Safely Feeding High Nitrate Hay

Forage - Progressive Forage Grower Magazine

Bruce Anderson This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. is an extension forage specialist with the University of Nebraska – Lincoln

There isn’t a much more sickening feeling than to watch a group of hungry cows start falling over dead after feeding them a fresh bale of hay. Yet, that’s exactly what can happen when hay containing a high concentration of nitrates is fed incorrectly.
Eventually, most cattle producers who feed hay will have hay with high nitrates, especially when using millet, sorghum, oat or other cereal-based hays. But livestock losses do not need to occur if the hay is properly managed and fed.
Nitrate toxicity is a function of the amount and rate of nitrate consumption. Nitrates in feedstuffs usually are converted by rumen microbes first into nitrites and then into ammonia and bacterial protein, but they can do this conversion only so fast. “Nitrite” is one of the intermediate products in the breakdown of nitrate to ammonia and is the actual cause of nitrate poisoning. When more nitrates are consumed than what the rumen microbes can fully metabolize within a short time period, toxicity can occur.

Testing hay for nitrates

To use high-nitrate hay without causing nitrate toxicity, you first need to know how much nitrate is in your hay. The methods used to sample hay for nitrates often need to differ from those used when testing forage quality. Sampling for forage quality seeks to represent the average of the entire lot of forage. With nitrates, though, it often is important to know the worst-case scenario, or what is the highest concentration of nitrates that might be consumed by the animals.
For example, some fields have sites that are more droughty than other areas. Hay harvested from these sites might be expected to contain more nitrates due to drought stress. Samples could be collected just from this hay and tested. Other samples might be collected from the remainder of the hay.
When the results from the lab analysis for nitrates are received, check the units used by the lab. They can be reported as nitrates (NO₃), nitrate nitrogen (NO₃-N) or potassium nitrate (KNO₃).
I’ve spoken with producers who had a lab value of 4,000 ppm, which they thought was pretty safe because the potentially toxic level for nitrates is around 9,000 ppm. Unfortunately, the lab analysis reported the results as nitrate nitrogen. In this form, the potentially toxic level is just around 2,100. Thus, the hay actually contained nearly twice the toxic level and was very dangerous. I’ve also seen the opposite, where they thought their hay was toxic, but it was actually quite safe. Also, see if the results are reported as a percentage of dry matter or as parts per million (ppm). You need to multiply percentage by 10,000 to get parts per million.

How to feed high-nitrate hay safely

High-nitrate hay can be fed safely. The primary method is to dilute high-nitrate hay with low-nitrate forages or supplements so that the concentration of nitrates in the total diet (including water) is below dangerous levels. Feeding grain or other high-energy feedstuffs may be the most effective way to reduce toxic levels because the extra energy apparently helps speed and complete the conversion of nitrate to bacterial protein in the rumen.
Mixing low-nitrate hay with high-nitrate hay is another way to dilute dietary nitrates to a safe level. It is critical, however, that animals consume both the high- and low-nitrate hays in the proper proportion. This may require grinding and mixing hays in a total mixed ration. Do not feed free-choice one bale of low-nitrate hay and another bale of high-nitrate hay. Animals will not adjust their diet correctly, and it practically guarantees that some cows that like the high-nitrate hay best will overconsume nitrates, which could lead to animal deaths.
Similarly, rolling out hay or using bale processors for separate low- and high-nitrate hays can lead to some animals preferring the high-nitrate hay or to boss cows eating most of one type of hay and timid cows only getting the less palatable hay. If hays cannot be mixed properly, it is better to feed the low-nitrate hay first. Soon after they finish, follow with the high-nitrate hay.
Since rate of nitrate consumption is important, never feed high-nitrate hay to hungry cattle. Frequent, small meals of high-nitrate hay allow livestock to consume more total nitrates daily than one large meal. It also can help cattle adapt to consuming hay with higher nitrate concentrations safely. If cattle are allowed to adjust to feeds that have potentially toxic levels of nitrates, they will develop a population of microbes in the rumen that convert nitrates to a non-toxic form.
Be extra careful if animals go off feed, like during a snowstorm. They probably will eat their first meal afterwards very rapidly. It needs to contain well below their previous nitrate levels to avoid a sudden, large influx of nitrates into their systems.
Do not feed hay that is high in nitrates when it is damp. Damp feed seems to be more toxic because some of the nitrate already has been converted to the more toxic nitrite before being consumed.
There also is a direct-fed microbial product available (Bova-Pro) that contains a specialized bacterial culture. It develops a large and stable rumen population that produces enzymes to convert nitrates and nitrites that enter the rumen to a non-toxic form. If this product is used to manage against high-nitrate feeds, all animals must get the proper amount to establish the needed microbial population. Also, it is still recommended to adapt cattle to the high-nitrate feed over a period of time.
Using feeds that contain high nitrate concentrations is not without risk, but feeds that contain nitrates can be fed successfully. Use the management practices mentioned above to reduce the chance of animal loss. FG

Remembering the 80's

By Dr. Roy Burris, University of Kentucky Extension December 01, 2014 | 9:16 am EST
Drover's Online Network

The farm financial crisis of the 1980's was one of the worst times in modern history of farming. It was such a painful time for many that it might be good to re-visit it so that we don't ever repeat it in the future. It is like opening an old wound.
The 1970's had been of a boom time for many agricultural producers. Lowered trade barriers, along with record Soviet purchases of grain led Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz to utter those famous words "plant fence row to fence row" and "get big or get out". Increased lending and rising land values, along with low interest rates, led many people to increase their debt load and expand their operations. "They aren't making anymore land" was the prevailing logic. Many aggressive lenders would loan you more operating money than you asked for. Times were good! Maybe too good.
Farmers used rising land values as collateral to secure more loans. But interest rates started rising and soared to levels as high as 21.5% in 1981. This suddenly made the cost of borrowing money prohibitive for everyone - especially farmers. Other things happened to make matters worse. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and, since agricultural commodities have always been the ultimate political football, the President put on a grain embargo and stopped shipment of farm products to the Soviet Union. Tight money, high interest rates, and collapsed demand all came together . . . and spelled doom for many farmers. Land values that had peaked in 1980-81, plummeted and suddenly many loans weren't adequately secured. Things got crazy in a hurry.
On a personal note, I had just accepted this job in Kentucky, bought a house here and couldn't sell one in Mississippi. Things were tight. A few years earlier, I had bought some land in Tennessee with a "hand-shake" loan from Production Credit Association (PCA). The person that made the loan to me was let go. The next one was a friend of mine too, but he was also soon released. The next manager started calling me well before the yearly payment was due. Lenders were trying to raise money anyway possible. A bank was willing to finance my little venture but many people weren't as fortunate. I will never forget being on a program in Bowling Green when a representative from PCA was being introduced to speak and the entire room of farmers got up and walked out. They came back for my talk, but there was no question that nerves were raw and feelings ran deep. Agricultural lenders were in a difficult place, too but I couldn't help but be sympathetic to "my" farmers. It was difficult for them to understand how lenders could suddenly go from loaning on a handshake to pushing you for their money. Times were bad.
The 1980's was our "Great Depression" and it is estimated that 300,000 farmers defaulted on loans. Many multi-generational "century" farms went under and the emotional toll on those farmers was devastating. In 5 years (1981 to 1986) one quarter of the assessed value of farm land disappeared - a 300 billion dollar decline in farm asset values. In parts of the Midwest, land values dropped nearly 60%. In 1983, public farm auctions averaged about 500 per month. We must not allow that to happen again.
Dr. David Kohl, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at Virginia Tech, says that we (agriculture) are now in transition from a 10-year wealth period, particularly in the grain sector. Agriculture is facing a correction in land values (again) and there may be decreased wealth in the grain sector along with large capital investments in the livestock sector. He believes that there's good money to be made in the livestock sector but warns that the biggest mistakes are always made during profitable times! Good times can lead to complacency, higher non-farm capital purchases and a lack of attention to best management practices and proper planning. He advises farmers to write down their goals, form an advisory team for their operation and nurture their relationship with a lender who is consistent in good times and bad.
I understand the concept of "high risk, high reward" but my advice is simple - "don't ever get leveraged to the point that someone else controls your destiny". This is a good time to pay down debt and protect your independence. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

The Secret to Daytime Calving

Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:30 AM CST Print Email DTN Progressive Farmer

By Del Deterling Progressive Farmer Contributing Editor Daytime calving means newborns warm up faster and are often safer from predators. (DTN/Progressive Farmer photo by Joe Link) Whether you have 20 cows or 200, there is nothing less pleasant than crawling out of bed in the middle of a cold night to check for calving problems. What if you don't have to? It almost sounds too easy, but there's research to support the idea that when you feed cows can affect when they calve. Kansas State University Agricultural Research Station in Hays has data showing that when cows were fed daily between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., 85% of their calves were born between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. the next day. The advantages for daylight calving add up quickly. It's a lot easier to spot a cow having trouble in the daylight and get her help. Newborns dry off and warm up faster in the sunlight, and you can see if they begin to nurse. Predators are less likely to strike during the day if you calve on pasture or rangeland. John Jaeger, the Kansas State beef cattle scientist who conducted the five-year study, said researchers aren't sure why time of feeding influences calving. "Temperature, gut fill and rumen fermentation all appear to be involved," he said "In late afternoon, temperatures tend to decline. The increase in rumen fermentation after cows are fed increases the metabolic heat that offsets the drop in nighttime environmental temperature. Gut fill and metabolic heat may also alter some blood hormone concentrations which influence calving." Frequency of rumen contractions also appears to be involved. Research shows pressure in the rumen begins to decrease in the last two weeks of gestation and declines even more during calving. Nighttime feeding causes pressure in the rumen to rise at night because of feed volume and decline during the daytime. Iowa State University also tested the idea. Researchers conducted a demonstration involving 15 producers and more than 2,000 cows. In the study, 85% of the cows fed in the evening (from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.) calved between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. the next day. The process isn't foolproof. In a three-year study at the USDA-ARS Research Station in Miles City, Montana, scientists observed little difference in calving times between cows fed before noon or late in the evening (after 5 p.m.). And research at the station in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada, showed just a 13.5% reduction in the number of late-fed cows calving between midnight and 7 a.m. "We did not get consistent results," admitted Julie Small, now stationed at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. She said some think the results may hinge on the type of diets fed. Despite the difference in findings, Oklahoma State University beef specialist Daniel Stein said he's convinced the practice has real merit. "We have been practicing evening feeding on our ranch in northwest Oklahoma for several decades," Stein said. "It's not 100%, but I've observed that the later I feed in the day, the more likely it is cows will calve during daylight the following day. "I will feed after watching the news at 10 o'clock," Stein continued. "If any animal comes up to the bunk to eat, it is almost guaranteed she will calve after daybreak, and we go to bed. If they don't come up to eat, they will usually calve during the night." K-State's Jaeger added an interesting side note, saying a high percentage of those cows that initially calved during daytime hours tended to continue to do so in the future. (VM/CZ) © Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Just some house keeping

• Just wanted to let you all know that I have Red Books here in the office if you need one.

• Also for those of you interested in Sustainable Agriculture, the annual NM conference is in Roswell on December 17th. At the Roswell Convention Center.  Here is a link to the conference website: http://aces.nmsu.edu/programs/sare/index.html.

Hard Water affects herbicide efficacy.

Are you using hard water to fill your spray tank?
Effective herbicide applications require attention to a multitude of factors. Product selection, following label instructions, calibration of equipment, application timing and operator experience are all factors that impact product performance. One factor that seldom gets much attention is the quality of the water used to spray the product.
Water often comprises 95 percent or more of the spray solution. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the chemistry of water added to the spray tank greatly impacts herbicide effectiveness.
Water is a simple molecule composed of two hydrogen (H) atoms attached to one oxygen (O) atom. Water is one of nature’s most remarkable substances. It is capable of dissolving or suspending minerals and organic matter, can freeze and return to its normal state once it thaws and is an essential part of all living organisms.
Before any foliar-applied herbicide can perform the desired biological function, it must be transferred from the leaf surface into the plant tissue. The above-ground portions of plants are covered by a continuous non-cellular, non-living membrane called the cuticle. The cuticle is the first barrier any herbicide must overcome to be effective.
Cuticles are extremely diverse and vary greatly between different species of plants. Surfactants added to the spray tank modify the spreading, wetting, retention and penetration of the spray solution. The type of surfactant added to the spray tank can enhance the performance of the herbicide and almost always reduces spray runoff from treated plant leaves.
When making herbicide applications with weak acid herbicides such as glyphosate, farmers need to be concerned about hard water. Hard water contains high levels of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and iron (Fe). These positively charged ions attach to negatively charged herbicide molecules, often rendering the herbicide ineffective.
Herbicides with amine formulations, which include glyphosate, 2,4-D amine, MCPA amine and dicamba can be adversely affected by hard water. The herbicide formulation, combined with the elements of hard water, can lead to it being less absorbed by the weeds. Hard water can also plug spray nozzles and cause buildup in spray units.
Adding ammonium sulfate (AMS) to the spray tank overcomes the adverse effects of hard water. The ammonium cation preferentially attaches to the glyphosate or amine molecule and thus prevents Ca, Mg, Fe or Na from doing so. When ammonium is attached, the molecule binds readily to the EPSP synthase enzyme and the herbicide functions normally.
Common lambsquarters, a weed found almost everywhere, is often difficult to control with glyphosate herbicide. This plant species contains high levels of Ca on the leaves, often giving the plant a granular or mealy appearance.
Just like hard water in a spray tank, high Ca levels on plant surfaces can reduce herbicide effectiveness. AMS in the spray tank overcomes the negative influence of hard water and alleviates biologically induced herbicide failures observed in calcium-rich plant tissues.
Sometimes the question is asked, “What about filling the tank with tap water from the house if it’s hooked to a water softener?” Using soft water may be the solution to the problem; however, most people do not have a tap on the outside of the house through which soft water runs. It would be necessary to run a hose through the house to a soft-water source.
Although it would be effective, it would be a serious drain on the water-softening ability of the system since filling a spray tank would require hundreds of gallons of soft water.
Another drawback to this approach is the mess and hassle associated with running a hose through the kitchen, laundry room, or other clean area of the home. In reality, it presents too many obstacles to be practical. Likely the simplest, easiest, cheapest and certainly cleanest way to manage hard water when spraying glyphosate is to add AMS to the spray tank.
There are economic and agronomic benefits of using surfactants and AMS products when spraying herbicides. This article is a reminder to growers to read the label and follow recommendations regarding the addition of surfactants and AMS when spraying weeds.
Because of the hard water interaction with glyphosate, and thus the decrease in weed-killing activity, it is recommended that whenever a glyphosate product is applied, AMS should be added to the spray tank.
For additional reading and more detail regarding glyphosate performance, see "Understanding Gyphosate To Increase Performance." FG

Earl Creech is an extension agronomist, and Clark Israelsen is an extension educator – both with Utah State University extension.

Information for Oklahoma State - Cow/Calf Corner

The Newsletter

 

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

November 3, 2014

 

In this Issue:

 

Marginal thinking for optimal decisions

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

 

Cow age and cow productivity (When is she too old?)

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

Marginal thinking for optimal decisions

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

 

How should $300+/cwt. calf prices affect cow-calf producer decisions?  The market signal is pretty clear; more calf production is needed and will be rewarded.  For many producers, this may be a question of expanding the cow herd.  In addition to potential herd expansion, producers should consider whether current market values should prompt management changes as well.  Consider this question, for example: What is the optimal level of death loss for cows or calves?  While we don’t often think about it, the optimal level is not zero.  Could we achieve zero death loss?  Probably yes or something very close to it, but the last bit of death loss reduction would require extreme measures for which the costs exceed the benefits and thus is not optimal. However, the increase in calf values this year means that additional efforts to reduce death loss are warranted compared to what was optimal in the past. 

 

This illustrates the economic principle that every producer should be examining now:  adjust production activities until the marginal benefits equal the marginal costs.  The sharp jump in revenues this year (marginal benefits) implies that producers should consider a host of marginal changes in production and costs. This may mean doing more of something you are already doing or beginning to do something you have not done in the past.

 

Narrow measures of technical efficiency often lead to non-optimal decisions.  For example, high calf prices are a motivation to sell more pounds of calf.  However, a narrow focus on weaning weights ignores reproductive efficiency, cow size and cost of production, and other factors.  Maximizing value of production per acre includes both technical production efficiencies as well as economic values of inputs and outputs.  Maximizing value of production per acre means evaluating the contributions of a host of cattle and forage production variables along with the costs of inputs used for production. 

 

Pounds of calf weaned per exposed female is a technical measure of productivity that encompasses several other technical efficiency parameters including conception rates; calving percentage; and pre-weaning  calf death loss as well as weaning weight.   To the extent that increasing pounds of calf weaned is consistent with maximizing the value of production per acre, producers should consider what changes might impact these production components.  Conception rates may be boosted marginally by having cows in better shape at breeding.  The extra feed required to add one-half to one body condition score to cows may be worth it this year.  Ensuring bull fertility with breeding soundness exams may avoid decreased or delayed conception.   Ensuring cow and bull health with respect to venereal disease and enhanced bio-security for new animals entering the herd can avoid abortions and reduced calving percentage.  Cow and calf health programs should be evaluated to reduce the risk of death loss. Think of the value of increased monitoring of cows at calving that saves one extra calf this year. These are just a few examples of questions that need to be asked and answered in all cow-calf operations.

 

Most production factors should be evaluated to see if marginal adjustments are indicated by increased animal values.  The principal market signal at this time is to have something to sell and producers should consider additional measures that will enhance productivity of the entire operation.

 

 

Cow age and cow productivity (When is she too old?)

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

Strong cattle prices have encourage ranchers to keep any cow that might have a live calf to sell at the next weaning period.  If rainfall allows forage growth to be adequate, keeping an older cow to have another calf to wean next year is tempting.

 

At cow culling time, producers often face some tough decisions.  Optimum culling of the herd often seems to require a sharp crystal ball that could see into the future.  Is she good for another year?  Will she keep enough body condition through the winter to rebreed next year?  Is her mouth sound so that she can harvest forage and be nutritionally strong enough to reproduce and raise a big calf?  At what age do cows usually start to become less productive?

 

There is great variability in the longevity of beef cows.  Breed may have some influence.  Region of the country and soil type may affect how long the teeth remain sound and allow the cow to consume roughages such as pasture and hay.

 

Records kept by a very large ranch in Florida in the 1980's and published in the 33rd Annual Proceedings of the Beef Cattle Short Course by the University of Florida Animal Science Department show how productivity changes over the life of the beef cows.  These large data sets, (19500 cows, and 14000 cows in two separate years) are plotted below.  They indicate the average percentage of cow determined to be pregnant based on their age in years.  These cows were not pampered but expected to produce in the environment in which they were kept. 

This data would indicate that cows are consistent in the rebreeding performance through about 8 years of age.  A small decline was noted in 1983 as cows aged from 8 to 10 years of age.  However the most consistent decline in reproductive performance was noted after cows were 10 years of age.  A steeper decline in reproductive performance was found as they became 12 years of age.  This data, collected in Florida on cows with some Brahman influence, represents one of, if not the largest data set on this subject.   (Source:Genho, 1984 Proceedings of the Beef Cattle Short Course. Animal Science Department, University of Florida.)

 

 

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services.  References within this publication to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.

 

The impact of dressing percent on cull cow marketing

Drover's Cattle Network

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Extension | Updated: 10/28/2014

Cull cows that are destined to go to the packing house are graded by their fleshiness. The fattest cows are called “Breakers.” Moderately fleshed cows are “Boners.” Thin cows are called “Leans” or “Lights,” depending upon the weight of the cow. There will be price differences among these four grades. There will be price differences among these four grades. However, within each grade, large variation in prices per hundredweight will exist because of differences in dressing percentage. Cow buyers are particularly aware of the proportion of the purchased live weight that eventually becomes saleable product hanging on the rail. Dressing percentage is (mathematically) the carcass weight divided by the live weight multiplied by 100.
Key factors that affect dressing percentage include gut fill, udder size, mud and manure on the hide, excess leather on the body, and anything else that contributes to the live weight but will not add to the carcass weight. Most USDA Market News reports for cull cows will give price ranges for High, Average, and Low Dressing Percents for each of the previous mentioned grades. As you study these price reports, note that the differences between High and Low Dressing cows and bulls will generally be greater than differences between grades. Many reports will indicate that Low Dressing cows will be discounted up to $8 to $10 per hundredweight compared to High Dressing cows and will be discounted $5 to $7 per hundredweight compared to Average Dressing cows. These price differences are usually widest for the thinner cow grades (Leans and Lights). See examples from last week’s sale in Oklahoma City National Stockyards:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ko_ls151.txt
As producers market cull cows, they should be cautious about selling cows with excess fill. The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight.

Fall/winter harvest/grazing management of sorghum forages

This is a write up by our Forage Crop Management Specialist, Leonard Lauriault, on harvest management of sorghum forages when they are frosted.  FYI, our State Extension Forage Specialist, Mark Marsalis, published an excellent resource entitled “Sorghum Forage Production in New Mexico” (Guide A-332, http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A332/).

Generally, there are two concerns with harvesting sorghum forages as hay or silage or by grazing when temperatures cool in the fall and especially when frost occurs. Those are nitrate accumulation in the stems and Prussic acid production in leaves. The causes are the same so they can both occur at the same time.

Because of the within-plant location of the two concerns, and the fate, or lack thereof of the toxins, different management strategies can be used.  Nitrates are more of a problem for hay, unless animals are forced to consume the stems during grazing. Prussic acid is more of a concern when grazing because leaves will be consumed first.

Nitrates never go away in hay, although ensiling will reduce nitrate levels as microbes utilize the nitrates. Prussic acid will naturally dissipate in 5 to 7 days  and actually is generated by cutting for hay or silage at any time during the year. Dissipation is usually complete by the time hay is cured or after 7 stress-free days have passed for the standing crop. Nitrates accumulated during stress (cold temperatures or frost) also can be assimilated by the rest of the plant after about a week of stress-free growth.

The problems with sorghum forages in the fall are temperature fluctuations and frequent frosts.

Consequently, the recommendation for grazing sorghum forages in the fall is to remove animals when frost is first anticipated and not return them until at least a week after all plants are completely dead. Then, never force them to graze the stems because the nitrates are still there. Alternatively, as soon as frost is anticipated, the sorghum forages can be harvested. This would prevent nitrate accumulation due to frost and any Prussic acid that is produced due to cutting should dissipate before baling.

The forage nitrate screening kits I provide each April (which are still good until next April 1^st, not fooling) can be used to evaluate the presence of nitrates in sorghum stems and how high up the stems the nitrates have accumulated. If you have a kit, you can have producers collect stems cut at ground level in several places throughout the stand (the more sampling locations, the better). Have them identify the collection location for each stem. Split the stems and apply a drop of the nitrate screening solution about every two inches up the stem. If nitrates are present, the drop will immediately turn a deep blue. The point at which there is no blue will indicate a possible cutting height to leave most of the nitrates in the field. This could also leave considerable hay yield in the field, but I suspect most producers will consider their animals of greater value.Also, any nitrates left in the field may be available to a subsequent crop as a fertilizer savings. Identifying sample collection location may give an idea of areas where nitrates are higher or lower in the field due to soil or microclimatic factors. Hay from high nitrate areas could be sold separately to protect the value of any low nitrate hay.

Because nitrates never go away in hay, in every case in New Mexico, no matter how well the sorghum forage crop was managed or how optimum the growing conditions were, every cutting of sorghum hay should be tested for nitrates. The forage nitrate screening kits I provide only indicate the presence of nitrates and not the amount, and amount counts. Management options to utilize high nitrate hay have been devised based on the forage nitrate level. Forage quality analysis also should be done as a marketing tool. Proper hay sampling technique is critical to estimate the nitrate content or nutritive value of any forage with any degree of confidence (see Circular 641, http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/CR-641.pdf, also by Mark Marsalis).

By the way, sorghums also produce nitrates and prussic acid until new plants are about 18-20 inches tall. Consequently, after planting or harvesting, they should not be grazed until they are about 2 feet tall. Cut for hay at 40 inches to maintain fine stems for higher quality and more rapid curing. Silage should be harvested at soft dough stage and may need to be swathed to allow wilting to 65% moisture before chopping.

An alternative to sorghum for forage is pearl millet (see Guide A-417; http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A417/, by guess who). Management practices are similar, except that pearl millet does not produce Prussic acid, and although it can accumulate nitrates, pearl millet is not generally as likely to do that as the sorghum forages (even alfalfa can accumulate nitrates). Consequently, pearl millet does not present the same concerns during the fall that the sorghums do. Of note is that pearl millet does not withstand intensive grazing (lower stubble height) as well as the sorghum forages for regrowth, but if you’re grazing it out in the fall, who cares about regrowth.

Eric Scholljegerdes is conducting the second year of a grazing trial at Tucumcari that may shed further light on the difference in animal performance when using pearl millet or sorghum forages for late summer and fall pasture (thanks, Eric and graduate student Leah Schmitz). We’ll keep you posted as results are substantiated.

Mr. Leonard Lauriault, Certified Forage and Grassland Professional

College Professor - Superintendent  and Forage Crop Management Scientist
New Mexico State University College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences: http://aces.nmsu.edu/
Plant and Environmental Sciences Department: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pes
Agricultural Science Center at Tucumcari: http://tucumcarisc.nmsu.edu/
6502 Quay Rd AM.5
Tucumcari, NM 88401
Phone: 575-461-1620 x 103
FAX: 575-461-1631

 Perseverance is the pathway to perfection (Philippians 3:12-16).

 

Cattle Prices: How high is high…revisited?

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

The Newsletter

 

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

October 6, 2014

 

 

“Feeder and fed cattle prices are at or near all time highs and are poised to keep moving higher.  Both Feeder and Live cattle futures suggest that higher prices are yet to come. In several recent meetings and conversations with producers, I am seeing a couple of reactions to the current situation.  There seems to be an overall feeling of disbelief or a sense that there is another shoe to fall.  The basic question seems to be one of “Is this for real?”.  Given everything we have been through in recent years and the amount of volatility in most input and output markets, such hesitancy is understandable.  It is easy to remember corn and wheat markets in 2008 which soared to astronomical heights for a brief period of time.  Are cattle markets in the same situation: set for a wild but short-lived ride into the stratosphere?”

 

The preceding paragraph was taken from an article that I wrote in January of 2011.  I stumbled across it recently and realized that it applies to an even greater extent today with a market situation that is significantly different than when the original article was written.  Feeder cattle prices today are nearly double (up over 90 percent) the level when the question was posed in 2011. Fed cattle prices are up over 50 percent from early 2011.  No one knew in January, 2011 that the beef industry would suffer tremendously with drought impacts into 2014 that would take an already tight supply situation to extreme levels and provoke the current unimaginable production and market situation.

 

It appeared in early 2011 that the beef cattle industry was poised for herd expansion with cattle inventories already lower than intended by the industry.  Instead, we find ourselves in 2014 with the beef cow herd down another 6 percent from the 2011 level.  Though herd expansion has likely started in 2014, it will take another three years to recover the 1.87 million head of beef cows lost since 2011.   Additional expansion beyond that level is likely but will depend on domestic and international market conditions towards the end of the decade.  The prospects for herd expansion for much of the rest of the decade suggest that cattle prices are likely to grind higher yet from current record levels before peaking and working lower towards the end of the decade.  I’m hearing many producers and others repeating the adage that “high prices cure high prices” and they do; but in the case of the beef industry it will likely take most of the rest of the decade for that to happen.  The beef industry does not work like crop production in which major production adjustments can occur in a matter of one crop year.  Heifer retention will make tight cattle supplies tighter for a couple of years before any resulting production increase hits the market. The current situation pretty much ensures a four to six year recovery process with supply driven price strength for much of that process.

Curry County Grasshopper Workshop

Grasshopper Workshop

Posted: 17 Sep 2014 08:58 AM PDT

 

New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service – Curry County will be hosting a Grasshopper Workshop from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on September 30, 2014 at Allen Hall in Grady, NM.  Shawn Carson from Plant Protection & Quarantine-Aphis will be on hand to discuss the current grasshopper situation and what we may be looking at in the future.  PPQ will also discuss what options we have when it comes to controlling the grasshopper populations. 

 

               There will be 1 General CEU for producers that hold a pesticide applicator license.   To register for this event please contact the Curry County Extension office at (575)763-6505

Ray Rice Incident Underscores To Cattle Industry The Power Of Video

I have posted this article because I found the point to be interesting.  If consumers are looking to verify the information that they receive on a daily basis; it begs the question what does an animal rights video do to the credibility of the industry?  Videos and pictures of problems occurring in agriculture certainly don't help us instill confidence in the consumer.
Just something to think about.
Patrick


by Troy Marshall in My View From The Country
Beef Magazine Online

One of the biggest national stories of late in the sports world is the indefinite suspension of Ray Rice from the National Football League (NFL). The penalty came down after a video surfaced showing the Baltimore Ravens running back punching his fiancé, who is now his wife, in an elevator of an Atlantic City casino.
Sadly, domestic violence is a pretty common occurrence, and the NFL currently has several active players who are accused of such abuse. The Rice case initially gained headlines because of the video showing him nonchalantly dragging the unconscious woman from the elevator. That drew a two-game suspension for Rice and sparked a national discussion on domestic violence.
Then the second video was released that showed the actual punch and the dynamic of the story changed again, even more dramatically. The Ravens released Rice, the NFL suspended him indefinitely, and even the Canadian Football League announced it would not allow Rice to play north of the border. And the story became headline news everywhere.
The episode illustrates the power of video and the way today’s society processes information. The first video pretty much clued everyone into what had occurred in that Atlantic City elevator; after all, Rice and his then-fiance essentially had confirmed it. Society shouldn’t have needed to see the second video of Rice actually throwing the punch to fully appreciate the situation. However, that second video changed the way people processed the event and stoked the heightened response.

Obviously, domestic violence is a real and serious problem; and such high-profile incidents underscore the need to address this kind of abuse. What I found fascinating, however, is that the key to really stoking national concern and anger seemed to be the video.

Running back Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens addresses a news conference with his wife Janay at the Ravens training center on May 23, 2014 in Owings Mills, Maryland. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)

National surveys indicate a declining trust and growing skepticism among Americans regarding government and media. As consumers of information, we’ve become so aware of being manipulated on a daily basis with spin and propaganda that we tend to be skeptical of anything we can’t see or hear directly. There is more news and event coverage today – both commentary and editorial – than ever before, but there are also more sources producing it.

There are more and varied media through which we can receive information today, but there’s also a tendency today for consumers to seek out the sources that confirm what we believe. So, in many ways, we are consuming more information than ever before, but in more of a one-sided manner.
For instance, you might be a fan of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow or prefer to follow Fox News’ Sean Hannity, but you likely realize that you’re consuming a biased perspective. In part, it’s refreshing because when the bias is admitted, you don’t get the feeling that you’re being manipulated.
Mainstream media has had a hard time adjusting to this reality. We live in a world today where I think most discerning people understand that all information is filtered in one way or another. This means that it takes hard evidence – and our own ears and eyes – to really move us.
From an industry standpoint, I think it illustrates just how much we have to change and revamp the way we get our message out to consumers. For instance, to the average consumer, an industry spokesman quoting accurate science is often received as little more than a paid individual advancing an agenda with half-truths. Much more effective is for consumers to experience it directly. Barring that, they must connect, and must have a relationship, with the individual sharing the information if it is to get past our filters.
The opinions of Troy Marshall are not necessarily those of Penton and the Farm Progress Group.

 

Cost Of Developing 2014 Heifer Calves Will Be Record High

by Harlan Hughes in Market Advisor
BEEF Magazine Online

With cattle prices up and feed costs down, many producers outside the major drought areas are contemplating holding back additional replacement heifers from their 2014 calf crop. But what are the economics of doing so?
I currently project the total economic cost of developing 2014 heifer calves into preg-checked females in fall 2015 to be $1,989/head. These heifers’ first calves will be born in spring 2016, with the heifers potentially being marketed that fall, or grown out and sold as feeders in summer 2017. In either case, it takes two years to increase the number of calves sold.
Let’s briefly review how I calculated the costs of raising a replacement heifer. I went into substantial procedural detail in my two previous articles on the cost of replacement heifers; therefore, this month I’ll summarize my latest 2014 calculations. If you want the procedural details, read my July 2012 column, “What’s The Real Cost Of Heifer Development?”
Figure 1 summarizes this year’s projected cost of raised replacement heifers. My analysis is based on 1,300-lb. cows producing 554-lb. weaned heifers in fall 2014. My current projection for 2014 weaned heifers sold in the fall is $254/cwt., or $1,407/weaned heifer calf. Thus, the opportunity cost for raised replacement heifers is this $1,407.

The winter growing period is projected to be 181 days (six months), and the winter feed costs are based on wintering the heifer calves on corn grain, hay and supplement. I used $4.10/bu. corn and $120/ton hay, which generates a winter feed cost of $192/head.
Non-feed wintering costs include the lot costs ($37), interest cost ($33), vet and medicine ($9), and death loss ($17) — all on a per-head basis. Total non-feed wintering costs totaled $96/head, while winter feed and non-feed costs totaled $288/head.
The heifers were moved to pasture on May 1, at a pasture rent of $30/animal unit month (AUM). These young heifers were assumed equal to 0.8 AUM for a monthly grazing cost of $24/heifer month. They were on grass for 153 days (5.1 months). Breeding costs were based on a $5,000 heifer bull used for four years and then culled, generating a breeding fee of $49/heifer.

Can You Tell Profit When You See It?
Enter our 2014 BEEF Efficiency & Profit Contest & you could win $1,000 cash (indvidual) or $5,000 in Merial product (feedlot group). Enter here!

The projected total economic cost of a raised replacement heifer came to $1,910/head before culling. After adjusting for an 85% conception rate, the total cost is $2,247/preg-checked heifer. A final adjustment was made for the market value ($1,719) for the open heifers sold, which reduces the final cost of raising replacement heifers to $1,989/preg-checked heifer.
After all the adjustments, the development cost of each preg-checked heifer averages $582/head. If we add the $1,407 opportunity cost at weaning, we have a projected total economic cost for raising a replacement heifer of $1,989/head — an all-time record.
Of course, the cost of growing replacement heifers through the winter varies from ranch to ranch, so I’ll share a more generalized procedure (Figure 2) designed to help individual ranchers tailor my projected cost of raised replacement heifers to their own ranch situation.

The light blue cells in Figure 2 represent the specific case discussed earlier in this article. The winter feed bill for heifer development was $192/head, and the summer grazing cost was based on $24/heifer month pasture cost. Note the $24 pasture cost on the left-hand side and the $192 winter feed cost along the top of the table. The intersection of the appropriate row and column gives the projected $1,989 cost/preg-checked heifer developed.

Related

7 Heifer Development Tips

Effective Heifer Development Means Thinking Early & Long Term

Let’s assume you’re a Southeast rancher who can graze replacement heifers all year long. Let’s assume you can winter your heifers on grass for $28/heifer month for a total winter feed bill of $152. Summer grass on your ranch has a market value of $20/heifer month. If you input those parameters into the table, the projected cost of raised replacement heifers is $1,920/preg-checked heifer raised.
This table is designed for ranchers with winter feed costs ranging from $152-$252/head/winter season. Summer grazing costs can range from $18-$30/heifer month. I hope this range covers most ranch situations. For ranchers with numbers between those in Figure 1, you can easily extrapolate between my published numbers.
I encourage each reader to estimate his own winter feed costs and summer grazing costs, and then use Figure 2 to project his cost of raising replacement heifers. Whatever winter and summer feed costs you use, I predict your raised replacement costs for your 2014 heifer calves will be record-high.
Harlan Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, ID. Reach him at 701-238-9607 or harlan.hughes@gte.net.

NASDA members say 'withdraw' to EPA’s Waters of the U.S. Rule

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture | Updated: 09/15/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Burlington, VT, September 12, 2014 – At the Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), NASDA Members unanimously called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule. The action item, submitted by North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Doug Goehring, also urges the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers to collaborate with state departments of agriculture and other stakeholders on the appropriate scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

“As it stands, this proposed rule dramatically expands EPA’s jurisdiction and creates too much uncertainty for our farmers and ranchers. This rule must be withdrawn,” said NASDA CEO Dr. Barbara Glenn. “It is critical that the agencies engage state regulators and stakeholders to work together to find a path forward before the agencies move towards implementation or further rulemaking.”

NASDA previously submitted comments expressing concerns about the highly controversial Interpretive Rule for Agricultural Conservation Practices.

“Conservation and environmental protection are among our members’ chief responsibilities as state regulatory agencies. We feel the agencies’ proposals will dissuade the use of critical conservation practices needed to preserve American farmland,” said Glenn.

NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture in all fifty states and four U.S. territories. To learn more about NASDA, please visit www.nasda.org.

Caution: Prussic acid poisoning can be a problem during grazing

Mark Arnold, Texas A&M Extension | Updated: 09/11/2014\
Drover's Cattle Network

Prussic acid poisoning
Use caution when grazing sorghum/sudan grass during periods when these forages may be experiencing stress, whether drought or frost stress, as prussic acid poisoning is one of the most toxic and rapidly acting of any common poison. It is also called hydrocyanic acid or cyanide poisoning. Cyogenic compounds can develop in plants that are stressed. In the rumen the compounds are converted to cyanide, which can kill livestock.
Symptoms
Livestock can show symptoms of intoxication within 5 minutes of eating plants with the poison, and may die within 15 minutes. Salivation and labored breathing occur first, followed by muscular tremors, uncoordinated movements, bloating, convulsions and death from respiratory failure.
Prussic acid accumulations
Although there is usually little danger of prussic acid poisoning, it can accumulate in plants in the sorghum family, such as Johnson grass, sudan grass, forage sorghums and grain sorghum. It is also found in bahia, corn, cocklebur, white clover and other minor plants, but seldom at toxic levels.
One problem with prussic acid is that it tends to “come and go” in the plant: It may be present for a short time and then dissipate. It appears to occur when plants are injured by herbicides or frost. Severe drought stress can also cause prussic acid to form.
High concentrations of prussic acid may be associated with rapid cell division or rapid growth, such as shortly after a rain or irrigation on previously drought-stressed fields, or warm weather after a cool period. Under good conditions, toxic concentrations can also form in young, rapidly growing plants.
On the positive side, prussic acid dissipates from plants properly cured for hay. However, in hay baled early at high moisture or plants chopped for immediate feeding, the prussic acid may not have had a chance to dissipate.
Preventing losses
To prevent prussic acid poisoning:

• Do not graze any of the cyanogenic-accumulating plants (sorghums) that have been subject to drought or injury, unless they are tested for hydrocyanic acid.
• If plants have been damaged by herbicides or frost, defer grazing until they either are well recovered from injury or cut for hay, or after a killing freeze and the plants have been allowed to dry.
• Do not graze plants in the sorghum family until they are 2 to 3 feet tall.
• Graze second-growth sorghums with caution if growing conditions are poor.
• Remove all livestock from the feed source when an animal is found to have died suddenly after grazing forages under poor growing conditions.
• Prevent animals from grazing wilted plants or those with young tillers.
• After plants have grown rapidly, such as shortly after a rain or irrigation on previously drought-stressed fields, or warm weather after a cook period, wait at least 2 weeks after the plants begin to grow before grazing.
• When turning livestock into new pastures containing cyanogenic-accumulating plants, don’t turn in on cloudy days, or early in the morning.

Prussic acid testing:

• Cyanide begins to leave the sample as soon as the plant begins to die. Therefore, it is critical that producers hand-carry or ship overnight all samples to be tested for prussic acid.
• The plant sampling method is similar to that for nitrate. A good sample for prussic acid testing consists of leaves from 10 to 12 plants. Refrigerate but do not freeze the samples in transit to the lab.
• Sampling and handling baled hay presents problems, because prussic acid is lost rapidly after the bale is opened. Use a hay probe, empty the sample immediately into a pint canning jar (only one probe per sample jar), seal the jar and send it to the lab overnight.

For further information, contact Mark Arnold, County Extension Agent-Agriculture/Natural Resources, 701 South I-35 E, Suite 3, Waxahachie, or call 972/825-5175 or email: wmarnold@ag.tamu.edu
Educational programs of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service are open to all people without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information or veteran status. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating

BeefTalk: Have some bulls to cull?

Kris Ringwall, North Dakota State University Extension | Updated: 09/12/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Now is a good time to look at the bull pen, even though it probably is empty. In fact, one would have to wonder why if there is a bull in the pen.
For many, the bulls are left on pasture and rounded up with the cows and calves as fall progresses. Throughout the summer, various bulls are moved around or brought home. In some cases, they are injured. In other cases, they simply won’t stay in the pasture. Wandering bulls are a liability and don’t make for good neighbor relations.
Although the weather is very dry in places or sopping wet in others, fall followed by winter is quickly approaching, so thoughts of feeding cattle, especially bulls, come to mind. What is the reason for feeding cull bulls? For the most part, the quicker the bulls go to market, the less stress.
As producers prepare to round up cattle, a change in management is triggered by a change in weather, usually snow. As colder weather sets in, grass may not be actively growing and feed resources are quickly utilized. As fall work becomes more pressing, the most neglected group often is the bulls. The bulls usually are pulled from the cows and placed in an out-of-the-way place for the remainder of the season.
Bulls often are the last group of cattle brought home for winter feeding because most of the attention and time is placed on the freshly weaned calves, calves in the backgrounding lots or sorting cows.
However, don’t ignore the bulls. On one of those less than busy days, review the bull herd. Rather than keeping problem, inferior or old bulls through the winter, give some thought to marketing the culls.
Reviewing the inventory of bulls is a wise move. How many of those bulls will be needed or used next year? The Dickinson Research Extension Center needs 18. However, a quick review of needs for the spring of 2015 would indicate extra bulls are needed. The center did reserve three bulls in May as backups but can look at not overwintering all the bulls.
Why maintain bulls you don’t need? Cull the obvious bulls to start the process. Although none of the bulls have obvious male reproductive problems, now is a good time to check for other abnormalities or injuries that may have occurred during the breeding season. Bulls with behavioral and structural problems should go to town. Also, a review of the expected progeny difference values should be done to scrutinize for future issues.
However, one of the biggest issues is temperament. As the bulls get older, they develop pretty strong territorial boundaries and can become difficult to move. With the replacement price of bulls, one tends to think twice before marketing a bull, but with excellent cull prices, bulls can bring more than $3,000 as market beef. That certainly will put some money in the bank for a replacement bull this coming winter.
The center’s bulls still are breeding in early to mid-September, but come October, they are pulled and have some restful months ahead. The bulls should gain about a pound a day as they rest, so they will add about 300 pounds to their mature weight.
Searching for the nutrient requirements of beef cattle on the Web, I came upon the Oklahoma State University publication “Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle” by David Lalman. It notes the nutrient requirements for a bull that is predicted to weigh 2,000 pounds as a mature bull.
To get to that weight, a bull that weighs 1,400 pounds and is gaining 0.5 pound a day needs a daily intake of 31 pounds of dry matter (hay or grass) that is 7 percent protein and 50 percent total digestible nutrients (TDN). If those same bulls were to gain 1.7 pounds a day, their daily intake would need to increase to 32 pounds of a higher-quality ration. It would contain the same crude protein level, but the energy content of the ration would need to increase to 60 percent TDN.
A grain-based supplement would need to be added or some very high-quality forage would need to be found. Those feed resources should be available this year. However, is the bull worth keeping for another year?
Because a good selection of young yearlings will be available next year, those bulls that are struggling to gain and recover from the breeding season should be sold. In addition, as with any management decision, one has to weigh the present genetic value of the sound bulls versus what the anticipated price will be for replacement bulls next spring, as well as their genetic value.
Can one buy better genetics? How are your bulls doing? Have some to sell?
May you find all your ear tags.

Red meat and exercise increases muscle longevity

Chelsea Mies | Updated: 09/12/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Eating lean red meat three to four times a week along with regular exercise could be the key to keeping both the body and mind at their peak as people age, a study from Deakin University in Australia found. The study found that, in combination, the two worked to reduce age-related muscle loss in elderly subjects. Now, the study is being extended to focus on the effects the diet plan has on mental capacity.
The study focused on effects the diet and exercise program had on women ages 60 to 90 compared to those who were using exercise alone. The women who were eating the lean read meat had greater muscle strength and mass. They also saw an increase in a hormone that is key to muscle growth, along with other benefits, Oli Haenlein of Meat Trades Journal reports.
“It is no secret that we are living longer and that this is placing an increased burden on society in many ways, including the healthcare system,” said Robin Daly, professor of exercise and ageing at Deakin. “This protein/exercise combination could provide the greatest benefits in terms of ensuring that older adults can live independently and relatively disease- and disability-free into old age.”
Read more here.

Review: Transportation shrink in beef cattle

K. P. Coffey, W. K. Coblentz, J. B. Humphry, and F. K. Brazle, Ohio State University Extension | Updated: 09/10/2014

A better understanding of factors affecting shrink should help buyers and sellers of cattle to arrive at a fair pencil shrink under specific marketing conditions.
Types of Shrink. There are two types of shrink. One is excretory which is the loss of urine and feces. When ambient temperatures are low (below freezing, urine and fecal output can comprise 30-35% of shrink. When temperatures are hot, urine and fecal losses account for about 15-20% of shrink. Much of this loss is replaced when cattle are again allowed to eat and drink.
The second type is loss is tissue loss. It is the loss of fluid from the cells. Tissue shrinkage occurs after holding cattle off feed and water. It also occurs when cattle are subjected to stresses such as hauling. It becomes more important than excretory shrink the longer the shipping time. Since it is actual loss of tissue weight, it is harder to replace.
Easy handling during the loading process and minimizing quick starts and stops in the hauling process can reduce shrinkage. Most of the shrinkage occurs during loading and in the first part (25 miles) of a trip. Cattle may lose half as much in 25 miles as they do in 200 miles. As the time increases, so does shrinkage, but at a slower rate than the first few miles.
Professional cattle buyers may ask for a pencil shrink on cattle weighed on the farm, on a truck or after a very short haul from the farm to the scales. Pencil shrink is a percentage deduction from the weight of the cattle. This makes the weighing condition similar to cattle that were processed through a market. Pencil shrink is usually 2 to 3 percent for feeder cattle and 3 to 4 percent for finished cattle.
Difference in shrinkage between steers and heifers is variable but heifers shrink slightly more. Finished cattle shrink more than feeder cattle in the first eight to 10 hours. Feeder cattle shrink about 2 percent more on long hauls, up to 7 or 9 percent. An overnight stand of 12 hours without feed or water can cause 4 percent shrink in cattle on lush grass or silage. The same cattle on a high grain ration may lose only 2.5 to 3 percent.
Length of Shrink Period. Cattle begin to lose body weight (BW) at the time they are moved; the greatest proportion of BW loss occurs during the early hours (h) of feed and water deprivation. Coffey et al. (4) reported that steers that were gathered at daybreak from pasture and placed in holding pens without feed or water shrank at a rate of 1.25% of BW/h during the first 2 to 2.5 h, 0.61% of BW/h during the next 2.5 to 3 h, and only 0.16% of BW/h during the next 2-h period. In that study, almost one-half of the BW loss occurred during the first 2 to 2.5 h. Therefore, shrink is generally greater early in the feed and water deprivation period and appears to range from about 0.75 to 1.25% of BW/h during the first 3 to 4 h.
Environmental Conditions. Self and Gay (11) reported a tendency for stocker calves to shrink more when shipped in the summer compared with those shipped in the fall or spring if the calves were shipped directly from the farm to the feedlot. Feedlot cattle have also been reported to have a tendency to shrink more during the summer and fall compared with those shipped during the winter and spring (6). Both fecal and urine outputs were actually lower when ambient temperature was higher. Therefore, the increased BW lost during higher ambient temperatures is a result of a greater proportion of respiratory loss, presumably at the expense of fluid from body tissue (11). It is concluded that shrink under higher ambient temperatures is therefore much more serious and also costly to the cattlemen receiving the cattle.
The composition of the BW loss and the impact of the stresses on long-term animal health and performance are as critical as the actual BW losses themselves. Cole et al. (5) reported greater nitrogen loss from both the urine and feces in transported calves compared with non-transported fasted calves.
Effect of Handling Procedures. Self and Gay (11) indicated that cattle shrank less when they were handled as quietly as possible upon removal from pasture. A typical research practice is to weigh pasture cattle on 2 consecutive d to arrive at a beginning and ending BW for studies. Cattle that are hard to remove from pasture (i.e., more excited during pasture removal) typically weigh less on the second day than cattle that are easily removed from their pasture and handled more calmly. It is believed that handling procedures that create more stress on cattle will have a negative impact on cattle BW, shrink, and recovery time.
Effect of Previous Diet. Many producers feed grain prior to shipment to help cattle retain BW and reduce shrink. However, definitive research evaluating pre-shipment diets and management has produced variable results. Based on the summary information in the article, it is questionable whether feeding concentrate prior to shipment will reduce shrink.
Effect of Preconditioning. Preconditioning has been used in an attempt to provide better quality cattle at the livestock auction through reduced sickness and subsequent medical expenses; however, a consistent reduction in shrink should not always be expected based on available data.
Effect of Feed Additives. Certain feed additives may have an impact on feed intake, fill, and mineral status, and these factors may also impact shrink. Feeding ionophores for extended periods before shipment may help reduce shrink.
Forage Effects. The time of the morning that cattle are removed from pasture before weighing can have an impact on both their BW and the amount of shrink they incur. Heitschmidt (7) reported that cows grazing native range were 2.5% heavier in late morning than in early morning. In another grazing study, steers were removed from pasture at different times of the morning during the fall (4). Steers that were allowed to graze 3 h before gathering were 1.9% heavier than those gathered at daybreak. Rate of cattle shrink throughout the day was also affected by length of morning grazing before removal from pasture (4). Steers allowed to graze for 3 h before removal from pasture shrank at a rate of 0.86%/h less during the first 2.2 to 2.6 h following removal from pasture than those steers removed as grazing began at daybreak. Cumulative rate of shrink at any length of time following pasture removal, as well as total shrink, was lowest from steers allowed to graze for 3 h before being gathered from pasture. Therefore, allowing cattle to graze for an extended period before shipping not only allows them to gain additional BW, but also reduces their rate of shrink during the early shrink period.
Dietary Manipulation of Shrink. Hutcheson et al. (8) reported a positive response to supplemental potassium in the receiving. Cattle given either an electrolyte solution or glucose solution in the drinking water before slaughter had improved meat quality traits and carcass yield compared with those given no water or water only (9). Electrolyte supplementation before slaughter also reduced urine concentrations of sodium and potassium and increased urine chloride concentration, indicating that electrolyte supplementation during this time reduced the normal response of electrolyte elimination into the urine during transportation and fasting. In another study, cattle provided an electrolyte solution during holding for slaughter retained a greater percentage of live BW as carcass weight (10). Others have reported a response to supplemental chromium (3) in receiving diets, indicating that the body may be eliminating this element during transportation as well. Therefore, it appears possible to provide animals with a diet balanced for energy, protein, and electrolytes before transport that would help reduce shrink by providing storage of essential nutrients. However, this hypothesis needs to be evaluated because the body tends to reject and eliminate nutrients provided in excess.
Literature Cited:
1. Brazle, F. K. 1992. Effect of feed additives on shipping shrinkage of yearling heifers. Rep. Prog. 651. p 82. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn., Manhattan, KS.
2. Brazle, F. K., G. L. Kuhl, C. E. Binns, K. O. Zoellner, L. R. Corah, and R. R. Schalles. 1991. The influence of limited-creep feeding on preand post-weaning performance of springborn calves. J. Anim. Sci. 69 (Suppl. 1):76 (Abs.).
3. Chang, X., and D. N. Mowat. 1992. Supplemental chromium for stressed and growing feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 70:559.
4. Coffey, K. P., F. K. Brazle, J. J. Higgins, and J. L. Moyer. 1997. Effects of gathering time on weight and shrink of steers grazing smooth bromegrass pastures. Prof. Anim. Sci. 13:170.
5. Cole, N. A., W. A. Phillips, and D. P. Hutcheson. 1986. The effect of pre-fast diet and transport on nitrogen metabolism of calves. J. Anim. Sci. 62:1719.
6. Harman, B. R., M. H. Brinkman, M. P. Hoffman, and H. L. Self. 1989. Factors affecting in-transit shrink and liver abscesses in fed steers. J. Anim. Sci. 67:311.
7. Heitschmidt, R. K. 1982. Diurnal variation in weight and rates of shrink of range cows and calves. J. Range Manage. 35:717.
8. Hutcheson, D. P., N. A. Cole, and J. B. McLaren. 1984. Effects of pretransit diets and post-transit potassium levels for feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 58:700.
9. Schaefer, A. L., S. D. M. Jones, A. K. W. Tong, and B. A. Young. 1990. Effects of transport and electrolyte supplementation on ion concentrations, carcass yield and quality in bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:107.
10. Schaefer, A. L., S. D. M. Jones, A. K. W. Tong, B. A. Young, N. L. Murray, and P. Lepage. 1992. Effects of post-transport electrolyte supplementation on tissue electrolytes, hematology, urine osmolality and weight loss in beef bulls. Livestock Prod. Sci. 30:333.11. Self, H. L., and N. Gay. 1972. Shrink during shipment of feeder cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 35:489.