A Publication of:

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 # 509

October 25, 2006

The purpose-driven herd - Steve Suther, Director, Industry Information, Certified Angus Beef (reprinted with permission from the CAB "Black Ink" publication, October 2006)

The cows in your herd are there for a reason. For profit's sake, let's hope it's not just because you can't catch them. How did they get on the place, and why do you let them stay?

You should consider those questions for each cow, but start with the big picture. Why do you have cows? That's a deeper question than you can answer in a few seconds.

Many people looking for even deeper answers have purchased Rick Warren's spiritual bestseller, "The Purpose-Driven Life." In the last few years, his concepts have spread to the business world. You can now find articles on "purpose-driven management" in everything from software development to drywall construction and forestry. Why not animal husbandry?

Some have turned their lives around by realizing a higher purpose; so you can turn your herd around by realizing they don't just represent cattle. They represent food for people.

You could start with the same commitment that Warren demands: "In transformational planning, there can be no sacred cows."

If you can't find a reason to have cows, sell them all. But if you think about it enough to realize your mission and goals, just sell the ones that don't fit your reasons. Do the pregnant cows fit your ideal and build a future for your family? Think about it a little more and you can fit your reasons into the consumer-focused - that is to say, purpose-driven - beef industry.

It will require a continuous series of informed choices based on that higher purpose. Confidence in your goal will make decisions easier every day, and especially during drought and market setbacks.

Whether your cows are untagged or wear radio frequency (RFID) tags with a premises number, you need to characterize their genetics.

Are they planned crossbreds or a vague mix? Are they consistent and uniform while on a genetic path to progress, or bouncing around in well-worn tracks? Does the calf crop vary with last year's opportunity bulls? Regardless of the current path, you may be able to improve if you understand the purpose and how much focus you can give to herd management.

If you can justify having cows but can't devote much time to manage them, you should probably use bulls of a different, complementary breed and sell calves at weaning. That will net more pounds of commodity calves, if the bulls are better than your cows. Low management is far different than low cost, however, and may result in the highest cost per unit.

If you can manage with some year-to-year focus and records, but not enough to cooperate with the next segment, you can't know or improve postweaning performance. Again, you would probably be ahead to crossbreed and improve the averages.

A purpose-driven herd that fits the greater beef industry requires cooperation and targeted genetic selection. Animal scientists began to study relative economic values of reproductive, growth and carcass traits back in the 1970s. Back then, they said reproduction was five times more important than growth and 10 times more important than carcass traits.

As the industry became more consumer focused, those priorities changed. The last major study, in 1995 by B.E. Melton, said reproduction, growth and carcass traits should have a 2:1:1 focus for those who sold at weaning. However, for those who retained ownership or finished their cattle, carcass traits were already more important than either growth or reproductive traits, at 1:1:1.5.

In the last 11 years, the premiums for hitting specific consumer and branded beef market targets have risen dramatically. But it all starts with the live calf. That's why modern beef production goals must be oriented toward an equal balance among these traits.

Many animal scientists scratch their heads at why so few calves today are the product of planned (purpose-driven) crossbreeding programs. They seem equally puzzled that many of the most respected and profitable ranches in the country today use (purpose-driven) straightbred cattle.

Both of these are equally well-reasoned responses to the market and available resources, including selection tools, as seen by individuals who do not share the same production philosophies. Why don't they all try it the same way? One might as well try to explain differences in politics or religion.

Either way, producers commit to data-driven management and aim for the premium beef-value markets. Quality grade has nearly always led the market as a basis for premiums, but the real prize goes to those who produce more pounds of top quality for less money.

Forage Focus: Feeding Hay During The Winter - James B. Neel, Professor, Animal Science, University of Tennessee Extension

Winter feeding is the most expensive part of cow calf production. There may be some disagreement with this statement, but when the cost of hay and the additional expense of wasted hay is considered, it is very easily the most expensive. Reports from the University of Illinois indicate that feed losses, even with a round bale feeder, can be as high as 30 percent. Unlimited access to large round bales can produce losses of 25 to 50 percent. Producers can significantly reduce the amount wasted by implementing certain feeding management practices.

Probably the most common method of avoiding large-package hay loss during feeding is to use a hay "ring" or other type of hay feeder, such as a wagon that has been modified to allow hay feeding. A number of cattle producers advocate unrolling large round bales for feeding. This will work if cattle are provided with the correct amount of hay for one feeding when the hay is unrolled. However, excess hay will quickly become bedding.

Mechanical hay unrollers are available; but alternative methods, such as unrolling on a slight slope, may work in certain areas. Exercise caution when unrolling hay on a hillside because a large round bale can become a safety hazard.

Here are some other feeding tips:

• Don't use muddy areas when feeding. A rocky outcrop or old road bed works well for minimizing mud. Other producers create a bed of coarse gravel to use with rings. Good, clean sod works the best.

• Cut and remove the strings on the bales as they are fed. This makes it easier on the cows and may reduce the tangling of strings around the base of the hay feeder. These strings are also very easily entangled around the "bush hog" when clipping pastures. Also, ingestion of plastic strings can cause problems for cattle.

• Slightly hungry cows clean up better. If stretching hay supplies, it may pay to allow cows a little longer to clean up previously fed hay. Feeding twice daily what the cows will clean up will keep losses down. They will be hungry and will come up to the feed. It is important that all the cows be able to eat when using this feeding procedure. But, avoid this when cold fronts are approaching or if cows are thin (feed to maintain cows in body condition score of 5 or higher).

Grazing School Planned

Jackson and Vinton Grazing School is scheduled for Thursday November 2, 6 to 9 pm and Saturday, November 4, 9 am to 4 pm. The school will be held at the OARDC Jackson Agriculture Research Station and Jackson County Extension Office 19 Standpipe Road just south of the city Jackson, just off State Route 93. Refreshments and lunch on Saturday will be provided along with the Ohio Forage and Grassland Council Pasture for Profit notebook for a registration fee of only $20.00. This grazing school is hosted by the Jackson and Vinton Soil and Water Conservation Districts, NRCS, OSU Extension and OARDC.

The topics on the agenda will be Principals of Managed Intensive Grazing, Evaluating Your Resources, Matching your Plant and Animal Needs, Understanding plant Growth, Forage Species Selection, Grazing Systems, Grazing Economics and Fence and Water Systems. The will be a field exercise on Saturday. The presenter will include Jeff Fisher and Rory Lewandowski, OSU Extension and Elizabeth Duff and Bob Hendershot NRCS.

RSVP by calling Jackson SWCD 740-286-5208 or Vinton SWCD 740-596-5676.

Frozen Vaccines - Dr. Ron Torell, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Livestock Specialist

Chances are that old, second generation refrigerator of Grandma's is on its' last leg. It freezes items placed near the rear element while items placed near the door are warm. In the summer it barely keeps items cool because the molding is worn and does not properly seal the door. In addition to being worn out, most of these old units are very inefficient compared to modern refrigerators. Let me guess, you purchased a new refrigerator for the house and moved that old one to the barn to store vaccines in.

The above scenario is much too often the case. This could very well be one of the costliest management decisions you make in your beef operation. Improperly stored vaccines are a leading cause of immune response failure. When we use these improperly stored vaccines we get a false sense of security that our cattle are protected. However, did the cattle actually mount an immune response to the once frozen or over heated vaccines? Vaccine failures can occur for many reasons. Regardless of the cause, the result is sick or dead cattle. We need to minimize the occurrence of vaccine failures due to variables we have control over such as proper storage and handling.

Most labels suggest storing vaccines between 35 and 45 degrees. According to Dr. Mike Lathrop, Pfizer Animal Health Technical Services Veterinarian"temperatures above or below those recommended on vaccine labels will adversely affect all vaccines, killed or modified live. The impact depends upon the vaccine, as well as the duration and the degree of variance. Freezing is one of the worst events that can happen to a vaccine. All killed vaccines, as well as many modified live vaccines, include an adjuvant to enhance the immune response. When vaccines with an adjuvant freeze, the adjuvant, or portions of the adjuvant, usually separate from the antigen(s) in the vaccine. This can happen immediately after freezing, resulting in a vaccine that will provide very limited or no protection. The result is that we can no longer expect or have confidence the vaccine will function to the level of the efficacy claims stated on the label."

Dr. David Thain, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Veterinarian agrees with Dr. Lathrop and goes on to state, "there is also the possibility that the separation that Dr. Lathrop speaks to may increase the amount of free endotoxin in a bacterin with a resulting increase in the potential for adverse reactions. It is for this reason and the likely possibility that the vaccine is no good that I recommend throwing vaccines out that have reached temperatures outside those recommended on the label."

It is important to MONITOR and MANAGE vaccine storage. This means checking on them every once in awhile and monitoring the thermometer in the refrigerator to make sure it is maintaining the temperature within the range indicated on the vaccine label, generally between 35 and 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

University of Nevada Cooperative Extension conducted a field study during the winter of 2005-2006. The purpose of the study was to sample refrigerators being used by western livestock operations to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of these vaccine storage facilities. In October of 2005, 24 maximum/minimum recordable thermometers were placed in 20 ranching operations and in four feed store refrigerators. In June of 2006 these same thermometers were read for minimum and maximum temperatures recorded during that time period.

Twenty-five percent of producer refrigerators failed to maintain vaccines in the safe range. Three of the five failed producers' refrigerators actually froze vaccines to ten degrees Fahrenheit for an extended period of time. All five failed producers' refrigerators froze as well as heated vaccines to unsafe levels. In all cases, feed store refrigerators maintained adequate temperatures during the entire period.

Even if you purchase a good refrigerator for the barn, an extended subzero cold spell will freeze everything if the unit is not stored in a heated room. Turning the refrigerator off will do no good. If the ambient outside temperature is zero degrees for an extended period of time the refrigerator will not maintain temperatures within the safe range. A refrigerator door that is seldom opened will creep down in temperature just like a refrigerator door that is continually opened the temperature will creep up. Vaccines stored on the door will be warmer and vaccines near the freezer compartment will be colder.

A good refrigerator stored in an environmentally controlled room is a must. Freezers placed in out buildings need to be monitored because the outside temperature, whether up or down, will have a profound effect on the refrigerator. If refrigerators are not monitored, left over vaccines stored in the fall may appear to be normal in the spring however; these vaccines may have been frozen for an extended period of time during the cold winter months.

It is the author's suggestion that every vaccine refrigerator have a recordable minimum/maximum thermometer placed in a visible area within the unit. The refrigerator and thermometer should be monitored on a frequent basis. Additionally, only enough vaccine should be purchased for operations' immediate needs. Feed store and pharmaceutical companies can do a better job of storage and handling of vaccines than most ranching operations. This is going to require advanced planning and ordering of vaccines.

The bottom line is MANAGEMENT and paying attention. We can vaccinate cattle but we cannot get cattle to mount an immune response to vaccine that is not good. If your refrigerator is not a reliable one do not trust it with your vaccines. That is the same as trusting it with the health of your cattle.

Perhaps a more concerted effort to care for your pharmaceutical products would be warranted. The purchase of a $14.00 thermometer which records minimum and maximum temperatures and a close monitoring program will pay big dividends. We must change our mind set of just getting the job done to did we do the job right?

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

LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed higher on Monday in reaction to lower CBOT corn with the OCT'06LC at $89.350/cwt, up $1.675/cwt and the DEC'06LC up $1.625/cwt at $88.700/cwt. Cash cattle traded steady late on Friday at $88/cwt-$88.50/cwt. Active cash cattle sales on Friday helped allay concerns of record large feedlot supplies providing early support in prices. USDA on Friday reported feedlot cattle supplies as of October 1 were 11,385 million head, or 109% of one year ago. This is the largest ever for this date. However, the supply was in line with trade estimates and was factored in by the futures market. December/February and December/April spreading on Monday was prompted in part by lighter weight placements that will be sold as fat cattle in the coming months, floor sources said. USDA put the choice beef cutout at $148.17/cwt, up $1.21/cwt and the highest it's been since September 12. The average beef plant margin for Monday was estimated at a negative $1.60/head, up $7.45/head from a negative $9.05/head last Friday, and up from a negative $41.25/head last week, according to HedgersEdge.com. Cash sellers are encouraged to sell cattle at proper weights without holding on for that extra ten pounds. Hedgers are off long positions but should still consider protecting a portion of 4th quarter '06 and 1st quarter '07 marketings. Corn users should consider pricing only the near-term inputs at this time while considering selling a put option.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed up with OCT'06FC futures at $106.575/cwt, up $0.250/cwt. The NOV'06FC contract finished at $105.000/cwt, up $0.25/cwt. Feeders rose early in reaction to lower CBOT corn futures, the rally in live cattle futures, and a somewhat oversold condition. The 9-day Relative Strength Index was placed at 23. Anything under 30 is usually considered oversold unless an extraordinary supply/demand function is pressuring the market as we have been seeing in corn. Some selling happened later on when corn turned higher. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for October 18 was at $108.63, off $1.25/cwt, the lowest it's been since June 8. Cash sellers are still encouraged to consider protecting a portion of 4th quarter '06 and 1st quarter '07 marketings at this point. Corn users should consider pricing only the near-term inputs at this time while considering selling a put option.

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