Millennium Greetings To You!!

I hope there were no Y2K bugs which hit your operation as we moved into 2000. The only one which hit here was the one which prevented Kevin and I from getting January's issue out on time. Consequently, you are looking at a January/February version of the Ranch Hand. Thanks to Karl Hoppe for his article on using hay preservatives this month. Also, please note the manure management meetings and the Beef Quality Assurance training sessions slated for February. Good luck to those of you who will be into calving season in the next few weeks.

Research From Neighboring States Highlighted in Latest Beef Reports

Greg Lardy, NDSU Beef Cattle Specialist

This is the time of year when many universities in the Great Plains and Midwest region send out their latest research summaries. I have chosen a few articles to highlight research conducted over the past year which has application to North Dakota. Whole or Cracked Corn in Growing Rations for Steers Two common questions received in extension circles many times over the fall and winter are, 'Does it pay to process my corn before feeding it to my cattle?' and 'Is it o.k. to feed grain separately from the remainder of the ration (feeding by pail rather than a TMR)?' Researchers at the Scottsbluff Research Station at the University of Nebraska attempted to answer that question in a research study they recently completed. One hundred fifteen British crossbred steer calves averaging 565 pounds were used in the study. Diets were based on 22.8 percent corn silage, 48.7 percent ground alfalfa hay, 1.9 percent supplement, and 26.6 percent corn. The supplement contained Rumensin® at 23 grams per ton and the corn was 15 percent moisture. Dr. Ivan Rush and coworkers fed corn whole or cracked in a mixed ration or fed the grain separately and waited for the calves to clean it up before feeding the other ingredients in the ration. Ration intakes were regulated to match the ad libitum intakes. Corn intakes averaged 5 pounds dry matter per head throughout the 120 day trial.

Results are given in Table 1. No significant differences in intake, gain, or feed efficiency were noted. The implication of this research is that beef cattle producers who do not have access to corn processing or mixing equipment can expect to obtain competitive rates and costs of gain by feeding whole corn separately from the remainder of the ration in calf growing rations designed to produce gains from 2.5 to 2.75 pounds per day.

Table 1. Whole or cracked corn in growing rations for steer calves.

Implant Quality Assurance: Detection of Abscessed Implants and Their Effect on Feedlot Performance of Beef Heifers

Previous implant audits conducted by Fort Dodge Animal Health have found that about 6 percent (range by state = 2.2 to 33.3 percent) of implants are classified as problem implants: abscessed following placement; missing at the audit; or improperly placed in the ear (bunched pellets, crushed pellets, or pellets placed in cartilage). In 1996 and 1997, over 109,000 implants were audited. Abscess formation accounted for over 60 percent of the observed problem implants. Seventy-two British crossbred heifers (446 pound average initial body weight) were used in this study. One group received a Synovex-H implant in an ear washed with a brush saturated with Nolvasan solution at 6 ounces per gallon of water. The other group received a Synovex-H implant in an ear to which a slurry of water and cattle feces had been applied immediately prior to and after implanting. The object was to mimic what sometimes happens to cattle during processing (ears become contaminated with fecal material and are not properly disinfected prior to implanting). Average daily gain, feed intake, and feed efficiency were measured over the 91 day trial. Heifers with abscessed implants gained slower and tended to be less efficient than heifers with non-abscessed implants. Based on feed costs and market price of the cattle at the completion of the study, these researchers estimated that abscessed implants cost the cattle producer $17.70 per head. Cattle with fecal contamination, mud, or other pathogen bearing materials on their ear should have the ear disinfected prior to placing the implant in the ear.

Table 2. Effects of abscessed growth promotant implants on feedlot performance of beef heifers.

Innovation: It Is Critical to the Success of the Beef Industry

Greg Lardy, NDSU Beef Cattle Specialist

I recently had the opportunity to attend an innovation workshop sponsored by Pfizer. As they pointed out, getting people to think innovatively or creatively or "outside the box" can sometimes be a challenge. At times, we in the beef industry are stifled in our quest for innovation because we wonder what the neighbors or friends in the industry will think or because we're afraid to fail. Webster's Dictionary defines innovation as the introduction of something new or a new idea, method, or device. Innovations in any industry come from an inherent desire for people to find an easier, cheaper, or better way to get things done. Kids from farms and ranches are often very good at innovation because they have had the opportunity to figure things out for themselves. They have often been given a task to do and then been left to their own devices to figure out how to get it done. Companies on both coasts have figured this out and have hired former Midwestern farm and ranch kids to innovate for them.

Some of you with memories which go back into the 1960's may remember a high jumper named Dick Fosbury. Dick won a gold medal in the high jump at the 1968 Olympics. Fosbury had a very unconventional style for his time. Most high jumpers of that era used a technique known as the straddle technique. Fosbury was a mediocre high jumper, at best, when using the straddle technique. He pioneered a new technique, known as the Fosbury Flop, which is now used by almost all high jumpers. In fact, all three medal winners at the 1976 Olympics used the Fosbury Flop. We can learn several things from Dick Fosbury and the Fosbury Flop. First of all, consider that innovations are likely quite different from methods currently in use. This in itself creates a resistance to change, a mentality of "it won't work because we have never done it that way before." Consider that Fosbury had been quite successful in high school using the flop technique. When he arrived at Oregon State University his coach tried several times to get him to change to the straddle technique. Eventually, his coach gave in and began to work with him on the flop technique.

The rate of improvement in the high jump from 1900 to 1960 had been about 1/6 inch per year using the straddle technique. Since the introduction and widespread acceptance of the Fosbury Flop, the rate of improvement has been about 1/3 inches per year, on average.

To really work on being truly innovative, you need to worry less about where the next real improvement in your business will come from and how you will implement it. I challenge you to look to industries outside of agriculture to see how they have solved problems and adopted new technologies. Since our industry is full of traditions, it can sometimes be difficult to "think outside of the box" enough to make real improvements. People involved in other industries are not afraid to ask questions we might consider silly. They are not afraid to try new things or do something differently because they have never been told that they can't do it that way. Innovation rarely involves creating something from nothing. It usually involves taking ideas or methods from other industries or walks of life and reshuffling or recombining them into a new method or idea which may work in your particular case. Innovation requires enough self confidence to be willing to be wrong.

I don't know where the next great innovation will occur in the beef industry. There are several things on the scientific forefront which truly have the power to revolutionize the industry. Perhaps the best way to see into the future is to create it. Things such as sexed semen, cloning, embryo transfer, twinning, and other reproductive technologies will definitely impact the industry. The Internet and the information revolution will continue to have a huge impact on the industry.

This article is my attempt at being innovative. Let me know what you think. If you like this type of article, I'll try to include more like it in the future.

Manure Application Planning Workshops

Scott Birchall
Extension Waste Management Specialist

NDSU Extension is hosting a series of hands-on workshops around the state aimed at giving producers the opportunity to develop a manure application plan for their operation. There is no fee to attend the workshop.

What Is a Manure Application Plan
A manure application plan is a tool that allows producers to credit the nutrients in manure from their livestock operation. An accurate manure application plan can reduce fertilizer purchases, as well as reduce the risk of surface or ground water pollution.

Recent reviews of the Rules for Animal Feeding Operations by the North Dakota Department of Health have indicated that more emphasis will be placed on developing manure application plans in coming years. A good manure application plan will give producers the assurance that they are meeting requirements.

Agenda

What to Bring
The more information the producer can bring to the workshop about the manure, soil fertility, and crop rotations on their farm/ranch the better. Please bring the following items:
a. A recent manure analysis
b. A recent soil test report
c. A good copy of an FSA aerial photo for every field that receives manure
d. A calculator

Preregistration
Those interested in attending should preregister at least a week prior to the workshop as space will be limited to the first 25 people. After registering, a workbook and supporting information will be sent out which should be looked through before the workshop.

Those interested in attending should contact the extension agent hosting the workshop nearest them (see table below) or call Scott Birchall at the Carrington Research Extension Center at 701-652-2951.

Hay Preservatives Do Work

Karl Hoppe, Area Livestock Specialist, Carrington Research
Extension Center

Alfalfa and other hays store best when moisture is below 20 percent. However, rain and soil moisture can delay hay drying and consequent baling. Hay preservatives can be used to bale hay at higher moisture (up to 30 percent or higher). However, preservatives have a cost in both application machinery (up to $3,000 for automated equipment) and preservative product (up to $16 per ton for 30 percent moisture hay).

Hay preservatives have been classed into nine types: organic acids, acid salts, salt (NaCl), anhydrous ammonia, urea, fermentation products, anaerobic bacterial inoculants, and aerobic bacterial inoculants. The organic acids (propionic, acetic, citric) are very effective in preventing mold and heating. As hay moisture content increases, the amount of acid needed increases.

Table 1. Application rate for propionic acid.

To reduce corrosiveness, propionic acid can be buffered with ammonium hydroxide. Some manufacturers mix buffered propionic acid with citric acid (used to retain green color) and use lower application rates for reducing mold and heating. Product cost is suggested at $4 per ton of hay baled at 18 to 22 percent moisture, $8 for 22 to 26 percent moisture hay, and $16 for 26 to 30 percent moisture hay.

Acid salts (i.e. sodium diacetate), applied as liquid or granule are very effective and cost competitive. However, white salt (NaCl) needs to be applied in high amounts to be a preservative. Lower application rates of salt may only increase palatability.

Anhydrous ammonia is an effective fungicide, but preserving effects will be temporary unless hay is covered with plastic. Urea appears to be an effective preservative when applied at 4 percent, but intake should be monitored for toxicity concerns.

Microbials can be effective in preserving hay. However, microbials developed for aiding ensiling appear to have variable effectiveness when used for hay preservation. Microbials seem to work best with liquid application and may be priced less than the organic acids.

When storing microbials, manufacturer's recommendations must be strictly followed to retain viability. As with organic acids, microbial products will help prevent dry matter and crude protein losses during harvest and will prevent loss of crude protein, NDF, and ADF during storage.

Producer interest in hay preservation peaks during rainy weather. However, field and storage losses can be high when hay is baled too dry (up to 35 percent dry matter loss for legumes). Baling at higher moisture content by using preservatives during non-rainy weather patterns should be considered.

Feeding Wheat to Beef Cattle

Greg Lardy and John Dhuyvetter

Wheat remains the leading crop produced in North Dakota. Most wheat in North Dakota is either hard red spring wheat (HRSW) or durum. Small acreages of hard red winter wheat and more recently, hard white wheat are also planted in the state. Wheat is not traditionally used as a feed grain because its milling properties lend itself for use in breads, pastas, and noodles. At certain times, however, wheat is competitively priced with other feed grains due to damage from disease, drought, or sprouting. Feed grade wheat is a palatable, digestible source of nutrients which can be used in beef cattle diets if fed with caution to avoid digestive upsets.

Processing Wheat

Processing wheat substantially improves digestibility, due to the hard seed coat associated with the kernel. According to research published in Australia, whole wheat has a digestibility of 60 percent compared to 86 percent for wheat which is rolled. However, attention to processing is crucial for best results when feeding wheat. For best results, wheat should be coarsely rolled (breaking the kernel into a few pieces), but not ground. Excessive amounts of fines should be avoided since small particle size increases the rate of digestion and increases the incidence of digestive problems such as bloat, founder, and acidosis.

Feeding Recommendations

Due to the feeding characteristics of wheat, it is recommended that levels of wheat in the ration be limited. In moderate to high grain rations (50 percent or more concentrate), wheat should be fed in combination with more fibrous or slowly fermented feed grains and limited to about 40 percent of the diet.

It is important to adapt cattle to wheat so that over-consumption is avoided. Adapt cattle by introducing wheat into the ration at low levels (10 to 15 percent of the diet) and increasing the level in steps or increments (10, 20, 30, up to 40 percent) after a period of several days of constant intake and appetite. In order to avoid problems with wheat-based diets, cattle should not be moved to higher concentrate levels until intakes are consistent.

Problems with over-consumption (such as bloat, founder, and acidosis) can be minimized by limit feeding, feeding two times or more per day, providing plenty of roughage, and feeding a complete mixed ration. Self feeding wheat should be avoided.

In addition to limiting the level of wheat fed, feeding with other grains such as corn, coarse processing, adapting cattle slowly, and good bunk management, several other practices have been shown to be helpful when utilizing wheat in the ration. For growing and finishing cattle, the inclusion of an ionophore will help reduce over consumption and acidosis. Kansas research indicates that the addition of an ionophore/antibiotic combination to wheat-based finishing diets improved feed efficiency.
Buffers (such as limestone) in the ration, particularly as cattle are being put on feed, is beneficial. Rations should be formulated to contain a minimum of .7 percent calcium (with the majority of the calcium coming from limestone). The addition of sodium bicarbonate to wheat based rations has, at times, improved daily gain and feed conversions according to research conducted in Kansas.

Durum vs. Hard Wheat

Research conducted at NDSU which compared durum with HRSW indicated that cattle fed durum consumed less feed and had poorer feed conversions compared with cattle fed barley, corn, or HRSW. Table 1 details the results of this feeding trial conducted at NDSU which compared feeding corn, barley, durum, soft wheat, and HRSW for finishing steers. The diets averaged 73 percent grain for the wheat- and corn-based diets and 81 percent grain for the barley-based diet. Grains were coarsely rolled prior to feeding. Average daily gains, feed conversions, and intakes were poorer for the durum diet compared with corn or HRSW. This indicates that durum probably should be used at lower levels in the diet (30 percent or less) compared with HRSW. Rolled or cracked durum can apparently become pasty and sticky. This is related to its gluten strength and may be part of the reason that durum is more difficult to feed than HRSW.

Summary

Significant discounts on wheat which does not meet grade standards in traditional markets will at times price wheat very favorably as a feed. Such situations create opportunities to utilize wheat in achieving low cost gains or reduced feeding costs. However, feeding wheat requires careful attention to feed processing, ration formulation, and feeding management for optimum results.

Recommendations

• Wheat should be limited to 40 percent or less of the ration in backgrounding and finishing diets.
• Durum should be limited to 30 percent or less of the ration in backgrounding and finishing diets.
• Ionophores should be used with wheat-based finishing diets to improve feed efficiency and reduce the risk of acidosis.
• Buffers such as limestone and sodium bicarbonate may be useful in alleviating or preventing digestive upsets.
• Adapt cattle to wheat-based diets incrementally, starting with low levels (10 to 15 percent) and then gradually increasing the wheat level up to 30 (durum) to 40 percent (hard wheats).
• Wheat should be coarsely rolled or cracked, but not finely ground, for optimum performance.
• When used as a supplement for beef cows, hard wheat levels should be kept under 5 to 6 pounds per head per day (3.5 to 4.5 pounds for durum).
• When used as a supplement, wheat should be fed every day (as opposed to every other day or every third day).
• Do not use wheat in creep rations. The rapid rate of starch fermentation increases the risk of digestive problems such as acidosis, founder, and/or bloat.
• Wheat should not be fed in self feeders.
• Damaged wheat (sprouted, frosted, drought-stressed, vomitoxin infested) can be fed after careful inspection and laboratory analysis of the condition and quality of the grain.

Table 1. Effect of feeding corn, barley, soft wheat, HRSW, or durum on feedlot performance.

More Beef Quality Assurance Training Sessions Scheduled

There are three more opportunities for cattle producers to become BQA certified. These additional opportunities came about as a result of the overwhelming success of the BQA meetings held in the fall. The sessions cost $15 and the producer will be certified for 3 years, be eligible for source-verified and BQA-certified marketing programs, and will have the opportunity to be listed in a producer directory. Two sessions will be held at the Agri-International Livestock Show in Bismarck: 2/14/00 (5 pm) and 2/16/00 (2 pm). The third session will be 2/29/00 (4:30 pm) through the NDSU Interactive Video Network at the following locations:

• Bismarck State College, Vo Tech Ctr., Room 216, 1500 Edwards Avenue
• Dickinson State University, North Campus, 1679 6th Avenue West, Room 104
• NDSU, Walster Hall, Room 220, Albrecht Blvd. and 14th Avenue North
• Williston State College, Crighton Building, Room 101, 1500 8th Avenue East
• Fort Berthold Community College, Room 3, New Town, ND
• Sitting Bull College, Room 5, Main Street, Fort Yates, ND
• Turtle Mountain Community College, Gailfus Bldg., IVN classroom, Belcourt, ND

For further information, please contact your local extension agent, Dr. Greg Lardy (231-7660), Dr. Charlie Stoltenow (231-7522), or Lisa Lee (328-5134).