Agriculture and Horticulture

Harold H. Kneen, Extension Educator, runs the Agriculture and Horticulture programs in the county.  If you have questions or problems with crops, livestock or horticulture give him a call.  For more information on the county programs click on Agriculture and Horticulture under County topics.

Click 2009 Farm Tours for more information

Dear Beef Producer,

          In the current economic climate of high input costs, and volatile but generally lower market prices, the beef producer who wants to stay in business for the long haul must look for ways to keep moving forward and maintain economic viability.  In this newsletter, I hope to present some articles that will provide information that can be useful in this regard.  Some aspects that must be considered to keep the beef enterprise moving forward include:

    Obviously, it is hard to answer some of these questions and make sound decisions without good record keeping.  If you haven’t kept good records in the past, start today, if you have, then spend time analyzing your records to keep you moving forward.

PASTURES: TO CLIP OR NOT TO CLIP?                      

          We are getting rains and temperatures that are helping pastures to produce a lot of dry matter growth.  Along with that growth has come seed head production.  Once that grass plant produces a seed head, it stops producing vegetative tillers and the quality of the plant declines as fiber percentage increases, while crude protein and energy percentage decreases.  In the “Pasture for Profit” grazing schools, one of the pasture management principles is remove seed heads and strive to keep the plant in vegetative growth.  Seed heads can be removed by grazing animals or avoided if grazing passes are timely.  However, with the growth rates we experience in the spring, it would take some high stocking rates and densities to avoid seed heads or remove all the seed heads.  Most, if not all, beef cattle owners are going to have to deal with seed heads in their pasture.  The second option is to clip those seed heads off.  This is a necessary pasture management chore isn’t it?

            We have had several interesting discussions about clipping pastures recently.  As a result, we “refining” our recommendations about pasture clipping, and adding some qualifications.  While it is true that clipping seed heads will allow the plant to go back to vegetative growth and will result in higher quality forage, it is also true there is a cost associated with clipping pastures.  The Ohio Custom Rate publication (2008) says bush hogging costs about $15/acre.  To get a payback from that $15/acre the beef cattle producer must be able to utilize the benefits that clipping is producing.  Here are some considerations:

• Do my cattle need the increased quality that clipping seed heads will produce?  A vegetative plant is high in crude protein.  A beef stocker may need this kind of quality. A first calf cow may need the higher quality forage.  Does a mature cow in milk need vegetative quality pasture? 

• Pastures clipped in May are likely to produce another set of seed heads.  Will you be able to get another grazing pass in to utilize the quality before seed heads form again?

• Instead of clipping seed heads in all pasture paddocks, could some paddocks be dropped out of the early season rotation and used for hay production?  If the paddocks that remained in the early season rotation could then be subdivided, in effect increasing the stocking density, the cattle would graze more evenly with less selection, and minimize the need for clipping.

• If economics dictated that pastures could only be clipped one time per year, when would be the best time to clip?  Clipping in late July/early August would insure that re-growth is vegetative and would prepare paddocks for a stockpiling option.

• On the other hand, that $15/acre cost for clipping off seed heads might also be looked at as management that is necessary to open up the pasture canopy, let sunlight in and insure that lower growing white clover stays in the pasture mix.

•  Clipping might be important in your management scheme to allow grass plants to continue vegetative growth and tillering to thicken the sod base and fill in bare areas, or simply as management to hasten re-cycling of plant nutrients in the pasture paddock.  Some may even view clipping seed heads as giving an added benefit of reducing some weed pressure in pasture paddocks.

          The point here is that the beef producer should know what they are trying to accomplish when pastures are clipped.   Clipping should meet some management objective.   I’d be glad to continue this discussion and hear your point of view.

 MOVING FORWARD: MARKETING STRATEGIES

            During last winter’s “Managing for Dynamic Change” Beef School , several speakers addressed the topic of marketing within the context of changes in the global beef industry, consumer demand, and risk management.  I’ll try to summarize some of the comments and strategies in this article.

             Nevil Speer, from Western Kentucky University said that the wrong question for beef producers to ask was: What’s the market going to be?  This type of questioning implies a mindset of being a price taker and marketing in the same way as in the past.  Instead, according to Speer, the right questions to be asking in these times are: What’s the business environment telling us?  How will management and marketing decisions be constructed around those business signals?  Where do new marketing opportunities lie?  Asking these types of questions implies a willingness to adapt to new markets, to use information to change production, management and marketing practices, and to attempt to manage market risks.

             Another place for beef producers to start when they are considering market strategies is to understand the consumer. Nevil Speer showed several slides in his presentation that indicated consumers are feeling the pinch of our economic recession.  Consumers are trying to reduce household debt and in doing so 71% are eating at home more often, 58% are increasingly using leftovers and 52% said price was very important in deciding where to buy food.  While these number could be used to support an argument for a decrease in beef demand, there might also be some opportunities hidden in those numbers.  For example, Dan Frobose, an OSU Extension Educator with the Agriculture Business Enhancement Center in Bowling Green , showed a slide with some results of a consumer study done by the University of Dayton . Of those surveyed, 66% said they would buy Ohio beef to support the local economy and local farmers.  If consumer dollars for beef are limited, it probably makes some sense to market in a way that appeals to those consumers.  Marketing locally may be an opportunity.

             We have all heard it said that consumers are increasingly concerned about where their food is coming from and Nevil Speer put up a slide from a May 2008 food survey that showed 76% of the respondents were more concerned about the food they eat now vs. five years ago and 73% of the respondents believe that the number of food related recalls has increased in the last year.  When asked to identify their food area of concern, 78% said beef.  Food safety issues and food recalls have an impact on public perception.  Nevil Speer showed a slide with comments from a 2008 USDA Outlook forum that said “Customers care about the background of their food” and “Each incident (food recalls) causes consumers to trust us (Smithfield Foods) a little bit less”.  Nevil Speer said that the future is going to be market-driven traceability of products.  It is going to be necessary to restore consumer confidence.  This will impact on what is required of beef producers to sell into commercial channels.

             Francis Fluharty, OSU Ruminant Nutrition Specialist and coordinator of the Ohio Beef Industry Center , showed a slide with some results from a survey of chefs conducted by the National Restaurant Association.  Various foods were ranked as “hot” based on their overall rank and indication of what consumers want.  Locally grown produce ranked number 2, organic produce was ranked number 3 and grass-fed items were ranked number 8.  For those producers asking about the market environment and marketing opportunities, these types of surveys might provide them with information to make some changes in at least some of their marketing strategies.

             What about global trends and global beef markets?  Will any of this impact the Ohio beef producer and how they produce and market their product?  Francis Fluharty began his presentation by looking at the changing beef industry and the consolidation in the beef packing/processing sector.  There are now 3 main big U.S. beef packers: Tyson, Cargill and JBS SA.  JBS SA is based in Brazil and is the world’s largest beef processor/packer.  It is number 3 in size in the U.S. after its purchases of Swift Foods and Smithfield Beef Group.  One of the slides that Francis used spelled out some of the implications of JBS SA now being a major player in the U.S. beef market.  It included the following points:

• USDA Choice is the world’s most recognized beef brand.  Certified Angus Beef (CAB) is second.  It makes sense to think that JBS SA will want to market these brands to the world.  As part of the U.S. beef packing industry, these brands will have access to world markets using U.S. quota agreements.

• In order to market these brands into various world markets, the U.S. beef market must adopt Process Verified Program (PVP) standards.  Those standards differ depending upon the country importing the beef. (PVP compliance allows sale of cattle into USDA Beef Export Verification programs.  For example, The European Union requires this to verify beef comply with the non-hormone treated cattle standards, while Japan requires it to verify that no beef comes from cattle older than 20 months.)

• In order to compete with JBS SA, Cargill and Tyson will adopt the same standards.

        The bottom line is that global beef markets and the consolidation of the beef packing industry may require that producers are enrolled in some kind of audit and verification program that will allow their calves to get a stamp of approval that could allow that beef to end up in a USDA export program; if producers are selling into the conventional beef market controlled by one of the major packers.

             In his presentation, Dan Frobose had a section on market access and a quote by John Sticka with the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) program that said: “Do you want access to the competitive value-based market of the future?  Better start getting together a resume for your cattle.”  What in the world is a cattle resume?  It includes documentation of genetic history, health history, management practices, feedlot and carcass history and identification from birth to harvest.  Another term we are hearing more often that fits this topic is: source verified.    This term includes the traceability or accountability of the animal from the farm of origin to the consumer’s plate.  Some key components of source verified cattle are:

• strict management and feed protocol to ensure herd health and a quality product

• record keeping and adherence to beef quality assurance (BQA) practices

• producer affidavits

        The driving force behind independent verification programs and source verification requirements is consumer demand.  So, how does a small scale cow/calf producer begin to develop some alternative marketing strategies?  Several different market options were highlighted at the beef school.  They included:

• The West Virginia Calf Pool:  There are a number of requirements in this program but essentially it brings together calves that are source and age verified, originate from  BQA herds and that are managed under BQA guidelines.  Calves must follow a vaccination program and be weaned a minimum of 45 days before delivery.  Calves are weighed, sorted and loaded at a central location specified by the marketing pool.

• United Producers Branded Beef and Source/Age Verified programs. 

• Great Lakes Family Farms Beef Alliance : outlines a suggested genetics program, sets requirements for calf identification, weaning before sale, vaccination program, and acclimation to grain before sale

• Pineland Farms and Wolfes Neck Natural Meats program that markets to the no-implants, no anti-biotics, natural market

        In all the examples marketing is about grouping together calves that have similar characteristics and adding value to those calves either by the fact that semi-loads can be marketed and/or providing some kind of verification program related to calf age, origin and standardized management practices. 

             I’ll close this article with two quotes that I hope provide something to think about.  The first is from Francis Fluharty to cattlemen at the Athens Beef School ; “We are in the food business, not the beef cattle business.”  The second is from a slide in the Dan Frobose presentation that said: “Producers who are open minded and willing to accommodate the desires of the consumer will survive, even prosper.  Those unwilling will find the future very challenging.”

 IMPROVING REPRODUCTION MANAGEMENT

By:  John Grimes, OSU Extension Educator, Highland County

Taken from: OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 633, April 22, 2009

           The United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service recently released the results of a very important study of the nation's cow-calf producers. This study, the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), is designed to collect data on cattle health and management practices on cow-calf operations from across the country. The 2007-08 NAHMS Beef study was conducted in 24 states gathering information from operations representing 79.6% of the U.S. cow-calf operations and 87.8 % of the beef cows. Results from the 2007-08 NAHMS Beef study give us insight about producer's attitudes and management practices relating to reproduction.

           A defined breeding season is a sound management practice that allows producers to devote more attention to animals during the calving season. In this study, a defined calving season was determined by removal of the bull from the female herd for at least 30 days. The survey indicated that over one-half of the operations (54.5%) - accounting for about one-third of beef cows (34.1%) - had no defined breeding season.

           A short calving season allows for more intense monitoring of animals during calving and can result in a more uniform calf crop. For operations with one breeding season, a significant portion of the operations (26.2%) had their most recent breeding season last 64 days or less. Extending the breeding season an additional 21 days added another 12.7% of the operations. However, 61.1% of the operations indicated that they had a breeding season 85 days or more.

           There are several reproductive technologies available to beef producers including practices such as semen evaluation, palpation, body condition scoring, artificial insemination, estrus synchronization, and others. The 2007-08 NAHMS beef study indicated that these practices are underutilized by all operations. Semen evaluation was the practice most frequently used by operations at 19.5% followed by palpation for pregnancy (18.0%), body condition scoring (14.3%), estrus synchronization (7.9%), and artificial insemination (7.6%). Utilization of these practices varied greatly by the size of the operation. In operations with 200 or more cows, 78.5% used at least one of the reproductive technologies listed, compared to 25.3% of the operations with less than 50 cows. For each of the reproductive technologies listed, the top- ranked reason given each time for not using a technology was labor/time.

           I believe that the results of this study mirror the practices carried out by Ohio 's cow-calf producers. What can we do to improve the reproductive efficiency of our beef herds? One thing is for sure, nothing will improve unless we are willing to make some basic changes in our management practices.

           Regardless of the size and scope of your operation, I doubt you prefer that your breeding season and the resulting calving season should extend longer. The easiest practice that any producer can implement to improve reproductive performance is to shorten the calving season. All it takes is some discipline and perseverance to see the benefits of a shorter schedule. A shorter breeding season will probably result in more open cows in the short-term. However, this can be a long-term reproductive benefit for your herd. Females that are slower to breed or unable to conceive will be more quickly identified through a shorter breeding season and can be culled from the herd. Culling hard for poor reproductive performance will eventually result in a very fertile herd over time. You can love your wife, love your children, but don't love your cows! WARNING: The implementation of a shorter breeding season is significantly complicated by the presence of former show heifers in the herd owned by children! This author has vast experience with this situation.

           Estrus synchronization has historically been used to enhance the use of artificial insemination. However, producers unwilling or unable to utilize artificial insemination can use estrus synchronization to improve reproductive performance in natural mating systems. Data from the University of Kentucky illustrates that estrus can be synchronized before a natural breeding season. In this trial, mature cows and 2-year-old cows approximately 65 days after calving were assigned to one of three treatments. The cows in the first group were not treated (CONT) and were exposed to natural service for 60 days. The cows in the second group (MGA) were fed the orally active progestin melengestrol acetate (MGA, .5 mg/hd/d) for 7 days and were exposed to natural service for 60 days beginning the day after MGA feeding ended. Cows in the third group (CIDR) had an EAZI-BREED CIDR device inserted for 7 days before being exposed to a 60-day natural service season. All bulls used in this experiment were mature and were subjected to breeding soundness exams approximately 30 days before the breeding season. Bull-to-cow ratios (BCR) ranged from 1:23 up to 1:42 . Date of conception was determined using rectal palpation approximately 30 days after the end of the breeding season. The results of this experiment are illustrated in Table 1. More cows conceived and conceived earlier in the treated than in control groups. Treatments did not differ because of BCR.

 Table 1. Effects of estrus synchronization prior to natural service on reproductive response in postpartum beef cows.

           Those individuals willing to use estrus synchronization and artificial insemination have many options available to impact reproductive rates and potentially shorten the breeding season. Producer testimonials and surveys speak loud and clear that time and labor are the main reasons that artificial insemination is not a more widely used practice. Several universities have worked together to help perfect many different synchronization protocols to enable producers to more easily implement an artificial insemination program. Outlines of these protocols can be obtained through your local Extension office or in bull catalogs from major A.I. studs.

           If a producer is willing to devote 10 days or less to an artificial insemination program, there are certainly viable options available. One of the more popular heat synchronization programs has been the "7 day CO-Synch + CIDR" program for observed heat and timed A.I. systems. Here is a basic outline of this program: Today you insert a CIDR and administer a shot of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). Seven days later you remove the CIDR and administer a shot of prostaglandin (PGF). You can breed A.I. based on observed heat or utilize timed breeding at 60-72 hours following the administration of PGF. If you utilize timed breeding, administer another shot of GnRH at the time of breeding. Research involving over 3,000 cows in this program with a 60-72 hour timed breeding system resulted in average conception rates of 51-54%.

           Modifications to the "7 day CO-Synch + CIDR" program have been recently investigated to determine if timed-AI pregnancy rates could be improved. Although similar in design to the 7 day program, the "5 day CO-Synch + CIDR" program pioneered at The Ohio State University by Dr. Mike Day and collaborators was demonstrated to be a more effective program for timed-AI in postpartum beef cows than the "7 day CO-Synch + CIDR" program. The primary differences between the two programs is that the "5 day program" features two days shorter use of the CIDR, a second shot of PGF 8-12 hours after the CIDR removal, and timed breeding at 72 hours after the first PGF shot.

           The "5 day program" requires one additional trip through the chute. This extra trip through the chute can pay big rewards. Successful results have been observed by several institutions with the "5 day CO-Synch + CIDR" program in cows with pregnancy rates averaging 68.2% in 1,162 cows. Remember, this program requires an eight day commitment to artificial insemination. This would seem to be a natural fit for a producer wanting to add high quality, proven genetics and eventually shorten the length of the calving season.

           Hopefully this discussion has given you some ideas that can be practically implemented in your operation to improving your reproduction management. This is a good time to remind you of one of my favorite definitions of insanity. It goes something like this: Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You can't expect better success with reproduction in your herd without trying something different!

 CROSSBREEDING: Back to the Future

By: David A. Daley, California State University , Chico (Proceedings of the Beef Improvement Federation 41st Annual Research Symposium April 30 - May 3, 2009 , Sacramento , California , USA ) Taken from the OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 638, May 27, 2009

          Three years ago I was invited to address BIF regarding heterosis and how we have either ignored or forgotten the value of systematic crossbreeding to improve profitability in beef cattle production systems. In the interim period since that presentation, I am even more convinced that this incredible genetic resource has been under utilized and devalued. At a time when all of our input costs have increased dramatically, and the value of cow efficiency is paramount, we continue to find arguments against using crossbreeding primarily centered on the concepts of consistency and marketability. Clearly, there are specific instances in the commercial cattle sector where heterosis has been used effectively used. I would argue, however, that the potential is far from realized. In fact, in the past few years, we seem to have drifted away from crossbreeding to more traditional straightbred programs that intend to focus on phenotypic consistency and end product, but not necessarily on profitability.

           Is there a rationale explanation for our unwillingness to take advantage of a proven technique to enhance economic return? In my previous paper I outlined the "top ten" reasons that we have failed to capitalize on this important genetic attribute:

1) A cultural bias that clearly reflects "purebreds" are better! If for no other reason than they have a registration paper. Society, at many levels, rewards purity. Is your dog registered? Does your quarter horse gelding have papers? How far can you trace your ancestry? Please don't misunderstand - - - there is certainly value associated with that record, particularly our ability to track performance and predict genetic potential of purebreds. But being purebred should not be a presumption of superiority.

2) Our predilection for single trait selection focusing on "bigger is better". The beef cattle industry seems to choose a trait of importance and then put an inordinate amount of pressure on that trait, ignoring genetic antagonisms. If a 90 pound yearling EPD is good, 100 must be better! It is intuitive! We have already done frame, growth (weight of all kinds), milk, and carcass traits (both ribeye and marbling). I sometimes have to ask myself, "So what is the trait of the year this time?". It is akin to the "flavor of the month" at the local ice cream shop. And because often have chosen relatively highly heritable traits, we have not needed to crossbreed to achieve those goals. The subtle, and cumulative improvement that heterosis provides does not lend itself to maximums.

3) We have decided that measuring outputs is more meaningful than measuring inputs, as well as easier to do. It is certainly easier to measure calf performance on an individual basis, rather than all costs associated with that production. "I can weigh them at weaning quicker than I can determine differences in treatment costs over time."

4) Uniform phenotypes for qualitative traits (color) have a distinct and real marketing advantage that is difficult to ignore. That does not mean you cannot have uniformity of color within a crossbreeding program, but the widespread and indiscriminate planning (or lack thereof) of many crossbreeding programs certainly gave us some interesting marketing challenges. Generally, it is easier to produce a uniform color in straightbred programs.

5) Heterosis is very difficult to visualize and even more difficult to measure. Because heterosis is expressed as a small net positive in many traits we do not know it when we see it. Slight changes in morbidity, age at puberty, conception rate and significant changes in longevity are not easily observed. However, we all know when calves gain faster in the feedlot.

6) The presentation of complicated crossbreeding systems as a "normal practice" to diverse cattle operations, especially the countless small beef herds in the United States . Many of the systems that we teach as part of standard animal breeding or beef production courses have very limited application in the real world. Most beef herds are too small to implement the "standard systems".

7) Our penchant for telling people how to modify their environment in order to "get heavier calves, higher percent calf crop and more total pounds", rather than how to increase net return. How many new supplementation programs can you develop in order to get your heifers bred or wean bigger calves? In fact, we can recommend programs for non-cycling females…..you just have to pay for it and then pass those genetics to the next generation! Heterosis provides some improvement in traits at relatively little cost. However, we have obscured the opportunity for producers to focus on those traits, because they are so busy masking differences with artificial environments.

8) Historically, there has been active resistance to crossbreeding from some traditional marketing outlets, some purebred producers and (in some cases) breed associations. I would like to commend many of the associations who, quite recently, have taken the risk of suggesting where their animals fit most effectively in crossbreeding programs.

9) Inappropriate use of breed diversity. Nothing undermines crossbreeding more quickly than the unplanned "Heinz 57" or "Breed of the Month Club" approach. For those who were willing to experiment in crossbreeding, there was often very poor planning of the combination of breeds and the selection within those breeds.

10) Our industry and University systems have focused on individual trait measurement for over fifty years. We have done a very poor job of incorporating real world economics into our models. We have EPD's for a plethora of traits ….and we are adding more! Economic indices are starting to catch up, but we are still behind. Has anyone thought about measuring return per acre or return on investment? We have had a disconnect between agricultural economists and animal science that has not been well bridged. We tend to think lineally rather than laterally, which has reduced the application of innovative crossbreeding.

           As I review this list, I am convinced that the primary drawback (among all of the others), is #3 . . . the focus on measuring outputs rather than inputs. With a few notable exceptions, all of the individual animal traits we measure reflect "bigger, faster, more". And certainly, the glamour traits of yearling weight, ribeye area, marbling - - - have accelerated at a rapid pace. You can make very rapid genetic progress in these highly heritable traits by direct selection within a breed. Therefore, many people fail to see the value of crossbreeding. The value in crossbreeding is often underestimated because it has a small positive effect on many different traits that are lowly heritable and difficult to measure. Frequently, maternal heterosis (the value of the crossbred cow) is about decreasing inputs as much as it is about increasing output. For example, longevity, livability and disease resistance are traits that impact the input side of the equation as much as the output. Our industry has been on a mission to improve product quality and quantity, focusing on carcass traits. We finally were paying attention to our consumers - - a good thing! Unfortunately, that effort has been on a per animal basis rather than per unit of input. Do we ever ask ourselves how our long term selection programs affect the profitability of commercial producers?

           When EPD's became a marketing tool rather than a genetic improvement tool, a great deal was lost from beef cattle breeding. There was a decision to chase numbers in order to have the "latest and best", and function was often ignored. Purebred breeders were constantly looking for the newest genetics. We utilized lightly proven sires throughout the breeds, before we tested them carefully. And now look . . . . . . how many genetic defects are we tracking in each major beef breed? A quick check of most of the major breeds websites are somewhere between five and ten! And we discouraged crossbreeding, while we simultaneously narrowed the genetic base of many of the major breeds. Does that make sense?

           Our current "trait of the month/selection effort" moves us in the direction of genomics. I applaud the scientists who do the work and I see the eventual long term value. But as a commercial cattleman, if I am not capitalizing on crossbreeding - - - a simple, inexpensive tool to make genetic progress - - - should I really be worrying about gene markers? Do I really want to select for a marker that may only explain a very small part of the variation of a complex trait ---a trait significantly influenced by genotypic/environmental interactions. If I had a goal for gene markers it would not be for markers that identify highly heritable traits. I can make progress with those traits based on good old fashioned selection programs. The gene markers that I would like to see are for things like disease resistance, fertility, longevity - - - those traits that make the biggest difference in profitability. Let's not get sidetracked on what determines maximum sustained profit for all segments of the industry. It is not the amount of pounds of product per head. It is amount of product per unit of input cost.

          Every few years we seem to find another EPD or measurement to chase. When are we going to focus on maximum sustained profit per unit of input?

          Three years ago we began a study/field trial evaluating the impact of crossbreeding in a vertically coordinated beef system, where premiums are paid for carcass merit. Approximately 600 predominantly Angus based cows were exposed to either Angus or Hereford bulls under extensive range conditions. DNA was used to determine parentage at weaning, and only those calves that could be definitively matched to a single sire were used in the data analysis. Collaborators included Harris Ranch Beef Company (Coalinga, CA); Lacey Livestock of Independence, CA and the American Hereford Association.

           Presently we are close to collecting the third year of feedlot/carcass data and the final report should be completed by summer, 2009. However, preliminary results are not surprising. As we measured direct heterosis (heterosis of the calf), there was a small positive advantage in most traits. In particular, crossbred (F1) calves were slightly heavier at weaning, had a slight advantage in feedlot gain and feed efficiency and a lower cost of gain. The crossbred calves had lower quality grades, partially offsetting the economic advantage in the other segments. However, in the first two years of the study, there was a consistent economic advantage to crossbreeding, even factoring the reward for differences in quality grade to the Angus sired calves. The data is not surprising and mirrors decades of research.

           Although direct heterosis (heterosis of the calf) is important, we must remember that the true value is maternal hybrid vigor - the incredible value of the crossbred cow. If the data in year three is consistent, it appears there will be an economic advantage in vertically coordinated beef production systems from direct heterosis of the F1. However, the most important economic return will be when the crossbred cow enters the production system. In particular, the potential increase in lifetime productivity and longevity are key to maximum sustained profit per unit of input.

           In academia, it seems that we tend to want to make the simple complex. The commercial beef business is faced with a very difficult challenge to maintain long term profitability and viability. There are countless battles (unrelated to cattle breeding) in order to survive and be profitable in the long term. We need to keep cattle breeding simple. We have wonderful within breed selection tools (EPD's). We have the ability to capitalize on breed differences and capture both heterosis and breed complementarity through crossbreeding. Designing simple, long term breeding programs to capture direct and maternal heterosis, while capitalizing on maternal and terminal lines, is a significant step in attempting to maximize sustained profit.

 References:

Cundiff, L V (1970). Experimental results on crossbreeding cattle for beef production. J. Anim. Sci 30:694.

Gregory, K E, Swiger, L A, Koch, R M, Sumption, L J. Rowden, W W and Ingalls, J J E (1965). Heterosis in preweaning traits of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci 24:21.

Gregory, K E, Koch, R M, Laster, DB, Cundiff, L V and Smith, G M (1978d), Heterosis and breed maternal and transmitted effects in beef cattle 3: Growth traits in steers. J. Anim. Sci 47:1054.

Ritchie, H.D., B.D. Banks, D.D. Buskirk, J.D. Cowley and D.R. Hawkins. 1999. Crossbreeding systems for beef cattle. Michigan State Univ. Extension Bulletin E-2701.

Taylor , R E, Field T G. Beef Production and Management Decisions. Upper Saddle River , New Jersey . Prentice Hall. 1994.

GRAZING BITES

By: Victor Shelton, NRCS Grazing Specialist

            Taken from the OSU Extension Beef Cattle Letter, Issue 635, May 6, 2009

           I can remember at least two times in the back of my memory as a young teenager being requested to "show me your hands". I thought the first time that this was an unusual request but put my hands out to which they were turned palm side up for a quick assessment. "Good, grab a pitch fork and follow me." I figured out a fair time later that he wanted to see if I had any "work" experience . . . and I guess the calluses were sufficient, I helped out there off and on that entire summer. I tell this story because the same is somewhat true with the management of your grazing system; do we have a "hands on" approach? If we are not out there "working" the system, then we may not be accumulating all the potential benefits . . . or the cows.

           I talk quite often to producers that already have a mindset on what they perceive as the desired or ideal system for them . . . and they are often right on track. On the other side, they often tell you that they want a system where they move the animals on a set day period - I call it grazing management by the calendar . . . moving every Wednesday, Saturday or every so many days on a set schedule. Now, if your grass grows that perfectly and evenly all season long, that is just great, mine doesn't . . . .not even close. OK, I'll say first that this is still probably better than continuous grazing, but it does have some flaws. Most grazing plans will indicate an "average" recommended moving day and rest period for the growing period, but like I said a minute ago, that is quite variable depending on the forage and livestock and very much so on the weather. What should we really be doing and basing moves on? The same thing we have talked about lately - what else - enter and exit heights. This is a very universal "concept" and you would find that this is true with about any forage you encounter here or elsewhere. Each species has an ideal enter and exit height. Most tall cool-season grasses such as orchardgrass and tall fescue are best to commence grazing at 8 to 10 inches and animal removal at 3 to 4 inches - 4 being best. Shorter cool-season grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass or Perennial Ryegrass can be entered at 5 to 6 inches with removal at 1 to 2 inches, 2 being ideal. Perennial warm-season grasses such as Switchgrass, Indiangrass and Big Bluestem should have an enter height of 18 to 24 inches and an exit height of 6 to 8 inches - 8 being ideal. Other like species are similar with some variations.

           Why minimum grazing heights? Like we've talked about before, the live growing top growth - leaf, leaves - the solar panel - is generally equal to the like live roots below ground. The shorter the top, the shorter the roots - or just less roots and thus less solar panel, less carbohydrate movement to the roots, less roots, less and slower regrowth - less production, possibly lower persistence and probably the worst thing, potential less growth as meat and milk.

           I have a copy of a short video clip and also the same in a power point that was produced by the University of Kentucky which is actually a time lapsed series of pictures taken every so many minutes of two tall fescue plants. One mimics an overgrazed pasture situation and the other at a more proper removal height. As the plant grows - right before your eyes over a very fast paced five days, the "well managed" plant more than quadruples the size of the over grazed specimen; wow, this certainly reassures us that grazing height does make a significant difference in production potential. Back to that "hands on" management, it doesn't rain everyday . . . get out of your truck or off your 4-wheeler and walk out and take a good look at your pastures; you can't effectively do a visual going 45 mph! Do the cows need to be moved? What are the dominant forages present and are they being managed for their potential? A grazing stick, which is a yard stick with some extra beneficial information included, is a good tool to have on hand for this walk. It will help you access what that average "height" really is. If you are raising cows, you can somewhat use the cows for a gauge for tall cool season forages - with head down, enter at about eye height and exit when you can see the muzzle or perhaps a little more accurate, enter at knee height of the cow and exit when you can see the dew claw. There are certainly very accurate ways to measure the average height present and even the amount of dry matter present, and all is good information, but probably not critical on most operations with dairies being the probable exception.

           So, once we have an idea of the height of the forages presently in the field being grazed, do we know where we are moving to next? And perhaps the next move? We are close to the period where the fuel is thrown on the fire and forage growth explodes - are we ready? Do we have a game plan? It pays to have one and a contingency plan for time periods like the past two years where drought was a problem in many areas. We may need to clip or cut forages for hay to keep everything in check. I often recommend that people track enter and exit periods. An easy way to do this is to take a simple map of the grazing system and write on the map, enter and exit date, and any other data you want to include. If nothing else, it will tell you how much time has lapsed since the last time it was grazed which are useful for several things, parasite cycles for one.

           I look at my hands today and they are certainly older hands than the ones a few decades in the past and appear to be me to more my father's hands than mine; hopefully still showing that I'm not afraid of a little work - "hands on".

Keep an eye on the forage and happy grazing!

 JULY GRAZING COUNCIL MEETING

            An Athens area grazing council meeting/pasture walk is scheduled for Thursday, June 23 beginning at 6:30 pm .  The meeting will be hosted by Curt Cline at a Meigs County property he plans to develop into a grazing system.  The land currently has no fence or water and has been used for hay production.  Curt is working with the Meigs County NRCS and SWCD office on an EQIP contract to help him develop the grazing system.

            This is a good opportunity to learn about the planning process of developing a grazing system.  Participants at the meeting will have an opportunity to make suggestions regarding fence and water options.  Other topics that will be covered at the meeting include: Using Grid Soil Sampling, Soil Fertility, Preparing Pastures for Winter Stockpiling, Use of Hay, Pasture Rotation to Manage Internal Parasites.  Because there are a number of topics to talk about, at this point we are planning to break participants into groups and rotate among speakers/topics.  Resource people include: Athens SWCD, Meigs County SWCD, Curt Cline and OSU Extension.

            Curt is planning to provide grilled lamb samples and some light refreshments for the meeting.  In order to help him plan the amount needed, please contact the Athens County Extension office at 593-8555 if you plan to attend.

Directions to the farm:

From Albany ....Take Rt 32 west to St Rt 143. Turn left on St Rt 143, go approximately. 4-5 miles to Salem-School Lot Rd.   Salem School Lot Rd. is just past the Columbia Township Fire Dept. Turn right on Salem-School Lot Rd. and go approximately 2 miles. Farm is on the left.

    Or...Take St Rt 32 west to Co. Rd 71(Columbia Rd Just prior to the airport)  Turn left on Columbia and follow it into Meigs county to St Rt 143( approximately 4-5miles). Go across St Rt 143. After crossing St Rt 143 go approximately 2 miles, farm on left.

 LIVESTOCK MORTALITY COMPOSTING

            Dealing with livestock mortality is a part of being a livestock producer.  What to do with the dead animals is yet another management decision that must be made.  Composting dead livestock provides an economical and environmentally friendly means of handling livestock mortality issues when done correctly.  The resulting compost material can be spread on fields to provide nutrients.

            OSU Extension has been charged with providing the education on how to compost livestock mortality.  Participants completing a 3 hour course are registered and certified through the Ohio Department of Agriculture.  Completing the course and obtaining certification can be used to apply for cost share funding to build a composting structure as part of a nutrient management program through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).

            I have scheduled a livestock mortality composting program for Wednesday, June 10 from 6 to 9 pm at the Athens County Extension office.  Cost of the program is $10, which includes a livestock composting manual.  Pre-registration is requested to the Athens County Extension office at 593-8555.