October is one week away and it sure feels like fall is in the air. We have had some great fall moisture so far here in North Idaho. I have been noticing some fall green-up on many pastures and ranges in the region.
There are many fall calves on the ground now and producers utilizing a fall calving program need to pay close attention to the nutrient quality of their feed. The cows that have just calved are currently needing more protein and energy in their diets than at any other time during the year. Make sure your feed is providing them with the necessary nutrients to milk well for the new baby and return to estrus so that she will calve next fall on time. If you have questions on pricing protein supplements or analyzing forage quality, feel free to contact me.
Spring calving operations are close to weaning time. If you sell your calves in the fall, consider adding some value to the calf crop by weaning a little early and preconditioning the calves. Buyers are lookiing for calves that are weaned and have had their shots. Talk to your veterinarian to set up a vaccination program for the weaned calves. Something to think about as you look towards sale day.
Prices are good this fall and producers should make some money. Good luck with your fall cattle work. Don't forget about the Idaho-Lewis County Cattle Association Annual Meeting on October 16th in Nezperce. Information on the meeting should be coming out soon.
North Central Idaho is normally blessed with adequate rainfall coupled with cool night time temperatures which is ideal for growing cool season grasses for forage. Grass plants grow rapidly in May and early June and produce forage that is high in nutritive value for cattle. In late June the plants start to mature and the quality declines. Hay growers are faced with a big management challenge every year in regards to harvest date. The forage needs to be cut while the quality is optimum, but at the same time, insure drying conditions are adequate to allow for curing of the hay.
Historically, harvest has been delayed until early July to avoid seasonal rains and heavy night time dews. However, delaying harvest until July severely reduces the quality of forage in terms of crude protein content along with other essential vitamins and nutrients.
One option that will allow hay growers to harvest the forage in late May or early June is using the round bale haylage method. This method is not new to the area but should be more widely considered as a viable option. The advantages of using the round bale haylage system include:
1. The ability to implement a planned and scheduled harvest season. (Late May – Early June) Of course this could vary each year due to wet field conditions.
2. Harvesting the forage early will insure that the crop contains an optimum level of nutrients, specifically protein.
3. There will be reduced nutrient loss and spoilage due to poor drying conditions.
4. Increased palatability and consumption will be realized. This is especially true with Meadow Foxtail hay.
The round bale haylage system can easily be adapted to most ranches that currently harvest hay using the round bale system. Equipment needed includes:
1. Round baler
2. Round bale hay handling equipment.
3. Stack yard with a braced back wall for stacking the bales.
• Swath the forage at a stage of maturity that is most optimum for quality.
• The forage should then be baled with a round baler. Make bales that are 4 to 5 feet in size.
• The moisture content of the forage should be approximately 60%. The easiest way to determine moisture content is with a portable forage moisture tester. This machine is battery operated and comes with a sensor. Simply place the sensor against the forage, making sure there is a good sensor to forage contact. The percent moisture will be displayed on the screen.
• As a general rule of thumb, most producers swath in the morning and bale in the afternoon with a slight wilt.
• Swath and bale only what can be wrapped or bagged that day.
• When baling is complete, load the bales and haul them to the stacking area.
• Unload the bales and while on the spear loader, place them in 4 mil plastic bags.
• Tie the open end of the bag shut after stacking. It is important to be sure the bag is airtight. If the bag is not airtight, the forage will dry out and not ensile properly.
• Bales can also be individually wrapped with a bale wrapping machine or placed in a round bale bag with many other bales. The bags look similar to a long sausage bag when filled.
• After harvest is complete, check the bags for holes or tears. Use duct tape to reseal the bags. Bags that are damaged before the ensiling process is complete will cause the bale(s) to dry out and not ensile. After the bales have gone through the ensiling process, they are susceptible to mold if the bags are torn.
The round bale haylage system is a valuable harvesting system for forage producers who have difficult drying conditions. High quality forage can be produced with little investment over the conventional round bale hay system. An early season harvest may allow for a second cutting of hay or a nice regrowth of forage that can be used as stockpiled feed for fall grazing.
Demonstrations conducted in Idaho County proved that protein levels can be improved by as much as 5% using the round bale haylage system and early harvest dates. Table 1 provides an explanation of the results obtained from the demonstrations:
Table 1. Protein levels for forage harvested at three dates in Idaho County.
Protein % dry basis
Date 6/15 6/20 7/1
Round Bale Silage 14 10.5 8.1
For more information on this topic or any other beef cattle related topic, feel free to contact me. Good luck with the upcoming hay harvest season.
Utilizing crossbreeding to take advantage of hybrid vigor is a proven free lunch available for cattle producers. In this world there are very few free lunches and when one comes along, it is kind of nice to take advantage of it.
The majority of mother cows across the country are black, with many herds going with a straight Angus cowherd. This has occurred due to the demand from the feeder market for black hided cattle. Producers had to respond to the premiums being paid for black cattle, or discounts to non-black cattle, however you want to put it, in order to maximize returns to their operation. However, going with a straight bred program caused producers to miss out on hybrid vigor and the resulting heavier calves at weaning that comes from a well planned crossbreeding program.
Hybrid vigor is the free lunch. A good crossbreeding program doesn’t cost it pays. According to research conducted at the United States Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) and at Montana State University (MSU), crossbreeding can improve weaning weights from 16 to 30 pounds over straight bred calves based on the mating system used. Table 1 shows the expected level of improvement in weaning weights due to the crossbreeding system used.
Table 1. Expected level of improvement due to crossbreeding
Mating system % heterosis Est. Increase in Wean. Wt.
T sire x F1 100 23-28 pounds
2 breed rotation 67 16 pounds
3 breed rotation 86 20 pounds
The research also proved that crossbred cows are more efficient than straight bred cows. Table 2 shows data from an MSU study on the economic advantage that crossbred cows have over straight bred cows. The crossbred cows stayed in the herd longer, produced more pounds of calf over their lifetime and had lower breakeven costs.
Table 2. Economic advantage of crossbred cows versus straight bred cows.
Trait Improvement over straight breds
Longevity 38% longer (1.2 years)
Calf weight weaned 25% more production
Net Profit Breakeven costs 10% lower
The free lunch is there for the taking. We can keep the cattle black to meet the market demand while at the same time increase performance by using a well planned crossbreeding program. Crossbreeding pays and is the only free lunch in the cattle business. Of course, the breeds used have to compliment each only in order to maintain market acceptance, quality and improve performance.
With the tough economic times we are facing currently in the cattle business, it makes sense to consider using a crossbreeding system. The Cow-Calf Management Guide has an excellent bulletin on designing a crossbreeding system. If you want a copy of this publication, feel free to contact me.
The current economic climate of high input costs coupled with low calf prices has producers all over the country pursuing efficient cattle. They want cows that are easy keepers in that they will maintain body weight utilizing winter range or low quality forages and feeder cattle that will gain weight in the feedlot on less feed.
Some breed associations have been working hard to develop tools that will help producers identify efficient cattle. The American Angus Association has developed a dollar value for feed efficiency which they call the $ Energy Value ($EN). The American Gelbvieh Association has developed a Days to Finish Value (DtF) which identifies cattle that grow faster while being fed in the feedlot. In the near future I am sure that other breed associations will be releasing information on how to measure cattle for efficiency.
Let’s take a look at how a producer can use the Angus $ Energy Value when selecting a bull. To begin with we need to define the $ EN Value. The $ EN is the difference in cow energy requirements expressed in dollars per cow saved. The higher the number, the more efficient the future daughters of a bull will be which relates to more money saved.
As an example, let’s say we are interested in two bulls; Bull A and Bull B. Below are the $EN values for the two bulls:
Bull A - $EN = +15.74
Bull B - $EN = +2.41
The expected difference in cow energy savings per cow per year for future daughters of the two bulls is 15.74 – 2.41 = $13.33. Females sire by Bull A on average would save $13.33 more money in energy (feed) costs than females sired by Bull B.
If you want to select for efficient replacement females, you would select Bull A due to his higher $EN value.
Let’s look now at the Gelbvieh Days to Finish (DtF) Value. DtF is expressed in days to reach a constant fat endpoint, which is commonly used in the feedlot to determine when cattle are finished. Again as an example, we have narrowed our selection down to two Gelbvieh bulls; Bull A and Bull B. Below are the DtF values for the two bulls:
Bull A – DtF = +5.3
Bull B – DtF = +3.9
On average, Bull A’s progeny will reach a finish weight in the feedlot 1.4 days sooner than progeny from Bull B. If you feed cattle to finish, Bull A should be selected.
Residual Feed Intake (RFI) is another selection tool that has been getting a lot of attention in the last couple of years. Several bull test stations and larger purebred bull producers are gathering RFI data on the bulls they are feeding.
So what is RFI? It is the difference between an animal’s actual feed intake and its expected feed requirements for maintenance and growth. Efficient cattle eat less than expected, inefficient cattle eat more than expected.
To collect RFI data producers must:
1. Have enough bulls in the same contemporary age group, within 90 days of age, to make it worthwhile.
2. Must estimate required daily intake for maintenance and growth.
3. Must weigh what each bull eats every day. Requires an expensive feed bunk system. Most common system is called the Grow Safe System that measures feed intake via computer technology.
4. Must weigh the bulls on and off test, usually a minimum test of 70 days, 100 to 120 days is recommended.
When the feed test is completed a report is generated and distributed to customers at the time of the bull sale. Below is an example of the kind of report that a bull buyer might receive:
Sample RFI Report
Animal ID Start End Gain Actual Calc. RFI
Wt. Wt. Feed Feed
1 600 950 350 36.56 32 4.56
2 605 980 375 29.25 32.8 -3.55
If you look at the data on these two bulls, Bull 1 had an RFI of +4.56 which means that he ate 4.56 pounds more feed each day than he was estimated to need. Bull 2 had an RFI of -3.55 which means that he ate 3.55 pounds less feed each day than he was estimated to need. In this example, Bull 2 is more efficient. If you were looking for a very efficient bull, Bull 2 would be the bull selected.
Let me share a word of caution. Many train wrecks have occurred in the beef business when people select for a single trait. Do not single trait select. Determine the weaknesses and strengths of your cowherd and select replacements using a balanced trait criteria.
In summary, if you are looking for more efficient cattle, $EN values, RFI values and DtF values can help. Like I mentioned earlier, I think you will see more breeds developing tools to identify efficient cattle, so stay tuned. For more information on this topic, feel free to contact me.
TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES CALL FOR TOUGH RANCH MANAGERS
There is no question that it is a tough time to be in the cow-calf business. Record high production costs coupled with a softening calf market creates a situation where even a person like John Wayne would be scratching his head wondering what to do.
Tough times are not a new thing in the cattle business. We have had big swings in profits and losses over the years. Currently the cattle industry is in a survival mode with predictions that the next couple of years will result in losses for the cow-calf producer. However, I am an optimist and think that the industry is in for better times if we can get through this difficult stretch. My optimism is based on the economic principle of supply and demand. The US cowherd numbers are the smallest they have been since the early 1960’s. It is estimated that in 2009 the number of beef cows in this country will be 32 million head. That is down from a high in 1982 of over 39 million head. We have lost over 7 million head of beef cows in 25 years and a large number of producers. Total beef production has not dropped significantly due to the increase in carcass weights, but as total numbers decline, there will come a time where the supply will not meet the demand. In turn, prices should increase for producers. When this will occur is anyone’s guess.
The cattle industry is made up of very strong individuals who have the ability to adapt. That adaptability will have to be put into practice as we move forward. We will have to be willing to take a close look at our production costs and income opportunities and make the necessary management changes in order to stay in business.
If we analyze our operations for efficiency, we have to start with winter feed costs. This is a variable cost that amounts to over 60 percent of the cost of owning a cow each year. So how can this cost be lowered? According to Dr. Jason Ahola, University of Idaho Extension Beef Specialist, producers need to, “Make the cows work for you”. In order to make the cows do the work, Dr. Ahola suggests that the cows need to harvest more of their own feed. Producers need to somehow reduce the amount of iron and fuel it takes to get cattle fed. The grazing period needs to be extended during the late fall and early winter.
In the fall of 2008 with high fuel prices, the costs associated with harvesting, hauling and feeding hay were $66 to $99 per ton above the value of standing forage. This cost can be reduced if cows harvest the feed themselves. Of course in most regions of north central Idaho, it is impossible for cows to winter out on range. However, if the grazing period can be extended by any length of time, feed costs will be lowered.
There are some options for producers to look at in regards to extending the grazing period in the fall. Stockpiling perennial forages for grazing in the fall is an idea that will accomplish that goal. Producers will need to have enough pasture to defer grazing on part of it for fall use, or have a well designed rotational grazing system, that allows for deferred grazing.
Grazing crop residues or crop aftermath in the fall is another way to extend the grazing period. These forages are usually high in fiber and low in protein, but with proper protein supplementation, crop residues provide adequate nutrition for spring calving cows. Most wheat and barley fields in the region no longer are fenced, but there are many new electric fence options which producers can use to inexpensively fence a field to allow for grazing.
Seeding fields with a forage crop for late fall grazing is another option that can work to extend the grazing season if there is sufficient fall moisture or irrigation. Not many producers in this area have the luxury of irrigation, but if there is a sub-irrigated area, or if there is adequate soil moisture in August, seeding a forage crop for later grazing should not be completely ruled out.
The feeding method used can also influence winter feed costs especially in the amount of hay that is wasted. Research conducted at the University of Missouri showed that wasted hay can range from 10 to 45 percent depending on the feeding method. Limit feeding cows in feed bunks is most efficient with the average waste of 10 percent. Spreading the hay on the ground causes the most waste approaching 45 percent. Also, cows will eat 20 to 30 percent more than they need if fed free choice. Most people in this region feed hay in big round bale feeders. Feeding only a one day supply will lower overeating waste by 15 percent. With hay as high as it is, anything that can be done to lower waste will lower the winter feed costs.
Another feed cost saving management practice is feeding cows based on body condition score. If thin cows can be separated from fat cows, and these two groups fed according to their needs, money can be saved. A fat cow doesn’t need the same nutrition as a thin cow. She can get by on less feed. Targeting a body condition score of 5 should be the goal. This practice may be difficult if there is only one winter feeding area for the cows.
Additional costs can be saved by culling poor performers. Everyone in the cow-calf business should develop a culling criteria and follow it closely. The economically important traits that need to be selected and retained in the herd are: reproduction; functionality and production. Under reproduction, heifers should calve at age two and raise a calf to weaning. Cows should rebreed and calve every 365 days and raise a calf to weaning. Any variation from this criteria should result in a free trip to town for the cow.
In the functionality area, cows have to be sound in their mouth, eyes, feet, legs and udder. Any unsound cows should be culled to remove potential unnecessary costs. The production criteria should require a cow to wean off a calf that meets a weight goal set by the manager. A good target would be 50 percent of the cow’s body weight.
According to research conducted by Bob Loucks, UI Extension Educator emeritus in 1991, high profit herds in the Salmon, Idaho area retained enough replacements to replace 18 to 22 percent of the cowherd. Low profit herds retained just 11 percent. High profit herds follow are strict culling program and get rid of problem cows and replace them with genetically superior replacements.
Costs saving strategies are just one part of the equation that producers need to study in their business plan. The other side of the equation is the income side. In my next column I will address how producers can look for additional income opportunities in their operation.
A new genetic disorder called Arthrogryposis Multiplex (AM), also known as Curly Calf Syndrome, has been identified in Angus cattle. This disorder can cause calves to be born with twisted spines and curled up legs, which is why the generic term for the genetic defect is Curly Calf.
Curly Calf is a lethal genetic abnormality that is caused by a recessive inheritance. What this means is that both the sire and the dam have to be carriers of the gene in order for it to express itself. According to the American Angus Association, it appears that the genetic abnormality comes from a bull by the name of GAR Precision 1680. At least most of the calves that have been born with this problem have 1680 on both sides of the pedigree. However, the exact source of where the genetic abnormality originated is unknown.
If there is any good news in this situation it is that the genetic problem is a recessive inheritance. As was indicated earlier, both the cow and the bull have to be carriers. If a bull and a cow are mated and both are carriers, there is a 25% chance that the calf will have Curly Calf and be born dead. There is a 50% chance that the offspring will be carriers of the recessive gene but not exhibit the symptoms and there is a 25% chance that the calf will be born and not be a carrier.
So what should you do if you are a commercial producer that has been using Angus genetics in your herd? According to Dr. John Hall, University of Idaho Extension Beef Specialist at the Nancy M. Cummings Research and Extension Center in Salmon, producers need to implement a strategy for managing their genetics. Dr. Hall recommends that producers continue a planned crossbreeding program. He recommends that producers continue to use Angus genetics in the crossbreeding program.
Dr. Hall also recommends that producers need to pay more attention to the pedigree of their cows and bulls. If Precision 1680 is in the pedigree of the cows or heifers you have on the ranch, there is no need to cull them from the herd. However, producers will need to mate them to bulls that do not have Precision in the pedigree. Dr. Hall does not recommend that commercial producers test their herd for the AM gene when a commercial test becomes available. He indicated that Angus breeders will soon be able to provide bulls that are tested for the AM gene. Purchasing AM free bulls will eliminate the problem.
The American Angus Association and US Angus breeders have done a great job in the last few months of trying to inform the industry about this disorder and identifying possible carriers of the defect. Producers do not need to panic at this time. The best advice is to adopt the strategies outlined by Dr. Hall and stay informed on this topic.
Attention Cattle Producers:
There are two beef schools planned for February that should be of interest to area cattle producers. The first school will be held at the Lewiston Livestock Market on Tuesday, February 10th. The second school will be held on Monday, February 23rd at the Cottonwood Livestock Auction. Below is an agenda for each school. Please notice that the topics will be different for each school and should be of use to cattle producers. So mark your calendar today and plan on attending these beef schools.
Lewiston Area Beef School
Tuesday, February 10th
Lewiston Livestock Market
8:30 a.m. – Registration & Refreshments
9:00 a.m. – $Values and RFI Data – How These New Selection Tools
Can be Used to Select Replacement Bulls and Heifers.
Speaker: Jim Church - University of Idaho Extension
10:00 a.m. – Break
10:15 a.m. – The Latest in Muscle Fiber Research and Its Impact on
Muscle Growth and Quality in Cattle. Research Being
Conducted at the University of Idaho.
Speaker: Dr. Gordon Murdoch – University of Idaho
Assistant Professor, Department of
Animal & Veterinary Science - Moscow
11:15 a.m. - Idaho Cattle Association Update – Pete Whitman, ICA Board Member
Local Nezperce and Latah County Cattle Association Updates
– Pete Whitman, Nezperce County
- Sarah Skaar, Latah County
12:00 noon – Adjourn
Sponsored by: University of Idaho Extension
Prairie Area Beef School
Monday, February 23rd
Cottonwood Livestock Auction
8:30 a.m. – Registration & Refreshments
9:00 a.m. – Strategies for Managing the Cowherd in Tough Economic Times.
Speaker: Jim Church – University of Idaho Extension
10:00 a.m. – Break
10:15 a.m. – The Importance of Feed Efficiency for Cattle Producers.
Speaker: Dr. Jason Ahola - University of Idaho Extension
Beef Specialist—Caldwell R&E Center
11:15 a.m. – Idaho Beef Council Update – Katlin Davis, IBC Program
Idaho Cattle Association Update – Leon Slichter, ICA Board Member
Idaho/Lewis County Cattle Association Update
John Schumacher, President,ILCCA.
12:00 noon – Adjourn
Sponsored by: University of Idaho Extension
Cattle producers have done a tremendous job of increasing weaning weights over the last 30 to 40 years. A 400 to 450 pound calf a weaning time used to be a good calf. Now if one comes in this light, we are looking to cull the mother as quick as possible. Today, 600 pound weaning weights are common and sometimes this figure is even low. It is not uncommon to have calves wean off at 700 to 800 pounds.
This unbelievable increase in weaning weight has been made possible by several factors, including the introduction of the continental breeds, the use of EPD’s and selection pressure for growth. The increase in weaning weight has brought with it an increase in mature cow size and an increase in feed requirements. So how big are the cows these days?
In an article written by Dr. Bryan McMurry who works for Cargill Animal Nutrition, which appeared in the December, 2008 Feedstuffs magazine, from 1975 to 2005, the average weight of our cows have increased substantially. In 1975, the average weight of cull beef cows at slaughter with a body condition score of 5 was 1,047 compared to the average weight of 1,369 in 2005. This is an increase of 322 pounds.
For many people, a 1,370 pound cow doesn’t seem too bad, and it probably isn’t, but the thing to keep in mind is this is the average size. Half of the cows are bigger than 1,370 and half weigh less than 1,370. Therefore, we have a large number of cows weighing 1,400 plus in this country.
Is this too big? It depends, of course, on your feed resource and the size of the calves you are weaning off of these big cows. A 1,400 pound cow weaning off a 700 pound calf is probably pretty efficient. If she only weans off a 500 pound calf, she is a candidate for a free trip to town.
With tough economic times facing us in the cattle business, our cow herd must be efficient. Monitor cow size and calf weaning weights. Next time you purchase replacement bulls or heifers, be sure to check the data on residual feed intake, (RFI). This will give you a good idea which bloodlines are efficient. Also, try to keep the frame score of the cows in the moderate range, while not giving up weaning weight. This will lower cow feed requirements while maintaining production. A pretty good recipe for profit.
The price of hay was at record levels in most areas of the Northwest this past year. Feeder quality alfalfa from the basin or southern Idaho was bringing over $200 per ton. Low to average quality grass hay in north central Idaho cost as much as $150 per ton in some cases. Most recent reports indicate that the price of hay has dropped with expectations of further reductions in prices as we move into the late winter and early spring.
No matter how you look at it, hay prices are high and as cow-calf producers, we need to do a good job of balancing the ration for the cows during the winter feeding period to keep feed costs as low as possible. Lower quality forages can be used in the ration to lower feed costs. However, the lower quality feeds are low in protein and energy and if fed by themselves, will not meet the nutrient requirements of the cows. Therefore, it will probably be necessary to provide some protein supplementation. What is the best protein supplement to use? Depends on a number of factors; let’s look at these factors:
1. Available protein sources.
There are some feeds that are very good sources of protein but are not available at a reasonable price to producers in north central Idaho. Soybean meal is a great feed high in protein but must be shipped in from the Midwest which adds to the cost. Cottonseed meal is another excellent protein feed that is not readily available to area producers. In some cases, finding good quality alfalfa is also limited in the region.
2. Price of the protein.
With feed costs so high, we need to supplement with a protein feed that provides the necessary nutrients for the cattle at the least cost. Therefore, we need to price the protein on a cost per unit basis. Let’s see how this works. For our example let’s say we can buy 18% protein alfalfa hay for $175 per ton or 36% protein canola meal for $375 per ton. Our cost per unit of protein would be:
Alfalfa = 2000 x .18 = 360 pounds of actual protein in a ton
Cost of protein = $175 per ton / 360 = $0.486 cents per pound of protein.
Canola Meal = 2000 x .36 = 720 pounds of actual protein in a ton
Cost of protein = $375 per ton / 720 = $0.521 cents per pound of protein.
The cost per unit of protein favors the alfalfa hay, $0.486 compared to $0.521. If the cost per ton of the alfalfa increased or the protein level decreased, then the canola meal may be the better value. Of course if the price of the canola meal dropped it may also be the better buy.
This is how a person determines the cost per pound of protein in a particular feed. A lot of producers are feeding the protein tubs. Figure the cost per pound of protein the same way as we figured it with the alfalfa. Determine the protein percentage in the tub, multiply it by 2000 then divide the price of the tubs on a per ton basis by the actual pounds of protein in a ton. This will give you the price per pound of protein that you are buying.
3. Ease of Feeding.
This is a huge factor. You have to ask yourself what kind of facilities you have for feeding. If you have bunks that will allow you to feed fine supplements like canola meal, soybean meal and so on, you will have more options. If you don’t have bunks or self feeders, you are limited to protein tubs or blocks, range cubes or high protein hay.
Another thing to consider is labor. How much time do you have to feed cows? If you don’t mind feeding protein supplements on a daily, every other day or every third day, you have more options. If it is impossible to hand feed this often, you may have to use just protein blocks or tubs.
Convenience of feeding and availability of labor are huge considerations when determining the type of protein supplements to use.
Good luck with your winter feeding programs this winter. Let’s hope for an open winter with the snowpack high in the mountains.
The annual North Idaho Grazing Conference is scheduled for Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at the Conference Center on the campus of Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston. Registration and the Trade Show will start at 8:00 a.m. with the program to follow at 9:00 a.m. Cost for the conference is $20 in advance or $25 at the door. You can pre-register by calling 208-983-1046.
Featured presenters will be John Dodd with Forage Genetics International in Touchet, Washington and Dr. Roger Sheley, Research Scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Burns, Oregon. These two regionally known speakers will cover information on grazing management, grass specie selection, weed control and much more. Mark your calendar today and plan on attending this worthwhile conference.
Hi everyone! I'm glad you found my Blog. I will publish a monthly article on topics of interest to cattle producers and have it available on the Blog. I will also have information on upcoming cattle producer seminars, workshops, meetings and field days on this site, so check in often.
If you want specific information on a topic or would like to see me write on a subject of interest to you, please contact me at the University of Idaho, Idaho County Extension Office at 208-983-2667.