A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to this weekly BEEF Cattle letter by sending a blank e-mail to beef-cattle-on@ag.osu.edu
Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter
Issue # 520
January 10, 2007
Feeding Distillers Grains to Beef Cattle - Justin Sexten, Extension Specialist, Animal Systems/Beef
According to the Renewable Fuel Association (2003) nearly half of the U.S. fuel alcohol production occurs in Illinois and states immediately adjacent. In 2001 approximately 1.8 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the U.S. and ethanol production is projected to reach four billion gallons this year. Distiller's grains plus solubles (DGS) is a feed co-product produced in wet and dry forms as a result of ethanol production. As ethanol production continues to increase optimizing DGS utilization in beef, dairy and swine rations will benefit Illinois livestock, corn and alcohol producers.
Beef cattle are typically maintained on forage diets, which may require protein, energy and phosphorus supplementation. Most forage protein is degraded in the rumen therefore cattle also require undegraded protein supplementation. Distiller's grains plus solubles provides undegraded protein and phosphorus in a high-energy supplement that will not depress forage digestion due to its low starch content.
Regardless of nutrient content feedstuffs must be economical for use in beef cattle diets since feed costs are the largest factor influencing profitability in beef herds (Miller et al., 2001). Feeds must be compared on a dry matter basis to evaluate economic feasibility.
($ / ton) / % dry matter = $ / ton of feed dry matter
Transportation is a significant expense associated with co-product feeding. Determining the cost per unit dry matter delivered to the farm will further aid in deciding which feedstuff to utilize.
(Round trip transportation cost) / (tons transported x % dry matter) = Transportation cost / ton DM
Add feed cost and transportation cost per ton of dry matter to determine total cost of feed dry matter delivered to the farm.
(Feed DM cost) + (DM transportation cost) = $ / ton DM delivered
These calculations aid in determining the base price producers can use to determine the feedstuff delivery cost to the farm. Determining the most economical feedstuff requires additional calculations to determine actual nutrient costs. Since protein is generally the most expensive feed nutrient, a cost analysis evaluating each feedstuff on a protein basis is appropriate.
($ / ton DM delivered) / (% crude protein) = $ / ton crude protein DM delivered
In this example modified wet distiller's grains plus solubles (MWDGS) is the most economical protein source, however, if storing and feeding wet products do not fit into your operation then the comparison above suggests dry distiller's grains plus solubles are more economical than soybean meal and corn gluten feed. These simple formulas do not illustrate is the additional rumen undegraded protein and energy provided by DGS compared to soybean meal and corn gluten feed thus making distiller's grains plus solubles more economical than demonstrated by the example. Co-product nutrient composition and transportation costs will vary therefore producers should evaluate the variable costs of co-product feeding for their unique operations.
Distiller's grains plus solubles are suitable for use in several phases of beef production. Due to the high protein needs of the growing animal including DGS in creep diets provides supplemental protein and energy to nursing calves without sacrificing forage digestibility. In addition, supplementing DGS to cattle grazing high and low quality forage has increased ADG and reduced forage intake, providing producers the opportunity to increase cattle performance while extending pasture or providing opportunities to stockpile pasture for future use.
Feedlot research has indicated DGS has approximately 120% the energy value of corn allowing for substitution of DGS in feedlot diets beyond protein supplementation. Beef producers utilizing corn stalk residue or other poor quality forages can supplement protein and energy needs of the gestating and lactating cow using DGS without sacrificing forage digestibility.
Feeding recommendations for DGS generally limit intake to 20% of the daily diet dry matter, for growing calves (500-700 lbs) that is a maximum of 5.5-7 lbs of modified wet DGS or 3 lbs of dry DGS. Finishing cattle (900-1200 lbs) can be fed 9-12 lbs of modified wet DGS or 4-6 lbs of dry DGS while cows (1200-1500 lbs) can be fed 10-12 lbs of modified wet DGS or 5-7 lbs of dry DGS. Increased feeding levels of DGS are possible. However, producers must consider increased nitrogen and phosphorus excretion in waste management plans.
High concentrations of phosphorus and sulfur in DGS require management to prevent mineral imbalances. Diets utilizing DGS must be balanced to maintain a calcium to phosphorus ratio of 1.5 to 1. In addition dietary sulfur levels in excess of 0.4% of the dry matter can lead to polioencephalomalacia, (PEM) which is a result of over-production of sulfides in the rumen. Feeding diets high in dietary sulfur may require thiamine supplementation.
As the Illinois ethanol industry continues to expand so will DGS availability. The combination of high protein, fat and phosphorus concentrations in a low starch feedstuff makes DGS an excellent choice for beef producers interested in reducing feed costs without sacrificing animal performance. When considering incorporating DGS into a feeding program beef producers need to consider nutritional characteristics, transportation costs, storage options and feeding methods. For additional information or questions regarding DGS visit http://ilift.traill.uiuc.edu/distillers/ or contact Justin Sexten, Extension Specialist Animal System/Beef at (618) 242-9310 or at sexten@uiuc.edu.
EDITOR's NOTE: Please be reminded than one of the topics of the upcoming OCA District meetings is "Ethanol By-products: What Can They Do for Your Operation" featuring Dr. Francis Fluharty. Visit the OSU Beef Team web calendar for a complete listing of these and other meetings.
Forage Focus: Forage Expert Examines Nutritive Value Vs. Quality - Texas A&M Extension
Forage producers who want the best silage, hay or grazing should remember that quality and nutritive value are related, but not necessarily the same thing, says a Texas Cooperative extension specialist.
"Nutritive value is what we read in the lab analysis," says Larry Redmon, extension forage program leader. "Forage quality encompasses nutritive value, but goes a step further to include the livestock component.
"Do they prefer it over other feed? Is their intake good? Do they gain well on this feed? These three things are the livestock component of forage quality."
The "official" nutritive value from a lab analysis can affect market
value and livestock performance, he says. As managers, forage producers have more control over nutritive value than
over quality.
"There are three ways we can affect nutritive value," Redmon says. "We can choose a different forage. We can change our soil nutrient status. Or we can harvest our chosen forage at a different growth stage."
"If we rate them for digestibility, from top to bottom, legumes are No. 1, cool-season annuals are second, cool-season perennials are third, warm-season annuals are fourth, and warm-season perennials come in fifth," Redmon says.
Nitrogen is the No. 1 soil nutrient in the forage nutrition equation, he says. It enables plant growth and production of amino acids that help determine crude protein.
Harvest when the forage is young to yield the highest nutritive value, Redmon says. "As a forage matures, the good 'tasty' components in the plant cells shrink because the cell walls thicken to support the plant as it grows."
"The most important thing we can do to preserve quality and nutritive value after cutting and curing is put it in the barn," he says. "A good hay barn will pay for itself in three to five years by protecting your forage from the elements."
A laboratory analysis that confirms nutritive value is also a good marketing tool, he says. Labs typically analyze forages for crude protein, net energy, fiber digestibility and vitamin/mineral content.
FDA releases its cloning draft risk assessment - NCBA Advisory issued 12/28/06, funded by The Beef Checkoff.
Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its Draft Risk Assessment of Animal Cloning, determining that the food products from cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those derived from conventionally bred animals (http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm). FDA also found that cloning is simply another assisted reproductive technology that does not pose any unique risks to animal health. Recognizing that animal health is an important aspect of cloning, FDA plans to work with related organizations to develop standards for animal care. Importantly, today's announcement does not change FDA's voluntary moratorium on cloned animals and their offspring entering the food supply.
The Draft Risk Assessment is the result of a four-year extensive study into all publicly available information about the safety of cloning, both in regards to human health and animal health. FDA reviewed hundreds of studies in reaching the conclusion that clones are virtually "indistinguishable" from their non-cloned counterparts. Independent scientists in the fields of animal cloning and animal health peer reviewed FDA's Risk Assessment and agreed with FDA's method of evaluation and its conclusions. These expert comments will be posted to FDA's Web site along with several other documents. The government has not issued a final decision on labeling the products from cloned animals and their offspring, should they appear in the marketplace in the future. However, since the Draft Risk Assessment finds these products to be indistinguishable from their non-cloned counterparts, FDA says there would be no health reason for labeling.
In addition to the Draft Risk Assessment, FDA also released today its Proposed Risk Management plan and Draft Guidance for Industry. These three documents are now open for a 90-day public comment period, after which, FDA will evaluate the comments received before issuing a final risk assessment and determining whether producers can release their cloned animals and their offspring into commerce. According to FDA, the current voluntary ban on cloned animals in the food supply has very good compliance. FDA anticipates if the ban is lifted, almost all food would be from the offspring of cloned animals as the value of clones is in their genetics not in the food they produce.
FDA describes clones as the identical twins of donor animals, just born at a different time. The technology would allow breeders to introduce naturally occurring desirable traits, like disease resistance, similar to what is done through other breeding technology only quicker. FDA recognizes the potential for public concern about the ethics of cloning. Therefore, FDA is working to serve as a reliable source of scientific information on cloning and encouraging the public to access the documentation now available on its Web site.
The media have been anticipating FDA's cloning announcement this week, with many national newspaper and broadcast news outlets running an Associated Press article, which reported "FDA set to OK food from cloned animals" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239460,00.html). NCBA responded to calls from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and New York Times in the last week.
Please use the following messages to answer any questions you receive about today's announcement. These messages, along with a Q&A document, responsive media statement and fact sheet also are available on the State Extranet for your reference.
The draft risk assessment conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that meat from a cloned cow is the same as its non-cloned counterpart and is safe.
* This FDA draft risk assessment is one step in an ongoing scientific process. FDA will ask all interested stakeholders to comment on the draft risk assessment before releasing a final risk assessment.
* All of the research conducted by numerous government agencies and independent scientific institutions indicates that meat from a cloned cow is completely safe to eat.
* The FDA has analyzed hundreds of scientific studies covering more than 30 years of research on cloning, including several generations of livestock.
* An April 2005 research study published in the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences is the strongest evidence to date that products from cloned cattle are safe for human consumption.
* This study was conducted by the University of Connecticut and Japan's Kagoshima Prefectural Cattle Breeding Development Institute (CBDI).
* In 2002 and 2004, research reviews conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded a cloned cow is no different from its non-cloned counterpart.
Beef producers use safe and efficient methods to provide wholesome, high-quality beef for consumers and cloning is another method that may be used in the future.
* Cloning could allow cattle ranchers to select animals which produce the highest quality beef to give consumers an even greater taste and more consistent, beef eating experience.
* For example, high-end steakhouses and their customers prefer highly marbled meat. However, only one animal in 12,000 beef animals achieves the associated USDA's Prime quality grade, occasionally providing a supply challenge to meet demand.
* Beef producers recognize the importance of keeping the cost of beef low for consumers. Increasing the productivity and efficiency of breeding is yet another way to keep beef affordable for consumers.
Cattlemen have been responsibly using safe, assisted reproduction methods for many years and cloning is just another of these methods.
* All cattle are born naturally, including those that are cloned.
* Cloning is simply assisted reproduction that produces a "twin" and does not add, change or modify genes to produce a new trait.
* Cloning is one of many breeding technologies ranchers have available to increase reproduction of the healthiest, highest quality animals.
* Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transfer are also technologies used to assist producers seeking to improve their cattle herd and operational efficiency.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed up on Monday. The FEB'07LC closed at $93.250/cwt, up $0.675/cwt and up a whopping $6.425/cwt from three weeks ago. The APR'07LC closed up $0.975/cwt at $94.450/cwt, higher by $3.750/cwt over three weeks ago. Hedge lifting, weather forecasts and weakness in feed grains supported gains early on. Initial gains were cut in late spreading action. The winter weather has cut into supplies with reports of two packers shutting down on Monday due to insufficient supplies. Some reports are surfacing that other packers may have some "black" days this week due to slow inputs because of current bad weather and recent bad weather robbing stock of gains. USDA's Five-Area Cash Cattle report showed cattle up almost $1/cwt over last week near $89/cwt but $5/cwt lower than last year at this time. USDA on Monday put the choice beef cutout at $148.80/cwt, up $1.01/cwt, its highest since September 12, 2006. The Goldman/Sachs roll started on Monday accounting for 4,000 April/February spreads on the day, of which 2,500 lots were done last thing in spurting floor activity. During the month prior to delivery, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index fund's long positions are rolled forward between the fifth and the ninth business days. Cash sellers are encouraged to push marketings if they can get them out of the pens at the right weights. It may be wise to consider protecting a portion of 3rd quarter '07 marketings at this time. Buying a Put option may not be a bad idea but put a pencil to it before doing so. Corn users should consider pricing more near-term corn inputs now.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed higher along with live cattle on Monday. The JAN'07FC contract finished at $98.875/cwt, up $0.225/cwt but $1.15/cwt lower than three weeks ago. The MAR'07FC contract closed up $0.200/cwt at $97.850 and nearly even with numbers reported in this report three weeks ago. Both the 4-day and the 20-day MAs have turned down in the MAR'07 contract. Feeders were supported by losses in feed grains. Gains occurred despite the forecasts for another winter storm in the Plains. Most of the time harsh winter storms are bearish for feeders since the weather can turn feedlot pens into sloppy mud holes and reduce the demand for them from feedlot owners. At times like these, feedlot owners mainly want to just take care of what they already have. There was a weak tone for cash feeders in Oklahoma City on Monday. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index, for January 4, was up $0.04/cwt at $99.18/cwt. Cash sellers are encouraged to push feeder sales. Hedgers may be wise to consider protecting a portion of 1st quarter '07 and 2nd quarter '07 marketings. Corn users should consider pricing more near-term corn inputs now.
Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events
BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868
Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources
