The April 25, issue # 534, of the Ohio BEEF Cattle letter is now posted to the web at: http://fairfield.osu.edu/ag/beef/beefApril25.html
The past couple of weeks we’ve experienced server problems on Campus and some of you might not have received this direct link to the weekly letter. Keep in mind the current week’s letter along with archived issues may always be accessed at the OSU Beef Team web site: http://beef.osu.edu
This week, Mark Sulc offers his thoughts on forage management in light of the difficult winter weather we experienced followed by the early April freezes.
Articles this week include:
* Heterosis . . . Hype or Legit?
* Ethanol Matters! And So Does Every Week
* Forage Focus: Freeze Injury on Forages is Variable Across the State
* Plant Your Forages Now!
* Stand Establishment Problems in Late 2006 Summer Seeded Alfalfa
Program Assistant, Agriculture
OSU Extension, Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D
Lancaster, OH 43130
Poisoned Pet Food May Have Entered Human Food Supply Via Hogs
Salvaged pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical was fed to hogs in as many as six states, federal health officials said Tuesday. It was not immediately clear if any of the hogs entered the food supply for humans.
Food safety officials have quarantined hogs at farms in California, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and possibly Ohio. The urine of hogs in some states has tested positive for the chemical, melamine, the Food and Drug Administration said.
Cattle Heath: Clinical BVD Infections In Bulls
Three types of BVD infections have been documented in bulls. 1) PI bulls continually shed a lot of virus in their semen and will infect most cows that they breed as well as their calves. About 1% of bulls are PI’s. The virus from these bulls can survive freezing and acts as a source of infection for cows during insemination. They have variable fertility. 2) Acute infected bulls shed much less than PI bulls after about 10 days post infection.
A Trek Upward
Quality takes years of continued focus.
by Miranda Reiman
Reeves and Betsy Brown use their resources wisely. From grass and water to advice and information, the Beulah, Colo., ranchers take advantage of all the information they can get to make their operation more profi table.
“We’ve got quite a few of the things we need to get a fi rst-class carcass,” Reeves says. “We just need to move this in the right direction and keep pushing.”
As 10-year members of U.S. Premium Beef (USPB), the Browns have set their goal on quality. Specifi cally, they want to reduce mature cow size while increasing percent Choice and lowering yield grades (YG).
Value-Added Ag Grants Available
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has announced the availability of $19.5 million to help independent agricultural producers enter into value-added activities. Potential uses include a wide range of products that enhance the revenue stream generated from crops and other production. Examples include conversion to organic production, processing of raw commodities to a finished product, and the conversion of farm crops to create renewable energy sources.
“These grants are a vital tool to help support rural businesses, create new markets for agricultural products and help the United States become more energy independent,” Johanns said. “They represent the exciting new direction we’re proposing for the energy and rural development titles of a new farm bill this year.”
The deadline for applications is May 16. An application guide and other materials may be obtained at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm or by contacting the applicant’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development State Office.
Further information on rural programs is available at a local USDA Rural Development office or by visiting USDA’s web site at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.
By Rachel Wulf
If you’re puzzling over your future role in a changing beef industry, your answer may be a niche market, one that allows you to differentiate your product and garner more attention, and hopefully more dollars.
One such avenue might be the “natural” route, which was the subject of a recent South Dakota State University (SDSU) workshop entitled “Matching Cattle to Markets: A Natural Approach.”
Such a program, if it fits for your cattle and management style, can bring some hefty premiums over conventionally raised beef. But it entails weighing the added production and management costs resulting from the inability to use certain growth-enhancing products.
How Nutrition Affects the Beef You Sell and the Manure You Haul
Dr. Steven C. Loerch, The Ohio State University
Crop production captures energy and nutrients from sun and soil over an extensive land mass. Expansion and consolidation of the cattle feeding industry concentrates these nutrients in a relatively small area. This results in an uncoupling of livestock production from crop production. In other words, more nutrients are imported to the feedlot and less manure is distributed back to the land that produced these nutrients. The primary nutrients of concern are nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P). This paper will discuss how cattle nutrition affects the generation of manure, N, and P in the feedlot. In addition to nutrients not captured in animal products, nutrition affects the composition and characteristics of the beef produced. Value based marketing of cattle dictates that carcass characteristics play a bigger roll in determining profitability. This paper will discuss how nutritional strategies affect carcass characteristics that drive profitability.
Getting a Handle on a National Animal Identification
by: Stephen B. Blezinger, Ph.D., PAS
With little doubt it can be easily stated that few topics have caused more confusion and controversy in the livestock industry over the last few years than the debate over national or state mandated livestock identification. The entire issue has been discussed to the point of exhaustion but many producers and lots of ag professionals continue to have misunderstandings or simply suffer from great confusion over the program.
Additionally, a great deal of debate exists over the actual implementation and administration of the program, how it will ultimately affect producer profitability, the increase in paperwork for the producer and finally whether it constitutes an invasion of privacy.
This article is not designed to take sides in the controversy. Hopefully it will serve to clear up some misconceptions concerning the program. Finally we will also discuss how it may affect the producer and what details will have to be handled to successfully administer the program on your operation as painlessly as possible.
Respondents say graze control has many benefits
By Mike Surbrugg
The Joplin Globe
If you control where cattle graze on quality forages, then it benefits the pocketbook and the environment.
Those are some of the results from a survey of Southwest Missouri livestock producers who have attended a grazing school at some time during the past five years.
Eighty-nine percent of those surveyed said they have seen a 10 to 30 percent gain in productivity or income since they adopted a management-intensive grazing system on their farms.
Cattle Preconditioning Forum: Treat the Cow, Protect The Calf
Mature cows are not immune to parasites and their effects. Not only can parasites affect cows’ production, but left untreated, cows can serve as a source of contamination for pastures and calves.
“Parasites can cause production losses in cows in the form of reduced feed intake, milk production and reproductive performance as well as lower body condition scores,” says Dr. James Hawkins, Associate Director, Merial Veterinary Professional Services.
He explains these losses are due in part to cows wasting energy supporting parasites and repairing the damage they cause. “Cows need to have a positive energy balance so they can put energy into milk production and reproductive performance instead of supporting a parasite load,” he explains.
Cattlemen retain representation on Capitol Hill
The Prairie Star
SAN LUCAS, Calf. – The United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) announced today the organization has retained Jess Peterson, a Montana native, and Big Sky Strategies to represent the cattle industry in Washington, D.C.
“USCA is pleased to have negotiated a working agreement with Jess Peterson to represent cattle producers on Capitol Hill. With Farm Bill debate well underway, it is important that the industry have solid representation and a voice in the process. There is no time to waste,” said Jon Wooster, USCA Interim President.
ISU researchers work toward ‘healthy beef’
Iowa State Daily
ISU researchers are hoping to make beef a healthier food and make the product more consumer friendly.
“Beef contains a lot of protein and is a good source of nutrients,” said Shu Zhang, graduate student in biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology. “Per capita, from the 1970s to 2003, beef demand decreased dramatically. We want to make the beef healthier to increase consumption.”
Donald Beitz, distinguished professor of animal science and biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology, said, “We are studying which genes can be controlled by breeding and nutrition to positively impact the healthfulness of beef and milk that we consumers have come to enjoy.”
Feds should get out of way on beef test
Lincoln Journal Star (NE)
It was unconscionable in the first place that a small Kansas meatpacker had to go to court in order to offer more than the minimal safety testing of beef.
It would be even worse if the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues battling in a lengthy appeal process after losing the case in federal court.
Before it finally filed suit last year, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef had lobbied the federal government for years for the permission to do its own testing for mad cow disease. The USDA randomly tests only about 1 percent of slaughtered cattle for the disease.
Wanted: large-animal veterinarians
Congress hopes to remedy shortage with grant to increase training capacity of veterinary schools
By: Chintan Desai
While voluntarily reaching into a large circular incision on the side of a dairy cow amid splatterings of blood and the soft inner tissue of the animal might be slightly horrific to some, it’s simply another routine surgery for students and residents at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.
According to Iris Wu, a fourth-year veterinary student on the equine track at the university, this particular cow was having surgery to correct the left displacement of the abomasum – a condition in which the stomach compartment becomes displaced, resulting in bloating and general discomfort for the animal.
Where’s the beef FROM? The Country Natural Beef Co-op
By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel
I don’t often eat meat, but while I was in Portland this weekend, my husband and I went on a romantic date and I decided to splurge at the French inspired, Carafe Bistro. I ordered the burger. It was the only meat that was clearly marked as Oregon grown. The price influenced my decision too. I wanted a glass of expensive Oregon Pinot Noir, so I ordered the $9 burger rather than another, more expensive, entree.
Cattle Marketing Symposium: Treatment Is Costly In A “Naturally Raised” Program
In conventionally raised cattle, treatment of a sick animal presents costs related to the treatment itself and lost production of the animal. In “naturally raised” programs, however, costs of a treated calf go beyond the simple cost of the treatment.
The treated calf will have to be removed from the “naturally raised” marketing channel and managed separately in regard to feeding and marketing. The treated animal may or may not fit into another conventionally managed group.
Treated calves will need to be “salvaged” in that they will need to be sold on the open market, which is especially costly for “naturally raised” calves that may have been purchased at a premium to the conventional market. In addition, there are lost opportunity costs and a cost to the performance lost while the calf was being managed “naturally” vs. conventional management and feeding. (Information on production costs are in SDSU Extension Extra 2056, “Feeding Natural Cattle.”)
Korean gov’t slammed for contradicting self on beef quarantine
Official line is that boneless beef is safe, but 2005 ministry report says it also carries risks Korean gov’t slammed for contradicting self on beef quarantine
Official line is that boneless beef is safe, but 2005 ministry report says it also carries risks
The South Korean government is again coming under fire for its U.S. beef quarantine measures, including statements that are contradictory to research – in some cases its own.
A shipment of U.S. beef arrived in South Korea on April 23, the first since South Korea rejected three prior shipments for having bone chips, a move which brought strain to trade relations with the U.S. In January last year, the government decided to again allowed imports of U.S. beef, which had been banned since 2003 due to a mad cow disease outbreak in the U.S. However, Korea agreed only to boneless beef from cattle younger than 30 months old, saying this meat would be safe from mad cow disease.