June 15, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Range Ruminations: How Much Grass Will I Have This Summer?

Jeff Mosley MSU ExtensionDr. Jeff Mosley, MSU Extension Range Management Specialist

Range forage growth this spring has been slow out of the chute in many parts of Montana.  My optimistic nature assures me, however, that plenty of rainfall and warmer temperatures will soon combine to ease my worries.  Those less optimistic souls among us might prefer to plan ahead using estimates of summer grass production.

Reliable estimates of summer grass production can be made by comparing this year’s amount of precipitation to the long-term average.  One method compares the amount of precipitation received in a “crop year”, while another method compares the combined total precipitation received in April, May, and June.

A crop year beginning 1 September and ending 30 June is appropriate for assessing precipitation effects on rangeland plant productivity in Montana.  For example, if precipitation during the crop year from 1 September 2014 to 30 June 2015 were to equal 80% of the 30-year average, then range forage production would likely be about 80% of normal in summer 2015.  Similarly, if the combined total precipitation received in April, May, and June 2015 were to equal 80% of the 30-year average for April + May + June precipitation, then range forage production would likely be about 80% of normal in summer 2015.

Either the crop-year precipitation method or the April + May + June precipitation method can also be used to help manage risk.  For example, if your area normally receives 4 inches of precipitation in April + May + June, and no moisture was received in April, you can examine long-term weather records to find how often your area received 4 inches in May + June alone.  The percentage of times this occurred in the past 30 years indicates the chances of it happening this year and the likelihood that summer forage production will be normal following a dry April.  Continuing the example, let’s say you receive 2 inches of precipitation in May.  You can then examine the long-term weather records to find how often your area received 2 inches in June alone.  The percentage of times this occurred in the past 30 years indicates the odds that your area will receive its normal 4 inches by the end of April + May + June and the likelihood that summer forage production will be normal.

Over the years I have used one or the other of these two precipitation methods to estimate summer grass production, and both methods have proven reasonably accurate.  These methods do not provide perfect estimates, of course, because they do not account for the many other factors that also affect range forage growth such as air temperature, humidity, and wind.  Both methods, however, provide useful ballpark estimates that can help you adjust livestock stocking rates, adapt pasture rotations, or make other management decisions.

Recently I encountered a situation that has convinced me to use both of these precipitation methods in tandem when making future estimates of range forage production.  I was reviewing the range forage growing conditions in summer 2014 on some foothill rangeland in west-central Montana.  Precipitation received in the 1 September to 30 June crop year of 2013-2014 was 17.3 inches, which was 25% more than the prior 30-year mean of 13.8 inches.  This figure alone might have led me to conclude that there was about 25% more range forage last year than normal.  But the combined total precipitation in April, May, and June 2014 was 6.2 inches compared with the prior 30-year mean of 7.1 inches, or 13% below average in 2014.

Overall, forage production in summer 2014 was not as great as the 25% above average crop-year precipitation indicated, but forage production was not as poor as indicated by the 13% below average April + May + June precipitation.  What happened?  Much of the above average precipitation in the 2013-2014 crop year was received in September 2013 and February and March 2014, and this stored soil moisture from fall, winter, and early spring helped offset the lack of rainfall during the prime late spring-early summer growing season.  Taken together the two estimates averaged 12% above normal, which matched very well with the actual amount of forage available in summer 2014.

If you don’t have precipitation records for your ranch, the Western Regional Climate Center has long-term data from hundreds of weather stations across Montana:  http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.  For assistance accessing these data, contact the Western Regional Climate Center, your local office of MSU Extension, or send me an email: [email protected].  Happy ruminating.

June 12, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Beef Cattle Water Requirements Changing With Summer Heat

Dr. Rachel Endecott, MSU Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Of the six classes of nutrients — carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and water — water is the most often overlooked, yet the most critical. Cattle performance can be affected by water intake.

Water requirements are a bit of a moving target, as feeds contain water and the metabolism of certain nutrients in the body produces water. This means that not all the water needs must be supplied as drinking water. High moisture feeds such as silages or pasture have increased water content, while harvested forages such as hay and straw contain little water. Cattle water needs are influenced by temperature, physiological stage, and weight (Table 1).

Endecott requirements of range livestock

Water intake increases dramatically at high temperatures; in fact, water requirements double between 50° and 95° F!  Table 2 illustrates the daily water requirements in gallons per 100 pounds of body weight for cattle at 90° F. This implies that a spring calving cow-calf pair would require 28 gallons of water for a 1400-lb cow plus an additional  7-9 gallons for a 350-450-lb calf (some of this increased calf water requirement can be met by milk intake).

Endecott water requirements cattle temperature

Providing unlimited access to clean, fresh water will ensure cattle performance is not negatively impacted; this goal becomes even more critical with increasing temperatures.

June 11, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Spending by Checkoff Contractors | Checkoff Chat

Checkoff contractors are not allowed to profit from grant dollars

Checkoff contractors are not allowed to profit from grant dollars

Q: How can I be sure that checkoff dollars aren’t being misspent by national contractors?

A: Checkoff contractors are reimbursed only for the work they actually do for the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and are not allowed to make a profit from a Checkoff contract. In fact, staff that work for the contracting organizations must track their time spent down to the quarter hour. By law, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board contract with established national, non-profit, industry-governed organizations to implement programs of promotion, research, consumer information, industry information, foreign marketing and producer communications.

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilRead more about the Beef Checkoff Programs in our Checkoff Chat Series with the Montana Beef Council. Click here to submit your own questions to be answered in future posts.

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. It assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States retain up to 50 cents on the $1 and forward the other 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval. The Montana Beef Council was created in 1954 by cattlemen as a marketing organization for the Montana beef industry and is organized to protect and increase demand for beef and beef products through state, national and international beef promotion, research and education, thereby enhancing profit opportunities for Montana beef producers.

June 2, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Elanco Announces Comprehensive Antibiotic Stewardship Plan, Significant Research Effort

Antibiotics Use Livestock ResistanceThe use of antibiotics in raising livestock has been a concerned raised by many consumers in recent months as a result of rising occurrence of antibiotic resistance bacteria. Many companies, food processors and retailers have made announcements in recent months regarding changes to their practices in an effort to curb the use of antibiotics in livestock. Most of these announcements pertain to the use of antibiotics that are medically important for human use.

As we have discussed in earlier podcasts with Dr. Bruce Hoffman of Elanco, changes are coming to the way livestock producers are allowed to use feed-grade antibiotics and changes in FDA guidelines will end the use of antibiotics for growth-promotion. This will be a topic in our Cattle Health Committee meeting on Thursday during our MidYear meeting. Listen to our previous podcast for more information.

Montana Stockgrowers has been working with Elanco Animal Health to share information for veterinarians and cattle ranchers in preparation for these changes in antibiotic use. Today, Elanco announced initiatives to further curb the use of antibiotics that are medically important for human use, and to identify alternative products to treat illnesses in livestock. Below is a press release with more information.

To learn more about Elanco and their programs to address concerns of growing global food demand, visit SensibleTable.com

Elanco President Jeff Simmons participates in White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship; outlines company’s aggressive eight-step plan to help safeguard animal and human health and deliver 10 new alternatives to the most challenging diseases

Jeff Simmons Elanco Animal HealthGREENFIELD, Ind., June 2, 2015 – Today, Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY), will participate in the White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship where Elanco President Jeff Simmons will participate in a panel discussion. Concurrently, Simmons is unveiling the company’s multi-faceted approach to combat the growing concern about antibiotic resistance.  A summary of Simmons’ remarks follows:

In the next few decades, demand for animal protein will climb 60 percent(1) as population increases and the global middle class expands by three billion people(2). These numbers are important, because we’re already overusing the Earth’s resources, consuming about 1.5 times the natural resources we should use in a year(3). Delivering safe, sufficient, affordable protein to feed the growing population has never been at greater risk.

The welfare of animals we rely upon to provide protein is also at risk. Today, we have emerging diseases on every continent, including the extreme of avian influenza right here in the United States. Beyond that – nearly 3 in 4 cattle experience symptoms of respiratory disease(4) at some point in their life and 1 in 6 dairy cattle experience mastitis(5) in their productive life. It is our industry’s responsibility to keep animals healthy and treat the ones that get sick while safeguarding antibiotics for future generations through responsible use. Ultimately, this is about One Health – not just animal health, but this work creates healthy food, ensures the health of people and protects the planet.

Elanco has committed to an eight-step antibiotic stewardship plan that ensures the responsible use of antibiotics, reduces shared-class antibiotic use and replaces antibiotics with alternatives.

Elanco’s Eight-Step Antibiotic Stewardship Plan

  1. Act with responsibility globally – not just according to U.S. regulation – by working with food producers and retailers to provide training and encourage policies that reduce shared-class antibiotic use and increase veterinarian oversight.
  2. Cease marketing of growth promotion uses for shared-class antibiotics and complete full regulatory change to end growth promotion use of shared-class antibiotics globally by the end of 2016.
  3. Help customers eliminate continuous use of shared-class antibiotics for therapy purposes by providing an alternative.
  4. Eliminate over-the-counter sales of shared-class antibiotics globally – including injectable products – where veterinarian oversight exists.
  5. Eliminate concurrent use of shared-class antibiotics to treat the same disease.
  6. Support veterinary oversight and responsible use, including helping build infrastructure globally.
  7. Develop new animal-only antibiotics. No animal should ever be treated with a shared-class antibiotic if an animal-only option exists. Animal-only antibiotics optimize animal welfare without compromising human use antibiotics.
  8. Create alternatives. Elanco commits to invest two-thirds of our food animal research budget to quickly evaluate 25 candidates and deliver 10 viable non-antibiotic development projects that address diseases where there are few, or no, alternatives to shared-class antibiotics. (Respiratory disease and enteric disease in cattle, swine and poultry and mastitis in cattle.)

In one year, Elanco will host an animal health accountability summit to provide a progress report on our effort to deliver non-antibiotic alternatives. Along the way, we will collaborate with customers, academics and appropriate regulatory authorities, which will include establishing an expert advisory panel. Finally, Elanco will collaborate with our industry association and other technology companies to advance this effort as quickly as possible.

It is important that we don’t enact regulations or policies that move faster than available science, which could jeopardize animal health as well as food safety and food security. Setting timelines without solutions could be dangerous, compromising animal welfare. Policies that require complete elimination of all antibiotics in animal production aren’t right for the animal and they aren’t right for the consumer either. We must take a pragmatic approach that doesn’t put animals at risk.

This is a challenging endeavor not without risk, but with intentional focus, dedicated investment and collaboration from an event like today, we believe we can make a difference, shaping a positive future with better health outcomes for people and animals.

###

1 Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO). “World Livestock 2011: Livestock in Food Security.” Rome, 2011

2 Kharas, Homi. “The Emerging Middle Class in Developing Countries.” Global Development Outlook. OECD Development Center. Working Paper No. 285. January 2010

3 World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices.”

4 Wittum, T. E.,  N. E. Woolen,  L. J. Perino, and E. T. Littledike 1996. “Relationships among treatment for respiratory tract disease, pulmonary lesions evident at slaughter and rate of weight gain in feedlot cattle.” J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 209:814–818.8756886

5 Ruegg, Pamela L.” New Perspectives in Udder Health Management.” Vet Clin Food Anim 28 (2012) 149–163

May 26, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

How do Ranchers Provide Consumer Trust and Animal Welfare

animal welfare consumer perceptionsBy Dr. John Paterson, Executive Director of Education, NCBA

The public is not demanding to know where food comes from because it has figured that out.  The public wants to be assured that the people who produce food can be trusted to care for animals and to use on-farm technology responsibly and sustainably. Ninety six percent of consumers say that they support raising cattle for food only if ranchers provide good care for their animals and treat them humanely (Food Safety Survey, Nov. 2008).

Research (Consumer Attitudes to Animal Welfare) reveals that consumers know very little about the agricultural supply chain, and in particular, they are often deliberately ignorant of anything that happens between slaughter and consumption.

Research from the 1980’s showed that consumers wanted beef that had acceptable taste, was convenient to prepare, nutritious, and a variety of cuts could be purchased at a reasonable price.  Today, consumers still want these same traits, but now they also want assurances about the environment, social causes, and animal welfare. The term “story beef” has come into vogue because consumers are asking questions about how livestock producers raised the beef.

For example, did the producer live nearby, did he treat ranch workers fairly, did he practice environmental stewardship, did the ranch operate sustainably, did the producer receive a fair price and did he/she properly care for the animals (Smith, 2008)? Three-fourths of grocery shoppers indicated that they wanted information about the content, origin and how food was grown, processed and manufactured.

Women account for 93% of US food purchases and feel a strong emotional attachment to beef.  The fact that most beef comes from family farms, and that farmers’ care about their animals and the beef they produce resonates with women (John Maday, Drovers J., July, 29, 2010).

The three emotional pillars that female shoppers want from beef include:

  1. the assurance that family ranchers care about their animals and beef quality;
  2. that oversight from USDA and FDA assures that today’s beef is safer than ever and;
  3. the shopper wants control over food-purchasing decisions.

Whom do consumers trust for humane treatment of farm animals?  Janice Swanson from Michigan State University said that consumers trust people like themselves most, followed by advocacy groups, farmers/producers, federal regulatory agencies, grocery stores, restaurants and lastly food companies and processors. Consumers assign to farmers and advocacy groups more responsibility for the humane treatment of farm animals than to any other group.

Of more than 1,000 respondents to a 2007 Oklahoma State University survey, 52% said personal food choices have a large impact on the well-being of farm animals, and 49% said they consider the well-being of farm animals when they make food purchasing decisions (Lusk JL, et al, Consumer Perceptions for Farm Animal Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey, Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 2007.). This study clearly demonstrated (Table 1) the importance placed on various animal husbandry issues.

Table 1 Importance of Animal Welfare Husbandry Factors

Have ranchers responded to consumer concerns? The fundamental values of animal science have traditionally been improved production and efficiency.  Rollin (2010) argues that the science of animal production and husbandry needs to also respect animal nature, minimize pain and distress, control environmental degradation growing out of production systems, exhibit concern for animal production in rural communities and show concern for animal needs and nature.

It is the cattle farmer’s responsibility to ensure that the focus of scientific research and on-farm animal care continues to improve animal well being. It is the farmer’s job to convey the message that “I care for my animals, and I am competent in providing that care” to the American consumer.

The National Cattlemens’ Beef Association has worked diligently to articulate the “Producer Code for Cattle Care,” which are sound production practices. These practices include:

  • To provide adequate food, water and care to protect cattle health and well-being;
  • To provide disease prevention practices to protect herd health;
  • To provide facilities that allow safe and humane movement and/or restraint of livestock;
  • To provide personnel with training to properly handle and care for cattle and;
  • To make timely observations of livestock to ensure basic needs are being met.

Dr. Dave Daley, Professor of Animal Science at California State University-Chico, predicted how livestock producers can lose an argument over an animal welfare issue (How to Lose the Argument on Animal Welfare – Top 10 Reasons, Southwest Farm Press, March 16th 2010).  Among the predictions he made were:

Do not assume that science will give us all the answers; it only gives us some of the answers. Science does not solve ethical questions;

Argue that economics justifies all of our practices. It makes logical sense for us to say “well of course we treat them well or we will not make money”.  If this is only about making money rather than working with animals, we probably should be in another line of work. We need to convince the public that we truly care about animals, not just about dollars;

Not working hard enough to build coalitions that include the consumers;

Finally, have we asked livestock producers about these issues? The overwhelming majority will respond ”animals have the right to be treated humanely and ethically.”

May 25, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Livestock Producers Need Stocking Rate Reduction Plan

moving cattle montana pastureLivestock producers should have a drought management plan in place prior to pasture turnout in case drought persists into the growing season this year, North Dakota State University Extension Service livestock and rangeland specialists say.

Producers need to have a good idea how to assess available forage, feed and water supplies to determine if they need to reduce their stocking rates or modify grazing plans before they turn their cattle out onto pasture this spring, according to beef cattle specialist Carl Dahlen. The stocking rate is the number of specific kinds of animals grazing a unit of land for a specified time.

Developing a plan early is important because 80 percent of the grass growth on rangeland is dictated by May and June precipitation. Drought conditions during that time will reduce the amount of grass available on pasture and rangeland for the duration of the grazing season, rangeland management specialist Kevin Sedivec says.

If producers don’t reduce the stocking rate to compensate for the loss of grass, overgrazing can result. Overgrazing affects the entire rangeland plant community, leading to a loss of plant species diversity and biomass, soil erosion, weed growth and a reduction in the soil’s ability to hold water, livestock environmental stewardship specialist Miranda Meehan explains. Drought conditions also can lead to increased risk of toxicity from selenium and nitrates in plants.

“It takes a lot longer for the entire ecosystem (plants, soils, water, etc.) to recover if you don’t prepare and take active steps to change management in response to drought,” she says.

She advises producers to use the National Drought Mitigation Center’s U.S. Drought Monitor to keep track of the conditions.

“Selective culling is a quick way to reduce the stocking rate,” Sedivec says.

It also could be profitable because cattle prices are high.

“It’s a seller’s market right now,” he notes.

Culling targets include cows that are old, have a poor disposition or physical structure, or had a difficult time giving birth this spring and have a low chance of rebreeding.

“The importance of records is magnified in times when tough culling decisions need to be made,” Dahlen says. “Good calving and production records can help producers pinpoint cows that could be culled.”

Locating sources of and feeding alternative feeds is another way to reduce the risk of overgrazing.

In cases when surplus wet distillers grains, a byproduct of ethanol production, are available as a result of dryer shutdown or reduced railcar availability, producers may have the opportunity to purchase those grains in early to midsummer at a relatively low cost, Dahlen says. The drawback is that the distillers grains are a wet product, but producers can use storage methods to preserve the nutrient quality until the feed is needed.

Producers also should evaluate hay and stockpiled forage remaining from last year that could be used to delay pasture turnout this year or supplement pasture grass later in the grazing season, Meehan says.

Other options the specialists suggest producers consider if warranted include weaning calves early, providing cattle with creep feed or feed supplements, and feeding cattle in drylots. Weaning early eliminates the cows’ energy demand for milk production, which may result in reduced intake of pasture grasses and improvements in body condition once the calves are removed, Dahlen says.

For more information on dealing with drought, contact the local county Extension office or visit NDSU Extension’s “Ranchers Guide to Grassland Management IV.”

–NDSU Extension Service

May 21, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

How are Checkoff Dollars Collected? | Checkoff Chat

The buyer generally is responsible for collecting $1 per head from the seller, but both are responsible for seeing that the dollar is collected and paid.

The buyer generally is responsible for collecting $1 per head from the seller, but both are responsible for seeing that the dollar is collected and paid.

Q: Who polices the checkoff collection? Is the checkoff really being collected in other states, especially ones that don’t brand like we do in Montana and other Western states?

A: That is a tough one, because state beef councils and the Beef Board can’t police every transaction. To some degree, these collections depend on the integrity of our friends and neighbors. But state beef councils and the Cattlemen’s Beef Board have a variety of tools for following cattle sales, and any private sales discovered after-the-fact not to have paid the checkoff assessment are subject to penalties, fines and late fees. The buyer generally is responsible for collecting $1 per head from the seller, but both are responsible for seeing that the dollar is collected and paid.

The Beef Checkoff Program increases profit opportunities for producers by keeping beef top-of-mind with consumers, restaurants, butchers and other food retailers. It also reaches out to educators, dietitians and medical personnel and influencers. In short, it is always working to ensure a wholesome, quality beef-eating experience consistently.

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilRead more about the Beef Checkoff Programs in our Checkoff Chat Series with the Montana Beef Council. Click here to submit your own questions to be answered in future posts.

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. It assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States retain up to 50 cents on the $1 and forward the other 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval. The Montana Beef Council was created in 1954 by cattlemen as a marketing organization for the Montana beef industry and is organized to protect and increase demand for beef and beef products through state, national and international beef promotion, research and education, thereby enhancing profit opportunities for Montana beef producers.

May 20, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Tips for a Successful Bull Season – Breeding Soundness Exams

Vet Tested. Kid Approved! Image via Jennifer Nielson from Fallon during 2015 Spring Bull Testing

Vet Tested. Kid Approved! Image via Jennifer Nielson from Fallon during 2015 Spring Bull Testing

By Dr. Megan Van Emon, Montana State Beef Cattle Extension Specialist

One of the most cost efficient methods of a successful breeding program is the breeding soundness exam (BSE) conducted on bulls.  Bulls are responsible for breeding 20 to 50 cows each breeding season while cows are responsible for one calf each year.  Having a BSE conducted on the bulls is crucial to a successful breeding program.

The BSE is an exam conducted by veterinarians that includes a physical exam, semen evaluation, and an internal and external exam of the reproductive tract.  Evaluating the feet, legs, teeth, eyes, flesh cover, and scrotal circumference and shape is included in the physical exam.  The semen evaluation includes semen normality and motility.  The BSE should be conducted 30 to 60 days prior to the beginning of breeding.  It is important to note that the bull’s sperm production cycle is approximately 60 days, and if illness, injury or other issue occurs, this could negatively impact the BSE and breeding capability of the bull and may need to be re-evaluated.  An additional BSE can be conducted at the end of the breeding season to determine if bull fertility decreased throughout the breeding season.

Body condition is crucial for bulls during the breeding season.  Having adequate flesh cover during the breeding season is needed to provide the extra energy required for breeding.  Body condition can be impacted by the number of cows the bull is expected to breed, the distance traveled to breed or eat, and nutrition during the breeding season.  A body condition score 6 or sufficient body condition that the ribs appear smooth across the bull’s side is the ideal flesh cover at the start of the breeding season.

Ensuring bulls are structurally sound in their feet and legs is needed to begin the breeding season.  Bulls with unsound feet and legs will have a difficult time walking and mounting for mating if a significant distance needs to be traveled for breeding.  General health of the bull is also needed to ensure bulls have adequate semen quality and the ability to mate.  Scrotal circumference is an essential measure because it is directly related to sperm production, sperm normality, and the onset of puberty.  The external and internal reproductive tract examinations ensure there is no inflammation, abscesses, warts, or penile deviations.

The semen evaluation includes the measurement of semen motility or the percentage of sperm cells moving in a forward direction.  The bulls needs to at least have 30% sperm motility to pass the BSE.  Sperm morphology, or the proper shape, is also determined and at least 70% of the sperm cells should have a normal shape.

If all of the minimum requirements are met, the bull will be classed as “satisfactory.”  However, if a bull does not pass one of the tests, they will be classed as “classification deferred.”  If a bull is classed as “classification deferred,” the bull should be tested again after 6 weeks.  If a mature bull fails the subsequent BSEs, they will be classified as “unsatisfactory.”  A young bull may be “classification deferred,” and pass the subsequent test.  Exercise caution when making bull culling decisions based on a single BSE.

May 18, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Importance of Soil Testing Livestock and Hay Pastures

Image via: nrcs.usda.gov

Image via: nrcs.usda.gov

By Dr. Emily Glunk, Montana State Forage Extension Specialist

I get a lot of questions on the importance of soil testing, and if it’s worth it. My answer: yes.

A soil test can give you a lot of very helpful information that can help in your forage production, for a relatively small amount of money. I like to use the comparison of feeding your livestock to feeding your forages. When we develop a ration for our cattle, we make sure that they are meeting their energy, protein, vitamin and mineral needs so that they can perform to the best of their abilities. Why wouldn’t we do the same for our forages? By neglecting to ensure that there is sufficient Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P), Potassium (K), Sulfur (S), etc. in our soils, we are decreasing that plant’s ability to produce to its maximum potential, also decreasing the amount of nutrients that it can supply to the foraging animal.

The first thing I always ask when people look for advice on forages to establish is “what is your pH?” This piece of information is so important, and can save you a lot of time, money, and headache down the road. However, the only way to accurately estimate this is by performing a soil test.

The pH of a soil is important for a couple of reasons. 1. It gives you an idea of whether or not a species will be able to establish in your soils. For example, sainfoin does not particularly like acid soils, so if your pH comes back at a 6, then you may have some issues getting sainfoin seeds to germinate. And 2. It gives you an idea of the availability of the nutrients in your soil

Not every nutrient is going to be highly available at every pH. Macronutrients, such as Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium are usually more available to a plant at a more neutral to alkaline pH, or a pH greater than 7. Micronutrients like Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu), Molybdenum (Mo), and Manganese (Mn) are typically more available at slightly lower pH, say around 6. Knowing this helps us to cater to the soils, and provide adequate amounts of necessary nutrients for plants.

Image via extension.org

Image via extension.org

Soil tests will also give us an idea of how much of a particular nutrient is already in the soil. This will help us in developing a fertilizer regimen, and potentially save us some money in the long term. Instead of applying the same amount of fertilizer year after year, which may or may not be needed in that particular amount, we can provide only what is necessary to produce a healthy plant.

Nutrients will differ in how long they “stick around” in the soil. Nitrogen is a highly mobile nutrient, and fertilizing annually (if recommended from the test) is usually appropriate. However, because it is highly mobile, we don’t want to over-fertilize, which can lead to nutrient leaching, and wasted money on fertilizer. Nutrients such as Potassium and Phosphorous are relatively immobile, and usually are in the soil for longer periods of time after fertilization. In fact, if a stand is deficient in Phosphorous, and adequate amounts of P are applied, you may not see a huge increase in yield or quality until up to a year after that first application, due to its slow release.

When soil testing and fertilizing, don’t forget to look at the micronutrients. While needed in much smaller amounts that the macronutrients, these can play just as important of a role in forage production and quality. Things like Selenium (Se), Boron (B), and Manganese (Mn) can all be limiting to plant growth if they are in too small of amounts, or too large of amounts as well. With Boron, for example, it can be easy to surpass sufficiency needs and enter into toxic levels of applied B. Soil testing is extremely important in determining exactly how much your plant needs so that you can feed it properly. To help in developing these recommendations, Montana State University Researchers are looking into fertilization guidelines, and have developed several publications, with more still on the way. Most can be found on my website (http://animalrangeextension.montana.edu/forage/) or on the other Extension specialists’ websites as well.

For more information on how to soil test, or if you have any questions, please contact Dr. Emily Glunk at 406.994.5688 or [email protected].

May 8, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Beef Checkoff and Policy Funding | Checkoff Chat

While the Checkoff may provide education and information about beef, it does not fund policy work

While the Checkoff may provide education and information about beef, it does not fund policy work

Q: Does the checkoff fund policy like COOL and the Dietary Guidelines?

A: The checkoff can only be a resource for information about beef and is prohibited from engaging in discussions about policy. Local, state and national policy membership organizations were formed for this reason and they carry out lobbying on behalf of their membership policies.

No checkoff dollars whatsoever have been used in any comments or actions related to COOL by any checkoff contractors or associated organizations on behalf of the checkoff. As the administrator of the Beef Checkoff, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board cannot take a position on policy matters and cannot lobby. These are matters producers should take up with their individual farming and ranching organizations.

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilRead more about the Beef Checkoff Programs in our Checkoff Chat Series with the Montana Beef Council. Click here to submit your own questions to be answered in future posts.

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. It assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States retain up to 50 cents on the $1 and forward the other 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval. The Montana Beef Council was created in 1954 by cattlemen as a marketing organization for the Montana beef industry and is organized to protect and increase demand for beef and beef products through state, national and international beef promotion, research and education, thereby enhancing profit opportunities for Montana beef producers.