Of all the feedstuffs livestock consume, hay is probably one of the most variable in terms of quality. Hay can look good and still be low quality, or look bad and be good quality. The best way to know for sure is to have it tested. However, many people never take the time to send off a sample for analysis.
What are the factors affecting the quality of hay?
Stage of Maturity
This refers to the growth stage of the plant at the time of harvest. Stage of maturity is by far the most important factor influencing quality. The younger the plant, the higher the quality. I've actually seen common bermudagrass test greater than 20 percent crude protein on a dry matter basis. If you want to harvest or purchase good-quality hay, pay particular attention to maturity. In southern Oklahoma, we can expect to harvest decent-quality bermudagrass if it's cut prior to mid-June. If you delay much beyond that time, quality rapidly begins declining with the first cutting.
Leafiness
This refers to the proportion of leaves versus stems present and is also related to the stage of maturity, especially in grass hays. The younger the plant, the greater the proportion of leaves. As a grass matures, stems increase or are elevated, thus decreasing the quality of the forage.
Color
Color is not always a good indicator of quality. Color often tells us more about the curing process of the hay than its quality. Hay that is bright green was typically cut at a desirable stage of maturity and rapidly cured. Yellow color is often a result of sun bleaching and does not seriously reduce quality. Brownish hay is usually a result of excessive moisture during the curing process, thus indicating some degree of fermentation. Dark brown or black is often an indicator that the hay was exposed to rain or high humidity and is usually accompanied by a distinctive musty odor. Overall, slight discolorations from sun bleaching, dew or moderate fermentation are not as serious as the loss of green color from maturity, rain damage or excessive heating or fermentation.
Foreign Matter
This typically includes materials that are wasted in the feeding process. Weeds are the biggest problem in our area, but sometimes, injurious materials such as threeawn, sandburs and poisonous plants can be found. Always inspect hay for foreign matter.
Odor and Condition
Use the smell of newly mown hay as your standard of comparison. Hays with off odors such as mildew, mustiness or rotten odors often indicate reduced quality and acceptance by livestock. And finally, soft, pliable hays are typically more palatable than hard, firm hays. Remember, stage of maturity is the most important factor affecting hay quality and will also affect leafiness, color and condition. However, the only way to truly know the quality of hay you plan to buy, sell or feed is to have it tested. You can find this and past articles on the web at http://www.mycountrytractor.com/ for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
Mycountrytractor.com is the destination for those looking for community info. Mycountrytractor is involved with county events and child involvement to help support local 4-H and FFA events. We have wonderful Agriculture information for our visitors for all your farming and ranching needs
Monday, May 3, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Chute N The Bull
With the tight profit margins agricultural producers face, the need to control input costs is greater than ever. As input costs rise, we naturally try to reduce these costs whenever we can. One cost-cutting approach producers often ask about is reducing herbicide rates, sometimes to below the minimum listed on the label. It is an option, but consider these pros and cons before taking this approach to cutting costs.
Pros:
• There is the potential for saving up to 50 percent of the herbicide cost per acre depending on the species of weeds present and their herbicide susceptibility. For low rates to be effective, the weeds must be a highly susceptible species and be treated when they are very small.
• Low rates may reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts.
Cons:
• Because low rate applications must be made early when the weeds are small, the potential for later weed flushes that would require a second application increases.
• Careful scouting is required to identify the weed species and estimate their density before they get too large. Producers must invest the time to get out and walk their fields and pastures to see the small weeds.
• The application window is very short to treat the weeds while they are small and susceptible. Any delays caused by wind, rain or other conflicts can allow the weeds to get too large to be controlled by a low rate.
• Small weeds are more susceptible to herbicides, but since the target crop is smaller, it may also be more susceptible to herbicide injury.
• The cost savings are only for the herbicide. The application cost remains the same regardless of herbicide rate.
• The potential for a control failure is higher with below-label rates. Chemical manufacturers conduct tests over a wide range of environments and select rates they believe will provide the most consistent performance. If a below-labeled rate is used and a failure occurs, the producer assumes all of the liability.
• In cases where a failure occurs, the surviving weeds can go to seed and recharge the seedbank to become future weed problems.
• Only highly susceptible weed species will be controlled at low rates. Less susceptible species listed on the label may not be controlled and will continue to pose problems.
An additional concern is the potential development of herbicide resistance. In some cases, the use of low herbicide rates has selected for individual weeds within a species with some herbicide resistance. Those surviving plants then reproduce and their resulting progeny have an increased level of resistance. In one experiment using several rates of a known herbicide on susceptible ryegrass, there were plants that survived the low rate application. These plants were then allowed to reproduce, and, within four generations, a completely herbicide-resistant population developed. If you suspect herbicide resistance, switch to a herbicide with a completely different mode of action that is labeled for the weed and use the full, labeled rate.
Another issue is the legality of using below-label rates. The rates listed on herbicide labels are approved by the EPA and any application above those rates is illegal. However, some state officials say that a user can legally choose a rate lower than listed on the label unless the label specifically prohibits lower rates. It is best to check with your state department of agriculture to find out if they consider below-label rate applications a violation.
Use of low rates is an option to consider in certain situations, but it carries significant risks that the producer must be willing to accept. The producer must decide if the potential cost savings is worth accepting the associated risks. You can find this and past articles on the web at http://www.mycountrytractor.com/ for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Pros:
• There is the potential for saving up to 50 percent of the herbicide cost per acre depending on the species of weeds present and their herbicide susceptibility. For low rates to be effective, the weeds must be a highly susceptible species and be treated when they are very small.
• Low rates may reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts.
Cons:
• Because low rate applications must be made early when the weeds are small, the potential for later weed flushes that would require a second application increases.
• Careful scouting is required to identify the weed species and estimate their density before they get too large. Producers must invest the time to get out and walk their fields and pastures to see the small weeds.
• The application window is very short to treat the weeds while they are small and susceptible. Any delays caused by wind, rain or other conflicts can allow the weeds to get too large to be controlled by a low rate.
• Small weeds are more susceptible to herbicides, but since the target crop is smaller, it may also be more susceptible to herbicide injury.
• The cost savings are only for the herbicide. The application cost remains the same regardless of herbicide rate.
• The potential for a control failure is higher with below-label rates. Chemical manufacturers conduct tests over a wide range of environments and select rates they believe will provide the most consistent performance. If a below-labeled rate is used and a failure occurs, the producer assumes all of the liability.
• In cases where a failure occurs, the surviving weeds can go to seed and recharge the seedbank to become future weed problems.
• Only highly susceptible weed species will be controlled at low rates. Less susceptible species listed on the label may not be controlled and will continue to pose problems.
An additional concern is the potential development of herbicide resistance. In some cases, the use of low herbicide rates has selected for individual weeds within a species with some herbicide resistance. Those surviving plants then reproduce and their resulting progeny have an increased level of resistance. In one experiment using several rates of a known herbicide on susceptible ryegrass, there were plants that survived the low rate application. These plants were then allowed to reproduce, and, within four generations, a completely herbicide-resistant population developed. If you suspect herbicide resistance, switch to a herbicide with a completely different mode of action that is labeled for the weed and use the full, labeled rate.
Another issue is the legality of using below-label rates. The rates listed on herbicide labels are approved by the EPA and any application above those rates is illegal. However, some state officials say that a user can legally choose a rate lower than listed on the label unless the label specifically prohibits lower rates. It is best to check with your state department of agriculture to find out if they consider below-label rate applications a violation.
Use of low rates is an option to consider in certain situations, but it carries significant risks that the producer must be willing to accept. The producer must decide if the potential cost savings is worth accepting the associated risks. You can find this and past articles on the web at http://www.mycountrytractor.com/ for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Chute N The Bull
One of the most common subjects that Extension Agents are asked about
each spring is weed control in pastures. Devising a strategy for
effective weed control depends on many factors including weed species
and growth stage, weed density, soil fertility, pH, forage type,
stocking rate or forage requirements, and proximity to sensitive crops.
If the weed density is low or is not limiting forage availability, then
it does not meet the treatment threshold and treatment is not justified
for production reasons. Often we are able to improve grazing or
fertilizer management, which can keep weed density below the treatment
threshold. However, in many cases herbicides are necessary to maintain
infestations below that threshold.
We traditionally start a pasture herbicide program using 2, 4-D amine as
the base because it controls many common broadleaf weed problems with
the lowest chemical cost. If there are enough weeds present that 2, 4-D
will not control them or if some level of residual activity is needed,
herbicides containing active ingredients like dicamba, picloram,
metsulfuron-methyl or triasulfuron may be used. In 2006, a new active
ingredient, aminopyralid, was released. It was reported to have superior
residual soil activity as well as post-emergence activity on many
difficult to control, broadleaf weeds. Very little research had been
done on this material in our area, soi found these experiments in 2008
and 2009 to evaluate its performance under our similar conditions. The
focus of these trials was to compare the products containing
aminopyralid with current industry standards.
These trials were conducted on the Noble Foundation's Pasture
Demonstration and McMillan Research farms to evaluate activity on
naturally occurring populations of western ragweed in pastures with
unfertilized, weak bermudagrass stands. Pre-emergence treatments were
Milestone™ (aminopyralid) at 3, 5 and 7 fluid ounces per acre.
Post-emergence treatments were Milestone at 3, 5 and 7 fluid ounces per
acre, GrazonNext™ or ForeFront™ (aminopyralid + 2,4-D) at 1.5, 2 and 2.5
pints per acre, Cimarron Max™ (metsulfuron-methyl + 2.4-D + dicamba) at
Rate I, Grazon™ P + D (picloram + 2,4-D) at 1.5 pints per acre, Range
Star™ (2,4-D + dicamba) at 1.5 pints per acre and 2,4-D amine at 2 pints
per acre. All the post-emergence treatments included a nonionic
surfactant at a rate of 0.25 percent volume/volume. The post-emergence
treatments were applied to western ragweed with an average height of 6
inches. An untreated control was included for comparison. Trials were
visually rated for percent of western ragweed control periodically from
12 to 161 days after the post-emergence applications.
In the 2008 trial at the Pasture Demonstration Farm, the season-long
western ragweed control from the pre-emergence treatments was poor at 46
percent or less. However, in the 2008 McMillan Farm trial, 76 percent to
100 percent control was obtained. In both 2009 trials, the pre-emergence
treatments provided excellent season-long control of 93 percent to 100
percent. The reason for the reduced control in the 2008 trial at the
Pasture Demonstration Farm is unknown, but might be due to the higher
density of residual vegetation at this site coupled with a high
intensity first rainfall event (4.8 inches of precipitation three to
four days after application). The 2008 McMillan Farm site had less
residual vegetation, and the first rainfall event was not as intense
(3.47 inches of precipitation three to five days after application).
Both 2009 trials had less residual vegetation, and the first rainfall
events were less intense (1.36 to 1.97 inches of precipitation 12 to 14
days after application).
The activity from all the post-emergence treatments was excellent in
both years, exceeding 90 percent control for the full season. The
results of the post-emergence treatments show the herbicides containing
aminopyralid perform as well on western ragweed as the current industry
standards. These results alapplication timing and confirm that season-long control of western
ragweed is possible using current industry standards.
In summary, the results of these trials indicate that the products
containing aminopyralid can provide pre-emergence control of western
ragweed. It is important to note that control may vary depending on soil
deposition and rainfall activation. This pre-emergence control may be
particularly valuable in areas where vulnerable crops are actively
growing near pastures when traditional late spring or summer
applications would be made. These products are also equal to the current
industry standards for post-emergence control of western ragweed. Note
that these trials only address western ragweed, and more research is
needed to determine efficiency on other difficult to control weed
species. You can find this and past articles on the web at
http://www.mycountrytractor.com/ for your reference. Extension
programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race,
color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M
University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County
Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless
of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or
national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
each spring is weed control in pastures. Devising a strategy for
effective weed control depends on many factors including weed species
and growth stage, weed density, soil fertility, pH, forage type,
stocking rate or forage requirements, and proximity to sensitive crops.
If the weed density is low or is not limiting forage availability, then
it does not meet the treatment threshold and treatment is not justified
for production reasons. Often we are able to improve grazing or
fertilizer management, which can keep weed density below the treatment
threshold. However, in many cases herbicides are necessary to maintain
infestations below that threshold.
We traditionally start a pasture herbicide program using 2, 4-D amine as
the base because it controls many common broadleaf weed problems with
the lowest chemical cost. If there are enough weeds present that 2, 4-D
will not control them or if some level of residual activity is needed,
herbicides containing active ingredients like dicamba, picloram,
metsulfuron-methyl or triasulfuron may be used. In 2006, a new active
ingredient, aminopyralid, was released. It was reported to have superior
residual soil activity as well as post-emergence activity on many
difficult to control, broadleaf weeds. Very little research had been
done on this material in our area, soi found these experiments in 2008
and 2009 to evaluate its performance under our similar conditions. The
focus of these trials was to compare the products containing
aminopyralid with current industry standards.
These trials were conducted on the Noble Foundation's Pasture
Demonstration and McMillan Research farms to evaluate activity on
naturally occurring populations of western ragweed in pastures with
unfertilized, weak bermudagrass stands. Pre-emergence treatments were
Milestone™ (aminopyralid) at 3, 5 and 7 fluid ounces per acre.
Post-emergence treatments were Milestone at 3, 5 and 7 fluid ounces per
acre, GrazonNext™ or ForeFront™ (aminopyralid + 2,4-D) at 1.5, 2 and 2.5
pints per acre, Cimarron Max™ (metsulfuron-methyl + 2.4-D + dicamba) at
Rate I, Grazon™ P + D (picloram + 2,4-D) at 1.5 pints per acre, Range
Star™ (2,4-D + dicamba) at 1.5 pints per acre and 2,4-D amine at 2 pints
per acre. All the post-emergence treatments included a nonionic
surfactant at a rate of 0.25 percent volume/volume. The post-emergence
treatments were applied to western ragweed with an average height of 6
inches. An untreated control was included for comparison. Trials were
visually rated for percent of western ragweed control periodically from
12 to 161 days after the post-emergence applications.
In the 2008 trial at the Pasture Demonstration Farm, the season-long
western ragweed control from the pre-emergence treatments was poor at 46
percent or less. However, in the 2008 McMillan Farm trial, 76 percent to
100 percent control was obtained. In both 2009 trials, the pre-emergence
treatments provided excellent season-long control of 93 percent to 100
percent. The reason for the reduced control in the 2008 trial at the
Pasture Demonstration Farm is unknown, but might be due to the higher
density of residual vegetation at this site coupled with a high
intensity first rainfall event (4.8 inches of precipitation three to
four days after application). The 2008 McMillan Farm site had less
residual vegetation, and the first rainfall event was not as intense
(3.47 inches of precipitation three to five days after application).
Both 2009 trials had less residual vegetation, and the first rainfall
events were less intense (1.36 to 1.97 inches of precipitation 12 to 14
days after application).
The activity from all the post-emergence treatments was excellent in
both years, exceeding 90 percent control for the full season. The
results of the post-emergence treatments show the herbicides containing
aminopyralid perform as well on western ragweed as the current industry
standards. These results alapplication timing and confirm that season-long control of western
ragweed is possible using current industry standards.
In summary, the results of these trials indicate that the products
containing aminopyralid can provide pre-emergence control of western
ragweed. It is important to note that control may vary depending on soil
deposition and rainfall activation. This pre-emergence control may be
particularly valuable in areas where vulnerable crops are actively
growing near pastures when traditional late spring or summer
applications would be made. These products are also equal to the current
industry standards for post-emergence control of western ragweed. Note
that these trials only address western ragweed, and more research is
needed to determine efficiency on other difficult to control weed
species. You can find this and past articles on the web at
http://www.mycountrytractor.com/ for your reference. Extension
programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race,
color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M
University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County
Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless
of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or
national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Chute n The Bull
When spring-calving season is over or almost complete, then the next breeding season is already beginning or just around the corner. During a 75-90 day breeding season, it's not uncommon for a bull to lose 100 to 200 pounds - sometimes even more. For that reason, your bulls should be in a body condition score (BCS) of 5.5 to 6.5 and consuming primarily a high roughage diet (hay or pasture). If your bulls fit this description going into the breeding season, congratulations! You are ahead of the game. You understand the benefit of evaluating bulls well before the breeding season so that any needed adjustments in diet and condition can be made gradually.
Often, many of us aren't so on top of things and don't give the bulls much attention until their annual breeding soundness examination 30-60 days before turn-out. That's not much time to make adjustments in body condition. For instance, consider a bull that is in a BCS 5 and weighs 1,600 pounds. You need him in a BCS 6 at turn-out, so he'll need to gain about 125 pounds. If you have 60 days before the breeding season, he'll have to gain over 2 pounds per day. It's possible to get that rate of gain and still use a primarily roughage diet. If you only have 30 days, though, he'd need to gain over 4 pounds per day. That rate of gain is possible, but his diet would have to be mostly concentrate, with very little roughage.
If you let conditioning slip up on you, your options are limited, but all may not be lost. There are some things you can do. First, use what time you have left before turn-out to gain the bulls at a moderate rate of 2-2.5 pounds. Supplementation, if any, will depend on pasture or hay quality.
Second, rotate the thinnest, most active bulls out of service periodically. Rest them and supplement with a high-energy feedstuff. "Periodically" may mean as often as weekly, if necessary. Third, consider increasing your bull power by adding another one or two to the battery.
Fourth, observe the bulls frequently during the breeding season, especially in situations where the bulls lack adequate condition starting out. Record the service dates of the cows, then observe those females in 18-23 days to make sure they are not coming back into heat. If they are, it's almost certainly the bull's fault.
Fifth, vow to evaluate the bulls next year at least 60-90 days before the breeding season. This lead time will allow you to properly "fit" the bulls for the breeding season. Remember the three most important factors:
Body condition score: Provide a level of nutrition so bulls reach a BCS of 5.5 to 6.5 at the start of the breeding season.
Diet: Allow adequate weight gain to attain desired BCS using a maximum of forage (hay or grass) and a minimum of concentrate.
Exercise: Provide plenty of space so bulls can become accustomed to covering lots of ground. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Often, many of us aren't so on top of things and don't give the bulls much attention until their annual breeding soundness examination 30-60 days before turn-out. That's not much time to make adjustments in body condition. For instance, consider a bull that is in a BCS 5 and weighs 1,600 pounds. You need him in a BCS 6 at turn-out, so he'll need to gain about 125 pounds. If you have 60 days before the breeding season, he'll have to gain over 2 pounds per day. It's possible to get that rate of gain and still use a primarily roughage diet. If you only have 30 days, though, he'd need to gain over 4 pounds per day. That rate of gain is possible, but his diet would have to be mostly concentrate, with very little roughage.
If you let conditioning slip up on you, your options are limited, but all may not be lost. There are some things you can do. First, use what time you have left before turn-out to gain the bulls at a moderate rate of 2-2.5 pounds. Supplementation, if any, will depend on pasture or hay quality.
Second, rotate the thinnest, most active bulls out of service periodically. Rest them and supplement with a high-energy feedstuff. "Periodically" may mean as often as weekly, if necessary. Third, consider increasing your bull power by adding another one or two to the battery.
Fourth, observe the bulls frequently during the breeding season, especially in situations where the bulls lack adequate condition starting out. Record the service dates of the cows, then observe those females in 18-23 days to make sure they are not coming back into heat. If they are, it's almost certainly the bull's fault.
Fifth, vow to evaluate the bulls next year at least 60-90 days before the breeding season. This lead time will allow you to properly "fit" the bulls for the breeding season. Remember the three most important factors:
Body condition score: Provide a level of nutrition so bulls reach a BCS of 5.5 to 6.5 at the start of the breeding season.
Diet: Allow adequate weight gain to attain desired BCS using a maximum of forage (hay or grass) and a minimum of concentrate.
Exercise: Provide plenty of space so bulls can become accustomed to covering lots of ground. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Chute N The Bull
On some ranches, hay feeding is caused by the calving season, regardless of the stocking rate. This is because cows in late gestation and early lactation have nutrient requirements that often dramatically exceed the nutrient content of available forage.
I recently worked with a client on this situation. He has a demanding job in town and wants to minimize the labor input into his cow herd. He also is interested in improving and using the native range on his place. We recommended, and he adopted, an appropriate stocking rate for no hay feeding. However, the calving season of his cows is almost requiring him to feed hay, even though there is abundant native range. He purchased some young bred cows scheduled to calve in February. The cows were a little thin, and he needed to improve body condition on these cows. When evaluating supplement programs, I quickly came to the conclusion that cows in this situation might need more than 10 lbs. of 20 percent cubes per cow per day. While that may be physically possible, it didn't strike me as a good idea. Feeding this much supplement would cost $10 per cow per week, not to mention loading, unloading, reloading and feeding 84 bags per week. That is a lot of money and a lot of work. When you consider this rancher really doesn't have time to feed cows every day, this program becomes impossible.
Although we could possibly devise some other supplement program, the real culprit here is the calving season. If these cows were going to calve in May instead of February, this impossible situation becomes easy to manage. In January, cows that are still four months away from calving can simply be fed about 1 lb. of 38 percent cubes per day, even if they are slightly thin and grazing low quality forage. Before they calve, they will have several weeks of high quality spring grazing, and the grass will be getting better while they calve, lactate and breed back. Feeding 1 lb. of feed per day is much easier (and cheaper) than 10 lbs. of feed per day. Further, these cows can easily be fed the needed supplement just two or three days per week, further reducing labor input. The rancher also won't have to worry about the newborn calves in May because they won't be cold-stressed. For this rancher, the advantages to May calving begin to stack up.
There may be a few disadvantages to moving the calving season to May, such as reduced weaning weights in the fall. A quick analysis at current calf prices indicates that May-born calves could be worth $100 less than February-born calves in the fall. Further, it is possible that the cows might suffer from reduced conception rates due to heat stress during the breeding season. However, both of those issues could be managed around at relatively low cost.
Calving season should be an individual decision for each ranch, based on available resources. Certainly the costs will vary due to forage base, labor costs, cow type, etc. However, timing of calving dictates many other management decisions so consider it carefully. Don't set your calving season because that is what you've always done or because that is what your neighbors do. For the most part, if you calve when your neighbors do, you'll get the same results and do the same amount of work that they do. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
I recently worked with a client on this situation. He has a demanding job in town and wants to minimize the labor input into his cow herd. He also is interested in improving and using the native range on his place. We recommended, and he adopted, an appropriate stocking rate for no hay feeding. However, the calving season of his cows is almost requiring him to feed hay, even though there is abundant native range. He purchased some young bred cows scheduled to calve in February. The cows were a little thin, and he needed to improve body condition on these cows. When evaluating supplement programs, I quickly came to the conclusion that cows in this situation might need more than 10 lbs. of 20 percent cubes per cow per day. While that may be physically possible, it didn't strike me as a good idea. Feeding this much supplement would cost $10 per cow per week, not to mention loading, unloading, reloading and feeding 84 bags per week. That is a lot of money and a lot of work. When you consider this rancher really doesn't have time to feed cows every day, this program becomes impossible.
Although we could possibly devise some other supplement program, the real culprit here is the calving season. If these cows were going to calve in May instead of February, this impossible situation becomes easy to manage. In January, cows that are still four months away from calving can simply be fed about 1 lb. of 38 percent cubes per day, even if they are slightly thin and grazing low quality forage. Before they calve, they will have several weeks of high quality spring grazing, and the grass will be getting better while they calve, lactate and breed back. Feeding 1 lb. of feed per day is much easier (and cheaper) than 10 lbs. of feed per day. Further, these cows can easily be fed the needed supplement just two or three days per week, further reducing labor input. The rancher also won't have to worry about the newborn calves in May because they won't be cold-stressed. For this rancher, the advantages to May calving begin to stack up.
There may be a few disadvantages to moving the calving season to May, such as reduced weaning weights in the fall. A quick analysis at current calf prices indicates that May-born calves could be worth $100 less than February-born calves in the fall. Further, it is possible that the cows might suffer from reduced conception rates due to heat stress during the breeding season. However, both of those issues could be managed around at relatively low cost.
Calving season should be an individual decision for each ranch, based on available resources. Certainly the costs will vary due to forage base, labor costs, cow type, etc. However, timing of calving dictates many other management decisions so consider it carefully. Don't set your calving season because that is what you've always done or because that is what your neighbors do. For the most part, if you calve when your neighbors do, you'll get the same results and do the same amount of work that they do. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Chute N The Bull 3-18-10
As we live here in the Deerest Place in Texas I come across this study being done at the Nobil Foundation that I thought might interest many of you. The Noble Foundation Agricultural Research Team is investigating the effects of hunter density on male white-tailed deer movements in southern Oklahoma. This is a collaborative study with Dr. Steve Demarais and graduate student Andy Little from Mississippi State University to further understanding of the impacts that hunter density and hunting pressure have on male white-tailed deer behavior, movement patterns and survivability. Information obtained from this research will assist deer management operations to better manage deer populations through improved harvest strategies and hunter management. While fulfilling the goals of research and wildlife management is often difficult due to uncontrollable variables, this study has enabled us to document an element that can be a major hurdle to successful deer management - poaching.
All of us who manage or pursue white-tailed deer realize there are some individuals (I won't honor them with the title of "hunters") who will kill deer by any means necessary. These individuals will shoot deer out of season, shoot from public roadways, use nighttime spotlighting, trespass, etc. Nothing seems to be off limits, and they think they are above the law - that game laws are for everyone else to follow. We have always been aware that poaching was a potential problem for successful deer management. This study now documents the potential severity of the problem.
In late winter/early spring 2008-2009, the Noble Foundation radio-collared 57 adult white-tailed bucks for our "buck movement project" on a research area in southern Oklahoma. Unfortunately, between 2008 and 2010, poachers illegally killed eight of these animals. Of even greater disappointment to true hunters and sportsmen, one of the poached bucks was a Boone and Crockett 170+-inch animal (see photo). If we assume the poachers did not select for or against the collared deer, this indicates poachers could shoot an average of 14 percent of the standing crop of antlered bucks each year. This is alarming and hampers the efforts of managers attempting to improve deer herd population parameters.
So what's the solution? This is not easy to answer. State game wardens do their best; however, they are severely undermanned to combat the problem. With only 113 game wardens to enforce regulations in 77 Oklahoma counties, chances of catching a poacher in the act are slim. We were able to make a case on one of the deer poached in 2008 due to luck and the diligence of our local game warden, but that is only one out of eight. The best way to combat poaching is through landowner and hunter vigilance.
Don't be complacent. Poachers are thieves, stealing from you, me and every law-abiding sportsman or wildlife conservationist. The game violations they commit are not because of accident or ignorance. These violators make conscious decisions to break the law and have no respect for you or the game. Be aware of what is going on around you. If someone is suspiciously cruising back roads, get a vehicle description and tag number, and report it to your local warden. The game warden may not be able to respond to every call, but if he receives several calls about suspicious activity in the same area or involving the same vehicle, then he will investigate. Additionally, be a concerned citizen and contact your local courts and district attorneys, encouraging them to enforce the current laws with maximum penalty. A slap on the wrist accomplishes little as a deterrent and frustrates a diligent game warden.
Levels of poaching similar to that we experienced in our study can negate management efforts and are cause for concern. Minimizing poaching will require the collective efforts of land owners, sportsmen, concerned citizens and law enforcement officials. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
All of us who manage or pursue white-tailed deer realize there are some individuals (I won't honor them with the title of "hunters") who will kill deer by any means necessary. These individuals will shoot deer out of season, shoot from public roadways, use nighttime spotlighting, trespass, etc. Nothing seems to be off limits, and they think they are above the law - that game laws are for everyone else to follow. We have always been aware that poaching was a potential problem for successful deer management. This study now documents the potential severity of the problem.
In late winter/early spring 2008-2009, the Noble Foundation radio-collared 57 adult white-tailed bucks for our "buck movement project" on a research area in southern Oklahoma. Unfortunately, between 2008 and 2010, poachers illegally killed eight of these animals. Of even greater disappointment to true hunters and sportsmen, one of the poached bucks was a Boone and Crockett 170+-inch animal (see photo). If we assume the poachers did not select for or against the collared deer, this indicates poachers could shoot an average of 14 percent of the standing crop of antlered bucks each year. This is alarming and hampers the efforts of managers attempting to improve deer herd population parameters.
So what's the solution? This is not easy to answer. State game wardens do their best; however, they are severely undermanned to combat the problem. With only 113 game wardens to enforce regulations in 77 Oklahoma counties, chances of catching a poacher in the act are slim. We were able to make a case on one of the deer poached in 2008 due to luck and the diligence of our local game warden, but that is only one out of eight. The best way to combat poaching is through landowner and hunter vigilance.
Don't be complacent. Poachers are thieves, stealing from you, me and every law-abiding sportsman or wildlife conservationist. The game violations they commit are not because of accident or ignorance. These violators make conscious decisions to break the law and have no respect for you or the game. Be aware of what is going on around you. If someone is suspiciously cruising back roads, get a vehicle description and tag number, and report it to your local warden. The game warden may not be able to respond to every call, but if he receives several calls about suspicious activity in the same area or involving the same vehicle, then he will investigate. Additionally, be a concerned citizen and contact your local courts and district attorneys, encouraging them to enforce the current laws with maximum penalty. A slap on the wrist accomplishes little as a deterrent and frustrates a diligent game warden.
Levels of poaching similar to that we experienced in our study can negate management efforts and are cause for concern. Minimizing poaching will require the collective efforts of land owners, sportsmen, concerned citizens and law enforcement officials. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
903.536.3804 fax
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Chute N The Bull
Most cattle producers know that the textbook gestation length of beef cattle is 283 days. Most also realize that biology is variable, and predicting the exact day of natural birth in most mammalian species is very difficult to do. However, some producers seem to forget these biological laws when using new technology in their breeding programs. Many producers associate artificial insemination (AI) with the cow herd behaving in very regimented and predictable ways.
We often recommend implement a timed AI program, in which a large group of heifers is synchronized and inseminated on a single day. Some producers hesitate to implement such a system because they envision the resulting calf crop being born on a single day and creating a problem if the heifers require calving assistance. Fortunately, biological variability takes care of this potential problem.
Artificial insemination in a commercial beef production system has advantages and disadvantages. Implementation of AI helps a producer better manage the calving season. AI bulls typically have superior, more predictable genetic value compared to herd bulls and sire better-performing calves. Individual bulls can be selected for specific matings to improve desired traits in part of the cow herd, or a single bull can be chosen to sire the entire calf crop. This would tend to increase uniformity, thereby increasing overall value of the calf crop. Artificial insemination can also be beneficial to smaller-scale producers where the upkeep and management costs of a herd bull are not economically feasible. Some disadvantages of AI may include the cost of semen or labor. A considerable amount of handling of the cattle is necessary and adequate working facilities are required for artificially inseminating cattle. Finally, if the cows aren't synchronized, the producer must spend considerable time each day detecting cows that are coming into heat and are ready to be bred.
AI might not be the right choice for every producer, but more producers should consider the benefits of an AI program for their replacement heifers. A timed AI program has much lower labor requirements than traditional AI, and it doesn't result in all the calves being born on the same day. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
We often recommend implement a timed AI program, in which a large group of heifers is synchronized and inseminated on a single day. Some producers hesitate to implement such a system because they envision the resulting calf crop being born on a single day and creating a problem if the heifers require calving assistance. Fortunately, biological variability takes care of this potential problem.
Artificial insemination in a commercial beef production system has advantages and disadvantages. Implementation of AI helps a producer better manage the calving season. AI bulls typically have superior, more predictable genetic value compared to herd bulls and sire better-performing calves. Individual bulls can be selected for specific matings to improve desired traits in part of the cow herd, or a single bull can be chosen to sire the entire calf crop. This would tend to increase uniformity, thereby increasing overall value of the calf crop. Artificial insemination can also be beneficial to smaller-scale producers where the upkeep and management costs of a herd bull are not economically feasible. Some disadvantages of AI may include the cost of semen or labor. A considerable amount of handling of the cattle is necessary and adequate working facilities are required for artificially inseminating cattle. Finally, if the cows aren't synchronized, the producer must spend considerable time each day detecting cows that are coming into heat and are ready to be bred.
AI might not be the right choice for every producer, but more producers should consider the benefits of an AI program for their replacement heifers. A timed AI program has much lower labor requirements than traditional AI, and it doesn't result in all the calves being born on the same day. You can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.blogspot.com for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Thank you,
Tommy Neyland
County Extension Agent
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
P.O. Box 188
Centerville, Texas 75833
903.536.2531 phone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)