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

Northwest Area Extension

April 2004

In this issue
Soybean Rust – The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown
Beef News
Pig Space Requirement for Maximum Gain
Developing a Grain Marketing Plan

Soybean Rust – The Good, the Bad and the Unknown
Paul Kassel, ISU Extension Crops Field Specialist

There has been much discussion on soybean rust this winter.  Discussions have ranged from facts to fear to all kinds of predictions.  The following are some points about what is known and what is not known about soybean rust.

What we know:

• soybean rust does not exist in North America.

• soybean rust will not over winter in NW Iowa.

• Soybean rust will likely occur in the southern US before it occurs in Iowa.

• We will be able to check fields for the occurrence of soybean rust.

• Information on air temperature, humidity levels, southerly wind currents and leaf wetness may be used to predict the occurrence of soybean rust.

Some good news:

• soybean rust is a major problem of soybeans worldwide and therefore seed companies are working on varietal resistance and chemical companies are working on new fungicides.

• effective fungicides are available in the US.

• the fungicides available to control soybean rust are not Restricted Use Pesticides.

• rust will likely be a mid-summer to late summer problem.

• one or two fungicide applications may be sufficient for control.

The bad news:

• rust could occur in Iowa sometime in the future, because the temperature and humidity levels are favorable for the disease.

• yield loss and/or increased cost of production will occur if the disease does arrive.

• the cost of the fungicide alone may be $12.00 to $25.00 per acre.

• fungicide supply may be a problem and spray equipment needs may not be adequate for timely application if soybean rust occurs widespread.

• a need for training so that everyone involved in soybean production will be able to identify soybean rust and other similar looking diseases.

Unknowns:

• when and if the disease will arrive in Iowa.

• the amount of yield loss that may occur.

• how many fungicide applications will be necessary?

• spraying equipment may need to be changed with different nozzles, directed spray nozzles, etc.

• fungicide selection and fungicide cost.

• will South American visitors import the disease?

• will whole soybean or soybean meal imports introduce the disease?

Beef News
Beth Ellen Doran, ISU Extension Beef Field Specialist

Optaflexx - has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to be fed in combination with Rumensin and Tylan.

Publication - ISU has a new publication, Best Environmental Management Practices for Open Feedlots (PM 1946) that discusses management practices to minimize the feedlot impact on soil, water, and air of the surrounding area.  There are tips on lot construction, maintenance and runoff control and a best management checklist for open feedlots.  The publication ($.50 each) is available at your County Extension Office.

Air Quality - The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is proposing a Health Effects Value and Health Effects Standard for hydrogen sulfide.  A copy of the proposed rules can be accessed at <http://www.iowadnr.com/air/afo/afo.html>.  Written comments must be received no later than April 8, 2004 and should be directed to Bryan Bunton, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Bureau, 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 1, Urbandale, IA 50322, Fax (515) 242-5094, or by electronic mail to: bryan.bunton@dnr.state.ia.us. 

Benchmarking - This is the first of three articles that deals with benchmarking, a tool that can be used to evaluate feedlot performance, and that summarizes a couple of the key closeout items over a fifteen-year period (1988-2002) for Iowa and surrounding feedlots.  The data contained averages of closeouts by class (starting weight) and by quarter.  These summaries are available on-line at <http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/feedlot/>. 

Average daily gain has improved approximately .03 pound per day each year for incoming steers weighing 600-800 pounds.  For heavier feeder steers, the improvement was approximately .02 pound per day of daily gain each year.  Over the fifteen years and all classes of cattle, daily gain improved approximately 1% per year.  

Feed conversion had a similar trend.  The average improvement per year in feed conversion was .035 and .04 less pounds of dry matter needed for one pound of gain for 600-800 pound and heavy (>800-pound) feeder steers, respectively.  Feed conversion improved approximately 1/2 to 1% per year over the fifteen years.

BIF Meeting - The 36th annual meeting of the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) will be May 25-28 at the Sioux Falls Convention Center in Sioux Falls, SD.  Tuesday evening sessions include topics on reproductive technologies, transgenics and the use of DNA fingerprinting.

Wednesday morning features new technologies, multi-trait selection and leverage points for profit.  The afternoon session has breakout sessions on genetic prediction, producer application and live animal and carcass endpoints.

Thursday's program discusses how to meet demands, the expectations of end users and the cost of meeting consumer demands.  Dr. Dan Moser, Kansas State University, will present results from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association tenderness project.  The afternoon program includes round table discussions on cowherd efficiency, emerging technologies and selection decisions.

On Friday, there will be two tours.  Tour 1 includes a Limousin operation (Peterson Ranch), Jorgenson Land and Cattle, a large-scale commercial feedlot (Winner Circle) and a popular bull stud (Dakota Sire Service).  Tour 2 will include Trans Ova Genetics, Haverhals feedlot, a Maine Anjou operation and winner of an Environmental Stewardship Award (Nagel Cattle Company), and a family farm and commercial Angus operation (Namminga Farms).

For information on the BIF meeting, visit: <http://www.BIF2004.com>.

 

Pig Space Requirement for Maximum Gain
Dave Stender, ISUE Swine Field Specialist

A paper was presented at the Midwestern Section of the American Society of Animal Science at the Midwest meeting in Des Moines on March 16, 2004.  Abstract number six developed a model to determine the floor space requirement of growing pigs.   The model is based on a number of studies that looked at space allocated per pig in relation to daily gain, feed intake and feed conversion.  The constant(k) was found by the equation k=A/BW^2/3, where A is the space allowance in square meters and BW is body weight in kilograms to the 2/3 power.  Average daily gain was maximized until space restrictions started to limit gain. 

The constant was determined to be close to .0337, in some studies the constant was a bit lower, .0327 for partial slates and .0315 for nurseries.  An approximate value of the constant was .034, converted to feet and pounds is about .216.   The resulting equation can then be used to calculate the minimum space needed to maximize both growth rate and feed intake.  Feed conversion is not impacted by space; pigs simply eat less and grow slower. 

The equation to calculate the amount of space requirement the pigs need for maximum growth is

A = K * BW^2/3  where A is area and BW is body weight to the 2/3 power.  Using the equation a 200 pound pig would be A (area in sq. ft.) = .216 * 200^2/3.  The answer calculates that a 200 pound pig would maximize gain and feed intake if it had 7.4 sq. ft. of floor space.  

A thousand head of 200 pound pigs would need 7400 sq. ft. of floor space.  If the top 20% were marketed at that point the remaining 800 head would have the same 7400 sq. ft.  After topping the pen, the space per pig increases to 9.25 sq. ft. per head from 7.4 sq. ft. 

Table 1 - Shows the space requirements in sq. ft. for a variety of weights using the equation.

Limiting space by 3% will reduce the daily gain by 1% resulting in more time required to achieve market weights.

Developing a Grain Marketing Plan
Tom Olsen, ISUE Farm Management Field Specialist

Wow, what a run-up we’ve had in the grains this winter.  For the first time in several years, we have been able to sell grains at significantly profitable levels. Tight supplies both at the local level and globally have created tremendous price strength across the US but also very narrow basis levels as elevators and processors are bidding up to fill local needs. With these higher prices, we have had more volatility as well. The old-crop cash bids are much higher than the bids for new-crop fall delivery.  All of these factors make marketing decisions even more stressful. Those two market movers, “fear and greed” can creep into decision-making.

Over the past few months, the ISUE Farm Management Field Specialists in a joint program with Farm Bureau have presented an interactive workshop called “Winning the Game”, examining pre-harvest marketing strategies.  The main goal of the workshop is to help producers develop an organized and disciplined way to build and use a marketing plan with an emphasis on pre-harvest marketing strategies. Of course, the ultimate goal is to add a few cents to the average sale price of each bushel sold per year. For example, a 10 cent increase in the price of corn in a few of the past years has been equivalent to the projected net profit for that year.

Why Pre-harvest
There are many reasons to add pre-harvest sales to the marketing tool box. Long term seasonal price trends are one of the biggest reasons.  Over the past 20 years, from May to October of each year, the price of corn has decreased 70% of the time an average of $.38.  Soybeans have declined 63% of the time an average of $.85. One of the fears in pre-harvest sales is a poor local crop in the face of higher fall prices.  This risk can be partially offset with the use of Federal Crop Insurance revenue protection tools with harvest price options.

Marketing Tools 
Simple tools can be used to enact a successful marketing plan. Fixed price tools include a cash forward contract which fixes both the price and basis.  Basis is the difference between the futures price and cash price.  Another fixed price tool is the hedge using commodity futures.  A futures contract is sold through a broker to lock in a price but not basis.  This contract is bought back when the grain is sold to a local elevator.  A third fixed price tool is a futures fixed or hedge-to-arrive (for one crop year).  The futures fixed contract is done through a local elevator where the futures price is fixed and the basis is locked in at a later time prior to harvest.  Each of these fixed price tools limits both downside risk and upside potential.  

Minimum price tools which will capture a portion of the upside potential can include using the options market.  These minimum price tools and the four key elements of a marketing plan will be discussed in the May issue of Field and Feedlot.

View as Word Document or pdf

Back to Field and Feedlot Homepage