ISU Extension
IA State Univ.
IA Dept. of Ag
IA DNR

Topics
Check Alfalfa fields for winter injury 
Manure Plans Prior to Construction
Stress Relievers
Where are We in the Beef Business? 
Midwest Animal Science Meeting Highlights

Check Alfalfa Fields for Winter Injury
By Todd Vagts, ISU Extension Crop Field Specialist 

Although northwest Iowa has experienced one of the mildest winters on record, winter injury could still be a problem in alfalfa fields.  A major factor to winter survival for alfalfa is to have a good insulative cover from snow.  As we all know, snow has been hard to come by this last winter.  In addition to cold stress, plants may be injured from heaving and mid-winter de-hardening.  

Cold Stress
During the snow-free periods, the area experienced a couple of cold snaps that could be injurious to your alfalfa stands.  Alfalfa plants may be killed or weakened during continued exposure to temperatures of 5 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

Heaving of plants
Heaving of plants may occur in wet soils during excessive alternate freezing and thawing actions.  The heaving action breaks roots and exposes crown and root tissue to lethal air temperatures.

Mid-winter dehardening of plants.
Extended warm periods the area observed this winter may further stress alfalfa plants.  Plants that deharden use more of their carbohydrate reserves to regain a hardened state when cold temperatures return, leaving less reserves available for continued survival during the remaining winter and for spring regrowth.

Stand Evaluation
Winter-injured plants are often slow to recover in spring, so give the stand some time before making the decision on what to do with the field.  When evaluating the stand, consider crown condition, number of plants per square foot and age of the stand.

Begin checking the stand as soon as green-up is noticed.   Dig up crowns and look for dead or dying tissue.  A healthy plant’s taproot should be clean and white inside.  A taproot with more than 50% discoloration most likely will not survive past the first cutting.  Check the stand again when the alfalfa plants are 6 inches tall.  Select random 1-square foot sites for every 5 to 10 acres.  Count the number of stems per square foot.  University of Wisconsin research indicates that when an alfalfa field averages more than 55 stems per square foot, it has top yield potential  (Table 1).  Some yield loss may be observed with 40 – 55 stems per square foot.  If the stem count is below 40 stems per square foot, replacing the stand should be considered.

Source:  Undersander and Cosgrove, Univ. WI, 1992

What to do with winter injured fields.

·        If the stand is marginal, it may be best to leave it and obtain what forage will be produced.  Delaying first harvest will help the stand recover.

·        If the field has a legume-grass mix and the grass is in good condition, then apply nitrogen fertilizer to stimulate grass production.

·        For unacceptable stands, reseed alfalfa into an injured stand only if the original stand is less than 16 months old.

For more information on winter-injured alfalfa, refer to PM-1362.

Manure Plans Prior to Construction
by Kris Kohl, ISU Extension Ag Engineer

New confinement feeding operations that are over 200,000 lbs. (1333 hd finishing swine, etc.) need a manure management plan (MMP), but not a construction permit, and must file the plan with the DNR and the county board of supervisors 30 days before construction begins. Those with new construction must submit a MMP using the DNR form. The plan must meet all current requirements, include documentation that a copy has been submitted to the county auditor or Board of Supervisors, and include information (e.g., maps or aerial photos) that clearly shows the proposed location of any structures.  A second copy of the MMP is sent to the DNR in Des Moines along with the receipt from the Board of Supervisors.  Producers need to keep a copy of their plan as well because the DNR will not return it when it is approved.

Expanding operations that stay below the construction permit threshold and have an existing MMP on file with the DNR, must submit an updated MMP to the DNR only and pay the additional indemnity fee. Updated MMPs for an expanding site do not need to be submitted to the county nor do they have to wait the 30 days before they start construction unless they require a construction permit (over 625,000-lbs. capacity).

Owners must also provide some information about other confinement feeding operations that they manage - or have an ownership interest in - that are located within 2,500 feet of the proposed construction. The DNR will date the forms when they are received and notify the producer. The DNR must review all complete plans within 60 days. If the plan is incomplete, the DNR will wait until producers provide additional information before the DNR starts the review process.

Producers need to wait 30 days before starting construction for a new operation, but they do not have to wait for the DNR to approve the plan. They must have an approved plan before spreading manure.

The primary purpose of this new rule is to provide local notice and assure that the facility owner has met requirements for separation distances and nutrient management.

Stress Relievers
by Denise Wyland, ISU Extension Families Field Specialist

Stress is a complex issue that affects us in a variety of ways - physically, emotionally, and mentally. Fortunately there are several techniques that we can incorporate into our lives to alleviate the effects of stress on our body.

*Learn progressive relaxation, deep breathing, meditation or yoga exercises. Set aside a few minutes each day when you can practice one of these relaxation techniques.

*Engage in vigorous aerobic exercise (jogging, brisk walking, swimming, or biking) 20-30 minutes, three or more times a week.

*Find a quiet place where you can spend a few minutes alone each day.

*Avoid turning to alcohol, drugs, or tobacco to relieve tension. The effects are temporary and end up increasing tension.

*Make sure you get enough rest.

Where are We in the Beef Business?
by Beth Ellen Doran, ISU Extension Beef Field Specialist

Three issues - packer concentration, captive supplies and fed cattle prices - have been front-and-center recently.  So, where are we with these issues?

In 1976, the four largest packers processed 25.1% of the cattle.  In 1998, the four largest packers processed 80% of the cattle.  This is important because there is a positive relationship between number of bids and prices.  Regions with multiple bids for cattle had higher prices than regions with one bid.  However, regions with 5+ bids were not significantly different from regions with 2-5 bids.  Hopefully, improved regulation through the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) will help, as well as better information flow through mandatory price reporting.

The 2002 GIPSA Report estimates captive supplies to be 32.3% of total slaughter for the 4 largest packers. Captive supply is defined as:

·        Livestock that is owned or fed by a packer more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

·        Livestock that is procured by a packer through a contract or marketing agreement that has been in place for more than 14 days.

·        Or livestock that is otherwise committed to a packer more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Price distortions of 3% or less were found in most captive supply studies.  This is well short of regulatory agency standards related to non-competitive behavior.  A study conducted by Kansas State University reported $.15-.31/cwt lower prices associated with captive supplies.  However, small price impacts are magnified in narrow margin industries.  A $0.15-0.31/cwt decrease in the bid for a 1200# steer in a $70 market is $1.80 to $3.72 per head on $840 gross revenue.  With average cattle feeding returns of $15 per head, this represents 12-25% of the cattle feeding profit.

(This information was taken from Packer Concentration, Captive Supplies and Fed Cattle Prices, summarized by John Lawrence, Extension Livestock Economist, Iowa State University.)

Midwest Animal Science Meeting Highlights
by Dave Stender, ISU Extension Swine Field Specialist

Animal scientists from across the Midwest gathered in late March this year to present scientific papers.  Three hundred and five research articles were presented.  It is impossible to summarize that many research results, therefore this article will be some scattered comments on some of the abstracts presented at the Midwestern Section ASAS 2002 Meeting, Des Moines, IA.  

A few of the items I found interesting include a study on the effect of the initial stocking rate in a wean-to-finish system.   This trial at U of Illinois was similar to previous findings, double stocking reduced growth rate to 10 week post-weaning, but did not impact subsequent growth.  Final weights were 256 pounds for the single stock compared to 246 for the double stocked at 24 weeks post-weaning (abstract 100).

There was an interesting talk about lactation sow feeding energy levels.  Putting fat into the lactation ration was reported to help the pig, not necessarily the sow.   Increasing fat in the lactation diet results in increased pig body fat, but tends not to help the sow weight loss (abstract 195).

Steve Pollmann talked about management of the breeding herd (abstract 197).   Data from one of his slides showed a response to increasing weaning age as you can see in the following table:

In this system, the need for more farrowing crates to facilitate an older weaning age is the goal.

View as Word Document