Using Corn Stalks for Feed Rory Lewandowski, Ohio State University Extension | Updated: 10/29/2014

As corn harvest progresses, don't overlook corn stalks as a feed resource. Corn residue can meet the nutrient needs of ruminant livestock that are in early to mid-gestation. The University of Nebraska has done a lot of research on the topic of grazing corn residue. A University of Nebraska study conducted over a 5 year period from 2004 to 2009 measured corn grain left in the field after harvest. An average of 1.0 bu/acre was available for livestock grazing. A 2004 Nebraska beef report on corn stalk grazing included more information about the make-up of corn residue. Generally, stalks account for 49% of the residue dry matter, leaves 27%, husks 12% and cobs another 12% of the residue dry matter. Livestock typically consume any corn grain first. After the grain, plant leaves and husks are eaten and the last portions of residue eaten are cobs and stalks.
Strip grazing across a corn field can even out the nutritional quality because livestock will be forced to consume both the higher and lower quality components of the residue within a given grazing period before the fence is moved to provide a new strip. According to a South Dakota State University Extension publication entitled "Grazing Corn Stalks" a crude protein (CP) content of 8% and a total digestible nutrient (TDN) content of 70% can be expected early in the grazing period. Over time the nutritional content will decrease to 5% CP and 40% TDN. A 2004 Nebraska beef report on corn stalk grazing listed the average TDN value at 54-55%.
The University of Nebraska has a corn stalk grazing calculator spreadsheet available at: http://beef.unl.edu/learning/cornStalkGrazingCalc.shtml. I entered a 165 bushel/acre corn crop and an animal weight of 1400 lbs. According to the calculator, using a 50% harvest efficiency, one acre of this corn stalk residue could provide up to 60 grazing days for that 1400 lb. beef cow.

Commentary: The Big Fat Surprise: Part II Dan Murphy | Updated: 10/28/2014

Does it make sense that the foods people have eaten for millennia — meat, milk, eggs butter — should suddenly become enemies of public health? Plenty of scientists 50 years ago thought so.
“The Big Fat Surprise” Part II. Yesterday: An interview with author Nina Teicholz, noting that the decades-long claim that foods with fat are unhealthy has little basis in science. Today: How sound science and common sense got stampeded in an effort to address an epidemic of heart disease back in the 1960s.
It was almost 300 years ago that the French philosopher Voltaire declared that, “Common sense is not so common.”
Of course, he was speaking French, so it would have sounded quite different, but a more recent development proves his point: Without anything remotely resembling the kind of rigorous scientific verification we demand these days, a handful of researchers in the 1960s managed to alter the eating habits, the dietary recommendations and the health status of the entire nation — for the worse.
All by twisting what too many “experts” believed at the time was rock-solid common sense. Here’s how it all happened, as condensed from Nina Teicholz’s detailed research and compelling prose.
As the postwar years progressed through the late 1940s and 1950s, much was right with the country. Although so much of Europe and Asia lay in ruins following World War II, the American economy was humming, jobs were plentiful, suburbs were exploding and freeways were spreading across the countryside to service our prosperous, mobile economy.
It was all good, except for an alarming rise in heart attacks. For two decades, heart disease, which had been relatively unknown in the 19^th century, was rapidly becoming epidemic. By 1955, when President Eisenhower famously suffered a heart attack in the White House, annual mortality from heart disease had peaked at more than 425 deaths per 100,000 people.
Something had to be done, and along came a charismatic, self-promoting researcher named Ancel Keys, who came to what seemed like a logical conclusion. Keys observed that while well-nourished Americans were dropping dead from killer heart attacks, war-ravaged countries in Europe, where meat, milk and eggs were scarce, were seeing rates of cardiovascular disease declining significantly. Keys reasoned that high-fat foods that had high levels of saturated fat and cholesterol, were responsible for clogging the arteries of American businessmen, and he proceeded to sample diets and disease rates across a number of European countries.
His landmark — and now infamous — Seven Countries study determined that southern Italy’s “Mediterranean diet,” with olive oil and pasta replacing butter and meat, was the ideal choice to combat heart disease. The notion that foods low in animal fat were protective, and that the saturated fat and cholesterol found primarily in animal foods were bad news soon became gospel.
Forget the traditional dietary wisdom that focused on choosing “nutrient-dense” foods, which provided protein, vitamins and minerals. Postwar America no longer had to worry about undernutrition; our problem was overconsumption of steak and burgers, the newly anointed experts declared, foods that were deemed too “rich,” too high in fat and loaded with too much cholesterol to continue as the central components of our diets.
The cholesterol conundrum
Unfortunately, Keys’ study was riddled with flaws. He cherry-picked data (and countries), and like all dietary studies, his failed to account for any number of potentially confounding variables. Yet his aggressive promotion of what seemed like sensible advice convinced Sen. George McGovern, whose Senate committee fashioned a report echoing Keys’ claims, a report that soon became the template for USDA’s first Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
You can guess what it said: Cut back on saturated fat and cholesterol, which meant eat less red meat, and switch instead to plant-based foods, which in reality meant eating lots more carbohydrates, and not the whole-grain foods nutritionists like to promote, but processed and fast-foods loaded with sugar and sweeteners to replace the “bad” calories from fat.
Soon afterwards, the American Heart Association, the most influential organization involved in fighting the growing problem of cardiovascular disease, became staunch advocates of the low-fat diet. At the prestigious National Institutes of Health a new group was formed called the National Cholesterol Education Program, which was tasked with convincing Americans to lower their cholesterol levels by eating food with less cholesterol in them.
The reality that the human body manufactures cholesterol — a vital component of nervous system tissues — whether or not we are ingesting it in our daily meals did not seem to make a difference. The initiatives launched to reverse the alarming levels of heart disease was nothing less than a full-on crusade, and it swept up many a skeptical scientist in the fervor of reversing America’s No. 1 Public Health Enemy.
By the 1980s, the medical establishment, public health officials and the national media were all united in spreading what was a powerful message, one particularly focused on housewives: If you don’t want your husband to drop dead from a heart attack, stop buying so much beef — even though he loves it — and switch to pasta, fish or poultry. It got so bad that a TIME magazine cover featured “The Bad News about Cholesterol,” with fried eggs and bacon arranged in the opposite of the iconic smiley face pose.
And it worked. The statistics that any meat industry veteran can recite practically from memory showed that beef consumption began a serious slide around the mid-1970s and didn’t stop for another 30 years. Even worse, the notion that the saturated fat in red meat, whole milk, butter and eggs was bad news in terms of cardiovascular health became so solidified that even today, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who truly believes that eating animal foods are perfectly healthy. Even devoted carnivores adopt an “I don’t really care” attitude, and convince themselves they’ll beat the odds they stubbornly believe will likely result in premature death for plenty of otherwise healthy meat-eaters.
Just not them.
Despite a lack of solid science, and despite eons of human nutritional history — indeed, the very physiology we have all inherited evolved on a diet of wild game — the majority of people who consume animal foods regularly do so with at least a twinge of guilt.
When, in fact, we should embrace meat, dairy and eggs, as humanity has always done. Because they’re nutritious, healthy, natural and perfectly suited to support growth, development and lifelong well-being.
The path toward reversing the negativity that clings to animal foods (and thus animal agriculture) begins by going back in time to understand how and why the “fat is bad” message first emerged.
The best way to do that is to read “The Big Fat Surprise.” Pick a chapter, any chapter, and it will provide enough material to fuel a week’s worth of enlightenment.
Tomorrow: Summarizing Teicholz’s analysis of what the science actually says about what foods we should eat, and what dietary choices are best-suited for lifelong strength and health.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.

A Big FAT Review - Mary Soukup, Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork

 Updated: 10/24/2014

Eating meat – let’s see – it causes cancer, heart disease and chronic obesity and maybe a third eye, purple hair and an extra limb or two. Right? Isn’t that what most “experts” say?

 It was until Nina Teicholz decided to take the meat, butter and dairy naysayers head-on in her best-selling The Big Fat Surprise, and next week, Dan Murphy will have a five-part, in-depth review of her work.
Teicholz spent her career covering food and nutrition issues for publications like Gourmet and Men’s Health magazines, and reporting for National Public Radio. She has contributed to the New Yorker, the Economist, the New York Times, and Salon. She’s spent time in academia and earned degrees from Yale, Stanford and Oxford University.
And while her latest work may make the case for the meatcase, she is not a rancher or have any other direct tie to raising cattle or producing beef. Those of us in the industry (and my finger is pointed right back at me right now too) can talk ‘til we’re blue in the face about the healthful benefits of meat, but we’re biased. We've got dirt on our boots and a "steak" in the game (pun intended).
Teicholz, through a nine-year-long investigation, narrows in on the benefits of dietary fat as it relates to better health, wellness and fitness. According to www.thebigfatsurprise.com, “Science shows that we have been needlessly avoiding meat, cheese, whole milk and eggs for decades and that we can, guilt-free, welcome these “whole fats” back into our lives.”
Amen.
So what did Dan Murphy learn from his interview with Teicholz and what can you expect to glean from the five-part series next week? Here are a few tidbits:

• An in-depth background of the book – the why and how Teicholz decided to tackle this topic, and the response she’s received so far.
• How and why politics trumped science in the late 1960s and 1970s, resulting in red meat becoming enemy number one in our nation’s battle against cardiovascular disease.
• Why science supports the nutritional value of meat’s role in the center of the dinner plate.
• Looking forward – promising research is being conducted today that may help change public opinion.
• A summary of Teicholz’s most powerful arguments in favor of animal agriculture and including meat in a healthful, nutrient-dense, well-balanced diet.

By the end of the week, Murphy’s hope is that you will walk away with the knowledge to “counter skeptics concerns over red meat,” be ready help educate and convince folks who are “confused about optimal dietary choices” and “absolutely crush the veggie believers who try to elevate their restrictive diet to a near-religious status it doesn’t deserve.”
Stay tuned. This promises to be an informative and entertaining series!

Beef Cattle Browsing – September 2014

• Beef Cattle Browsing
  

  Editor: Dr. Stephen Hammack, Professor & Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Emeritus
  • Archives

Beef Cattle Browsing is an electronic newsletter published by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University. This newsletter is a free service and is available to anyone interested in beef cattle.  Media, feel free to use this information as needed and cite Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Browsing Newsletter, Dr. Steve Hammack.

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY
A recent survey was conducted to evaluate consumer perceptions of food technology. Some of the interesting findings regarding labeling of food were:
- 74% of consumers could not think of additional information they’d like on labels,
- 8% wanted more information on nutrition,
- 5% wanted more information on ingredients,
- 4% wanted more information on biotechnology or related subjects,
- 63% supported current labeling of biotechnology production only if nutritional content is significantly changed or there is a potential safety concern such as an allergen,
- 19% (up from 14% in a 2012 survey) disagree that current biotechnology labeling is sufficient.
On the topic of food biotechnology perceptions:
- 71% said they know something about plant biotechnology,
- 28 % had favorable perceptions toward plant biotechnology,
- 28% (up from 20% in 2012) had unfavorable perceptions,
- 43% were neutral or did not know enough to comment,
- more aged 18-34 had favorable perceptions than those over 34 years of age.
Regarding how biotechnology should be used in food production:
- 72% said to increase healthful fat content (such as Omega-3 fatty acids),
- 69% said to reduce potential for carcinogens,
- 69% said to protect from insect damage and reduce use of pesticides,
- 67% said to enhance nutrition,
- 67% said to eliminate trans-fat content.
As to perceptions of modern agriculture, responses were:
- 74% agreed that farming with modern tools and equipment can be sustainable,
- 72% agreed modern farming can produce high quality and nutritious food,
- 68% agreed modern farming produces safe food,
- 52% agreed that modern farming is primarily family operated.
“Sustainability” received the following responses:
- 57% had read or heard about sustainability related to food production,
- 66% said it is important to produce food sustainably,
- 26% (down from 33% in 2012) would spend more for food produced sustainably.
(Food Insight of 5/28/14, International Food Information Council Foundation)

EFFECT  OF  TRACE  MINERAL  INJECTIONS  ON  PRE-WEANED  AND  POST-WEANED  CALVES
One-half of a group of 150 Brangus-crossbred calves were injected at 100 and 200 days of age with 1 ml of a product containing 60, 10, 15, and 5 mg/ml of zinc, manganese, copper, and selenium, respectively. The other one-half were injected at the same times with saline solution. All calves were weighed on days 100, 150, 200, and 250 when weaned. Liver biopsies were taken from 12 calves per treatment on days 150, 200, and 250. Trace-mineral injections had no effect on ADG but did increase concentration of copper and selenium in the liver.
In a second study, one-half of a group of 34 weaned heifers was weighed and injected with 2.5 ml of the product described above on day 0, 51, and 127. The other half was weighed and injected with saline solution at the same times. On day 177 heifers were weighed and liver samples taken. ADG and selenium concentrations were significantly higher for the group receiving trace-mineral injections.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:2630; Univ. of Florida)
MARBLING – JUST  A  LITTLE  CAN  MEAN  A  LOT
Marbling, the flecks of fat within muscle, is the primary determinant of official USDA Quality Grade. Marbling is officially evaluated in the ribeye between the 12^th and 13^th ribs, i. e., where a carcass is separated into forequarter and hindquarter.

Slight marbling is the minimum required for USDA Select and Small marbling is required for USDA Choice. As can be seen above, just a few flecks divide those two grades, but that can mean a lot of money. Over the last few years the average spread between Choice and Select is about $8-9/cwt carcass, but has ranged from $0-20/cwt. Modest marbling gets a carcass into upper 2/3 Choice, the minimum required for most branded high-quality programs such as Certified Angus Beef. The premium for CAB over Choice currently is about $4/cwt carcass. Slightly Abundant marbling and higher results in a grade of USDA Prime. That premium currently is about $20/cwt over CAB. However, only 3-4% of fed beef grades Prime.
How is marbling determined? Until recently it was done exclusively by an official grader’s eyeball. Now, grading is increasingly done by instrument, subject to adjustment by a grader. Properly calibrated instruments should result in the most accurate and repeatable evaluation. Regardless, higher marbling usually means higher value. How much higher depends on the value spreads, and those still depend largely on supply and demand.
AN  ALTERNATIVE  PROGRAM  FOR  SYNCHRONIZING  HEAT ?
A common program for synchronizing heat for artificial insemination is the 5-day CO-Synch + controlled internal drug release (CIDR) protocol. The standard 5-day protocol includes an initial administration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) at insertion of an intravaginal progesterone releasing device (CIDR) followed 5 days later by 2 doses of prostaglandin (PGF2α), given approximately 8 hours apart, and CIDR removal and timed artificial insemination (TAI) with a second GnRH 72 h after PGF2α. A study was designed to evaluate the necessity of the first administration of GnRH and of two PGF2α doses rather than one. The study involved four locations and 823 Angus X Simmental, Angus X Hereford, Charolais, or Angus yearling heifers:
At CIDR insertion, one-half of all heifers received GnRH and one-half did not. At CIDR removal, all heifers received PGF2α. All heifers were TAIed and all received GnRH 72 hours after PGF2α. Pregnancy was diagnosed at 32 and 38 days after TAI.
At CIDR withdrawal, presence of a new corpus luteum was significantly higher in the group receiving GnRH twice. However, there was no significant difference in pregnancy rate to TAI between heifers receiving GnRH twice (50.5%) or once (54.9%). The authors concluded that omitting the initial GnRH administration did not influence pregnancy rate and that only one dose of PGF2α was effective.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:4198; Ohio St. Univ., Univ. of Minnesota, Univ. of Wyoming)
EFFECT  OF  TYPE  OF  BERMUDAGRASS ON  FORAGE  CHARACTERISTICS  AND  ANIMAL PERFORMANCE 
Alicia, Jiggs, and Tifton-85 bermudagrasses were evaluated over four consecutive years. Weaned, 9-month old 3/8 Gelbvieh, 3/8 Red Angus, 1/4 Brahman steers averaging 554 lb initially were grazed for an average of 112 days from June to September. Before grazing started, hay was cut and pastures were fertilized with 40 lb N/acre. Forage samples were taken when grazing started (day 0) and on days 28, 56, 84, and 112. A free-choice mineral-vitamin mix (containing 12% Ca, 6% P, 10% NaCl, trace minerals, and 2000,000 units Vit. A) was provided throughout the grazing period.
As expected, percent crude protein and digestibility declined during the summer grazing period. Alicia had lower digestibility than both Jiggs and Tifton-85, resulting in significantly better performance on Tifton-85 (1.21 lb ADG) and Jiggs (1.12 lb ADG) than Alicia (0.79 lb ADG).
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1228; Louisiana St. Univ., Mississippi St. Univ.)
ESTIMATES  OF  TEMPERAMENT  IN  BRAHMAN  AND  BRAHMAN-CROSS   
Over a 10-year period, 1209 Brahman and Hereford X Brahman calves weaned at average of 186 days of age were evaluated for temperament. Temperament was evaluated as 1) chute velocity, time taken to travel 6 feet from squeeze-chute release, 2) pen score, a subjective estimate of “willingness to be approached by a human” where 1=nonaggressive to 5=very aggressive, and 3) temperament score, a combination of chute velocity and pen score. Evaluation was done 28 days before weaning, at weaning, 28 days after weaning, 56 days after weaning, and yearling.
Heritability was 0.27 for exit velocity, 0.49 for pen score, and 0.43 for combined temperament score. For all three evaluations of temperament, measures were highest (less desirable) 28 days after weaning. Pen score tended to be lower as dam age increased. Exit velocity tended to increase as age at weaning increased. Pure Brahman had statistically significantly higher pen scores than Hereford X Brahman (2.91 vs. 2.49). However, since these averages are both in the middle to high range of the slightly aggressive #2 category they may not indicate important practical differences in behavior. Also, exit velocity and combined temperament scores did not significantly differ for the two genetic types.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:3082; Texas A&M Univ., Mississippi St. Univ.)
HOW  FAST  SHOULD  HEIFERS  BE  DEVELOPED ?
Over two years, spring-born, weaned Angus heifers initially averaging 557 lb were developed for 202 days on a ration of grass-alfalfa hay with some barley supplement. Heifers were fed to reach either 55% (moderate gain, MG) or 62% (high gain, HG) of anticipated mature weight of 1400 lb. The higher rate of gain was accomplished by feeding 28% more digestible energy during the development period.
Development cost was significantly lower for MG ($58/head or 23% less). At the end of the development period, HG weighed significantly more than MG (872 lb vs. 778 lb) and were significantly higher in BIF Frame Score, rib and rump fat cover, and internal pelvic area. At the end of development in June, all heifers were placed on the same pasture and breeding commenced. At start of breeding, significantly more HG were cycling than MG (52% vs. 20%). MG gained significantly more than HG during summer grazing (1.83lb/day vs. 1.55 lb/day) but by pregnancy check in October HG were still significantly heavier (1054 lb vs. 990 lb) and higher in Body Condition Score (2.8 vs. 2.6 on 1-5 scale). Pregnancy rate did not significantly differ, (88% for HG and 86% for MG).
The study was continued for re-breeding as 2-yr-olds and 3-yr-olds. As 2-yr-olds, HG continued to be significantly heavier just before calving but this was not the case for 3-yr-olds. There was no significant difference in first- or second-calf birth date, % calved in first 21 days, birth weight, calving difficulty, weaning weight, cow BCS, or rebreeding %. As has been found in other recent research, development to first breeding of approximately 55-57% of anticipated mature weight is more economical and results in no reduction in performance, if nutrition is adequate during breeding.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:3116; Univ.of Saskatchewan, Univ. of Nebraska)