigration and its historic proportions as a federal policy issue, it’s pretty well understood the solution to this mess is likely more incremental than a single shot.

I watched a press conference featuring immigration reform coalition leaders the day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) yanked the bill after much very public yammering and gnashing of teeth over “enough time” being given to the debate. Senator after senator went to the microphone – from both sides of the aisle – to pledge their commitment to the passage of immigration reform, at the same time talking very politely and obliquely about the mistakes made in the handling of the bill.

Impatience is a bad thing – in fact, a very bad thing – when it comes to trying put together a bill as complex and far-reaching – and with as much impact on the lives of individuals and families -- as immigration reform. Sen. Reid stepped badly when he tried to cut off debate if members didn’t bring their amendments to the floor. This is the kind of legislation that should take as long as it takes to get consensus. Sen. John Kyl (R, AZ) said that if the GOP had one more day, they could have finalized their list of amendments and the bill could have been finished today – successfully.

Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), as chair of the House Agriculture Committee, keeps floating these Farm Bill trial balloons, and the man deserves credit for being bold and creative when it comes to ways to save money in one program so that it can be spent on another. This week’s selection was Peterson’s revelation he’s considering putting a size limit on farms which would qualify for federal payments. Now, we’re not talking a maximum here, but rather a minimum. Under the Peterson idea – nothing’s in stone – anyone owning 10 acres or less would no longer be eligible for federal programs. According to Peterson, “these folks aren’t really farmers.” This would save, the Chairman says, $25 million a year by taking over 250,000 folks out of the program mix. Now, how many of these folks are raising specialty or organic crops for niche or local markets or are what we now call “artisan” farmers?

Water Quality Can Affect Livestock Weight Gain
Roxanne Johnson, Extension Service water quality associate
Norht Dakota State U

The quality of the water that livestock drink can have a major
impact on their water intake and weight gain, according to a
North Dakota State University water quality expert.

"Canadian studies have shown the quality of water accessible to
livestock is directly tied to the amount of forage they consume,"
says Roxanne Johnson, Extension Service water quality associate.
"Improved water palatability increases water and feed
consumption, which is demonstrated as an increased rate of gain."

These studies also show that while cattle will drink contaminated
water, it has been associated with decreased forage intake.

Dugouts are the main source of water for cattle in some pastures,
but water quality may be a problem. Because rate of gain in
livestock is a priority for producers, looking at some options to
improve water quality makes sense, Johnson says. One Canadian
study could offer producers some insights.

Research conducted at the University of Saskatchewan's Termuende
Research Farm by the Western Beef Development Center, Prairie
Farm Rehabilitation Administration, and Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's Research Branch tested four water treatments in three
separate trials during a four-year period. Each treatment allowed
cattle to have full access to a water source.

The water sources were direct access to the dugout, water pumped
from the dugout to a trough, water aerated and pumped to a
trough, and water coagulated/chlorinated prior to pumping to a
trough. When researchers pumped water to a trough, they fenced
the dugout to prevent cattle from accessing it.

This study showed that compared with untreated water consumed
directly from a dugout, water treated by either
coagulation/chlorination or aeration improved cattle weight gain
by 0.33 pound per day. Cattle in the study also spent
considerably more time grazing and less time loafing when they
had access to fresh water, compared with drinking from the
dugout.

"If the key is increasing water consumption, then producers
should consider palatability of accessible water, too," Johnson
says.

While this aspect of water quality has not been fully studied,
certain compounds found in water have characteristics that are
offensive to humans and may contribute to decreased water intake
in livestock. Examples include geosmin, which imparts an earthy
odor; 2-methylisoborneol, which is associated with a musty taste;
hydrogen sulfide, which is associated with a rotten-egg odor;
chlorine, which has an offensive smell; and the metals iron and
manganese, which give water a metallic taste and change the color
of the water.

"I urge producers to evaluate their watering methods and see if
changes could be made to improve the quality of water provided
their livestock," Johnson says. "Not only will the lifespan of
the dugout be extended through exclusion of livestock, cattle
performance will improve through improved water quality."

National FFA Organization Promotes Value of Animal Identification
APHIS Press Release

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National FFA
Organization today announced a partnership for a broad-based education
in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for current FFA
members and alumni. The cooperative agreement signed at USDA
headquarters in Washington, D.C., will help promote the value of
premises registration across the country.

“The federal voluntary level of NAIS provides a modern, streamlined
information system that helps producers and animal health officials
respond quickly and effectively to animal health events in the United
States,” said Bruce Knight, undersecretary for USDA’s marketing and
regulatory programs. “Rapid disease response limits the impact of an
outbreak on a producer’s operation--or can stop disease spread before it
reaches the animals. Choosing to be a part of voluntary NAIS ensures a
producer of needed information, when they need it most--to protect their
animals and their investment.”

NAIS offers the benefit of premises registration, animal identification
and tracing. With timely, accurate information, state and federal
officials can contain a disease outbreak or other animal health event
more quickly and more effectively.

Life After the Drought for Oklahoma Cow-Calf Producers
Derrell S. Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

After two years of extremely dry conditions, the drought in Oklahoma, for the foreseeable future, has abated. Most of Oklahoma has received ten to twenty percent above normal precipitation in the last 90 days. In fact, locally heavy rains have made flooding a serious concern in several regions and the 2007 wheat harvest is struggling to get moving with persistent rainy conditions. However, cow-calf producers, for the most part, are enjoying the best forage and pond water conditions in many months and are not yet ready to complain about too much rain.

Cow-calf producers have a number of considerations for recovery from the drought and planning for the next couple of years. The first priority is or should be, for many producers, to assess forage conditions. Many pastures suffered in the drought and need time to recover. Producers should evaluate weed and brush control and especially fertility. Although fertilizer is expensive, many pastures need time and nutrients to recover and producers should carefully manage stocking rates to allow pastures to recuperate. Producers are also looking to replenishing seriously depleted hay supplies. On May 1, Oklahoma hay stocks were down 27 percent from last year’s already depleted levels and were down a whopping 71 percent from 2006 levels.

The cow herd likewise needs time to recuperate from the drought. Not only are cow numbers down in Oklahoma but very likely productivity has been reduced as well by the drought. The 2007 calf crop may well be smaller and even the 2008 calf crop may show some lingering effects of the drought on cow herd productivity. Producers need to evaluate the nutritional and reproductive status of cows and bulls to ensure productivity this next year. Early pregnancy checking may be advisable to identify lowered productivity sooner. Financial recovery from the drought depends on rebuilding herd productivity quickly.

The one positive effect of the drought is that herd expansion will be delayed and muted thereby extending cyclically lowered levels of cattle production and supporting generally strong calf prices for another couple of years at least. Reductions in productivity and the suspension of heifer retention in 2006 ensure that feeder cattle supplies will remain tight in 2007. Better forage conditions will lead to resumption of heifer retention in the second half of 2007. After assessing forage production and current herd productivity, producers will once again be asking themselves how much expansion and how best to accomplish it. Breeding animal values are already increasing in Oklahoma and the question of how high is too high will soon be on producers’ minds. The timing of cyclical expansion is key to how long good prices will last. And there are a host of other factors to watch as well, including grain prices, beef demand, trade and farm policy. The question “how the cattle cycle is proceeding” will have to be revisited later but suffice it so say that there will be herd expansion underway in Oklahoma for the remainder of 2007.

Title:

Idaho Cattle Association (ICA) Executive Vice President

Position Summary: The Executive Vice President (EVP) is responsible for all Association business, activities, programs and employees. General areas of responsibility include coordinating staff and officer activities while operating within the budget set by the Executive Committee. In addition the EVP will be primarily responsible of all aspects of membership communications, education & recruitment. The EVP will maintain strong government and public relations. The EVP reports directly to the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors.

Summary of Required Qualifications: Cattle industry knowledge and experience with local, state & federal agencies and elected officials is a priority. Management experience with a staff and budgets; strong verbal and written communication skills; willingness to travel; ability to establish credibility with ICA members and volunteer leaders.

Compensation: Based on experience.

To Apply: Please submit a cover letter and resume before Tuesday, June 12th. All materials should be submitted to Jeff Faulkner, ICA President, at 1245 S. 2500 E., Gooding, ID 83330; fax 208-544-2079; or email at jeff@jfaulkner.myrf.net .

Selection Process: The ICA Executive Committee will review all applications and conduct interviews and reference checks. The Executive Committee will make recommendations to the ICA Board of Directors for a final decision.

Start Date: July 2007