March 16, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

What’s the deal with sainfoin?

Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Dr. Emily Glunk, Montana State Extension Forage Specialist

I have been getting a lot of questions on my travels around the state about sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia), and how can it fit into forage production in Montana.

Sainfoin is a legume, with a bright pink flower (although they can also be white or purple), and leaves with 11-21 leaflets. It may grow a little taller than alfalfa in certain environments, but a lot of times we are seeing similar production results.

One of the biggest benefits of sainfoin is that it is a non-bloating legume, which means that not only is it valuable in hay production, but we can also safely graze our livestock on it without having to worry about any bloat issues. In addition, because it is a legume, it is providing Nitrogen back to the soil via nitrogen fixation, which is a huge benefit and a large reduction in cost. Because let’s face it, the cost of fertilizer these days can be a little hard to swallow. When we add sainfoin, or other legumes, in a mixture with other grasses, we can significantly reduce or eliminate the amount of Nitrogen that we need to apply (however, soil samples should always be taken to know exactly how much we need to fertilize and with what).

We also know that sainfoin is very palatable. I have even heard it described as being “too palatable” (if you can imagine that) with it being preferred by wildlife over alfalfa and other forages. It has been described as being slightly more drought-tolerant than alfalfa, although it likes a little higher average precipitation, typically over 14” of annual rainfall. However, some producers actually state that they have had better luck with sainfoin in dryland situations than alfalfa, although this may not always be the case. It also likes soils with a pH above 7, and it seems to prefer coarser soils, or calcareous soils.

Another huge benefit is that sainfoin does not exhibit the allelopathic, or autotoxic effect that we see in alfalfa. This means that when we have a declining stand, or one that is producing below our desired goals, we can interseed more sainfoin, or allow itself to interseed naturally. This is a huge benefit, as we don’t have to worry about completely renovating our stand.

Typically, we see sainfoin mature at a quicker rate than alfalfa. One study found that sainfoin reached full maturity (100% bloom) while alfalfa was only at 78% bloom.

The same study also recommended that for the highest yield of both dry matter and nutrients that you harvest when sainfoin is closer to full maturity, a little different than that of alfalfa. We do see slightly lower crude protein values when the plants are compared at similar maturities, but they have similar TDN (total digestible nutrients) concentrations, and in some cases the NDF and ADF (see previous column, “The case for RFQ” for an explanation) were actually lower in the sainfoin compared to alfalfa. Because sainfoin is able to retain its lower leaves better than alfalfa, we see a slower decline in nutrient quality through the growing season, another added benefit.

Another interesting thing about sainfoin is that it seems to have a natural resistance to glyphosate (Roundup). This does not mean that it won’t have significant yield reductions like RoundUp Ready alfalfa  after glyphosate application, but when varying rates of glyphosate were applied to a stand of sainfoin over two years in Wyoming, the stand was able to survive glyphosate application. However, it should be noted that it did have a significant reduction in yield. Even glyphosate applied at a rate of 8 fluid oz. per acre resulted in a significant yield loss. However, the stand was able to recover the following year after in the low-rate treatments. So while it may potentially be a tool for weed control, it should not be a first resort.

So what are the drawbacks? Sainfoin can be finicky to get established, and it seems to take a little bit longer than other forages such as alfalfa. It also requires significantly higher seeding rates than alfalfa, which can prove costly. Also, when being grown in a mixture with many forage species, alternate seeding is more conducive to adequate stand establishment than a complete mixture.

This is especially important when it is grown with bunchgrasses like Russian wildrye and crested wheatgrass. Another limitation to establishment is that it does not like soils with high water tables, or soils that are poorly drained. We also recommend that you do not graze for two seasons after planting to allow it to get established.

Care should be taken when harvesting and grazing sainfoin so that there is still some leaf area remaining. Sainfoin does not store carbohydrates during the summer, and relies on photosynthesis for regrowth, hence the need for extra leaf area.

On average, we typically see alfalfa persisting for longer periods of time than sainfoin, but there are stands that are over 20 years old in Montana. The biggest problem that producers have is that it is a little more susceptible to root and crown rots than alfalfa, this typically being the reason that a stand needs to be terminated. But, especially in a rotational setting, sainfoin can be a great option to look at.

Overall, sainfoin is a great forage, with a lot to offer to Montana producers. If you have any questions or comments, contact Dr. Emily Glunk at 406.994.5688 or [email protected].

March 4, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPD)

megan van emon msu extension beef specialistBy Megan Van Emon, Montana State Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Expected progeny differences (EPDs) estimate the genetic value of one animal over another of the same breed.  EPDs are calculated using statistical equations and models and use known information on that animal that is submitted by the breeder, which can include data from the animal itself, ancestors, relatives (i.e. brothers and sisters), and progeny.  Adjustment factors are used to adjust for data such as age and sex.  Another factor that is considered when calculating EPDs is the environment from which the animal comes.  Most commonly, EPDs are used to compare bulls within the same breed.

For example:

Bull 1 has a weaning weight EPD of 30.  Bull 2 has a weaning weight EPD of 17.  If both bulls were bred to a similar group of cows, we would expect calves from Bull 1 to average 13 pounds (30 – 17 = 13) heavier than Bull 2 at weaning.

Numerous other EPDs are used to compare bulls, such as scrotal size, birth weight, ribeye area, feedlot merit, calving ease, mature daughter’s weight, milk, etc.  Numerous other EPDs are available and can vary by breed.  EPDs are calculated and reported in the same unit of measurement as the trait (i.e. birth weight in pounds; fat depth in inches).

EPDs do NOT predict the actual birth weight, weaning weight, index value, etc of an animal.  They only predict the expected difference between animals.  If you want to know the average performance for a specific trait within a breed, many breed associations have sire summaries.

An accuracy value is also included with each EPD trait.  The accuracy is used to determine the reliability of the EPD and will be reported as a number between 0 and 1.  Accuracy increases towards 1 as more data is reported for a specific animal.  It is also important to note that as the accuracy moves closer to 1, the EPD of the trait for that bull will not change significantly in the future.  Young bulls that do not have any progeny data rely on data from ancestors for accuracy, which is usually from 0.1 to 0.4.

EPDs can be compared across breeds, if the proper adjustment factors are used.  Breed adjustment factors are developed at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska and are updated each year.  The base of the comparison is to Angus EPDs.  Comparing EPDs across breeds is less accurate than comparing within the same breed.

It is important to note that EPDs do NOT guarantee a specific difference on each animal.  EPDs are constantly changing as more data is added for each bull.  As more data is added to the system for a specific bull, extreme values are averaged out.  Extreme values can occur, even in a high accuracy (high reliability) bull.

EPDs should be used as a management tool for your cow herd, but should NOT be the only tool.  Physical appearance, or phenotype, should also be a tool used when selecting bulls.

February 24, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

The Case for Relative Forage Quality When Feeding Cattle Hay

Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist

Feeding represents a large portion of the production and maintenance cost of animals. Some estimate that feeding can represent over 70% of the annual costs of maintaining a livestock herd, with hay representing a significant portion of that cost. Making sure that we are buying quality feedstuffs, and feeding in appropriate amounts, is critical in ensuring that we are being as economical as possible. In recent years, the cost of hay has increased significantly, and so efficient purchasing is critical.

A hay analysis is key in knowing the quality of the hay, how much to feed our animals, as well as being helpful in the buying process. Tools such as Relative Feed Value (RFV), which can be found on a hay analysis, have traditionally been used to compare hay. RFV uses fiber estimates, the acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) portions of a hay analysis, to estimate the quality of the hay. This has been helpful in comparing between two types of similar hays, i.e. comparison of two alfalfa or two grass hays, however, it does not tell us everything about the availability of the fiber or other nutrients in that hay.

Several years ago, University of Wisconsin researchers developed a new method of comparison, called Relative Forage Quality, or RFQ. This value takes into account not only the fiber components of the plant, but the digestibility of those components as well. This tool is extremely helpful in telling us a little more about what may be available to the animal to use from that forage.

The ADF portion of a plant analysis is an estimate of the cellulose and lignin portion of the plants, cellulose being slowly fermented by the rumen or hindgut microbes before it can be converted into energy for the animal. Lignin is indigestible by both mammalian and microbial enzymes, and so is completely unavailable to the animal. Because it includes the parts of the plant that are relatively indigestible, ADF has been found to be negatively correlated to digestibility of plant material. This means that as ADF increases, digestibility of the plant decreases.

The NDF portion of a plant includes both cellulose and lignin, similar to ADF, but also includes hemicellulose, a fiber that is fermented more rapidly than cellulose by microbial enzymes in the hindgut or rumen. NDF has been found to be negatively correlated to intake, so as NDF increases, intake will decrease. This is largely a function of gut fill, so as an animal consumes a more fibrous feed, it will take less to fill up the gastrointestinal tract, thereby decreasing intake.

The problem with RFV is that it does not evaluate the availability of the nutrients. On average, a grass will typically have more fiber than a legume. However, the fibrous portion of grasses are  usually more digestible than the fibrous portion of a legume. Relative forage quality, RFQ, was developed to help account for that, using total digestible nutrients (TDN) in the calculations. This will be a better indicator of what is available to the animals and the microbes within that animal to use, and convert to energy. RFQ is typically going to be higher in grasses than the RFV value, while legumes may slightly decrease.

RFQ and RFV are also a great means of evaluating who got a “better deal”. Typically, if the RFQ ends up being higher than the RFV, then we say that the buyer got a better deal. This is because initially, with RFV, we may have thought that the forage was more indigestible than it actually it, which was shown in the RFQ. If the RFQ is lower than the RFV, we like to say that the seller got the better deal, as the forage was higher in indigestible fiber, so less is going to be available to the animal to use.

It must always be kept in mind that both RFV and RFQ are to be used only as a comparison between hays, its purpose is not to aid in ration balancing, but as an evaluation and buying tool. For any questions, please contact Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist, at 406.994.5688 or [email protected].

February 10, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Proper Winter Hay Storage

Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Dr. Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist

There have been a lot of questions lately concerning how to properly store hay over the winter. The main goal with winter storage is to maintain quality and decrease any dry matter losses that we might incur. Minimizing exposure to the winter elements, especially precipitation which can decrease both hay quantity and quality, is our top priority.

Hay is the most common feeding option during winter, as it is less risky than other options such as stockpiling, and we know how much, or rather how long, our stores will last. However, not only is it important to have enough tonnage to support our herd, but also that we are maintaining the quality of our hay throughout the season.

The ideal storage for hay is inside, out of the elements, in a well-ventilated structure, whether this be a barn, shed, or a pole structure. Unfortunately, in Montana this is often not possible. So next we need to decide what are some other feasible methods of decreasing exposure to the elements. Leaving hay outside completely uncovered increases dry matter losses, ranging anywhere from 5-40% dry matter loss. Quality is also decreased, with some of the water soluble nutrients, like water-soluble carbohydrates, potentially leaching from the hay. This can decrease the overall energy available from the forage. Other components, such as nitrates, can move within the hay stack, and become concentrated in the lower bales, creating a potentially toxic feed for our animals.

Regardless of bale size and shape, it is advised to keep the forage off of the ground. Whether you stack it on pallets, fence posts, or even a well-drained gravel base, this will help to minimize loss. Storing bales on bare ground can cause an estimated 5-20% loss in dry matter, which can add up pretty quickly and account for over half of total dry matter losses. Even if the ground immediately below the hay is not receiving moisture, the surrounding soil is, which will leach into the soils directly underneath the hay stack. It is common to see molding occur on the lower bales due to direct contact with wet soils. The same sort of issues can occur even on concrete floors, as concrete is great at absorbing moisture, so make sure to keep this in mind even if your hay is being stored under a shelter.

Covering the tops of bales with something such as a large tarp or water-resistant canvas will help to divert moisture away from the stack. Make sure that there is some overhang of the tarp over the side of the stack, so that lower bales are not accumulating moisture. If bales are not going to be covered, it is advised to keep stacks small, as water from upper bales will penetrate directly into lower bales, increasing the number of damaged bales.

Ventilation is really important in continuing the drying process after bales become wet. For example, it is best to keep round bales in single layers placed end-to-end, with several feet in between rows to increase air flow and circulation around all bales. Bale density is also really important. The tighter the bale, the better it will be able to withstand winter precipitation and damage. Loosely-packed bales will “pick up” more moisture, and it will penetrate throughout more of a bale than a densely-packed bale.

Wrapping round bales will help to significantly decrease any quality and yield losses from winter storage if the equipment and resources are available. A study found that six layers of plastic wrap is ideal, as it is the optimal trade-off between money spent on wrapping and amount of hay lost to the elements.

Proper storage of your hay is really important in ensuring that your animals will have enough roughage to get through the cold winter months. Decreasing exposure to the elements is the most important factor, and minimizing the number of bales that are exposed to the winter elements will help to minimize total quality and yield losses.

February 3, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

MSU Extension and MSGA Announce 2014 Steer of Merit Certifications

MSU Extension Montana Nutrition Conference and Livestock ForumMontana State University Extension and the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) distinguished 118 “Steers of Merit” out of 930 entries for 2014. Out of 622 steers entered in the Carcass Division, 76 were deemed Steers of Merit. In the Ultrasound Division, 42 out of 308 entries received the distinction.

“The Steer of Merit award promotes and recognizes the production of the highest quality of Montana beef with carcass characteristics that meet the U.S. beef industry’s standards of excellence,” said Errol Rice, MSGA’s executive vice president. “We are proud to sponsor this great youth program that teaches and awards 4-H and FFA beef projects that have met or exceeded these industry benchmarks in order to meet both domestic and global consumer demand for the 21st century.”

The exhibitors and breeders of the top five steers in each category were honored at MSGA’s Annual Convention, Dec. 11-13 in Billings at the Holiday Inn Grand Montana. The top five steer entries in the Carcass Division were:

  1. Sydney Greenslade, Beaverhead County (Probst Livestock, breeder)
  2. Blake Toyne, Beaverhead County (John & Sandy Dixon, breeder)
  3. Skyler Frame, Lake County (Skyler Frame, breeder)
  4. Kenny Pauley, Beaverhead County (Roberts & Heffner, breeder)
  5. Cierra Lamey, Beaverhead County (Cory Lamey, breeder).

The top five steer entries in the Ultrasound Division were:

  1. Jake Kraft, Yellowstone County (breeder unknown)
  2. Levi Mydland, Carbon County (Bryan Vincent, breeder)
  3. Raegan Nansel, Yellowstone County (Gillespie Livestock, breeder)
  4. Tysa Oswald, Carbon County (Oswald Farms, breeder)
  5. David James, Big Horn County (Colt Johnson, breeder).

The number of Steer of Merit certifications for 2014 decreased by 17 steers, with 14 fewer entries submitted compared to 2013.

“Steer of Merit certification decreased slightly in 2014 compared to 2013,” said Rachel Endecott, Montana State Extension Beef Cattle Specialist. “Most areas of the state had good cattle feeding weather and conditions in summer 2014. Cattle might have been able to finish quite easily and this may have resulted in slightly lower overall cutability in the entries.”

The Montana Steer of Merit program was initiated in 1967 as a joint effort between the Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana State University Extension. The program was designed to measure, record, and improve carcass characteristics in beef cattle. Data from these carcasses has been summarized and analyzed statistically. Over time, significant increases have been made in quality grade and in yield grade, or cutability, indicating that cattle can be selected for leaner carcasses with higher cutability and still maintain high quality grade as reflected by marbling.

To be designated a Steer of Merit, carcasses are evaluated by a qualified individual using information that relates to yield of lean meat and eating quality. Beef carcasses must meet criteria set by the Steer of Merit Committee in the areas of hot carcass weight, dressing percent, fat thickness over 12th rib (back fat), total rib eye area, yield grade, percent cutability, and quality grade. Computer software programs help compile data and rank carcasses for state and county awards. Data is also analyzed periodically to track genetic and feed management progress. The minimum standards for Steer of Merit are reviewed each year and the program is updated to meet the changing industry standards.

For more information about the Steer of Merit program call Rachel Endecott, Montana State Extension Beef Cattle Specialist at (406) 994-3747.

January 28, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

When and Why to Body Condition Score Cattle

megan van emon msu extension beef specialistBy Dr. Megan Van Emon, MSU Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Body condition scoring is a management tool that can be used to evaluate the nutritional status of beef cattle. The tool uses a numeric score, 1 to 9, for evaluating the fleshiness, or body energy reserves, of the beef cow and does not require the gathering and working of cows. Body condition score utilizes a score from 1 to 9, with 1 being emaciated and 9 being very obese, with the ideal BCS being 5 to 6. Areas considered when evaluating body condition score include the brisket, back, tail head, hooks, pins, and ribs.

Body condition scoring should be measured throughout the year at strategic time points during the production cycle. Body condition should be evaluated at the beginning of the breeding season, 90 days prior to calving, calving, late summer, weaning, 45 days after weaning, and fall. Maintaining the optimum BCS throughout year is crucial to maintaining reproductive efficiency and cow and calf health.

Evaluating BCS 90 days prior to calving will allow those thin cows to be separated and fed accordingly to improve body condition. Late gestation adds increased stress on the cow due to the rapid growth of the calf. Having adequate body condition at calving reduces the stress on both the cow and calf. Cows at optimum body condition at calving produce healthier calves and are able to maintain peak lactation compared with thin cows.

If cows are thin at calving, the pre-calving nutrition program or weaning dates may need to be changed. It is difficult for thin cows to gain body condition immediately after calving, which requires large amounts of high quality feeds. This may not be an economically viable decision.

Maintaining adequate BCS reduces postpartum interval compared with thin cows and will improve pregnancy rates after a 90 day breeding season. A BCS 5 or 6 improves pregnancy rates drastically compared with a BCS of 4. Therefore, having cows in good body condition during the breeding season improves pregnancy rates.

Measuring BCS between breeding and weaning (late summer) allows for nutritional adjustments to be made. If cows are thin heading into weaning, early weaning can be considered to reduce the stress on the cow. Early weaning of thin cows lets those cows regain condition before heading into the winter months and the increased nutrient demands during late gestation.

Cattle Body Condition Scoring Megan Van Emon MSU Extension

Analyzing BCS at weaning allows for thin cows to be separated and fed apart from the fleshy cows. This will help the thin cows regain body condition before heading into fall. This is also a time to focus on young cows that are weaning their first calf, as they are more likely to be thin compared to the older cows.

Evaluating body condition 45 days after weaning gives you a good idea if cows are regaining condition after weaning. If thin cows are not regaining body condition, then nutritional adjustments can be made before entering the winter months.

Condition scoring cows during the fall allows for the critical evaluation of feed resources. Most years, the fall months include reduced pasture availability and quality, which makes it difficult for cows to regain condition. Those cows that are thin heading into winter can be fed separately with supplemental feeds to improve body condition.

December 9, 2014 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Tips for Cattle Vaccination Programs | 10 Things To Know

By Rachel Endecott, MSU Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Rachel Endecott, Montana State University Extension Beef Cattle SpecialistAs fall work starts to wind down, thoughts might turn to preparing for the next year of production and all the supplies that come with it. Vaccines are an important part of a herd health program, and this piece will cover some background and considerations about vaccines and beef cattle production. This overview is not meant to recommend vaccination programs, but will provide definitions of terminology and suggestions for effective vaccination.

Just what is a vaccine, anyway? One technical definition is a “suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms or the antigenic proteins derived from them.” Let’s take that piece-by-piece: in this case, the suspension is a liquid that contains particles (microorganisms or proteins from them) that are mixed with the liquid but are not dissolved in it.

Attenuated means altered, usually in a way that makes something less severe—modified-live vaccines contain attenuated microorganisms. Killed vaccines contain killed microorganisms. Antigenic means that a substance causes an immune response—vaccines with this formulation contain a protein from the microorganism that is source of the immune response.

Successful vaccination depends on three critical factors: an effective vaccine, a functioning immune system, and administration of the vaccine before exposure to the disease. A vaccine may be ineffective if it is mishandled, if a booster is required but not given, or because of antigenic differences between the vaccine and field strains of the microorganism to which an animal is exposed.

An animal’s immune system may be unresponsive to vaccination because of age—a young calf’s immune system might not be fully functional at the time of vaccination, or antibodies from maternal colostrum still present in the calf inactivated the vaccine. Inadequate nutrition may also cause an animal’s immune system to be unresponsive to vaccination. Two other reasons for vaccine failure include that the animal was incubating the disease when vaccinated and that the duration of immunity after vaccination was inadequate.

Some tips for effective vaccination include:

  1. Read and follow label directions. If you are unsure, consult your veterinarian or call the vaccine company directly before using the product.
  2. Follow proper Beef Quality Assurance guidelines.
  3. Sterilize equipment between uses. Modified-live vaccines are sensitive to disinfectants, so do not use chemical disinfectants in syringes or needles for MLV use.
  4. Refrigerate and store vaccines as directed on the label. Be sure appropriate temperatures for the vaccine are maintained when they are away from the refrigerator.
  5. Keep vaccines out of sunlight, even when in the syringe.
  6. Mark syringes to avoid mixing or incorrect dosage.
  7. Mix only enough vaccine to be used in one hour or less.
  8. Choose correct needles for the job, and replace often.
  9. Keep records of vaccinations used.
  10. Good sanitation, management and nutritional practices are necessary to achieve the best results from vaccination programs.
November 12, 2014 1 Comment Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Concerns When Feeding Frosted Alfalfa


Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist

I have been getting many calls and emails from agents and producers about how to graze their frosted alfalfa. The biggest concern with grazing frosted alfalfa is the potential for bloat. Bloat is a serious problem in livestock, especially cattle, and preventative measures must be used when animals are placed in bloat-inducing situations, such as grazing alfalfa.

While a very nutritious forage, with high energy and protein values, grazing of fresh alfalfa comes with its risks. Typically, if a pasture is less than 50% alfalfa, there is a reduced occurrence of bloat. Care must always be taken when grazing alfalfa, even “non-bloating alfalfa”. “Non-bloating” or “bloat-safe” alfalfa have lower amounts of soluble proteins, the cause of bloat in ruminants. However, animals should still be monitored, because even though it is considered “safe”, bloat can still occur.

Why does alfalfa cause bloat in the first place? Soluble proteins in forages and other small particles within the cells of the plant are rapidly released once they reach the rumen. These proteins and particles are attacked by slime producing rumen microbes, which cause a buildup of stable foam. The foam decreases the animal’s ability to expel rumen gases that are created from fermentation of plant material. These gases begin to accumulate, causing pressure on the diaphragm, leading to bloat. In severe cases, the rumen can become distended, and death may occur.

montana alfalfa bloom feeding ranching hay cattleSo when does alfalfa become “safe” to graze? This seems to be the money question, as you will find several different answers. We know that we can feed pure alfalfa hay to ruminants, without causing any issues. This is because that forage has gone through a drying process, and the soluble proteins are significantly decreased. But at what point does it become safe, and what are some strategies that we can implement to decrease the risk of bloat?

Some things to consider are the environmental effects. Freezing of alfalfa, and grazing frosted/ frozen alfalfa, can significantly increase the chance of bloat. After a frost, the intercellular liquids freeze, and can puncture the cell walls, causing the cell to “burst” and contents to leak out. Soluble proteins will be released, and the incidence of bloat will be increased. If cattle are out grazing alfalfa during a frost, remove them immediately.

Some studies say that only three days are necessary after a frost to allow soluble proteins to decrease, however others cite that waiting five to seven days is safer. As a precaution, I generally recommend waiting about a week after a hard killing frost before grazing the alfalfa, at this point the plant has significantly dried down and the risk of bloat will be reduced.

Other recommendations for grazing frosted alfalfa include:

  • If it was not a killing frost, then wait until the alfalfa is in full bloom rather than bud to early bloom to graze. Soluble proteins decrease with increasing maturity.
  • Make sure that cattle are not turned onto alfalfa hungry. Feeding with a non-bloating forage beforehand will decrease the likelihood of bloat as they will not consume the alfalfa as rapidly
  • Monitor cattle for bloat several times throughout the day, especially when they begin to graze
  • Consider including the bloat preventative poloxalene (Bloat Guard) into your ration

Livestock that are suffering from bloat will begin to swell rapidly on the left side. If it is a severe case, the animal can die within the hour, which is why it is important to be constantly monitoring your animals. Kicking at their sides or stomping their feet are other signs that the animal is experiencing discomfort. If you notice any of your animals exhibiting these signs, make sure to call your veterinarian immediately.

November 10, 2014 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Concerns When Feeding Sprouted Grain to Cattle

megan van emon msu extension beef specialistBy Megan Van Emon, MSU Extension Beef Specialist

Summer in Montana has been a wild ride. Because of the weather, grain harvest was delayed in many areas, and some barley and wheat have sprouted in the seed heads.  These sprouted grains, although not suitable for traditional markets, can be used as a feedstuff for livestock.

Based on the research, sprouted grains have similar feed value to non-sprouted grains.  Daily gains and feed efficiency in the feedlot are similar between cattle consuming non-sprouted or sprouted grains.  However, due to the high starch content of wheat and barley, feeding below 20% of the total ration on a dry matter basis is recommended to minimize incidences of acidosis.  For the greatest benefit of feeding wheat and barley, either sprouted or not, the kernels should be rolled or cracked, and should never be self-fed or used for creep feeding. Fine grinding of wheat and barley should be avoided.

grain cattle ranch feeding montanaMajor areas of concern when feeding sprouted grains are proper storage and the potential development of mold and mycotoxins.  Proper storage of the sprouted grains is crucial to maintaining quality and limiting mold growth.  If moisture levels are less than 13 percent, it can be stored as you would ordinarily store grain. When determining moisture levels of a field, make sure multiple samples are collected.  Moisture content may vary across the field depending on topography and wind, which would cause uneven drying the sprouted grain.  If moisture levels are greater than 13%, ensiling may be a better option for storage.  Sprouted grains can be ensiled in silos, bunkers, or storage bags.  Whole grain does not pack well, so rolling or cracking of the grain should be done prior to ensiling.  Sprouted grains, such as barley and wheat, can be layered with corn silage during silage packing to ensile the sprouted grain.

Due to high moisture of the sprouted grains and with cool weather conditions, mold may develop. If mold is seen on sprouted grains, it is recommended to collect multiple samples from the field. Proper drying of sprouted grains may occur on the outer edges and will be less susceptible to mold and mycotoxin production compared to the center of the field. Mold and mycotoxin levels should be assessed prior to feeding or harvesting because they can be hazardous to both humans and livestock. Barry Jacobsen, MSU Extension Plant Pathology, cautions that the dose of the mold or mycotoxin is very important when feeding potentially moldy feed. Jacobsen suggests that when submitting samples to labs, mold species and genus should be identified if possible. If mycotoxins are present in the sprouted grains at moderate levels, the sprouted grains should be combined with clean, non-moldy feed to reduce mycotoxin levels. For more, please contact your local Extension Office.

November 4, 2014 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

MSU Extension offers advice on evaluating soil health

Image via: nrcs.usda.gov

Image via: nrcs.usda.gov

BOZEMAN – Experts with Montana State University and MSU Extension have recommendations for growers on evaluating soil quality and health.

The concept may seem subjective, but there are ways to measure and improve soil health. It takes time to measure, monitor and manage to improve soil health, but it can be worth the effort for potential benefit in sustainability and productivity.

“With ‘soil heath’ now being a frequently heard term, we want agricultural producers to be aware of what factors contribute to soil heath and how they can be reliably measured,” said Clain Jones, Extension soil fertility specialist at MSU.

Soil productivity is influenced by its chemical characteristics, physical structure and biological activity. Measurements of these properties provide an estimate of the soil’s ability to produce crops. Indicators of soil productivity can be tracked over time, compared in side-by-side fields, or compared to a reference soil and are useful to assess the effect of management or evaluate problem areas.

Chemical soil characteristics, including pH, soil organic matter, nutrient levels and cation exchange capacity are often part of routine soil analyses done by analytical labs. The physical properties such as available water holding capacity (also called plant available water), bulk density, porosity and aggregate stability, are also most reliable if measured by an accredited lab, yet not all labs perform these measurements. Field tests are available for many of these soil properties but they often rely on subjective interpretation of potentially imprecise measurements. Microbial activity is also important, yet has the least defined set of measureable factors by which it can be quantified.

For a quick assessment of soil health, get out a shovel and dig. Compare a cropped soil with undisturbed fence-line soil. How deep do roots go? Does it break apart easily? Does it smell earthy? Is there evidence of worms? Darker color indicates more soil organic matter or soil carbon.

“The shovel test can give the grower an idea of their soil quality and identify what problems they might be facing,” said Jones.

Major steps towards increasing soil health are to reduce tillage, increase crop diversity and reduce fallow time by including alternative crops or cover crops into the rotations.

For more detailed information on soil health indicators and measurements, see Jones’ The Soil Scoop on his website, or contact Clain Jones at [email protected] or 406-994-6076.