Related to the $7 corn & $15 bean post, info re amnt needed

[SRBeef]

Here is a very interesting program on understand hay, hay tests, and amount of corn to supplement if required. I came across this the other day. It is from Ohio State University in two parts.

This is the best thing I have seen about hay and is done on a layman (not phd) basis.

I have been concerned about my own cow/heifer group, due to start calving in mid March. Are they getting enough nutrition from the hay only they are eating, especially with the sub zero weather and snow in Wisconsin this winter. More coming in the next few days I hear.

What is also interesting about this OSU program is after evaluating hay, there is an example of how to make up a TDN deficiency with just 2.5 lb of corn per day. And contrary to our focus on protein, this program shows that for beef cows, the energy component of hay as measured by the TDN is often limiting.

Here is the program. The whole thing takes 2 hours to watch but it may be a very well spent 2 hours when you have time. There is also a very clear BCS chart with pictures that is the final judge of how our cattle are doing.

What is said at the end, even with $6.42 local corn purchased, corn makes sense. And for cow/calf at least, high corn prices do not need to affect us very much.

As far as finishing cattle on corn, I think we will see more of a shift to DDG's coming out of ethanol plants rather than shell corn making up more of a finishing ration. And as ethanol ramps up there should be more DDG's etc available. jmho.

Here is the Ohio State University hay program part one, part two and the BCS chart:

http://presenter.cfaes.ohio-state.e...A_-_Flash_(Medium)_-_20110201_07.03.05AM.html

http://presenter.cfaes.ohio-state.e...B_-_Flash_(Medium)_-_20110201_07.55.45AM.html

http://ohioline.osu.edu/l292/

I hope some of you find this useful. Jim

 

[novaman]

there is an example of how to make up a TDN deficiency with just 2.5 lb of corn per day. And contrary to our focus on protein, this program shows that for beef cows, the energy component of hay as measured by the TDN is often limiting.

Two things come to mind when I read this paragraph. 1. use net energy as an indicator of the amount of energy in the hay, not TDN 2. I have always been told that feeding so little grain to an animal is actually counterproductive because the rumen bugs are trying to adapt to starch and in the process give up some of the fiber digesting bugs and actually go backwards on their digestive efficiency. Somebody might want to straighten me out of I'm wrong on that one.

As far as finishing cattle on corn, I think we will see more of a shift to DDG's coming out of ethanol plants rather than shell corn making up more of a finishing ration. And as ethanol ramps up there should be more DDG's etc available.

Have you priced distillers lately? Yes it is less than corn but not by a whole lot anymore. Distillers used to be a byproduct and the ethanol plants would do anything to move it out. Now it has gotten to be much higher demand and they are finding they can price it competitively with other feedstuffs and still move it out. The other problem with distillers is the inconsistencies. Every single batch has a different nutrient profile and makes it quite difficult to balance a ration and keep it balanced. Plus you can only add so much fat (the main source of energy in distillers) to a ration before you start going backwards. I don't think you'll see much of a shift away from corn as finishers need that starch in the ration. Just my :2cents: Have a good one!

 

[TexasBred]

Energy has always been the "unknown" in so many feed programs. An energy deficiency can not be corrected by increasing protein or feeding excess protein. If a cow get's only enough energy from the ration to meet maintance needs there is no energy for "grain,production or lactation". And Nova you're right, it's a fine balancing act with starches and highly digestible fiber. Maintaining rumen Ph is the critical element in maintaining starch digesting bacteria and fiber digesting bacteria in the same environment. Feeding soybean hulls is once source of a very digestible product that also has a high energy content, however, you have to weigh the economics of it if the product has been priced out of the market. The alternative woudl be to feed the grain at the lower cost and accept less than optimum performance. DDG can be used to replace some of the grain in a ration but is primarily a protein and energy source. At 26-34% protein (very variable) you have to use something to cut that protein down. And as Nova said, too much fat in the ration can also limit dry matter intake.

Nova..how much is distillers up your way?? Probably around $235 delivered in this area. Corn today would be $7.40 delivered. I've got a formula somewhere that helps calculate feed value based on price of corn and soybean meal relative to the product you're looking at buying. Will try to find it.

 

[SRBeef]

After going through the above Ohio State program and using my own hay test I was pleasantly surprised that my hay calculates out as sufficient for my cows. This is born out by their visual condition right now even though with my feed bunks full of ice and snow, they have had zero "treat" grain in about the past 6 weeks, just this hay, Mineralyx and good non-frozen water.

The OSU program points out that a cow can have a belly full of hay and still starve.

My hay and 1300 lb cows are close to the example in part two of the OSU program. I think this program also points out the benefits to having cows with lots of internal capacity.

for fellow beginners: Here for reference is my hay test result from last fall. I sampled about 10 of my big round bales with a hay sample "drill" bit and a battery powered electric drill. Mixed the cores together in a ziplock bag and took it to my local feed and fertilizer dealer who sent it out to a lab. You can buy these hay drill bits on line from Nasco or other sources.

Here is a picture of some of my female group chowing down on a partial bale I took out of a feeder and put on the ground for them. I haven't been real concerned about wasted hay this past month or so. This is in a limited sacrifice area which I will scoop up with a manure fork into a compost pile after they start rotational grazing in May. I don't look at it as wasted. It also gives them some bedding in the subzero snow. Photo is a bit dark as it was getting late after moving quite a bit of snow from this past week. The flash on pocket cameras is evidently not designed for cow group pictures in the dark!

I think the overall condition of my cows is good even with the straight hay/mineral diet and difficult winter. I'm posting this to try to help beginners like me understand hay, hay testing and the correlation to animal nutrition and condition.

Overall I guess I am not a gloom and doom person when it comes to corn and bean prices. I think you can raise cattle with a minimum amount of grain especially in cow/calf. A useful number from the OSU program is that shell corn has an 88 TDN.

It is interesting also to note the comment in the OSU program about the difference between "western" and "eastern" hay.

In later stages I think corn by products will take up much of the slack of shell corn. Yes it is more difficult to balance. I will be grazing a small area of corn for the foreseeable future so that is not something I am familiar with. In any case corn prices are not likely to come back down very much given the facts that we are in a world market. Retail beef prices will also have to rise to a more world market price. AND a significant portion of that retail price increase MUST be passed down to the producer, or there won't be much beef.

Beef prices in the US grocery stores and the percent of US family income spent on food will have to increase to more like the percent of income in other developed countries.

Overall, if we test hay, and understand the test results, with even moderate quality hay it just doesn't take that much grain to supplement, if any. I found the above Ohio State program really helped me to understand beef cow hay and test results. I'm not bragging about my cattle here, just trying to spread some interesting information I found. Fwiw.

Jim

 

[TexasBred]

Thanks for posting Jim. Everyone can benefit from this. And looking at the cattle I can see that the hay is good. Probably not a lot of consumption on the tubs either. Keep in mind those figures are on a 100% dry matter basis (the TDN on corn as well) and you're feeding on an as fed basis. Still much better than anything I have to feed. Thanks again. :clap:

 

[Howdyjabo]

Nova man-
Feeding some corn will help on a forage based ration--- as feeding some forage on a feed based ration does help . There is a balancing act that needs to take place when you increase the amounts past supplementing.
There are rumen bugs that digest forage best
There are rumen bugs that digest corn(starch) best

Its impossible to have a balance of half and half(rumen bugs) as they don't like the same environment- so you need to decide which way you want the majority of rumen bugs to be. and it takes time for them to switch from one to the other so feeding consistently and LONG TERM is important.

 

[novatech]

Sure helps to have the right type of cows.
I know more than a few old timers that would do well to take that course. Wouldn't mind taking it myself.
Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[SRBeef]

there is an example of how to make up a TDN deficiency with just 2.5 lb of corn per day. And contrary to our focus on protein, this program shows that for beef cows, the energy component of hay as measured by the TDN is often limiting.

Two things come to mind when I read this paragraph. 1. use net energy as an indicator of the amount of energy in the hay, not TDN 2. I have always been told that feeding so little grain to an animal is actually counterproductive because the rumen bugs are trying to adapt to starch and in the process give up some of the fiber digesting bugs and actually go backwards on their digestive efficiency. Somebody might want to straighten me out of I'm wrong on that one.

As far as finishing cattle on corn, I think we will see more of a shift to DDG's coming out of ethanol plants rather than shell corn making up more of a finishing ration. And as ethanol ramps up there should be more DDG's etc available.

Have you priced distillers lately? Yes it is less than corn but not by a whole lot anymore. Distillers used to be a byproduct and the ethanol plants would do anything to move it out. Now it has gotten to be much higher demand and they are finding they can price it competitively with other feedstuffs and still move it out. The other problem with distillers is the inconsistencies. Every single batch has a different nutrient profile and makes it quite difficult to balance a ration and keep it balanced. Plus you can only add so much fat (the main source of energy in distillers) to a ration before you start going backwards. I don't think you'll see much of a shift away from corn as finishers need that starch in the ration. Just my :2cents: Have a good one!

The OSU program has a slide of the hierarchy of needs of a cow's nutrition. It talks about the needs for maintenance, growth and lactation. On my own hay test there are 3 lines marked Nel (lactation energy) Neg (growth energy) and Nem (maintenance energy) listed in calories.

I don't pretend to understand this any more than what I got for the OSU program. however there is a measure of energy on as hay test. I believe the presenter is trying to keep the meeting simple and focusing on TDN only as a first step. In the end cow BCS is the ultimate score card. If we keep track of our cows condition they are probably doing ok.

The program also talks about the effects of temperature and haircoat of different breeds as affecting comfort zones and TDN requirements.

About distillers pricing, I think the days of "cheap" anything are about gone. The world is our marketplace right now. I have heard that we are actually EXPORTING DDG's to other countries now. Things are changing in the cattle business. I think our methods are likely to change also. jmho.

Jim

 

[novaman]

I have heard that we are actually EXPORTING DDG's to other countries now.

They have been exporting DDG for a long time. The plant I am close to is one of the furthest west plants and they are constantly loading rail cars and sending them to the west coast to be shipped to Asia.

 

[upfrombottom]

http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-3036.pdf

Interesting stuff.

 

[SRBeef]

I have heard that we are actually EXPORTING DDG's to other countries now.

They have been exporting DDG for a long time. The plant I am close to is one of the furthest west plants and they are constantly loading rail cars and sending them to the west coast to be shipped to Asia.

This points out the fact we are in a new World Wide economy. ThE game rules are changing. The declining value of the dollar makes those ddg's look cheaper to somone paying in foreign currencies than the value to a neighbor like you.

We are finding there is no free lunch as our government has pretended for the lasty 10 years of fighting 2 wars but cutting taxes and hiding much of it off budget. Jim

 

[TexasBred]

I have heard that we are actually EXPORTING DDG's to other countries now.

They have been exporting DDG for a long time. The plant I am close to is one of the furthest west plants and they are constantly loading rail cars and sending them to the west coast to be shipped to Asia.

This points out the fact we are in a new World Wide economy. ThE game rules are changing. The declining value of the dollar makes those ddg's look cheaper to somone paying in foreign currencies than the value to a neighbor like you.

We are finding there is no free lunch as our government has pretended for the lasty 10 years of fighting 2 wars but cutting taxes and hiding much of it off budget. Jim

You mean like "affordable health care" for all?? Not to mention subsidizing ethanol. Without it there wouldn't be a plant running.

 

[SRBeef]

You mean like "affordable health care" for all?? Not to mention subsidizing ethanol. Without it there wouldn't be a plant running.

The budget deficits that have led to this incredible financial hole we are in far predates the recent health care bill.

Subsidizing ethanol is actually far less of a hit to the federal budget than the massive subsidies, both obvious and hidden as tax breaks, that have been and continue to be given to the oil companies. And I personally would rather subsidize US ethanol startups in rural towns than subsidize the oil companies and foreign oil sources.

I was at an ag marketing meeting just the other day where one of the speakers was talking about the increase in commodity prices (in US dollars) and how they really have not increased very much when valued in other currencies. This speaker also showed a graph of the federal deficit growth over time, including Presidential administrations.

The fact is the federal deficit increased dramatically under the recent "conservative values" Bush administration. Clinton actually left with a surplus reducing the federal debt. Facts sometimes get in the way of our preconceived ideas and partisanship.

 

[Douglas]

I used to like you jim. Just kidding of course. Not surprised at your pro-corn position. As you recall the pubs controlled congress during the clinton surplus years, Clinton even vetoed cuts that shut the government down. Sure Bush ran up debts, but doubling down with the stimulus was not the answer in my opiniion, and another new expensive entitlement program is crazy. Ethanol subsidies in my opinion are biparsitian insanity. All about Iowa primaries.

 

[TexasBred]

Here is a chart that shows the debt and deficit in the years that Clinton says he had a surplus.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Dang...sure looks like it's growing to me while Willie was enjoying the interns.

 

[novaman]

FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion

And according to a website, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, I pulled up from a google search the current national debt is over 14.1 trillion. According to that site we have averaged a 4.16 billion dollar a day increase since Sept. '07. That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Douglas]

Here is a chart that shows the debt and deficit in the years that Clinton says he had a surplus.

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Dang...sure looks like it's growing to me while Willie was enjoying the interns.

Actually we did have a surplus during some of those years. Some of the debt was owned by the government itself, (ie. social security trust fund). So the debt was growing, but the debt owned not by the government itself was dropping. Net debt in other words was going down.

 

[TexasBred]

Actually we did have a surplus during some of those years. Some of the debt was owned by the government itself, (ie. social security trust fund). So the debt was growing, but the debt owned not by the government itself was dropping. Net debt in other words was going down.

Dang Doug....now there you go trying to tell me that the feds don't use Double Entry Bookeeping? So to make things look good you just make sure you have an offset to "net" thing out where you want them. Sounds sort of like collecting for this new Affordable health care for 4 years before you ever pay the first penny of a claim. 10 years of income....6 years of expenses....net debt....Zero. :lol2: :lol2: