With expansion underway, how big a cowherd does the U.S. need?

Burt Rutherford                                                                                                January 22, 2015

There’s a chance everyone will be surprised, but the sure money among industry analysts and pundits alike is that the forthcoming USDA Jan. 1, 2015 Cattle Inventory report will show that herd rebuilding is well underway.
“What we’re seeing today are market prices that are increasingly a market insistence that we need to be bigger,” Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing economist, told a packed room at the Southwest Beef Symposium recently in Amarillo, Texas. “We are smaller than we need to be.”
And while he’s certain that 2014 data will show herd rebuilding is underway, he says that’s not really the question. “If you can tell me what the weather will be and (what) drought conditions (will be), we’ll know if that’s sustainable going forward. But once we stop liquidating, then the next question is how big do we need to be?”
A look back at recent history might give a clue. “If you go back to 2004, we tried to grow from there. We had minor growth to 2006.” But remember what happened then? “That’s when the feed market shocks, the ethanol juggernaut, fuel prices, fertilizer prices, took us for a ride in 2008 and 2009. Then recession in 2009 and 2010 aggravated it. It was really cost-side impacts that caused this liquidation (since 2007). So all else being equal, the last time we tried to grow as an industry was at 32.5 million (beef) cows,” he says.
Last year’s Cattle Inventory report pegged beef cows at somewhere around 29 million. “When you look at U.S. demand, international potential and other things, I think this industry needs to be somewhere in the 32 to 34 million head (beef) cow range,” he says. “We’re a lot smaller than we need to be and we took a long time to get here for reasons we didn’t plan on. In order to rebuild, it’s going to take some time.”
Just how long is how long? Since cows don’t have litters, Peel says it will be next year or into 2017 before we see any payoff from heifers retained in 2014. Then there’s this: will cattle producers believe it’s going to be good enough long enough to make it worth the extremely high prices we’re seeing for breeding animals?
In addition, Peel says you have to factor in things like the age of the average cattle producer, financial considerations and what the weather might do. “All those are things that could slow down (rebuilding) even slower than the biology lag does,” he says.
Here’s Peel’s bottom line: “When I look at the numbers and look at a relatively aggressive expansion starting from a year ago with some expansion beginning in 2015, I think we’re talking out to 2020 or beyond to get us very far back to that 32 to 34 million head.”

Ask the Consultant: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?

Written by Bryan Nichols and Deke AlkirePublished on 19 Jan 2015
Progressive Cattleman Online Magazine

Consultants at the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation work with livestock producers on ranch solutions related to their operations.
This column highlights common questions asked by producers of Noble consultants. This month’s question: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?
According to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 28 percent of all calf deaths before weaning are due to birth-related problems. Therefore, managing females to calve with minimal difficulty is extremely important.
A topic that is often discussed in cattle production is whether or not the level of nutrition given to a pregnant female late in gestation affects birthweight and calving difficulty (dystocia). Many producers worry that providing good nutrition to a pregnant female, especially heifers, increases birthweight of the calf and, subsequently, dystocia.
However, providing inadequate nutrition can have long-term effects on pregnancy rates and profitability. This is a topic that has been very well researched over the past several decades.

Protein and energy supplements

In 1989, researchers assembled an extensive review of studies examining the effect of prepartum energy supplementation, protein supplementation and cow condition at calving on birthweight and dystocia.
Ten studies were summarized where differing levels of energy were offered (high energy, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate energy, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low energy, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).

In nine of the 10 studies, moderate or high energy increased birthweights; however, only two of those 10 studies reported an increase in dystocia when feeding higher energy levels. One study actually reported an increase in dystocia when feeding lower energy levels.
Five studies were summarized where differing levels of protein were offered (high protein, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate protein, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low protein, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
Two of the five studies showed increased birthweights when feeding high-protein versus low-protein diets.
One of the five studies showed increased dystocia with increased protein, and one study showed decreased dystocia when feeding increased protein. In general, calf vigor was also decreased when feeding lower levels of protein.

BCS and pregnancy rate

Body condition at calving was also examined in five studies. These studies demonstrated two important messages. First, dystocia is increased in obese (BCS greater than 7) compared to moderately conditioned females.
Second, dystocia is not decreased in thin females compared to those of adequate body condition; however, calf vigor is decreased.
In addition, most research agrees that body condition score (BCS) at calving is the most important factor affecting subsequent estrus and ovulation, and therefore pregnancy rates. Table 1 shows the relationship of BCS to pregnancy rate and calving interval.
Several studies agree that pregnancy rates increase from about 60 percent at a BCS of 4 to 79 to 86 percent at a BCS of 5 and to 90 to 92 percent at a BCS of 6. However, these differences can be much greater in first-calf heifers and second-calf heifers.
In a Florida study, pregnancy rate was only 50 to 53 percent for first-calf and second-calf heifers with a BCS of 4 compared to 84 to 90 percent of those with a BCS of 5 or greater.
Therefore, it is imperative that heifers are in adequate body condition at calving and provided an adequate plane of nutrition through the breeding season to maintain future production.

Fetal programming

Research has shown that inadequate nutrition in the last two-thirds of gestation can decrease muscling and marbling potential. Other complications reported from inadequate nutrition during gestation include increased abortion, decreased birthweight, reduced ability of the calf to produce body heat after birth, increased sickness and death, poor growth performance and reduced meat quality.
While there is an argument that calves whose dams were nutrient-restricted during gestation may be more efficient later in life, one study showed no difference in intake, average daily gain or feed efficiency. This topic is not completely understood and needs more research.
Maternal nutrition may also affect the fertility of the calves born. In a 2007 Nebraska study, researchers showed that heifers born to supplemented cows had a pregnancy rate of 93 percent compared to 80 percent for heifers from unsupplemented cows.
In addition, 77 percent of these heifers calved in the first 21 days, whereas only 49 percent of the heifers from unsupplemented cows calved in the first 21 days. This could have long-term implications because, typically, heifers that calve early tend to calve early the rest of their lives, and calves born early should weigh more at weaning.
Given specific goals, resources and abilities, some producers may be able to capitalize on reduced feed costs and potential increases in efficiency when developing heifers to lighter weights. However, there can be risks to this approach, and due diligence should be given to the risk and reward of such situations, especially in times of record-high prices.
There is a wealth of data on the subject of bred-heifer nutrition. The data supports that for most producers the ideal BCS of a bred heifer at calving is 6. If a producer’s goal is to decrease calving difficulty, selecting bulls for calving ease and providing proper nutrition to heifers will yield much better results.
Deke Alkire and Bryan Nichols are livestock consultants with The Noble Foundation.
References omitted due to space but are available upon request. Click here to email an editor.

Farms can be held liable for pollution from manure

By Ayesha Rascoe, Reuters January 20, 2015 | 4:32 pm EST

A U.S. federal court has ruled for the first time that manure from livestock facilities can be regulated as solid waste, a decision hailed by environmentalists as opening the door to potential legal challenges against facilities across the country.

A large dairy in Washington state, Cow Palace Dairy, polluted ground water by over applying manure to soil, ruled Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Wednesday.
"The practices of this mega-dairy are no different than thousands of others across the country," said Jessica Culpepper, an attorney at Public Justice, one of the firms that represented the plaintiffs, a collection of public advocacy groups.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in March to decide the extent of the contamination and the clean-up.
This is the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, has been applied to animal waste from a farm.
Industrial livestock operations produce hundreds of millions of tons of manure annually.
The district court ruling, if upheld, could affect any large livestock facility that produces more manure than it can responsibly manage, including poultry, beef and hog farms, Culpepper said.
An attorney for Cow Palace said on Friday that it plans to ask for an appeal.
"There's a reason no court has ever done this. It's because the statute was not intended to apply to these situations," said Debora Kristensen, an attorney for Givens Pursley, a law firm that represented Cow Palace.
Kristensen said Cow Palace has already entered into a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which enforces the act, to address water contamination concerns.
Fertilizer is not considered waste under the act, but the district court found that Cow Palace was applying more manure to crops than needed. In one instance, the plaintiffs in the case said Cow Palace applied more than 7 million gallons (26 million liters) of manure to an already "sufficiently fertilized field."
The district court said Cow Palace's excessive application transformed the waste, which is "an otherwise beneficial and useful product," into a discarded material.
The court found that Cow Palace's management of its manure violated the "open dumping" provisions of law.
Unlike other federal contamination laws, the act requires violators not only to stop polluting, but to clean up any damage it has caused.
The case is Community Association For Restoration Of The Environment, Inc. et al v. Cow Palace, LLC et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 13-CV-3016

Additional Farm Bill Info

Some Definitions:

Basic ARC and PLC Program Information (Continued)
E   Basic Summary Comparison of PLC, ARC-CO, and ARC-IC
The following table provides a basic comparison of PLC, ARC-CO, and ARC-IC.

PLC                                  ARC-CO                                    ARC-IC

Uses national MYA price plus the PLC yield established on the farm. Payments determined by
individual crop of covered commodity base acres. Payments made on 85 percent of base acres by crop base acreage. Production report not required.
May elect PLC or ARC-CO on the same farm on a covered commodity by covered commodity basis.

Uses MYA price plus county yield.
Payments determined by individual crop of covered commodity base acres. Payments made on
85 percent of base acres by crop base acreage. Production report not needed.
May elect ARC-CO or PLC on the same farm on a covered commodity by covered commodity basis.

Uses MYA price plus the producer’s yield from the farm.
Payments determined by all crops planted of covered commodities combined on the farm.
Payments made on 65 percent of total base acres.
Must report annual production of covered commodities.
Planted acres used to attribute base acres.  ARC-IC election applies to entire farm and all 21
covered commodities.

F   Deadlines
The following table lists some important deadlines.

Date                                                                 Event
2-CP                                           Acreage reporting date.
July 15, 2014                             Final date to report 2013 production for 2013 ACRE farms.
September 29, 2014                   Base acre reallocation and CC yield update signup begins.
February 27, 2015                      Base acre reallocation and CC yield update signup ends.
November 17, 2014                   ARC and PLC reallocation period begins.
March 31, 2015                          ARC and PLC reallocation period ends.
mid April 2015                          ARC and PLC enrollment begins for 2014 and 2015. June 1,
2015                                          ARC and PLC enrollment ends for 2014 and 2015.

June 1 of each ARCPLC program year 2016 through 2018.

Farm Bill Update Info

Some important websites:

FSA Federal website: Lots of useful information.

·        http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA

Click under Popular Topics – Agricultural Risk Coverage / Price Loss Coverage

The Agricultural & Food Policy Center @ Texas A&M

·        https://www.afpc.tamu.edu/

Click under Current Topics – 2014 Farm Bill Programs and Insurance Decision Aid

o   This online tool is used to help you evaluate which program will best fit your program.

Click under Farm Policy Minute Link – List of Podcasts that explain Farm Bill

Blogs: (online newsletter) – Updated information from Luther and Patrick

·        http://currycountyagriculture.blogspot.com/

·        http://rooseveltcountyag.blogspot.com/

 

Some Definitions:

PLC – Price Loss Coverage

·        Price Protection Program

·        Payments issued when prices for covered commodities fall below the reference price

ARC-CO – Agricultural Risk Coverage – County Level

·        Revenue based program

·        Designed to cover a portion of “out of pocket” loss – (Shallow Loss)

·        Payments made when revenue falls below Benchmark Revenue Levels

·        Works from County Level historic revenue

ARC –IC - Agricultural Risk Coverage – Individual Level

·        Revenue loss coverage at the farm level for ALL acreage planted to all covered commodities, across all Farm’s enrolled in the State

·        ARC-IC is “Elected” for ALL covered commodities at the farm level

·        Requires commodity to be planted

·        Production reports are required

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