A Publication of:

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 # 497

July 26, 2006

Is Shade Necessary for Cattle? - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County

The shade for cattle question has been raised more than once on grazing council pasture walks. There is a range of opinions on the issue and really, at first glance it seems to make sense that shade on hot days will increase cattle comfort and performance. I spent a little time on the Internet looking for research articles dealing with cattle, heat stress and shade. With the time I could give to this I'm not going to claim to have the definitive answer to this question, but I did discover some factors that should be taken into account when attempting to answer the shade question.

First of all, how hot it is and how humid the weather is matters. There have been several studies that suggest cattle dry matter intake begins to decrease at temperatures above 77 degrees F. Although hot temperatures can make cattle uncomfortable due to the sun's rays, it is a combination of high temperature and high humidity that can really be detrimental to cattle comfort and performance. It is under these weather conditions especially that shade might be of value to cattle. A study published by McIlvain and Shoop in 1970 entitled "Shade for Improving Cattle Gains and Rangeland Use" evaluated as part of the study summer shade use by cattle over a 4-year period in Oklahoma. Some of the steers in the study had access to shade, while others did not. Steers with access to shade outgained steers without shade by an average of 19 pounds during the summer across the 4 years of the study. The advantage in weight gain increased as the number of hot, humid days during the summer increased, which brings up a second factor to consider. It is not only the temperature and humidity, but also the length of time these conditions persist.

The McIlvain and Shoop study tracked the number of what they termed "hot muggy" days. These were defined as days when temperatures above 85 degrees F plus humidity in percent totaled 130 or more. They found that this combination of temperature and humidity had the severest effect upon steer weight gains. These conditions combined with the number of these types of days determined how much shade could benefit animal performance. In a year in which there were only 30 of these hot muggy days there was only a 4-pound weight gain advantage between the steers with access to shade vs. steers without shade. In years where hot muggy days accounted for 50 to 60 days over the summer, the weight gain advantage increased to 27 to 30 lbs for steers with shade compared to steers without shade.

At this point it is probably worth considering the quantity of shade that will be available to cattle under hot, humid conditions. It matters. Have you ever walked out among a bunch of cattle squeezed together under a single shade tree? It might be hotter and more humid in amongst those cattle than it is out in the open sun. Typically, it is suggested that shade be provided at between 40 to 60 square feet per cow. Cattle lose heat primarily by transferring it to cooler air, and by evaporation of water from sweat as well as from moist tissues in the respiratory system. Cattle crowded together under limited shade are not going to find conditions conducive to heat loss and evaporation.

Related to hot, humid conditions and the time for which they persist, is what happens at night. In an article by Steve Sharrow of Oregon State University entitled "Trees in Pastures: Do Cattle Benefit from Shade?" and published in a July 2000 issue of the Temperate Agroforester, he says, "Humidity is probably as important as temperature in summer heat stress on grazing livestock. We often think of the daily high temperatures as the main issue in heat stress. However, night conditions are equally important." The reason that night conditions are important is because it is normal to have variation in body temperature. Generally there will be a slight increase in body core temperature during the heat of the day, but this temperature is then reduced during cool nights, allowing the animal to recover from the heat stress of the day. This is a condition common in many western states that may have higher daytime summer temperatures than we experience in Ohio, but they typically cool down at night. However, here in Ohio we get periods where it remains warm and humid throughout the night. This type of condition does not allow the animal (or the cattleman without air conditioning for that matter) to recover from the previous day's heat stress and so the effects become cumulative and place greater stress upon the animal.

While shade provided and utilized correctly can aid in cattle comfort and performance, it should be recognized that there are limitations to shade and that cattle also employ other methods of coping with heat when shade is not available. Blackshaw and Blackshaw in 1994 published an article in the Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture that was a review of the literature studying shade and heat stress in cattle. One of the points made is that shade can be very helpful in reducing the heat loading occurring from the sun's rays but that is not the entire picture. Cattle also receive heat that is reflected from bare soil and nearby objects and shade does not protect cattle from this heat. Shade also has no effect upon the heat generated from the digestion and use of energy from feedstuffs. The Sharrow article estimates that shade may only directly affect 25% or less of the total heat energy cattle must deal with on a sunny, hot day. An article entitled "Shade-Seeking Behavior of Rotationally-Grazed Cows and Calves in a Moderate Climate" published in the proceedings of a Livestock Environment Symposium from 2001 in Louisville Kentucky mentioned both some detrimental effects of shade as well as alternative coping mechanisms. The detrimental effect is obvious to any cattleman; cattle congregating in shade result in manure accumulation in one area and reduced overall pasture fertility. The study found that cows without shade spend significantly more time at the water trough, especially as the humidity index increased, and more time out on pasture as compared to cows with shade. However, even though cattle with access to shade spent less total time out on pasture there was no reduction in actual grazing time between cows with shade and those without shade. Back to the Sharrow article where the author notes that there is also a behavioral and learned aspect to heat tolerance. "Cattle may successfully deal with lack of shade by restricting their grazing and traveling to the cooler hours of the day or night and by standing together in areas of good airflow."

For many cattle producers shade may not be an issue because it is already part of the pasture system but for those who may be in the position to decide if shade is or is not provided to cattle, the possible advantages and disadvantages of shade must be considered, along with other methods that cattle might have to cope with heat stress.

Drought and Infertility - Find the Fertile Cattle and Sell the Rest - Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist NDSU Extension Service

Several weeks ago, as bulls were going out to pasture, an absolute requirement was fertility. Bulls incapable of settling cows are useless and with the current feed shortage, compromise the system.

Likewise, cows that fail to settle are similar. Open cows' greatest value is salvage because they eat well, compete better and produce fat, which is not the desired product of a profitable and customer-orientated beef system.

Bulls that don't settle cows cost money. So do cows that are not bred to calve early. Feed is short; there is no use living in denial. There is no room in the pasture for infertile cattle.

Early detection of open or later-calving cows can be a potential group of cattle to cull. Cow Herd Appraisal Performance System (CHAPS) benchmarks indicate that 6.6 percent of the cow herd is typically open and 5.4 percent of the cows typically calve very late, which is defined as 63 days after the start of the calving season.

These two groups of cows account for 12 percent of the herd and would make a very logical cut today as pastures and feed start to look scarce. Another 8.2 percent of the cows calve between the 42nd and 63rd day of the calving season. This group of cows also could make a trip to town, with someone else's calving pasture the destination.

Heifers are another area to review. CHAPS data indicates that only 71 percent calve within 21 days and 85 percent calve within 42 days of the start of calving. This could be an area to review.

The bottom line is simple. Call your veterinarian and get that ultrasound date booked so you have an idea of your calving spread and can cull as feed supplies and performance dictate. Open and late-calving cows impact the bottom line the same as infertile bulls.

Recently, a producer inquired where I came up with the $40 daily bull charge for each day a bull is infertile. The $40 value, calculated with a little cowboy arithmetic, is the CHAPS benchmark (Chaps2000.com, click on benchmarks) for calf average daily gain on pasture of 2.38 pounds per day times the percentage of cows cycling on any given day (assuming all the cows have an equal opportunity to cycle and breed) times 21 days (reflecting the days before another opportunity to breed if the opportunity is missed).

On any given day, 4.76 percent (1 day divided by 21 days) of the cows should be cycling. Therefore, if a bull is not fertile on that day, the opportunity to conceive the calf is lost. If a bull is in a pasture with 30 cows, 1.43 cows should be cycling each day. If the infertile bull misses the opportunity to sire 1.43 calves and loses 21 days of gain at 2.38 pounds per day, 71.47 pounds of calf is lost.

Going back to the CHAPS benchmarks, in reality, only 62.4 percent of the cows are cycling in the first 21 days. Given some rounding, roughly 70 pounds of calf is lost on 60 percent of the cows. At $1 per pound of calf over the long haul, the end number appears to be just more than $40 per day per infertile bull. Obviously, high market prices will inflate the number and the weight or timing of marketing also will impact the number, but that is where the cowboy math comes in.

On the other hand, $40 may by a month's worth of hay for a pregnant cow. There seems to be some regret in repeating notes, but infertility simply needs to be steered out of beef cattle management systems. During a drought is a good time to make the point. Hope this helps and gives producers some food for thought in tough times.

Forage Focus: Stockpiling for winter grazing - Jeff McCutcheon, Knox County Extension Educator, Ag & NR

Stockpiling forages for grazing in winter is one management tool every beef producer should utilize. Why, because winter feed costs are the single biggest costs in most beef operations. Grazing is the cheapest way to feed cattle. Every day spent grazing is saving you money.

Stockpiling is basically accumulating growth to be grazed when the forages are dormant. All forages on your farm can be stockpiled. Some, ie. bluegrass, legumes, and perennial ryegrass, will deteriorate faster in winter and should be utilized in early winter after a killing frost. Usually tall fescue is the forage mentioned because it produces more fall growth than the other cool season grasses, responds well to nitrogen and will maintain it's quality and quantity longer into winter. Orchardgrass is also a viable option.

Stockpiling does require some advanced planning. What fields will you stockpile? Remember these will be grazed in winter. In Ohio, from December through March we will have to deal with MUD. Fields used should be well drained and have a dense sod. A dense sod can help to support livestock when the fields are wet. Are there areas in the fields that can afford protection from winter winds? Do not forget about the water supply.

Once the fields are selected for stockpiling then you need to do three things. First, cut or graze the fields short in early August. You want to remove the low quality summer growth and stimulate vegetative growth. Early August should give us enough growing days to accumulate around a ton of dry matter per acre without nitrogen.

Second add nitrogen. Nitrogen can boast your yields. When do you add nitrogen, anytime during August. Remember to limit nitrogen loss, apply before a rain. The trade off is that early applications will give the greatest yield but, late applications will have the highest quality. Experiments have shown almost a linear response for applications up to 100 lbs. actual nitrogen. When costs are considered applying more than 50 to 60 pounds of nitrogen usually doesn't pay.

If you have 40% or more legumes in your fields selected then the nitrogen could be skipped. The actual response to the added nitrogen will be less. Some studies show the yield of fescue with legumes equal to the pure fescue stands with 50 - 60 lbs. nitrogen added.

The last step, let it grow. Do not graze it until growth has stopped.

For more information check out the fact sheet "Stockpiling Tall Fescue for Winter Grazing"

Cattle Industry Faces Vulnerable Period - Chris Hurt, Extension Economist, Purdue University

Cattle producers are continuing a slow expansion of brood cow numbers, but rapid movement of calves into feedlots due to depleted pastures means lower finished cattle prices are likely. Late 2006 and early 2007 remains a vulnerable period for the cattle industry as higher beef supplies are interfacing with delays in restoring beef exports to Asia. Slowing U.S. economic growth in the face of rising energy costs may also reduce beef expenditures.

The cattle expansion remains slow. In the mid-year Cattle report, USDA indicates that the total inventory was 105.7 million head, just 1 percent greater than last year at this time. The calf crop for 2006 is estimated at 37.9 million, fractionally higher than last year. The beef industry is in the second year of a brood cow expansion, but so far the growth is very moderate. Beef cow numbers reached a cycle low level in July 2004 at 33.4 million head. This summer's inventory of 33.8 million head is just slightly over a 1 percent expansion in the past two years. So clearly, there is no rush to grow brood cow numbers. In addition, producers report they do not intend to increase cow numbers in the near future as they are retaining the same number of beef replacement heifers as last year. This means they are replacing cull cows, but are not likely to expand in the coming year. Dairy cow numbers were up 1 percent and replacement milk heifers were up nearly 3 percent. This seems to be signaling interest in growing the dairy herd in the coming year, even in the face of $12 to $13 milk prices for this year and into 2007.

The bearish surprise came as a much higher than expected level of placements into feedlots in June. Given the dismal financial performance for feedlot cattle so far this summer, there was an anticipation that placements would be down about 1 percent. However, USDA reports June placements rising 10 percent above year-previous figures. The large placement surge was made on lightweight calves. Placements weighing less than 700 pounds were up 31 percent (under 600 pounds up 37 percent, and 600 to 699 pounds up 24 percent). On the other hand, the number of calves weighing over 700 pounds were actually down 5 percent. The location of the large placement of light weight calves is related to ongoing dry weather in the central and northern plains. Colorado placements were up 35 percent, those in Nebraska were up 28 percent, and Kansas was up 11 percent. Of the four largest cattle feeding states, only Texas had lower placements, down 4 percent. Pastures have just been too dry to support calves and they have been moved to feedlots earlier than intended. In USDA's Crop Progress report released July 17, Colorado pastures were rated 65 percent in "poor" or "very poor" condition. These numbers stood at 61 percent for Oklahoma, 58 percent in Nebraska, and 52 percent in South Dakota.

So far this year, beef supplies have been up almost 7 percent on 4 percent higher slaughter numbers and 3 percent higher weights. Choice steer prices have averaged about $84.50, roughly $2.50 lower than during the same period in 2005. Overall, demand has held well this year with supplies 7 percent higher and prices only down 3 percent. Finished cattle prices will likely trade lower, into the higher $70s, for the end of the summer. Prices are expected to recover into the lower-to-mid-$80s by fall, with prices somewhat above the mid-$80s by the end of the year. For 2007, beef production is expected to be up 1 to 3 percent. While this year's calf crop is estimated as only fractionally larger, weights will likely be up some next year, but not as much as this year due to higher feed costs and higher interest rates.

Feeder cattle and calf prices may feel some downward price pressure this fall and in 2007 as well. Calf prices this year have been only about $1 per hundredweight lower compared to the same period last year. Lower calf prices are expected to result from lower finished cattle prices, higher feed costs over the next year, and higher interest rates. Given an environment of slowing U.S. economic growth with high energy prices, this makes the rest of 2006 and early 2007 a vulnerable period for cattle finishers and adds new importance to getting "back on-track" with the Japanese.

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