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.