A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130

and the

OSU Extension BEEF Team

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 # 496

July 19, 2006

The Crossbred Cow... - Kit Pharo, Pharo Cattle Co., Cheyenne Wells, CO

Back in my early days, most commercial ranchers had Hereford cows or Angus cows. Very few had crossbred cows. It was almost taboo to use an Angus bull on Hereford cows or a Hereford bull on Angus cows. My dad had a herd of commercial Hereford cows. Although he knew there were some well-proven benefits to crossbreeding, he had no desire to do so. He would say, "Someone has to maintain the straightbred cowherds." He apparently thought this was his responsibility.

I can still remember the day Dad found the neighbor's black Angus bull in with his Hereford cows. He was not the least bit happy. As expected, we had a handful of black-baldy calves the next spring. No matter how prejudiced you were, you had to admit that those crossbred calves were as good as, or better than, our straightbred calves. The year was 1967. Dad kept a couple of black-whiteface heifer calves for replacements. Those crossbred cows turned out to be two of the very best cows on the ranch. Change is slow, though. It was 1974 when Dad finally started buying Angus bulls to use on his Hereford cows. From that point on, he implemented a very successful two-breed-rotation crossbreeding system. Those black-whiteface momma cows were as good as they get.

During the 1970's and 1980's many North American cattlemen became infatuated with the large exotic breeds of cattle from continental Europe. Consequently, crossbreeding became the rage. It was no longer taboo. Nearly everyone was running large exotic bulls with their smaller framed Hereford and Angus cows. Although most of these ranchers had no crossbreeding plan or program, the initial results (weaning weights) looked quite impressive.

However, when ranchers started retaining those large, exotic-cross heifers for replacements the scenario began to change. Within a few years, their cows were much bigger and harder keeping than they used to be. It required more land and more feed to maintain the same number of cows. Because most of these ranchers did not have a well-thought-out crossbreeding program, their cowherds quickly became very mongrelized and variable in size and type. Their calf crops lacked uniformity. All of this gave crossbreeding an undeserved black eye.

For the past ten years, there has been a very noticeable movement away from crossbreeding in commercial cowherds. Several so-called experts have been promoting straight breeding. In many cases, heavy doses of straight breeding with the more maternal British breeds (Angus and Hereford) were required to make the necessary corrections. This hasn't been easy, though, because most Angus and Hereford seedstock producers have spent the last 25 years trying to out-exotic the exotic breeds. We now have Angus and Hereford cattle with as much size, growth and milk as their exotic cousins.

Back to the future. Once you get your cows back to a more optimum size and type, I believe you need to take another look at the crossbred cow. She has some advantages that simply cannot be found in a straightbred cow. Most of her advantages are the result of hybrid vigor. Hybrid vigor, also known as heterosis, is a distinct increase in performance and output that can only be achieved through crossbreeding. It is equivalent to 2 + 2 = 5. Although hybrid vigor is not totally free, it's as close to free as we're ever going to get in this business.

Hybrid vigor has a significant effect on the growth and performance traits, but its greatest benefit is realized in traits with low heritability. Traits like fertility, longevity and calf survivability have low heritability and respond very slowly to genetic selection. However, they can be immediately improved through crossbreeding. Compared to straightbred cows the crossbred cow has a marked increase in conception rate, calving rate and weaning rate. These are all extremely important economic traits. The crossbred cow also has a marked increase in longevity and lifetime production. In other words, she can beat the hide and hair off of a straightbred cow.

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission from Kit Pharo, a no-nonsense seedstock producer in eastern Colorado. He shares his philosophies and opinions in a bi-monthly newsletter that is mailed out to over 20,000 ranchers. To receive this free newsletter, call 1-800-311-0995 or send an email to Kit@PharoCattle.com.

Heat Stress Can Reduce Pregnancy Rates - Dr. Glenn Selk, Extension Cattle Specialist, Oklahoma State University

The effects of heat stress on reproductive performance of beef cows has been discussed by many animal scientists in a variety of ways. After reviewing the scientific literature available up to 1979, one scientist wrote that the most serious seasonal variation in reproductive performance was associated with high ambient temperatures and humidity. He further pointed out that pregnancy rates and subsequent calving rates were reduced from 10% to 25% in cows bred in July through September.

Typical Oklahoma summer weather can fit the description of potential heat stress, where many days in a row can exceed 95 degrees and night time lows are often close to 80 degrees. Many hours of the day can be quite hot and cause the slightest rise in body temperature of cattle. Research conducted several years ago at OSU illustrated the possible impact of heat stress of beef cows on their reproductive capability. These cows were exposed to bulls as one group (while in a thermoneutral environment) and one week later exposed to the environmental treatments listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Effects of Imposed Heat Stress on Reproduction in Beef Cows

(Biggers, 1986;OSU)

They found that heat stress of beef cows from day 8 through 16 affected the weights of the conceptus (embryo, fluids, and membranes) and the increased body temperature may have formed an unfavorable environment for embryo survival. As noted in table 1, the percentage of pregnancies maintained throughout the week of severe heat stress was considerably reduced.

Florida scientists studying dairy cows reported that for high conception rates the temperature at insemination and the day after insemination was critical to success. They stated that the optimal temperature range was between 50 degrees F. and 73 degrees F. Marked declines in conception occurred when temperatures did not fall in this range.

Beef producers conducting Artificial Insemination or Embryo Transfer may want to take heed of this information. Make certain that cows are allowed access to shade and adequate air movement, at breeding, and immediately following breeding. Of course, adequate cool water is important anytime during the summer months. Avoid forcing recently inseminated cows to stand in treeless, drylot situations where relief from the Oklahoma heat is impossible.

Forage Focus: Will it Pay to Stockpile? - Clif Little, OSU Extension Guernsey County

Stockpiling fescue and orchardgrass is generally considered an economical way to extend the grazing season and cut feed costs. However, recently high fertilizer costs may call this practice into question.

It goes without saying stockpiling does have some risks. First we have to apply approximately fifty units of actual nitrogen per acre at the correct time of year, get some rain and cool temperatures to grow the additional forage. Previous articles have covered all of these how-to's. Let's see what nitrogen cost does to the economics of stockpiling. For the example below we will assume stockpiling will yield 2000 lbs. of D.M. (dry matter) per acre. We will apply fifty units of urea or 46-0-0 at various prices per ton and add in a $6 per acre spreading cost. We will total these cost per ton of stockpiled forage and subtract it from the cost of hay D.M. per ton. All figures are rounded and approximate.

As the table illustrates positive numbers indicate stockpiling as an economical alternative. However, as fertilizer prices increase it can become less economical particularly if hay prices do not rise as quickly as nitrogen prices. At least for this year it looks like we should still consider stockpiling.

Editor's Note: Next week in the Forage Focus portion of the BEEF Cattle letter, we'll offer more specific stockpiling management suggestions.

Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech

LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed down setting one-month lows in the AUG'06LC and OCT'06LC futures. The AUG'06LC contract finished the day at $82.925/cwt, off $1.075/cwt. After dipping to $86.325/cwt, the OCT'06LC contract rallied $0.25/cwt to close down $1.15/cwt at $86.575/cwt. Futures moved lower after cash cattle sold up to $2.00/cwt lower last Friday between $81.00/cwt-$81.50/cwt in the central and southern U.S. Traders say they are also poised to trade rumors of lower cash prices this week amid declining beef prices and packer margins. Scorching heat is expected to cut demand for the outside BBQ steak. Early estimates for total cattle on feed on July 1 ranged from 101.5%-104.6% of last year with January through May 2006 beef production up 6.8% for the same period in 2005. An increase in cattle slaughtered is responsible for 4.1 % with heavier slaughter weights accounting for 2.7% of the added production. Slaughter weights for all cattle are still above a year ago as June 24 data shows them up 8 pounds at 778 pounds. Slaughter steers averaged 828 pounds, up 14 pounds from this time last year. Heifers were going 9 pounds heavier at 750 pounds from the same week last year. USDA lowered choice beef cutout $0.78/cwt to $146.31/cwt, the lowest since the latter part of May. The average beef plant margin on Monday was down $1.60/head from Friday placed at a negative $4.70/head. This was down $27.75/head from last week according to HedgersEdge.com. The 14-day Relative Strength Indexes (RSI) in both the AUG'06LC and the OCT'06LC contracts are showing solidly near 51. A market is considered oversold when the RSI is below 30 and overbought when the RSI is above 70. This means there is plenty of room for price movement. The market almost created another gap down in Monday's trading on the OCT'06LC contract. Bearish technical factors of lower volume and declining 4-day and 10-day moving averages position this market for additional short hedging opportunities. Current fundamentals: increasing cattle numbers; seasonal downturn in demand; and continued choppy trading in the grain complex support the case for further price declines in live cattle. If the 20-day moving average turns downward look for a break away gap in the next few days, especially if the heat continues to support feed grains. Hedge orders placed last week at the recommended levels were filled. It may be considered prudent to increase short positions in both those contracts. Corn users should not consider pricing more corn needs at this time.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME followed live cattle lower with the AUG'06FC closing off $0.875/cwt at $113.35/cwt and the SEPT'06FC contract finishing at $112.90/cwt, down $0.725/cwt. Both months posted one-month lows. Plenty of cattle in the Oklahoma City cash market also proved bearish on the market. Lower CBOT corn did not prove supportive as most expect higher corn prices later in the week and heat stress in the feedlots to slow cattle gains down. The latest CME feeder cattle index for July 12 was off $0.09/cwt at $114.75/cwt. Support from tight supplies last week diminished. Cattle feeders should still be aggressively pushing cattle out the sales door and hedging incoming cattle. It is not recommended to forward price feed input at this time.

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