WyomingLivestockRoundup

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 19 November 2011 00:00

Written by Steve Paisley

By Steve Paisley, UW Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Fall hay prices, as well as increased overall feed, fuel and fertilizer costs have dramatically affected all producers’ production budgets.

Despite relatively good cattle markets, high out-of-pocket input costs have affected management and nutrition decisions for the cowherd. Often the immediate response by producers has been to reduce overall inputs into the cowherd.  Moving calving date, windrow grazing and deferred winter grazing are all methods to reduce overall feed inputs into the herd. Unfortunately, reducing or eliminating supplementation programs may also be considered as a way to reduce annual costs. While every producer should be interested in ways to reduce costs, current research indicates pre-calving management is still very important to the cowherd, and that cutting back or eliminating pre-calving supplementation of spring-calving herds may have important consequences to consider.

Research in the 1960s and 1970s suggested that cow condition and management prior to calving was important. Data from the University of Wyoming in 1975 showed that cow nutrition 30 days prior to calving had a dramatic effect on calf health and survivability. However, in recent years, attempts to dramatically reduce cow-calf input costs by changing management styles and pushing back calving date have perhaps lulled us into forgetting how important pre-calving nutrition is, not only to the cow, but more importantly to the calf.

Several recent studies all indicate that pre-calving nutrition, while having variable responses in the cow, almost always shows a positive response in the calves produced from those pregnancies. A study conducted at the University of Wyoming in 2003 (Table 1) suggests that cows will respond to a high-fat pre-calving supplement by positively impacting the immune transfer to the calf. In this case, cows were fed a traditional corn/SBM supplement or high fat supplement (safflower meal) for 60 days prior to calving. Calves were sampled 12 to 24 hours after birth to determine the level of transfer to the calf. Antibody transfer, as well fatty acid transfer, was enhanced by feeding the supplement for two months prior to calving. While they were unable to show a significant impact on overall health, number of calves that were treated for sickness, was reduced by supplementation.

Two Nebraska studies (Tables 2 and 3) have also shown that pre-calving supplements are beneficial not only for weaning weights, but also for subsequent pre-breeding weights and overall conception rates of heifers produced from those pregnancies. Both of these studies were three-year experiments designed to evaluate the impact of pre-calving supplements. The two studies report a 13-pound (steers) and 17-pound (heifers) increase in weaning weights, perhaps explained by the immune transfer data in Table 1. Assuming that a 42 percent cube costs approximately $400/ton, and cubes are fed for 90 days, feed costs for supplementing are approximately $18/cow. Granted, there are no equipment and labor costs included in this calculation, but I would argue that we can effectively supplement cows three times per week to get the same response, and cattle are routinely checked at least two times per week, anyway. Not factored into the potential benefits are the small, positive improvements in first service conception rates with the cows, as well as the large positive impact reported in heifer calves produced from these pregnancies.

Finally, some additional information from a cooperative project between Miles City USDA-ARS Ft. Keogh and the University of Wyoming suggests that pre-calving management may also impact carcass quality and meat attributes. In this study, cows during the last third of gestation grazed either a native range pasture or were moved to improved (higher quality) meadows. The cows were separated, grazing native range or improved pasture, for 60 days. Immediately prior to calving, the cattle were moved together and managed similarly as one group. Calves were weaned and backgrounded in Miles City, and were finished at the University of Wyoming. Steers that originated from dams grazing improved pasture had more adipose (fat) cells within the ribeye muscle, and ribeye steaks from these same steers were more tender (lower shear force values) than steers originating from dams grazing native range. This may have implications for vertically integrated beef systems, and also for those producers who finish their own cattle and direct market their beef to consumers.

The studies reported above all suggest what we have always known – that “you can’t starve a profit out of a cow,” and that management decisions often have not only direct effects, but system-wide impacts. Pre-calving nutrition may appear to be an area to reduce costs, especially if you are moving calving and breeding dates to later in the spring, but there still may be consequences for pre-calving management not only on calves produced that spring, but also in the replacement females that are kept and remain in the herd.

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 12 November 2011 00:00

Written by Amy McLean

By Amy K. McLean, UW Extension Equine Specialist

There are many factors that can affect the welfare of our horses when they’re transported. It has been reported that horses that go on one to six trips a year have a higher incidence of colic compared to horses that travel more than six trips a year.

Things that can create stress in your horse during transportation include extent of social isolation, travel duration, hydration status, ventilation and air quality, temperature and humidity, previous transport experience, means of restraint and the horse’s temperament. It’s important to keep both you and your horse(s) safe during transportation.  

Precautions should be made prior to hauling, such as checking the floor, brakes and lights on the trailer. The rig should be in good operating condition before putting you or your horse at risk. One should also consider checking for insects, especially if the trailer is not used on a regular basis. Trailers can make excellent habitats for stinging insects to build nests. By being prepared and checking your rig prior to traveling, you can help reduce the stress of your horse being hauled.

During a haul it’s not unusual for horses to show an increase in white blood cells, weight loss, dehydration and changes in body temperature. These physiological changes in the horse’s body during traveling can cause a decrease in your horse’s immune response. Often times the horse’s heart rate will also be increased while the trailer is moving.

To decrease stresses in your horse, consider offering your horse a hay bag/net and having your horse travel with a companion. For long hauls that are six to eight hours long, consider rest stops. Many state parks, or even county fairgrounds, have areas where you can unload your horse and let him stretch. This is also a good time to offer water to your horse. Depending on the weather, some may choose to supply water during hauling, too, but keep in mind that, if the water spills, it could compromise the horse’s footing in the trailer. You can also offer your horse electrolytes to encourage him to drink, but keep in mind you may need to offer twice as much water because of the substance higher in salt.

Other things to think about when hauling include adding a flavor to your horse’s water to encourage him to drink. Typically, horses prefer sweet tastes to bitter or citrus tastes. Also, consider bringing enough hay so if you do have to buy and change to new hay you can do so gradually.  

Other things to consider when hauling include protective gear for your horse. Most hauling injuries occur during the deceleration period and happen to the lower limb. Ideally, you want to make him as comfortable as possible and safe as possible.     

Many people may choose to wrap legs or use shipping boots. These items are helpful in keeping a horse’s lower legs safe during hauling if they are used appropriately. Loose standing wraps can actually create more harm by coming unwrapped, or allowing bedding to irritate the horse’s leg, versus no wrap if they are not properly placed and wrapped on the horse’s leg. The same is true for shipping boots. Make sure the boots fit your horse and stay in place.
In regard to hauling with blankets and sheets, consider the weather and how much ventilation your trailer offers. Tightly enclosed trailers generally stay warm from the body heat of the horses, so consider possibly a medium weight or light blanket versus their winter turnout blanket. In trailers with more ventilation, such as stock type trailers, consider a heavier blanket if hauling in the winter.

If you happen to transport your horse by air, follow the same guidelines you would follow for preparing your horse to travel by truck. Many horses are flown today and generally experience the same stress as horses being hauled in trailers. During take off and landing an increase in heart rate will be seen, and an increase in body temperature will often be noted. Horses flying for nine hours may take up to seven days to return to normal pre-flight ranges for both heart rate and temperature.

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 05 November 2011 01:00

Written by Anowar Islam

Sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.), an introduced perennial forage legume, can be considered for use as a good alternative to alfalfa.
Sainfoin is well adapted to calcareous soils (i.e. high calcium and high pH) with low phosphorus. It has excellent drought tolerance and very good cold hardiness, but poor tolerance to poor drainage and high acidic soils (low pH). It is very comparable with alfalfa, especially for quality and animal performance; however, hay yield may be slightly lower than alfalfa, depending on the location. It is very palatable and nutritious, and is preferred over alfalfa by cattle, sheep and deer. Some important advantages with sainfoin are that it does not cause “bloat” problems in cattle and has no or little insect pests. Some cultivars of sainfoin (e.g. ‘Shoshone’) are resistant to alfalfa stem nematode. Although sainfoin seems to perform well in low phosphorus soils, anecdotal evidence suggests that sainfoin may positively respond to high phosphorus.

Do we have enough evidence in Wyoming that would support the above statement of phosphorus requirement in sainfoin? The UW Department of Plant Sciences has recently initiated a study at the Powell Research and Extension Center that aims to answer the question. The overall goal of the study is to determine appropriate dose response of sainfoin to added phosphorus and to establish management strategies.

To accomplish this goal, the sainfoin cultivar Shoshone was established in 2007 at the Powell Research and Extension Center. Five phosphorus levels (0, 20, 40, 60 and 80 pounds P2O5 per acre) were applied on May 6, 2009 and the whole set of treatments was repeated four times to obtain accurate response. The same phosphorus treatments were also applied on a newly established (2009) sainfoin plots to understand whether sainfoin responds to added phosphorus when sainfoin is already established.

Different growth information, especially forage yield and quality, are being continuously monitored and recorded. No differences were observed among the treatments for forage yield in 2007?planted sainfoin; however, numerically the highest yield was obtained in 2009?planted sainfoin with phosphorus treatment of 60 pounds P205 (5-6 tons per acre from two harvests).  

Likewise, no differences were observed in forage quality among different phosphorus treatments indicating that phosphorus does not alter or change forage quality. Old sainfoin stands and surface application of phosphorus may have contributed to this non?significant result. In 2011, a new stand of sainfoin was established and phosphorus treatments were incorporated into the established plots.

It is early to conclude or provide specific recommendations for phosphorus requirement in sainfoin from this study; however, the preliminary results indicate that sainfoin may have positive response to added phosphorus, especially if phosphorus is incorporated properly into the soils. It is anticipated that the study will provide useful information for producers in the region.

Anowar Islam is an assistant professor and the UW Cooperative Extension Service Forage Agroecologist in the Department of Plant Sciences in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He can be reached at 307-766-4151 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 29 October 2011 01:00

Written by Rachel Mealor

By Rachel Mealor, UW Extension Rangeland Specialist

The intentional importation and cultivation of plant species from abroad has been occurring since the first settlers came to America. It has contributed to a highly productive agricultural system, beautiful parks and landscapes and hours of enjoyment for the backyard gardener.

Introduced forage species have increased the productivity of many livestock operations and have added increased flexibility in supplemental feeding programs. On the other hand, importation and improvement of plant materials from abroad has also led to the unintentional development of highly invasive weeds.

Some of the most problematic invasive weeds were introduced intentionally, for the purpose of ornamental plantings, forage production or erosion control measures. To be fair in this discussion, most introduced species fail to establish, and only a small portion of those that establish spread and cause ecological or economic problems.

There are many biological barriers that must be overcome upon introduction into a new environment. Is the introduced species adapted to the new climate and soils? Are other members of the same species near enough to allow for reproduction? Is pollination possible with local insects? Is genetic variation sufficient to allow for adaptation to new conditions? Although this is not an exhaustive list, it illustrates the point.  

Species that have been intentionally introduced (rather than accidentally introduced) often have higher genetic diversity, which may contribute to a higher probability of overcoming potential genetic barriers to successful invasion. Multiple introductions from various source populations, which may occur during plant selection and breeding for desirable traits, can result in genetic combinations that display a high level of invasiveness. For example, eight to 12 species of Tamarix (saltcedar) were brought to the U.S. from Eurasia in the 1800s for shade and erosion control. A subset of these species (including hybrids of the originals) has invaded and impacted well over one million acres of riparian and wetland habitats in the Western U.S.

Another invasive plant, kudzu, was intentionally introduced into the southeastern U.S. in the early 1900s for forage and soil stabilization. Millions of cuttings were distributed by government agencies for landowner use. Today somewhere around 10 million acres are infested with kudzu, many of those acres where it was not intentionally planted, but are now dominated by the invasive weed. Cogon grass and Johnson grass are two more examples of forage species that have become widespread and problematic invasives.

It must be noted that each of these species was chosen for desirable characteristics such as low pathogen susceptibility, palatability to livestock, perennial growth habit, easy establishment and vigorous growth, extensive root systems, etc. These characteristics, although desirable from a forage or erosion control standpoint, may also contribute to the species’ ability to invade and dominate intact vegetation communities. The impacts of such species go far beyond their ability to reduce erosion or act as a forage source. They can alter other important ecosystem properties such as species diversity, nutrient cycling, and physical structure, thereby having a net negative impact on the system from both an agricultural and wildlife habitat standpoint.

One of the difficulties in predicting invasiveness or stating whether a species has invasive tendencies is a phenomenon called a lag phase. Very few, if any, species introductions have immediately resulted in rapid spread and impact across a region. Most introduced species undergo a relatively long period of spread latency, where their population stays localized and may not move into surrounding areas. Invasion ecologists call this the lag phase. It has been hypothesized for many plant species to be somewhere around 20 to 75-plus years, depending on the species. After the lag phase, true invasive species enter into an increase/spread phase where they actively move into surrounding areas and experience exponential growth.  

Like many issues in life, the introduction, improvement and use of imported plants for reclamation, habitat improvement, environmental engineering and forage sources is not as clear-cut as we might hope. I have received numerous requests for information regarding forage kochia (Kochia prostrata) over the past several weeks.

Forage kochia may fall squarely into this ambiguous category. “Immigrant” forage kochia, the most widely planted cultivar, was released in the U.S. in 1984 (first research planting in the ‘60s) and has been planted on 200,000-plus acres of semi-arid rangelands. It is a perennial half shrub with an erect growth form that can develop an extensive tap root and fibrous root system. Attributes that make it desirable include: it can prevent accelerated soil erosion on degraded sites, it provides livestock and wildlife with forage and cover, and it may suppress invasive species like cheatgrass, halogeton and Russian thistle. It has also been described as having the ability to increase plant species diversity and improve the establishment of other desirable species, while reportedly not being invasive.

Given the characteristics possessed by forage kochia and its time since introduction, an alternative explanation for its reported lack of invasiveness may be that it is still in the lag phase of invasion. Recent research in Idaho (M.S. thesis by Erin C. Gray) suggests that this may be the case. An evaluation of 28 forage kochia plantings ranging in age from three to 24 years documented spread to adjacent, unseeded areas in 89 percent of the sites. Spread ranged from zero to over 2,200 feet away from the seeding boundary, with a mean distance of around 650 feet. Additionally, forage kochia plantings had decreased species diversity, but an increase in abundance of exotic annual forbs.

We cannot generalize too much given this study, because the observed tendencies likely depend on factors such as forage kochia seeding rate, the ecological sites where it was planted, management of the surrounding rangelands, etc. Also, these observations were in lower elevation habitats than we deal with in Wyoming, but they indicate forage kochia has a higher probability of invading than what has been previously stated by proponents of forage kochia.

Am I making a clarion call to prevent the planting of forage kochia in Wyoming? No, but I do recommend that we proceed with caution when deciding to perform large-scale plantings of a species that may have the potential of becoming an ecological problem in the future. Ongoing research at UW is investigating the utility of forage kochia for reclaiming difficult-to-reclaim areas, and into its potential as a supplemental forage for livestock producers… both commendable goals for such a species. We should also balance these and other efforts with a thorough understanding of how to manage the species, should it have unintended consequences, as well.