How Much Hay Will A Cow Consume? Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist November 4, 2019 09:57 AM

Estimating forage usage by cows is an important part of the task of calculating winter feed needs.  Hay or standing forage intake must be estimated in order to make the calculations.  Forage quality will be a determining factor in the amount of forage consumed.  Higher quality forages contain larger concentrations of important nutrients so animals consuming these forages should be more likely to meet their nutrient needs from the forages.  Also cows can consume a larger quantity of higher quality forages.
Higher quality forages are fermented more rapidly in the rumen leaving a void that the animal can re-fill with additional forage.  Consequently, forage intake increases.  For example, low quality forages (below about 6% crude protein) will be consumed at about 1.5% of body weight (on a dry matter basis) per day.  Higher quality grass hays (above 8% crude protein) may be consumed at about 2.0% of body weight.
Excellent forages, such as good alfalfa, silages, or green pasture may be consumed at the rate of 2.5% dry matter of body weight per day.  The combination of increased nutrient content AND increased forage intake makes high quality forage very valuable to the animal and the producer.  With these intake estimates, now producers can calculate the estimated amounts of hay that need to be available.
Using an example of 1200 pound pregnant spring-calving cows, lets assume that the grass hay quality is good and tested 8% crude protein.  Cows will voluntarily consume 2.0% of body weight or 24 pounds per day.  The 24 pounds is based on 100% dry matter.  Grass hays will often be 7 to 10% moisture.
If we assume that the hay is 92% dry matter or 8% moisture, then the cows will consume about 26 pounds per day on an “as-fed basis”.  Unfortunately we also have to consider hay wastage when feeding big round bales.  Hay wastage is difficult to estimate, but generally has been found to be from 6% to 20% (or more).  For this example, lets assume 15% hay wastage.  This means that approximately 30 pounds of grass hay must be hauled to the pasture for each cow each day that hay is expected to be the primary ingredient in the diet.
After calving and during early lactation, the cow may weigh 100 pounds less, but will be able to consume about 2.6% of her body weight (100% dry matter) in hay.  This would translate into 36 pounds of “as-fed” hay per cow per day necessary to be hauled to the pasture.  This again assumes 15% hay wastage. Accurate knowledge of average cow size in your herd as well as the average weight of your big round bales becomes necessary to predict hay needs and hay feeding strategies.
Big round hay bales will vary in weight.   Diameter and length of the bale, density of the bale, type of hay, and moisture content all will greatly influence weight of the bale.  Weighing a pickup or trailer with and without a bale may be the best method to estimate bale weights.
Utilizing the standing forage in native and Bermudagrass pastures to supply much of the forage needs during fall and early winter months will reduce hay feeding.  An appropriate supplementation program will help the cows digest the lower quality roughage in standing forage.
When standing forage is in short supply or covered by snow and ice, hay will become the primary source of feed.  The number of days that hay feeding is necessary is hard to predict going into the winter months.  Looking back at previous years’ records may be the best source of information to help make that determination.

Shop Safety Mini Series Produced by the Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention and Education October 2019

					Torch Safety Perhaps some of the most versatile and useful tools in a shop environment are torches. They can be used for brazing, soldering, cutting, bending, and other tasks.   Types of Torches Oxyacetylene torches use a combination of highly flammable acetylene gas and oxygen to make a flame burning 6,330 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the only torch able to cut steel. Oxyacetylene torches are widely used for underwater welding and cutting activities, heat treating stone, and fire polishing glass, in addition to more everyday shop tasks. Acetylene tanks and hoses are red, and oxygen tanks and hoses are green or black. Plumber’s torches can be found in many shops as well, since they are more compact. Most of these are propane fueled, burning at about 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit. They are mainly used for soldering copper pipes or loosening stuck fasteners and are not powerful enough to cut, braze, or melt most metal. They can also be found fueled by butane, propylene, or a blend of gases. Safety The cylinders or “bottles” used to hold fuel for oxyacetylene are under immense pressure. Acetylene is kept at about 3000 psi. Combine this with acetylene’s explosive abilities, and the tanks become a hazard. When transporting the cylinders, always remove the regulator and install the valve cap. Chain cylinders to prevent their falling over. An oxygen cylinder with over 2,000 psi in it becomes a lethal projectile if it falls over and its cylinder valve is damaged. Always keep them vertical. Also, keep hoses and tanks away from flame. When using the torch, use the correct tip size and pressure. This can cause the flame to 'flashback' and travel into the hose and potentially into the tank. This is usually accompanied by a loud popping or hissing sound. Flashback arrestors should also be employed to prevent this. Although torches are not as dangerous as welding, they still produce eye damaging light. Eyewear with a shade of 2-5 should be worn. Also, many metals, alloys, and anti-rust coatings give off harmful fumes when heated. Galvanized metal is notorious for this. Always make sure to be in a well ventilated area when using a torch. Never oil regulators, valves, or torches, as oil is flammable. Always bleed off the hoses when finished with the torch, and always light fuel first, then introducing oxygen. Finally, do not use oxygen as a substitute for compressed air, to blow off clothes or surfaces. The oxygen is absorbed by clothing and makes them extra flammable in the event of ignition. Stay tuned next month for the last article in the Shop Safety Mini Series.  Make sure to take the quiz below to see if you know how to be safe around torches. References and Photo Sources: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/376050637611386192/ https://www.harrisproductsgroup.com/en/Expert-Advice/tech-tips/oxy-fuel-equipment-safety-guidelines.aspx https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2004/05/01/soldering-copper-pipe-2

USDA Abruptly Halts Animal ID Plan Greg Henderson October 28, 2019 10:06 AM

APHIS says the need for ADT still exists. ( FJ )

USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced Friday (Oct. 25) it has suspended its plan to phase-in the use of electronic ID (RFID) tags for cattle and bison.
APHIS said in a statement the policy shift was in response to executive orders from President Trump that have highlighted the need for transparency and communication of issues “before placing any new requirements on American farmers and ranchers.”
In April APHIS announced its plan for Animal Disease Traceability with a factsheet posted to its web site. The factsheet detailed USDA’s plan to transition to radio frequency identification (RFID) tags from metal ear tags for cattle and bison. At the time, USDA said it would stop providing free metal tags, though approved vendors would still be permitted to produce official metal tags for one year. On Jan. 1, 2021, USDA would end approval of vendor production of metal ear tags with the USDA shield.
The animal disease traceability (ADT) plan set January 1, 2023, as the date all animals that move interstate and fall into specific categories would need official, individual RFID tags. The plan specifically omitted feeder cattle.
In its statement withdrawing those regulations, APHIS said it has “listened to the industry’s feedback.”
One of the loudest voices against RFID was heard earlier this month when R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Casper, WY, seeking to halt the plan. Joining the suit were the New Civil Liberties Alliance and rancher plaintiffs Kenny and Roxie Fox of Belvidere, SD, and Tracy and Donna Hunt of Newcastle, WY. The suit alleged the proposed requirements were in opposition to USDA’s own policy that had previously allowed the use of a number of different kinds of identification including metal tags.
In its statement Friday, APHIS said the factsheet was removed because it “is no longer representative of current agency policy.”
Despite the executive orders whitdrawing the ADT plan, APHIS acknowledged the continuing need for a national animal ID plan.
“While the need to advance a robust joint Federal-State-Industry Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) capability remains an important USDA-APHIS objective, we will take the time to reconsider the path forward and then make a new proposal, with ample opportunity for all stakeholders to comment,” the APHIS statement said. “We continue to believe that RFID devices will provide the cattle industry with the best protection against the rapid spread of animal diseases, as well as meet the growing expectations of
APHIS said USDA’s goals to enhance ADT have not changed, and the agency aid to:

• Encourage the use of electronic identification for animals that move interstate under the current ADT regulation;
• Enhance electronic sharing of basic animal disease traceability data;
• Enhance the ability to track animals from birth to slaughter; and
• Increase the use of electronic health certificates

American Beef Is A Climate Change Solution, Rancher Says Drovers News Source October 18, 2019 11:33 AM

 

South Dakota cattle producer Todd Wilkinson told a U.S. Senate subcommittee that contrary to the claims of some environmental and anti-animal-agriculture activists, "American beef production and consumption is a climate change solution."

"Climate policies that unfairly target cattle producers fail to recognize the positive role of cattle and beef in a healthy, sustainable food system," Wilkinson told members of the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. "Rather than adopting misguided policies that threaten the viability of farmers and ranchers, we want to shift the conversation."

The subcommittee held the hearing on the issue of "Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-Led Initiatives." In his testimony, Wilkinson discussed the environmental benefits of grazing, and busted myths about the effect of methane on global climate.

"(Grazing) naturally sequesters carbon, a benefit compounded by ruminant grazing," Wilkinson explained. "Grazing builds deep root systems in prairie grasses, which improve soil health. Healthy soils retain more water, sequester more carbon, and increase the resiliency of our ranches."

"Methane emissions from cattle are part of the natural methane cycle," Wilkinson continued. "Within 10 years, more than 90 percent of that methane combines with oxygen in the atmosphere and converts to CO2. Methane has no long-term impact on climate when emissions and oxidation are in balance. And this balance has been maintained for centuries."

Wilkinson, who is co-owner and operator of a commercial cow-calf operation and feeding business in De Smet, S.D., also serves as NCBA's 2019 Policy Division Vice Chairman and as Vice President of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Foundation. He closed his testimony by reminding Senators of producers' long commitment to environmental stewardship.

"The U.S. cattle industry is proud of its history as stewards of our nation's natural resources," he said. "Cattle producers are America's original conservationists, and we work hard every day to ensure that we can pass our operations on to the next generation. My family, and the entire American cattle producing community, is committed to remaining environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable for generations to come."

Related stories:
Dennis Dimick: Living In The Human Age

The Search for Stockmen Kylee Kohls August 22, 2019 01:09 PM

 

 

 

For every rural stock person available, there are two job openings. ( CAB )

The future of food is in our hands, but do we have enough hands to help feed the world?
Courtney Daigle, assistant professor of animal welfare at Texas A&M University, shares ideas on the narrowing supply of quality stockmen and how cattlemen might find more top hands.
“There are fewer people working in agriculture, so there's a limited awareness that stockmanship is a potential occupation,” she says. “A lot of our workforce is made up of immigrants, and some of the challenges we have in retaining and recruiting are influenced by our current policies associated with immigration reform.”
Once a stockman is hired and gets good at their job, it’s hard to keep them because of the low pay and long workdays.
“But it's really important to keep them in place because a critical component of quality care is consistent animal care,” Daigle says. “The animals notice whenever stock people change; not just who's working, but what kind of relationship they had” and the individual animal history.
Quality and consistent care help drive profit and acceptance rates for the Certified Angus Beef ® brand, which climb highest for calves that never had a bad day.
“A good stock person is worth their weight in gold, but a bad one can break the bank,” Daigle says.
One issue is typically low pay for long, hard days, and it matters if one is paid by the hour or by the number of animals handled.
“Pay strategy can sometimes motivate people to perform quickly, not carefully,” which can lead to “sub-optimal handling” and negative perceptions of the occupation. Stock people can also suffer from “compassion fatigue.”
“They may have thousands of animals that they're responsible for in a day – that can be overwhelming – and the people get tired themselves,” Daigle says.
Growing up in cities, she dreamt of working with animals, which is why her BS and early career was in zoology, working with African lions.
“It wasn't until I started working at Texas A&M that I knew what a pen rider was, and I've worked with animals my whole life,” Daigle says. “People can't help that they're born in the cities and so even if they want to work with animals, they may not know there are other opportunities [besides the zoo].”
As her work continued at Texas A&M, she kept bumping into what she calls the “stockman/zookeeper conundrum.” With many similarities between the two occupations, the divide begins with the demand.
For every rural stock person available, there are two job openings; for every zookeeper position, there are 150 applicants.
“Although they are very different scenarios, the occupations and pay are very similar,” says Daigle, noting cities could be viable recruiting areas for those offering jobs in stockmanship.
“We are having a hard time finding people who will be stewards of our food animals. When we start looking around and asking ‘Where is everyone?’ –- they are in the cities.”
She suggests advertising in urban centers for positions such as animal technicians, opportunity to work with a large number of animals.
“Then provide incentive,” Daigle says. “Highlight quality of life based on pay structure, cost of living and geographical locations. By advertising in some of these areas and targeting people who want to work with animals, producers might find a more diverse and better-qualified suite of applicants to fill those open positions.”

 Reprinted from