1

Pasture to Market Providing beef cattle industry information for producers in Louisiana

January—February 2019

Conventional Versus Non-Conventional Beef Production

J. D. Rivera* and T. Dinh**

*MAFES-South MS Branch Experiment Station

**Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University

There is an abundance of misinformation that exists in regards to “Grass fed”, “Natural”, “Organic” and how they relate to conventional

beef production. The two main areas that need clarification are the nomenclature or wording used to describe how these animals are

produced, and the second regards the flavor and health aspects of conventionally produced beef.

Production Standards — In essence, these type systems are aimed towards niche markets. The Organic or Natural producer may be trying

to market his or her cattle to a particular social demographic, which is willing to pay more for those types of products. Those products cost

more since they are more expensive to produce. Data from USDA report that, on average, these niche systems are less efficient than

conventional production systems (Matthews Jr. and Johnson, 2013). These consumers purchase these products based upon perceived value.

While there are many claims that these systems are healthier than conventionally produced beef, there are no scientific data to prove that

claim. Moreover, there have been claims that these systems produce safer (free from pathogens) than conventional beef; however, none of

these claims have been verified by scientific data.

Conventional Beef — The majority of cattle raised in the south will go towards conventional beef production. In this system, calves raised

on farms or ranches will either go directly to a feedyard or they will enter into some type of stocker operation and grown on grass. The

direction those calves go will be based upon available resources and marketing dynamics. Stockers will take advantage of the relatively

inexpensive gain on grass prior to shipment to the feedyard, and the length of time they are grown on grass is dependent upon forage

availability, and marketing decisions.

Once at the feedyard, both stockers and calves will be gradually adapted to a high concentrate (grain) diet and grown to a final slaughter

weight 1200-1300, depending upon the marketing of the cattle (yield versus quality grade). During their stay in the feedyard, in most

instances, they will be given growth promoting implants and fed diets containing ionophonres. Growth promoting implants are adminis-

tered to increase efficiency and gain. Ionophores are additives fed that shift rumen bacteria production to increase the energy derived from

feed, they also inhibit the growth of coccidia. It should be noted that the efficacy and safety of these products have been rigorously tested

by the FDA, and FDA personnel routinely inspect confined feeding operations for adherence to medicated feed usage. Production records

(feed batched compared to feed fed) are evaluated to ensure that label adherence is met. All of the technologies used in conventional beef

production have been thoroughly scientifically vetted to ensure their safety and efficacy. In essence, most of the beef that is found at the

local grocery store was produced in this manner.

Grass Fed Beef — According to USDA, in this system the animals are simply grown on grass or stored forage (hay). The animals can consume

grasses, legumes, or cereal grains in their vegetative state. These animals cannot ever be fed grain, or grain-by products, during this process.

The USDA does allow for mineral and vitamin supplementation. However, the authors note instances where claim “grass fed” is made but

the animals are supplemented feed for a period of time; according to USDA standards those are not grass fed animals. Additionally, no

restrictions are made regarding the use of growth promoting implants for grass fed beef, the only requirement is that they are solely fed

forage for their entire life until they go to slaughter. Therefore, if the consumer strives to purchase meat produced without growth

promoting hormones, grass fed beef may not be the answer.

Natural Beef — This is the tricky one; while some people claim that they have natural beef according to USDA standards, it simply means

that the meat is unadulterated (i.e. no artificial colors, no additives or coloring, preservatives, or other artificial ingredient). Therefore,

according to those standards, most beef purchased is Natural! The tricky part is that USDA also has a Naturally Raised claim.

I realize the following article is lengthy and full of detail, but hopefully you will find it useful as we all work together educating consumers on the

nutritional value of beef . Thanks to all of our cattle producers and grazers who work tirelessly in producing the safest, highest quality beef in the

world!

2

(Continued from page 1)Naturally Raised — USDA defines this as being cattle raised without the use of growth promoting implants,

ionophores, antibiotics, nor are the animals allowed to consume animal by product feed (i.e. feather meal, blood meal, etc.). Cattle are

allowed to receive ionophores if they have been used to control parasites, however, the producer must make that claim. There are no

other restrictions regarding what they may be fed; therefore, these cattle marketed under naturally raised can be fed high grain diets.

This is probably the most common niche that we see.

Organic — This one is probably the most difficult one to achieve due to all the restrictions. In essence USDA states that Organic beef is

produced without use of antibiotics, ionophores, animal byproducts (think Naturally Raised). However, the land that they are grown on

must fall under organic standards (i.e. no chemical pesticides, herbicides, or conventional fertilizer); moreover, any feed fed to these

animals must have been grown under organic standards as well (grain produced without chemical pesticides, herbicides or conventional

fertilizer). Additionally, cattle grown for slaughter in this program must have been on the program 3 months prior to their birth! When you

consider the length of time it takes to get an animal ready for slaughter, and you think about the feed requirements, it is easy to see how

this can be difficult to achieve.

Nutritional values and quality of beef, grain-fed vs. grass-fed

All beef cattle are fed with grass at some point in their life. They can be finished on grass or grain, depending on what is best for specific

operation, including the marketability of beef from such an operation in a specific market. No beef production system can be sustained by a

sole feeding regime. However, the most common myth is that grass-finished beef is safer and healthier than grain-finished beef. Not only

does no conclusive evidence support such a claim, but also many nutritional composition studies have reported that grass-finished and

grain-finished beef had very similar nutritional composition. The reason is that unlike monogastric animals, cattle convert feed to body

mass with special help from the microbial population in the rumen.

In terms of nutritional composition, grass-finished beef has been praised for its “healthier” fat, scientifically termed “lipid composition” or

“fatty acid composition”. Two publicly recognized components of lipids are cholesterol and fatty acids. We have been analyzing thousands

of samples of all kinds of beef and never have we seen any difference in cholesterol content. Cholesterol is part of every cell structure in

animal tissues. It is possible that very well-marbled beef has few more milligram cholesterol per 100 g (3.5 oz) of beef compared with very

lean beef. This increase is negligible compared with 800 to 1000 mg of cholesterol that our body produces daily just to function properly.

Fresh beef has approximately 43 to 84 mg cholesterol/100 g, whereas cooked beef has about 57 to 100 mg/100 g, an increase

corresponding to the lost water during cooking. Fatty acid composition is the most interestingly debated issues. It is very important to

understand that fatty acids from grass fed beef cattle, which are touted as plant-origin and being healthier, are NOT the fatty acids that are

deposited into beef lean and fat tissues. Bacteria in the rumen are capable of hydrogenating (i.e. adding more hydrogen to the double

bonds of fatty acids to make them more saturated) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; fatty acids with more than one double bonds) from

plant sources. The most common product of this biohydrogenation process is vaccenic acid (18:1 trans 11), a fatty acid that has 18 carbons,

1 double bond at carbon 11 with trans configuration. Vaccenic acid is either further saturated in the rumen, forming stearic acid (18:0) or

desaturated by desaturase enzyme to 18:2 cis 9, trans 11, one of conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), a collection of fatty acids specific to

ruminant products (meat and dairy) that have many documented health benefits. It is true that the more polyunsaturated fatty acids,

readily available in grass, are fed to cattle, the more PUFA can pass through the rumen without being biohydrogenated and remain

polyunsaturated. However, PUFA are toxic to microbes in the rumen and biohydrogenation is part of the protective mechanism of the

microorganisms in the rumen. Effort to delivery more PUFA to small intestines seems to be unsuccessful unless the PUFA are supplemented

and protected in encapsulated forms. An increase in PUFA in grass-finished beef is normally in the range of 10 to 25%. However, it is

important to note that PUFA only contribute 3-5% of total fatty acids, 60 to 80% of which is linoleic acid (18:2 n-3). Therefore, the increase

can be calculated at approximately less than 20 mg per 100 g (3.5 oz). We need to keep in mind that most of the increase is of n-3 linolelic

acid (C18), the roles of which in human health are uncertain. The long-chain PUFA n-3 similar to those in fish oils, which have more

established roles in cardiovascular health, are NOT significantly different between grass- and grain-finished beef and are found at trace

levels in all beef. Conjugated linoleic acids also increase, at a much lower rate than linoleic acids, in grass-finished beef. However, because

the fat content of grass-finished beef is normally lower than that of grain-finished beef, such an increase in CLA and n-3 fatty acids becomes

negligible. A very interesting fact that has been neglected in many discussions regarding grass- vs. grain-fed is that monounsaturated fatty

acids (MUFA), 40 to 45% of total fatty acids and mostly oleic acid with reported benefits in lowering LDL cholesterol (low-density lipo-

protein cholesterol or BAD cholesterol) and increasing HDL cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or GOOD cholesterol), is

significantly greater in grain-fed beef in term of both percentage and absolute concentration. Moreover, saturated fatty acids (SFA), mostly

stearic acid known for having a neutral effect (or NO effect) on LDL cholesterol is present in a similar proportion and/or concentration in

both grass- and grain-finished beef. Therefore, grass-finishing increases a negligible amount of n-3 fatty acids that have uncertain health

benefits at the great expense of MUFA that are evidently beneficial to human health.

3

(Continued from page 2) Substituting grass for grain in the diet has been reported to cause off-odor, shortened shelf life, decreased tender-

ness, darker lean color, and ultimately a less desirable and more difficult to preserve beef. There are a variety of mechanisms such as grass-

finished beef being more susceptible to stress, having greater glycogen depletion, higher pH, etc. In all consumer studies that we have

conducted, grass-finished beef scored significantly lower than grain-finished beef. Similar findings were reported in both ground and whole

muscle beef (based on differences in flavor and color profiles). It is obvious that an increase in PUFA, even in a small amount, is detrimental

to beef quality. Most PUFA are deposited in the polar lipid fractions such as phospholipids as part of muscle cell membranes or lean tissues.

Most PUFA are much less likely to be deposited in beef fat than SFA and MUFA because of the low affinity during the synthesis of

triglycerides. PUFA are oxidized more easily than SFA and MUFA because of the effects of double bonds. Therefore, polar lipids, which con-

tribute a significant proportion to the lipid composition of lean beef, are much more susceptible to oxidation, which produces off-odors

(ketones and aldehydes) and 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE). HNE binds (or scientifically termed “alkylation”) myoglobin (lean color pigment),

which makes myoglobin more susceptible to oxidation, thereby a more rapid beef discoloration. This phenomenon can be easily observed in

ground beef, where leaner ground beef (90 to 91% lean) discolors faster and develops more off-flavors as storage progresses.

In closing, the various methods that we use to market beef can be complicated. Oftentimes erroneous claims are made regarding “Natural”

or “Organic. All these marketing options should be a testament to the ingenuity of the American cattle producer, but one group should not

try and move themselves forward at the expense of another. Raising beef cattle on grass needs to be done for the right reason, mostly

profit-related. The argument regarding health benefits and sustainability are currently not justifiable by available data. Cattle on different

diets will produce meat with different nutritional composition, including other components not discussed in this paper such as minerals,

antioxidants, etc. However, the questions are whether the changes are significant enough to make an impact on human health and what

the costs are, financially and nutritionally. There are markets for unconventional raised beef, but producers should understand that there

are added costs and regulations for these types of products. Consumers should be made aware of the different types of production systems

and what they involve, as well as understanding that conventional beef is just as healthy and wholesome as unconventional beef.

Acadiana Beef Cattle Producers Field Day—

Date: Saturday, March 9, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Place: Iberia Research Station, Jeanerette

Registration starts at 8:00 a.m.

Indoor Program

Toxic Plants for Beef Cattle

Mouthing Cows for Age Estimation

Market Update

Outdoor Program

Mouthing Cows for Age Estimation: Live Demonstration

Nitrogen Fertilizer Sources: Field Demonstration

Forages, Supplements, and Digestion: What Happens in

the Rumen?

Louisiana Master Farmer Program Update

Door Prizes & Lunch Provided

Sponsors: LBIC, LCA, LFGC, LSU AgCenter

Contact: Dr. Guillermo Scaglia 337-276-5527

La. Master Cattleman Course Offerings:

Louisiana Master Cattleman courses will be offered in LaSalle Parish (Jena) beginning Monday, March 4th and ending May

13th, and Winn Parish (Winnfield) beginning Monday, March 4th and ending May 6th. The classes will be on Monday

evenings from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. The cost of these La. Master Cattle Producer courses will be $125. This fee covers

curriculum, meals, and Master Cattleman metal farm sign. Registration information for both courses can be found by

visiting www.lsuagcenter.com/mastercattleman or contact Jason Holmes (jholmes@agcenter.lsu.edu) at 318-368-2999

concerning the course in Jena, or Lee Faulk (afaulk@agcenter.lsu.edu) at 318-927-2578 concerning the course in

Winnfield.

4

Beef Cattle Market: 2018 in Review and a Look Ahead — Large supplies, record exports, and trade concerns are just a few of

the topics that dominated the beef headlines in 2018. Amidst all of these factors, U.S. calf and yearling prices have showed relatively

consistent strength throughout the year. 2019 will likely bring a mostly flat year for national herd growth which will position the

industry at a pivotal point for supplies and prices moving forward. In this article, we'll dig a little deeper into a few key drivers to

watch in 2019.

Cattle and Calf Supplies

Cattle and beef supplies have been growing since the price peak in 2014-2015, and this continues to be the primary headwind to

higher prices. The 2018 U.S. calf crop was about 8.5% larger than it was in 2014 - that is nearly 3 million more calves on the ground.

However, that growth has been slowing recently with 2019 expected to be close to flat for cow herd growth. It takes time for the

expansion that has already occurred to work through the cattle and beef supply chain. The stage is already set for modestly larger

calf and beef supplies in 2019. We can look to 2014-2015 as a mirrored example. 2014 was the low point for most of the cattle supply

numbers (number of cows, calf crop, etc.), but 2015 was the lowest year of beef production.

Beef Production and Supplies

Beef production was over 13 percent higher in 2018 than in 2015. Current forecasts suggest an increase of just under 2 percent in

2019. Put it all together and that would be an approximately 15 percent increase in beef production in just four years. This would be

the fastest four-year growth since 1973-1977. Following the cattle supply story, the increases are slowing. With respect to the cattle

cycle, recent cowherd trends suggest 2020 could potentially mark the end of the current U.S. cattle inventory build-up. But it is worth

noting that this is looking like a unique cattle cycle. History might suggest that after herd growth stops, herd declines will follow. But

the ingredients for near-term herd declines are not obvious at this point. Prices have mostly remained at or above profitable levels

for cow-calf producers which does not provide much incentive for liquidation.

Beef Demand

While larger supplies will remain the biggest headwind to stronger prices in 2019, strong domestic and international demand for U.S.

beef is continuing to provide price support. A strong domestic economy is supporting beef demand despite the larger supplies of

beef and also larger supplies of other proteins (chicken and pork). Domestic beef consumption per person in 2018 was about 57

pounds and is forecasted to grow slightly in 2019. Internationally, robust exports have supported the demand profile for beef and,

therefore, cattle. Beef exports have risen by over 20 percent over the past 2 years which has helped absorb some of the beef

production increases. More modest export growth is forecasted for 2019, but it is worth noting that the modest forecasts the past

two years have been sharply exceeded.

Summary

The past few years have been a demand-driven environment where stronger-than-expected beef demand led to stronger-than-

expected calf and yearling prices. These have been important transition years that coped with the sharp supply increases. Looking

ahead, slower herd growth numbers begin to paint a brighter price picture for 2019 and 2020 if domestic demand and exports

continue to grow.

— LMIC In The Cattle Markets; January 2, 2019

The LSU AgCenter and Louisiana Forage & Grassland Council State Fair Hay Contest recently announced the winners for

2018. Congratulations to the following individuals for their accomplishments:

Malcolm Echols—Union Parish

1st & 2nd Place—Baleage Division

Overall Grand Champion Forage

Loyd Dodson—Red River Parish

1st Place—Warm Season Grass Division

Wayne Boyd—Franklin Parish

2nd Place Warm Season Grass Division

1st & 2nd Place Grass/Legume Mix Division

2nd Place Cool Season Grass Division

Billy Franklin—DeSoto Parish

1st Place Cool Season Grass Division

5

Thistles — If left uncontrolled, thick thistle stands can reduce grazing and result in

less forage production. A single thistle plant can produce at least 4,000 seeds, which

increases the chance for higher thistle populations in the pasture the following year.

Consequently, management practices need to be conducted prior to flower formation

for effective thistle control. Even if thistles have not infested your pasture in the past,

it is ideal that your pastures are scouted in late fall through mid-spring (November to

March) to ensure that thistles do not get out of control. New infestations are easier to

manage than large-scale populations.

Although there are at several different species of thistle, most are closely related and

control recommendations will not differ. The best time to control with a herbicide is

when thistles are in the rosette stage. The rosette stage is when the thistle forms a

low-growing ring of leaves. As they mature they are harder to control and may require

higher rates of herbicide to have effective control.

Select Herbicide Options:

Weedmaster

2,4-D

GrazonNext HL

Remedy

PastureGard

Cimarron Max (for bermudagrass

pastures, will control bahiagrass!)

Mature thistle in pasture

Thistle in rosette stage

REMEMBER: THE LABEL IS THE LAW! Always read the pesticide

label before using.

Used with permission — Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Forage Fax

Private Pesticide Applicator License Holders: Don’t forget to check the expiration date on your license!

If it will be expiring March 31, 2019, check with your local LSU AgCenter office to find a recertification

session near you!

The Importance of Energy — Managing the feed and forage resources during extremely cold periods is critical to the cow

herd. To combat cold stress, the animal must increase its metabolic rate to supply more body heat. This increases dietary

requirements, particularly for energy. Research has indicated that energy requirement for maintenance of beef cows with a

wet hair coat is much greater. Cows that are exposed to falling precipitation and have wet hair coats are considered to have

reached the lower critical temperature at 59 ̊F. In addition, the requirements change twice as much for each degree change in

wind-chill factor. In other words, the energy requirement actually increases 2% for each degree below 59 ̊ F. To calculate the

magnitude of the cold when the cow is wet would be the difference between 59 ̊minus 4 ̊ = 55 ̊. True energy requirements to

maintain a wet cow in this weather would be 2% X 55 ̊or 110 % increase in energy (which would mean that over twice the

normal energy intake is needed.)

Therefore, if we assume an average grass hay containing 10.8% crude protein (CP) and 54.6% total digestible nutrients (TDN), a

1200 pound lactating cow will consume (daily) approximately 3.24 pounds of CP and 16.38 pounds of TDN. Based on Nutrient

Requirements of Beef Cattle, we know that she requires 3.00 pounds of CP and 17.60 pounds of TDN daily. With this particular

grass hay, we are borderline adequate in CP and 1.22 pounds deficient in TDN (not figuring in the increase in energy

requirements if hair coat is wet and 59 ̊!). In order for her to maintain body condition, we must supplement her with an energy

source. Approximately 1 Lb. rolled corn = .88 Lbs. TDN; 1 Lb. soybean meal = .84 Lbs. TDN; 1 Lb. whole cottonseed = .93 Lbs.

TDN; 1 Lb. cottonseed meal = .77 Lbs. TDN. — Jason E. Holmes, LSU AgCenter

6

The accumulating impacts and costs of trade wars — Evolving market dynamics make it easy to underestimate how the

impacts and costs of trade issues will continue to grow in 2019. Many agricultural markets have been impacted thus far and

the damage will grow and spread unless resolutions are forthcoming promptly. Trade issues will have accumulating impacts in

a variety of ways as more time passes.

The most obvious impacts of trade wars are the direct impacts of tariffs and disruptions in trade flows in specific markets. This

includes numerous agricultural markets; in particular soybeans and pork as a result of reciprocal tariffs with China; and pork

and dairy markets as a result of the retaliatory tariffs from U.S. imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. The new NAFTA

(USMCA) agreement is not yet ratified and implemented but, in any event, much of the benefit is negated by these other

tariffs. Economic impacts of tariffs may be initially limited mostly to changes in margins if the disruptions are perceived to be

short-lived. Later the impacts will evolve from the initial market shock to larger and more permanent adjustments. With more

time and on-going uncertainty about trade issues, more and more of the cost of tariffs are passed on to buyers; alternative

products flows develop; and lost market shares become much more difficult to undo. The direct costs of tariffs are difficult to

measure but certainly grow over time.

Even more difficult to measure are the lost opportunities associated with trade issues. It’s difficult to know how much you lost

from something you never had. For example, the U.S. withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) two years ago. The

remaining eleven countries continued and launched the revised TPP (CPTPP) in January 2019. Not only does the U.S. not have

the benefit of tariff adjustments and increased market access with TPP; going forward the U.S. will be increasingly less

competitive and likely lose ground relative to TPP participants. The stated U.S. intention to negotiate bilateral trade deals with

Japan and others has so far not resulted in new agreements or even serious discussions. Any agreements that may result are

many months if not years away. In China, the U.S. beef industry had barely begun to build on the market access achieved in

2017 before tariffs hit in 2018. What was expected to be a lengthy process to grow market share for U.S. beef is now at a

standstill. While the tariffs didn’t result in significant direct impact since little U.S. beef was exported to China but it certainly is

restricting any chance for U.S. beef to participate in the growing Chinese market for beef.

Finally, the uncertainty of global trade turmoil takes a significant but largely unmeasurable toll on the economy. It is nearly

impossible to know how much trade and investment has been postponed or abandoned as a result of trade uncertainty the

past two years. The combined direct impacts; lost trade opportunities; and on-going uncertainty are reducing growth potential

for U.S. and global economies and those impacts are likely to grow in 2019 barring improvement in trade issues. The U.S.

macroeconomy has been strong thus far but that doesn’t mean that there were no trade impacts and, more importantly, it

doesn’t mean that the economy can continue to absorb trade related blows without more obvious damage.

The beef industry enjoyed strong demand and supportive trade in 2018 but who knows what it might have been without trade

impacts. More importantly, growing trade impacts on domestic and international markets could mean that (obvious) negative

impacts will be apparent in 2019 while lost opportunities that are less obvious will no doubt continue and grow.

— Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

As forage producers, we focus most of our energy on our warm season perennial pastures and hay meadows (bermudagrass,

bahiagrass, etc.). That means most of our weed control efforts are also focused on warm season weeds. Unfortunately, cool

season weeds (henbit, thistle, buttercup) can be just as detrimental to our warm season perennial forages.

Winter weeds are not a problem in all perennial warm-season pastures and hay meadows. Fields should be scouted to

determine if treatment is warranted. In most cases, controlling winter weeds in summer perennial pastures involve an

additional application since it is unlikely that an application during the dormant season will control summer weeds.

Strict adherence to label directions is required by law. Paying close attention to label directions will also ensure safe, effective

and economical use. Herbicide labels contain directions for proper rate and timing of application, a list of susceptible species,

and information regarding cleanup and disposal following use. — Forage Fax - Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Department of

Soil & Crop Sciences

7

January - February Beef Cattle Management Tips:

Below are some all-purpose management tips in an abbreviated format that cattle producers should consider for the months indicated.

“General” management tips are intended to fit all situations while the “spring calving - January, February, March” and “fall calving -

October, November, December” tips are for those specific calving programs. Some producers are likely aware of each tip and have incorpo-

rated many into their management programs. Other producers may find these tips to be suggestions to consider in their future manage-

ment. Regardless, every producer will have to consider how a specific tip might be adapted to fit their individual situation, and some

modification of the times provided will be expected. Severe environmental conditions will also dictate some modification of the tips

depending on the severity in each location. A more detailed description of management opportunities can be found in numerous AgCenter

publications available in the local parish extension office or on the web. Additional scheduling and management details in a worksheet

format are available on-line from the LSU AgCenter in the Monthly Beef Cattle Management Calendar & Workbook at:

http://text.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/production_management/Workbook.

Month Management Tip

January general 1. Monitor body condition scores; adjust nutrition as needed

2. Maintain feeding groups to help meet nutritional needs

3. Monitor winter pasture stubble height; keep about 4”

4. Limit graze winter pastures to stretch pastures and hay supplies

5. Consider high magnesium minerals to prevent grass tetany on winter pastures

6. If weathered hay or grain co-products predominate in rations, consider a mineral supplement with higher Vitamin A levels

spring calving 1. Determine expecting calving dates to be ready for arrival of first calves

2. Monitor pregnant cows, especially first-calf heifers, as calving date approaches

3. Monitor replacements so they will be at 2/3 of mature weight at breeding

4. Be sure new-born calves are dried off, receive colostrum within 6 hours, and are provided protection from severe winter weather

5. Move pairs to clean pasture; monitor calves for scours

6. Maintain good calving records; birth date and weight, dam identification

7. Feed in the evening to encourage calving during daylight hours

fall calving 1. Calculate final calving percentage

2. Feed high quality hay / forage to lactating cows

3. Establish breeding season by putting bulls out with cows or beginning A.I.

February general 1. Monitor body condition scores to help ensure good rebreeding and calf perfor-mance

2. Evaluate remaining winter feed supplies; adjust usage or purchasing plans

3. Take soil samples from summer pastures and hay fields

4. Begin to plan for summer fertilization program based on soil tests; consider availability and cost of fertilizer sources

5. Continue high magnesium minerals on winter pastures

6. Continue high Vitamin A if weathered hay or grain co-products predominate in rations

7. If in good body condition, consider marketing cull cows as market improves

8. Begin review of haying equipment needs, repairs, and supplies

9. If conditions allow, consider prescribed pasture burns to increase forage quality and reduce weeds and brush

table continued on next page

8

If you received this newsletter via email you will continue to receive it unless you “unsubscribe.” To unsubscribe from or subscribe to this bi-monthly emailed newsletter, send an email to the address below with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in the subject line.

Jan.—Feb. 2019

Jason E. Holmes

Regional Livestock Specialist

County Agent

LSU AgCenter—Union Parish

318-368-2999 (office) / 318-243-4931

table continued from previous page

Month Management Tip

February spring calving 1. Consult with a veterinarian for pre-breeding vaccination needs

2. Finalize heifer selection on breeding goals, performance, soundness, and disposition

3. Determine number of bulls needed for upcoming breeding season

4. Make bull selections; see May-June 2011 newsletter for purchase price

comparisons

5. Arrange for breeding soundness evaluations

6. If using A.I., have ample semen and breeding supplies on hand

fall calving 1. Determine percentage of cows returning to heat 40 days into breeding season

2. Recheck bulls for breeding soundness if high percentage of cow return to heat

3. Monitor bull condition; adjust nutrition as needed

4. Consider limit-fed grain or winter pasture creep if cow lose excessive condition

Week of Week of Week of

Data Source: USDA-AMS Market News 1/4/2019 12/28/2018 1/5/2018

5-Area Fed Steer

all grades, live weight, $/cwt $ 122.52 $ 118.81 $ 121.61

all grades, dressed weight, $/cwt $ 194.25 $ 189.96 $ 193.83

Boxed Beef

Choice Price, 600-900 lb., $/cwt $ 215.75 $ 215.13 $ 207.98

Choice-Select Spread, $/cwt $ 6.09 $ 7.69 $ 8.26

500-600 lb. Feeder Steer

Price

Mississippi statewide market average, M&L #1-2, $/cwt ---

Missouri statewide market average, M&L #1, $/cwt $ 166.28 --- $ 176.39

Oklahoma City market average, M&L #1, $/cwt --- --- ---

Feed Grains

Corn, Kansas City, $/bu $ 3.76 $ 3.66 $ 3.36

Corn, Pine Bluff, AR, $/bu $ 3.91 $ 3.84 $ 3.42

DDGS, Eastern Corn Belt, $/ton $ 157.50 --- $ 147.50

Soybean Meal, Rail, Central IL, $/ton $ 317.70 $ 308.80 $ 315.30

Cottonseed Meal, Memphis, $/ton $ 227.50

Whole Cottonseed, Memphis, $/ton $ 160.00