Miller, Robert :

Knight, Ron :

Berry Dr, Steven L

Dunbar, John R.

Norman, Ben B. :

. ~ 1 . . Cc ' · . , • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ , . . . : " " ' . , . . . ' . , . ' ; . . , . _ ' , - " . : ' . - - ; > . - ~ ~ ' : . . : . J : ( . ~ . . , · ' . . , ' · " 8 , " ' . ' · · · ; ' ' a - " ' 1 · 8 ' , ~ ' ; / " . . . r ~ , ' ' ' . 11 " ' . ' . ? • . , . . • • > • • • • ' : ' " ' • • • • t , . . . ' . . . . - - . - - - - - - - " . ~ . . ~ ~ , . : ' ( . . , " . ~ ~ . - . . - , - , ~ - , , " . . . . - . - . . . In Memory of Dr . Edmond C . Loomis Teacher / Researcher / S pecialist whose expertise , versatility and dedication have benefited all segments of animal agriculture . His contributions to animal commodities will probably never be equaled . As a teacher , he was responsible for lectures and laboratories in the School ofVeterinary Medicine , training Farm Advisors in the essentials of veterinary entomology , and Extension - sponsored training programs . • As a researcher he achieved meritorious scientific accomplishments , both nationally and internationally , as well as adding immeasureable effectiveness in California through field research projects in various counties . As an Extension Specialist in parasitology , he provided sound technical information through newsletters , meetings , phone calls and farm visits for county Farm Advisors and producers . His candor , openness , professionalism , enthusiasm , willingness to listen and sense of humor will be sorely missed . • Table of Contents Introduction Beef Crisis Committee Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Marketing Reports : Beef Carcass Evaluation for the Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Educational Activities : Progress Report on A Beef Cattle Marketing and Evaluation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Beef Marlceting Seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Consumer Acceptance Educational Activities : Perspectives on Dietary Fat and Cholesterol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 How Safe is the Red Meat We Eat ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Business and Finance Reports : Business and Finance Committee Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Pasture Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Microcomputer Software for Production and Management Decisions of Drylot Beef Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Computer Applications in Financial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Production Management Reports : The Effect of Finaplix and Synovix - S Alone and in Combination on the Perfonnance of Carcass Characteristics of Feedlot Steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Educational Activities : The Effect of Growth Stimulants on Suckling Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Heifer Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Serving Capacity of Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Effect of Stage of Maturity and Number of Cutting on Trace Minerals in Alfalfa Grown in Kern County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Pasture Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Range Nitrogen Fertilization Rate Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Selenium Fertilization Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Selenium Concentrations in Cattle Blood and Three Range Forages in Kern County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Active Immunization Against GnRH : Nonsurgical Contraception in Beef Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Effect of GnRH Immunization of Heifers on Pregnancy Rate , Gain and Carcass Traits - A Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Annual Medic Variety Trials on Rangeland in San Luis Obispo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Bypass Protien Growing Range Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Controlled Grazing of Irrigated Pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Frost Tolerance of Annual Clovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Integration ofLivestock and Cereal Cropping Operations Into A Ley - Fanning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Monitoring Seasonal Forage Production - San Joaquin Experimental Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Pasture Probe Calibration - A Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Wann Season Grass Trial - A Progress Report ( with Wann Season Preference Trial ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Microcomputer Recordkeeping Program ( Cowcalf ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fly Ash Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Integrated Ranch Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Government Educational Activities : Mountain Meadow Monitoring Worlcshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Animal Health Reports : Fly Control Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 The Seasonality of Internal Parasite Eggs in Cattle Feces in Kern County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Wonn and Mineral Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Effects ofIvennectin on First - Calf Heifer Perfonnance and Calf Weight Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Efficacy of Selenium Pellets in Beef Cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Oxidized Copper Wire Particles as an Oral Copper Supplement for Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Selenium Pellet Trial - Nursing Heifer Calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Land Reports : The Effect of Blue Oak Removal on Forage Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Managing Mule Deer and Cattle on Summer Range in the Sierra Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Mojave Desert Range Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Educational Activities : Desert Range Monitoring Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Hardwood Rangeland Monitoring Worlcshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Riparian Area Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 INTRODUCTION Again , it is a pleasure to provide the 1988 summary of activitiesfor the University ofCaIifornia Cooperative Extension Beef and Range Workgroup . This publication is a collection of someoftheresearchandeducational activities of theCooperative Extension and campus based staff from several departments . Most of theresearch reports are acombined effortofCooperative Extension and department staff , and the people from the beef industry . Cooperative Extension and the beef industry cooperated in the " Beef Crisis Survey . " The objective of the survey was to identify problems or areas of concern that beef industry had in regards to profitability . The extensive summary of the survey ( reported in this publication ) identified marketing , consumer acceptance , business and finance , production management , government , animal health , and land use as major concerns . Some of these concerns can be addressed by the University and others must be addressed by the beef industry . Some of the activity reports that follow were on - going and some were initiated as a result of the beef crisis report . ' l'IIc UtUvooity ofCMi / omia . ill comp / ia_ willi " ' " CMlRi , ltLrM of1964 . TilldX of " ' " EdJoaJtio , . . . I . _1tdnw1lLrof1972 . " ' " ReItobilil4lio " Act of1973 . tJIfd " ' " A , . Di.rcrimi " " ' iottAct of1975 . dDu " " , dUaimi " " ' . OIIt1t.lNuUofrau.cned , r , zi , ioIl , CDIor . - w " " lori , iII , . u . _IttalorpIrJoiOtJl_ " " " . ora , . illtllfJ0fiLrpm . . - oractmti . . arwilltr . . " . ct1tOa " , ofiLr " " " ZO " ' WntpolU:in.practicu orprtJt:Ctlwu . Nor dou " ' " UIIiII • . . my ofCMif4r1tia diM:rimiJtat . ON " ' " _ifof_try • • 1lJlIIIIl orl4l114tiott . mtUital.kJtlU . citiz , " " ' ip . 1INdiaJ1 t:t » tdUioIt lu.fowl ill S.ctio " 12926 of " ' " CMifo . . . ua · ~ nteo.u ) orbcoalU.ittdMtlMauar.di.rablcdWlkra . . . orVic__ . . . t_IM.jiMd " ' ' ' ' ' ' Vi . _EraV.k_Readj_ntActofl974tJ1fdS.ctiottI2940of " " ' CMi / or1tiaGowrlflMnt CotU ) . I " ' lIliri . . n , . . . . . ti , . , tltirpo / icy " " " bcaddru.edto " " ' A / limuliYcActiOllDinctor . Utriwr.ityofCMiforrtia , AIJrlC1IIt_tutdNatwalRuo . . . " . . • 300 l4UoitM DriIIc . 6t1tFloor . 0akIaNl , CA 94612 · 3560 415 · 98UX ) 97 . Beef Crisis Committee Report Ben B . Norman , John R . Dunbar , Steven Berry , Ron Knight , and Robert Miller Executive Summary In 1986 - 87 the University of California Cooperative Extension ( CE ) Beef Crisis Committee ( BCC ) scheduled 90 minute interviews with 50 ranchers , 29 CE livestock farm advisors , 30 allied industry persons , and 8 agricultural educators . They were asked ' ' What problems must be re­solved to return the beef industry to profitability and to maintain profit ? " They were also asked to give solutions to those problems . The BCC compiled the answers under the following headings in order of numbers of responses . In Marketing , the most frequently mentioned problems were lack of enough California slaughter houses to provide a strong competitive live market ; inadequate ranch market­ing strategies ; a fragmented , internally competitive beef industry ; antiquated meat selling techniques ; and a need for improved beef export . A lack ofwell - financed professional meat promotion and advertising programs ; scarcity of new meat products ; and inadequate attention to selling alterna­tive sources of income ( hunting , fishing , frrewood , etc . ) were mentioned . Marketing problem solutions included revising labor laws , seeking tax - free bonds for slaughter house construc­tion , or building a plant in Mexico . Cooperative marketing , vertical integration , and generation of more check - off funds for promotion were also listed . Consumer acceptance problems included the percep­tion by consumers and health professionals that beef con­tains harmful residues , hormones , and antibiotics ; con­sumer preference away from beef because of lack of con­venience products and supposed high - fat content ; a meat grading system based . on fat content when consumers are demanding leaner meat ; and a continuing lack ofuniformity and consistency in retail beef products were of concern to most individuals interviewed . Solutions included increased funds for professional advertising to alleviate the health concerns , product re­search to make beef more convenient at competitive prices , and realistic grading . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Business and Finance concerns were related to poor record keeping and inadequate business management skills that cause ranchers to make poor economic choices , includ­ing the inability by most to use futures markets to reduce risks based . on realistic costs of production . Acceptance of low profits to maintain a Western lifestyle was suggested as impeding business efficiency . High interest rates , lenders with little understanding of agriculture , and lack of avail­able credit were mentioned as problems . Great concern was expressed about the lack ofpolitical participation by ranch­ers , inadequate lobbying efforts and poor representation by the National Cattlemen's Association ( NCA ) . Solutions for rancher business and [ mance problems included CE training programs for ranch record keeping and more formal county - based business training opportuni­ties . Better accounting practices , training in production futures , increased participation in local and state associa­tions , local political campaigns , state and national lobbying efforts , and enforced representation of the NCA would improve the industry . Production Management problems cited were high costs of production inputs ; maximizing production instead of maximizing profits ; and the reluctance ofmany ranchers to adopt new technology . Other concerns were the lack of a holistic approach to management ; poor forage manage­ment ; poor genetic improvement ; animal welfare / rights problems ; low reproduction rates of cows ; and inadequate research funding and coordination . CE problems men­tioned were the need for livestock farm advisors ( LFA ) to have economic expertise ; the need to develop CE problem­solving teams ; the need to concentrate CE efforts on the 20 % of the ranchers producing 80 % of the cattle ; and the need for more money for CE specialists and field research . It was suggested that CE develop specialists and LF A's with economic expertise work in teams and broaden man­agement training for the commercial producer . More em­phasis on economics of decisions would permit implemen­tation of new technology on an economically rational basis . Page 4 Beef Crisis Report Continued Government problem concerns were related to market distortion from tax shelter ranching , directmarketinterven­tion , subsidies of commodities , and lack of import controls on beef . Animal Health problems were associated with lack of understanding of herd health and animal nutrition ; unsolved questions about trichomoniasis and foothill abor­tion ; improper use of veterinary pharmaceuticals and poor use of veterinarians ; and foreign trained vets running gov­ernment health programs . Land problems stem from bid­ding land prices beyond the profitability of beef cattle because of absentee owners " hiding " profits from other en­terprises in ranching . Many ranchers do not exploit all their land resources , including the development of hunting , fish­ing , packing , Christmas trees , frrewood , etc . The Miscella­neous problem category was large and varied . Governmental solutions included eliminating tax laws that facilitate sheltering outside income in ranching and getting govemment out of agriculture , perlod . Animal health research into specific problem diseases , better veterinary drug - use training , and making foreign - trained vets meet the same standards as U.S . - trained vets were suggested . Com­prehensive land ranch resource analysis would permit de­veloping a good business plan with stated goals and broader resource utilization . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report PageS Beef Carcass Evaluation for the Southern California Beef Workgroup Area Marion E . Stanley , Farm Advisor , Monterey County Introduction Beef carcass evaluations have been carried out through carcass contests atcounty fairs in Californiafor many years . These contests have provided a means for educational programs to make junior exhibitors , leaders , advisors and breeders aware ofdifferences in carcass traits that influence the value of the carcass . They have also been valuable to breeders in identifying breeding stock that produce cattle with superior carcasses . During the last several years , consumer preferences for leaner beef have led to attempts to eliminate outside fat , while maintaining enough marbling to give palatability . Procedure Farm Advisors in nine counties in the Southern Califor­nia Beef Workgroup area submitted information gathered from eleven carcass contests at local county fairs . Two Farm Advisors indicated that carcass contests have been discontinued due to small numbers of exhibitors and prob­lems encountered by the packers having to discount low grading resale steers . Others indicated that the educational programs had been scaled down or altered so that other topics relating to carcass evaluation could be included . Ultra - sound measurements of back - fat thickness on live steers was related to manual back - fat measurements of the carcasses at two fairs . These correlations were small . Most contests indicated that steer numbers were down from previous years . This may be due to the high cost involved in feeding out a project steer . A microcomputer approach to steer evaluation at the Madera County Fair indicated that all of the projects lost money ranging from $ 38.70 to $ 142.59 per steer . From the data submitted , carcass quality grades were broken into groupings of high , average , and low for each grade . These are shown in the accompanying table . Results and Discussion Data was available for 384 steers . The percent of steers grading choice minus or better was calculated for each fair . Although there was some variability between fairs , the average was only 32.6 % , whereas several years ago this group would have included at least 50 % ofthe steers . When carcasses down through the high good grade were included the average was 54.4 % . This still leaves nearly fifty percent of the carcasses that were below the generally accepted level to qualify for awards . Comparisons made at the Santa Barbara County Fair between 1977 and 1987 indicated a drop in the percent of carcasses grading choice minus and above from 57.1 % to 31.8 % All carcasses grading high goodand above dropped from 76.9 % 1048.5 % . The number of carcasses in the average good and low good grades increased from 15.4 % to 43.9 % , and the number in the standard grades remained about the same , with 7.7 % and 7.6 % respectively . Reasons for the lower grades might include , not feeding a high enough energy ration , too short a time on feed , too young an age , or late maturing breeds . The following Farm Advisors contributed information for this report : Dan Irving , Calaveras County ; Aaron Nel­son , Fresno County ; Neil McDougald , Madera County ; Jim Farley , Merced County ; Wain Johnson , Mariposa County Marion Stanley , Monterey County ; Sergio Garcia , San Benito County ; Herl Weisheit , San Diego County ; Bill Weitkamp , San Luis Obispo County ; Wayn , Jensen , Santa Barbara County ; Joe Rodriguez , Santa Cruz County . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Marketing Page 6 Progress Report on a Beef Cattle Marketing and Evaluation Model A decision - making aid for marketing beef cattle from pasture . Daniel J . Drake , Farm Advisor , Siskiyou County and Mina Ostergard , Computer Specialist , Davis Campus Introduction Natural resources offorage are currently utilized by beef ranchers in California in enterprises known as stocker operations . In these endeavors young beef cattle are pur­chased , and managed , to convert forages into salable heav­ier cattle . Cattle management and marketing involves con­siderable skill and risk . Some computer software has been developed to assist in strategic planning but most applica­tions are largely empirical . Specific deficiencies are failure to draw from available databases of information , inade­quate risk assessment and sensitivity analysis and lack of systematic error recognition and correction . An interdisciplinary team has identified the most critical of these problems and has recommended using advanced computer technology to address them . Development , test­ing and verification , implementation and evaluation of the purposed computer application in strategic planning by beef cattle ranchers has been planned . Procedures This report summarizes work by numerous individuals at the University of California including Cooperative Ex­tension , Departments ofAnimal Science , Natural Resources , and Computer Science . An initial meeting considered the potentials for Artifi­cial Intelligence and / or Expert Systems as tools for solving marketing problems in California beef cattle production . Subsequent meetings were held to work on specific sugges­tions . A graduate student , acting as a knowledge engineer , developed a knowledge base using knowledge gathered from a survey . A prototype rule based Expert System was developed . An existing computer model was also incorpo­rated into the Expert System . Results Iterative rate of gain models , linear optimization and expert systems have been integrated into a prototype com­puter system . This prototype has been used to test the feasibility of the project . This prototype model was demonstrated to various po­tential users . The model uses a system developed at UC Davis to link various modules . Conceptually the model was successful : databases of prices were accessed , iterative animal weight gain models were run and optimization was performed . Sensitivity analysis and error detection and correction were not prototyped . Critical areas for development were estimations ofpro­jected prices , sensitivity analysis and error correction . Review of the literature in these critical areas sugguested methods for further testing . Ready access to historical prices , both cash and futures , and current futures prices were limiting . . . . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Marketing Page 7 Beef Marketing Seminar The program was to educate beef producers from the South Central Coast as to some of the latest concepts and innovations in marketing beef cattle . Speakers were from several segments of the beef industry . The contact person was Bill Weitkamp , San Luis Obispo County . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Marketing PageS Perspectives on Dietary Fat and Cholesterol Combating Misinformation The program is a result of the Cooperative Extension Food and Nutrition Workgroup ( Home Economics Depart­ment ) efforts to combat nutritional misinformation . The purpose was to update medical doctors , dietitians , home economists , and other health professionals on the latest in­formation regarding fats and cholesterol . The major part of the information presented was similar to those of the Cali­fornia Beef Council . The instructors were from the USC School of Medicine , UC Davis Department of Nutrition , UC Davis School of Medicine , UCLA School of Public Health , and UC Cooperative Extension . The contact person was Helene Swenerton , Ph.D . , Extension Nutritionist , UC Davis . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Consumer Acceptance Page 9 How Safe is the Red Meat We Eat ? Ralph L . Phillips This talk was presented as part of a program entitled . " How Safe is Our Food . " The program was designed to educate health professionals and paraprofessionals as to the principles oftoxicity and food safety . The " How Safe is the Red Meat We Eat ? " talk was also presented to the Kern County Nutrition Council and the local chapter of American Home Economic Association . Copies of this paper are available from the Kern County Farm Advisors ' Office in Bakersfield . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Consumer Acceptance Page 10 . : • • • : - . : • • : : : ; . . . : . . . . . . . . . ' . . . • • • : . : : : . : . . . ; . : . . . . : : . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' : ' : ' . : ; : : : : - ; : : : . : : - . : . : - : - : • . , : . . . . . : . : . . • . • • . • . • • • • • : . . • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • - : . : . < ~ < : . : : : : • . • . y : . . . < • • • • : - . , . . . . . . : . . . ; . : . : : . • • : : . ~ ; : ' . • , : : : : : . : . . . . . . . : - • • : • • - : : : . . . . . . : : ; . - : - ; . . . . . < " V : - : : : : : • . : - : . ; : : < = > : . ~ : - . . . , . . . . : : . ; . . . . . : , . < - « : : . . . : . . . : . . . . . : - : . : - : : . : : ~ - : : ; : : < : < : ~ « : : : - « . - : : w . - : : . - : x : . ' : : ' ; . : : ( . w . . . . . Business and Finance Committee Report One ofthe areas of concern to cattlemen as revealed in the beef crisis interviews was in the field of business and finance . To determine what action might be useful to cattlemen caught between rising costs and lower returns , a committee of farm advisors , specialists , faculty members , and industry advisors was formed . Discussions of the committee have resulted in an action plan that has commit­ment and activity . The thrust of the plan is to develop programs that will allow the rancher to better manage the business aspects of his operation . These programs will be available on com­puter disks along with documentation and tutorial aids . Programs currently being developed include cost studies on cow - calf operations and stocker operations , a spreadsheet on advantages and disadvantages ofretained ownership of cattle through the feedlot , a simple ranch bookkeeping program , and a pasture inventory program . These programs will be distributed through the Univer­sity for a modest cost and the purchaser will be advised of updates as well as additional programs as they become available . 1988 BeerWorkgroup Report Business and Finance Pagel ! Pasture Inventory Mel George , Monte Bell and Leanne Lasarow Pasture Specialist , Fann Advisor and Computer Programmer Introduction Many ranchers keep animal or herd performance records but do not keep any sort of pasture performance records . The pasture inventory program provides the rancher with a method of keeping pasture records as well as summaries of pasture use and animal performance . With these summa­ries , the rancher can monitor seasonal and yearly pasture performances . This program is a method ofcompiling and summarizing the information that many ranchers tally in their pocket or pickup notebooks ; namely the date , count and kind of cattle that are moved , sold , vaccinated , weaned , etc . This compiled dBASEcomputerprogram is a useful tool in holistic resource management of a cattle operation and also for agency records and studies involving animal unit months ( AUM ) . Reports are generated for all or individual pastures and for all or individual animal groups . Procedure The idea for such a program came from our frustration at being unable to quantify the economic benefit , if any , of range improvement practices implemented on a practical ranch scale with no " experimental control . " The ranchers tally books often had missing pages and past history was difficult to resurrect or recollect . Since the rancher ( or spouse ) would be the recorder we knew the program must be user friendly . To ensure this , we obtained several cooperators as soon as we had a sample spreadsheet program ready for use . Over a period of three years the collaboration among rancher , fann advisor , spe­cialist and programmer produced a practical program ( still evolving ) that is being used by at least four cooperators : A stocker operator , two cow - calf producers and an agency land manager . The stocker operator wanted to track gain and death loss on groups ofcattle identified by source ( brand ) . One cow­calf operator wanted to monitor the effect of additional fencing on head days per acre and the other wanted to see if range fertilization really paid in increased gain or carrying capacity . The public land manager needed an easy , quick way to calculate AUM's of different classes of cattle on different allotments . The program has been demonstrated to fann advisors and is available from them . We have also demonstrated the program at computer classes , computer ag workshops and at cattlemen's meetings . Results The program is menu driven . To setup aranch the useris asked to create a pasture database simply bygiving it a name and then entering each pasture by name or number and acreage . The user is asked to create an animal database simply by giving it a name . The pasture database will remain the same over the years except for paddock subdivi­sions , name changes , etc . The user may want to change the animal database name annUally . Required entries include the date and number of head as cattle groups move from pasture ( paddock ) to pasture . In order to calculate Animal Unit Months ( AUM's ) an esti­mated or actual total weight must be entered ( 1000 lbs.live wt . = 1 AU ) . Our cooperators made sure the moves were flexible and entries could be made easily by allowing for split and combined groups , death loss or missing cattle and the ability to move by entire pastures or by specific cattle classes . Other optional entries are comments , drypastureresidue or height of growth and supplemental feed . Reports Reports may be calculated for any or all pastures , any or all cattle groups and for any time period . Pre - printed field forms may also be generated to make the next set of records easier to collect and enter . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Business and Finance Page 12 : : : : : . : . . . . . . . . : : . : : . . . . . : : . : : : . . . . . : : : . : . : . . . : " - : . : . : : . . : : : : : : : . . : : : : : : : : : : . . : " : ' : : : : : " : : : : . : : : . : . : . . : : . : : : : : . : : . . . . . ' . . . Pasture Inventory Continued The following are samples of the reports : Report 1 from 07 / 12 / 86 TO 08 / 30 / 86 09 / 24 / 86 Carrying Capacity Head Kind Comment I Days Head ADM AUM / Resi - SUP N Days Acre due ADM Pasture : Fld 1 is 56 acres 110 wean heif Combined 8 880 18 0.31 2 0.60 104 wean heif Combined 4 416 7 0.13 2 0.50 116 wean heif Combined 0 0 0 0.00 2 0.70 330 wean heif ToFld2 17 5610 116 2.07 1 0.00 - SUBTOTALS - 6906 142 2.54 1.80 - Pasture:Fld 6 is 63 acres 100 cow 41 4100 134 2.13 0 0.00 * 85 calf 41 3485 17 0.27 0 0.00 * - SUBTOTALS - 7585 151 2.41 0.00 · - TOTALS - 14491 294 4.15 1.80 Report 3 from 07 / 12 / 86 to 08 / 30 / 86 09 / 24 / 86 Animal Gains Head Kind Comment I Avg . Ave . ADO Date Date Days Head NWt.In Wt.Out In Out Days 110 wean heif Combined 638 638 0.0 07 / 12 07 / 20 8 880 104 wean heif Combined 564 564 0.0 07 / 16 07 / 20 4 416 116 wean heif Combined 656 656 0.0 07 / 20 07 / 20 0 0 330 wean heif ToFld2 621 638 0.9 07 / 20 08 / 06 17 5610 - SUBTOTALS - 56081bs gain 0.8 adghead days 6906 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 13 Microcomputer Software for Production and Management Decisions of Drylot Beef Cattle Daniel J . Drake and Monte Bell Cooperative Extension , University of California Introduction Computers have been used in cattle feeding operations since the 196Os . Development and advancement of per­sonal computers starting in the late 1970s and progressing into the 1980s have increased physiological and nutritional knowledge of diverse cattle breeds . Prolonged periods of severe financial stress in the 1980s have encouraged beef producers to consider alternate management strategies . A computer program was developed for use by cattle produc­ers , consultants and educators to consider numerous feed­ing and marketing alternatives of drylot cattle under a variety of operational scenarios . Procedure Existing computer programs for evaluation of cattle feeding , from so - called first generation spreadsheets ( e.g . Visi - Calc ) were reviewed . Revisions incorporating new features of advanced spreadsheets ( e.g . Lotus and Super­calc 4 ) that enhanced ease of operation , speed of calculation and design were developed . Additional infonnation consid­ering newer cattle breeds , frame sizes and background ( NRC . 1984 ) was included in the computer algorithms . Field testing with cattle producers and use in educational meetingsresultedin numeroussmall . but significant changes . These changes were predominantly for ease of use and to facilitate learning how to use the spreadsheet program . Results and Discussion A spreadsheet template for use with either Lotus of Supercalc 4 ( the ~ nd user must possess either of these programs to use the template ) has been developed , tested and is available for distribution to all interested persons . Use by Extension staff at educational meetings has shown a rapid learning curve by new users . Theprogram is easy to demonstrate and very adaptable to different inter­ests of the audience . The program has been used by producers to evaluate a wide range of feeding and marketing alternatives such as heavy cattle going into feedlots and backgrounding calves at the ranch by farmer / feeders . Key features of the program in addition to its ease of use are consideration of a wide range of cattle types and backgrounds and the use of either specific user data or calculation of simulated perfonnance . Further details and the program with documentation are available from the authors . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Business and Finance Page 14 Computer Applications in Financial Analysis Glenn Nader , Farm Advisor , Lassen County Introduction Problems within Financial Management of Beef Cattle operations lead many livestock Farm Advisors to request a computerized accounting program for their clientele . AFarm Stress project was organized and a specific com­puterized accounting program called Turbo Farm was de­veloped . Procedure Turbo Farm was developed by University Cooperative Extension Economist Jim Cothern . The intent of Turbo Farm is to provide a low cost introductory program to move rancher's records from hand ledgers to computers . This allows for extensive on ranch data to make confident man­agement decisions . Results The first version was Turbo Farm 1.48 which tabulated and analyzed the following information : • Receipts • Expenses • Inventory • Depreciation • Investments • Net Worth Statement • Farm Profit Statement The program was used by many livestock Farm Advisors to teach Farm Management courses , and illustrate the strength of computer accounting systems . Turbo Farm was demonstrated by the beef work groups Computer Applica­tions Committee in two seminars at the 1987 California Cattlemen's Convention in Reno . This beginning account­ing program can be purchased for $ 25 from , Jim Cothern , 283 Voohries Hall , University of California , Davis , CA . , 95616 . A new version 2.3 will be released after testing . This version allows for 8000expense types ( lables ) , 2000receipt types ( lables ) , and lOOO enterprises ( businesses ) . Conclusions More than 400 copies of this program have been distrib­uted in California . Many ranchers have used it to get a better analysis of their ranch costs and income . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Business and Finance PagelS The Effects of Finaplixand Synovex - S ® Alone and in Combination on the Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Feedlot Steers Principal Investigators J . R . Dunbar An . Sci . Coop . Ext . W . N . Garrett An . Sci . Dept . J . L . Hull An . Sci . Dept . John W . Paul , DVM , MS , Manager of Professional Services for Hoechst - Roussel Agri - Vet Company Current Status The efficacy of growth implants to enhance rate of gain , feed efficiency , and carcass leanness is well established . Implanting is probably one of the most cost effective management practices available to the cattle producer . Research by Horton and Wray ( 1987 ) have shown that cattle implanted with a combination ofFinaplix ~ and Syn­ovex - S ~ outperform cattle receiving a single implant of FinaplixR or Synovex - S ~ . Immediate Objectives To evaluate the performance and carcass characteristics of fmishing yearling steers implanted with Finaplix ~ or Synovex - S ~ alone and in combination . Parameters to be studies are : • Weight Gain • Feed Efficiency • Hot Carcass Weight • Cold Carcass Weight • Dressing % • Fat Thickness • Marbling Score • USDA Quality Grade • Carcass Shrinkage • Ribeye Area • Liver Abscesses • USDA Yield Grade Steers will be randomly assigned to 4 treatments and fed in individual pens . There will be 15 replicate pens for treatment groups . Table 1 . Experimental Design Implanted Reimplanted Control None None Finaplixll Day 1 Day 84 Synovex - S ~ Day 1 Day 84 Finaplix ~ plus Synovex - S ~ Day 1 Day 84 All treatment groups will befed a high - concentrate , 70 % wheat diet during the experimental period . The schedule for this research is November 15 , 1987 to approximately May 1988 . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 16 The Effect of Growth Stimulants on Suckling Calves Rick Delmas , Modoc County Farm Advisor Introduction Growth implants have been available to the beef cattle industry since 1954 and are used by many producers in Modoc County at branding / marking time . Hundreds of tests in California have demonstrated the effectiveness of im­planting on the rate of gain , feed efficiency and profit in grazing or wintering yearlings , and feedlot steers and heif­ers . Until 6 - 8 years ago it was thought that suckling beef calves consistently responded to implants . A lack of re­sponse togrowth stimulants , however , has been observed in suckling beef calves in trials by Dan Drake , Glenn Nader , and Bill Van Riet . ( 1983 - 84 ) 1.2 Procedure These trials were conducted to determine if suckling calves less than 250 pounds consistently responded to growth stimulants . All calves were implanted at branding / marking time , weighed , and run together . Final weights were taken at weaning time . Calves in Modoc County were either pastured on rangeland ( Ranch A ) or native meadows ( Ranches B & C ) . Calves at the UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station were pastured on annual grasslands . Recom­mended implant procedures were used . RanchB 1985 No Implant Compudose Number 24 24 # Days 134 134 Initial Wt . 157 156 EndingWt . 422 429 Gain 265 273 A.D.G . 2.32 2.40 Response 3 % No Statistical Significance Summary : Four Compudose Trials No Implant Compudose Number 91 91 # Days 146 146 InitialWt . 156 153 EndingWt . 439 440 Gain 283 287 A.D.G . 2.04 2.07 Response : 1.4 % Table 1 Compudose Implant Trials - Modoc County 1985 - 88 Ranch A 1985 1986 1987 No Implant Compudose No Implant Compudose No Implant Compudose Number 26 26 27 27 14 14 # Days 143 143 155 155 150 150 Beg.Wt 152 153 149 149 175 165 EndWt 420 418 451 463 480 456 Gain 268 265 302 318 305 291 A.D.G . 1.87 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.03 1.93 Response 0 . % 5 . % 0 . % No Statistical Significance 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 17 Growth Simmulant Effects Continued • Results and Discussion Four Compudose trials on steers overt three years Dunbar , J.R . , W.A . Jensen , BLane , G . Nader , R . Phillips , ( 1985 - 87 ) in Modoc County have shown a 0 - 5 % implant B . Weitkamp : Growth responses ofSteers to Com­response , Table 1 . Neither of these trials was significant pudoseCi or SynovexCi Animal Science Roundup , Univer­ ( p = . 10 ) . Combining the data from these four trials gave an sity of California Cooperative Extension . Volume 6 , no . 1 overall positive Compudose implant response in 1.4 % . A & 2 , Jan / Feb 1985 . similar lack of response by suckling steers to Ralgro and 2Drake , D . , G . Nader , B . Van Reit . Person Communica­Synovex - c was observedatRanch A in 1987 , Table 2 . Three tion . University ofCalifornia , Cooperative Extension , Ralgro implant trials at the Sierra Foothill Range Field Farm Advisors . Station have produced a 0 - 5 % implant response , which is not significant , Table 3 . The reason for this variability in implant response by lightweight calves ( less than 250 pounds ) is not known . This data suggests that due to the variability of implant results it may not be beneficial to implant your calves at branding / marking time ifthey weigh 250 pounds or less . If you retain ownership ofyour calves until they are yearlings it possibly makes more sense to implant your calves at weaning time to obtain more consistent results . Table 2 1987 Implant Trial Results , Modoc County Ranch A 1987 No . Implant Compudose Ralgro Synovex - C Initial Wt . 175 165 167 175 EndingWt . 480 456 467 484 Gain 305 291 300 309 AD.G . 2.03 1.90 1.98 2.03 Response : 0 . % o . % 0 . % 14 Head per treatment group 150 - DayTrial No statistical significance between treatments Table 3 Ralgro Implant Trials on Heifers UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station , Rick Delmas 1978 1983 1984 No Implant Ralgro No Implant Ralgro No Implant Ralgro Number 38 98 8 90 10 58 # Days 76 84 104 91 104 96 Initial Wt . 290 228 257 267 214 269 EndingWt . 413 371 438 419 409 439 Gain 123 143 181 152 195 170 AD.G . 1.62 1.70 1.75 1.67 1.87 1.77 Response 5 % 0 % 0 % No statistical significance 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 18 • Heifer Management J.R . Dunbar , SL Berry , W.N . Garrett , T.E . Adams , T.R . FamuIa , and Y.B . Lee Introduction A major problem in the cattle industry today is the price discounts on heifers as compared to steers . This price difference is illustrated by the following information from the Market News Service , November 12 & 13 , 1987 . 1 . The average 450 - pound heifer ca1f was worth approximately $ 88 less than the average steer calf due to both weight and price differences . 2 . Feeder heifers sold for about 18 % less per pound than steer calves of similar quality . 3 . Finished heifers sold for approximately 5 % less per pound than finished steers of similar quality . 4 . Choice heifercarcasses werevaluedatapproximately 2 % less per pound than choice steer carcasses . This price differential is indicative ofa strong preference for steers by stocker operators , feedlot operators , packers , and retailers . This experiment was designed to investigate various treatments to make market heifers more efficient and profitable . This report summarizes a study to compare the effects of melengestralacetate ( MGA ) , K - R Spaying techniques , and gonadotropin - releasing hormone ( GnRH ) immunization on feedlot performance . economic returns . and carcass characteristics of market heifers . Procedures One hundred twelve open mixed - breed yearling heifers with an average initial weight of623 pounds were random­ized by weight into 8 equal treatment groups . The treat­mentswere : 1 . Control 2 . Control plus Synovex - H All heifers were fed in individual pens . Rations were identical in composition ( Table 1 ) except for the addition of MGA to these treatment groups . All heifers were managed and processed Ute same after initial treatment Table 1 . Ration Feed Composition as Fed ( % ) Alfa1fa Hay 25 % 11.00 Oat Hay 5.00 Com # 2 70.00 Molasses , Can 10.40 Fat 2.00 Limestone . 20 Dicalcium Phosphate . 20 Gypsum . 20 Trace mineral salt . 50 Urea . 50 Results During the first 28 - day period ofthe study ( Table 2 ) the MGA heifers consumed significantly ( p < 0.5 ) more feed than the K - R Spay and GnRH heifers ( Table 2 ) . During the same period control heifers gained significantly ( p < 0.5 ) faster than the K - R Spay or GnRH heifers . Table 2 . Effects ofMGA , K·R and GnRH on Heifer Performance ( First 28 Days ) . Control MGA K - RSpay GnRH Daily Dry Matter ( lb ) 10.05ab 10.30 - 9.24b 9.23b 3 . MGAO . 6mg / hd / day Daily Wt Gain ( lb ) 2.68 2.56ab 2.10bc : 2.040 4 . MGA 0.6 mg / hd / day plus Synovex - H Feed / lb gain / lb 8.92 9.42 11.33 9.75 5 . K - RSpay 6 . K - RSpayplusSynovex - H . , b , o Means in the same row with the same superscript are not signifi­7 . Immunized to GnRH cantly different 8 . Immunized to GnRHplus Synovex - H 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 19 Heifer Management Continued Feedlot performance and carcass data are presented in • Table 3for each ofthe main treatments . Table4 shows the implanttreatments Table 3 . Effects of MGA , K - R Spaying and GnRH on Heifer Performance and Carcass Characteristics . Control K - R Spay Number of animals 28 28 28 28 Initial Shrunk Wt ( lb ) 620 627 621 623 Fi nal Sh runk Wt ( 1 b ) 1006 1012 990 984 Dry ' . iatter Intake ( 1 bid ) 21.19 ab 21.66 a 21.52 ab 20.32 b Shrunk Gain ( lb / d ) 3 . ~ 5 3.14 3.01 2.94 Empty Body Wt Gain ( ] bid ) 3.14 ab 3.20 a 2.95 b 2.98ab Feed / lb Shrunk Gain 6.76 6.97 6.84 7.01 Feed / lb Empty Body Wt • Carcass Data : Dressing ( % ) ! " 1arbl ing Score1 Quality Grade2 Yield Grade Ribeye Area ( sq in ) Composition of Gain : Fat ( % ) Water ( % ) Protein ( % ) ( lb ) 6.78 6.84 6.98 6.92 62.42 63.02 61.83 62.62 7.79 7.75 9.07 7.11 11.07 11.32 11.71 10.86 3.60 3.61 3.39 3.30 11.01 11.03 10.75 10.96 58.18 58.78 59.18 60.52 29.53 29.07 28.77 27.76 9.99 9.87 9.79 9.53 a , b Means in the same row with the . same superscript are not significantly different . 1 7 = Slight + , 8 = Small - , 10 = Small + 2 11 = Good + , 12 = Choice - , 13 = Choice 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 20 Heifer Management Continued • Table 4 . Effects of Growth Implants on Heffer Performance and Carcass Characterfstics . . NQ Implan:t Growth Implant Inital Shrunk Wt ( lb ) 623 623 Final Shrunk Wt ( lb ) 978 1018 Dry Matter Intake ( lb / d ) 20.58 21 . 27 Shrunk Gain ( lb / d ) 2.90 a 3.23 b Empty Body Wt Gain ( lb / d ) 3.23 b Feed / lb Gain Shrunk Wt ( lb ) 7.13 a 6.63 b Feed / lb Empty Body Wt ( lb ) 7.16 a 6.63 b Carcass Da:ta : Dressing ( % ) 62.27 62.68 r · 1arbl ing Score 8.05 7.80 Quality Grade 11 . 30 11.18 Yield Grade 3.46 3.45 Ribeye Area ( Sq in ) 10.75 11.13 Composjtion of Gajn : Fat un 62.30 a 56.03 b Water on 26.40 a 31.17 b Protein ( % ) 9.18 a 10.41 b " a , b Means in the same row with the same superscript are not significantly different . Data in Table 3 show that cattle treated with MGA had a significantly ( p < 0.5 ) higher empty body weight gain than the D - R Spay heifers . Carcass characteristics were not appreciably influenced by treabnenL Average daily gain ( Table 4 ) was significantly ( p < 0.5 ) improved by implant­ing Synovex - H . Carcass characteristics were not apprecia­1988 Beef Workgroup Report bly influenced by implant treatment ( Table 4 ) , but compo­sition of gain favored implanted heifers . Ifthe price differential between steers and heifers is too great , producers can take advantage of MGA and growth implants and might consider maintaining ownership through the feedlot . Page 21 • • . . Introduction Several studies have shown a large variation in sexual motivation and mating ability of beef bulls . This has been called serving capacity . Serving capacity can be tested in pens by exposing bulls to restrained females for a 15 to 30 minute period . Adoption of the procedures in the field by seedstock producers hasbeen slow . Questions remain about breed differences in response to the test , optimum testing time , how old bulls must be to obtain reliable data , are some bulls " shy " breeders , etc . Red Angus breeder , Roy McPhee approached us with a willingness to try the test if we could provide help and restraining stanchions . We agreed so we could obtain ranch experimental data . Red Angus and Red Brangus bulls which had completed post weaning gain test were tested in 1985,1986 and 1987 . Procedure Four stanchions were used in each test . Females were supplied by McPhee and by the U.C . Sierra Field Station . Females were all given a tranquilizer , and the vagina lubri­cated . Bulls were waiting for the test while loading the females and while prior bulls were tested , across a wire fence about 10 feet from the stanchions . In 1985,51 bulls were tested : 3 - 3 year olds , 29 - 20 to 22 months old , and 19 - 15 to 17 months old . The test was conducted on June 28 , 1985 . Four to 6 bulls were turned in to the four females for a 15 minute period . Two observers recorded all mounts , and successful mounts with intromis­sion and ejaculation . In 1986 , two tests were conducted . On June 18 , thirty three bulls 15 to 18 months ofage were tested . On Sept . 18 , 78 bulls were tested . Sixteen of these were already tested in June , so they were being re - tested at 18 to 21 months ofage . The tests in 1986 were 20 minute tests . In 1987 , thirty two 17 - 24 month old Red Angus bulls were tested on Sept . 8 . On Sept . 14 and 15 , 78 bulls 11 to 13 months of age were tested . All tests were 20 minute tests . Serving Capacity of Bulls William J . van Riet , Farm Advisor , Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties Dr . Ed Price , Dept . Animal Science , UCD Because this latter group of bulls were so young , they were given a informal exposure to restrained females for 15 min­utes or until they had one successful mount , which ever came flrSt , a day or two prior to the official test . Also , all bulls that did not have a successful serve on the official test were re - tested within a 24 hour period . The reason these allowances were made was because at this age it became apparent that sexual maturity had not yet been reached , and that we wanted every bull to have an opportunity to exhibit his developing serving capacity . Results and Discussion 1 . The tests were considered to be relatively easy to conduct . Some 50 bulls can be tested with four restraining stanchions and 4 - 5 people in a 6 hour period . The twenty minute test period wasjudged to be adequate . Most bulls had ample opportunity to exhibit both libido and ability within a 15 - 20 minute period . 2 . Females used for testing , need to beofapproximately the same age and maturity of the bulls being tested or older . In 1985 some of the females used were quite small in relation to the 2 and 3 year old bulls tested . Two females suffered from damaged reproductive tracts which became infected . These heifers were sold for slaughter . 3 . Summary by age : 1985 Date No . Age Serving % with 1 Capacity or more serves June 28 3 34 - 40 mo . 2.67 100 % June 28 29 26 - 28 mo . 2.79 90 % June 28 19 15 - 18 mo . 1.53 79 % 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 22 • • • ' . " : : : " . : : ' ' ' : . . ' : : : • • : • • • . . . : . . . . . • • • • • . ; . • • : . : : : . ' : : ' ; " : : : : ' : : : ' : " ' : . . . . . . . . : : : . ~ . : : " ' : : . : : . ' . : . : . . . . : : • • • : ; . ~ ; . . . . • . : : : : : . : : ; ; : - : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : . : • . • : . : ~ : : : : : : : : ; . X : < - Serving Capacity ofBulls Continued • 1986 Date No . Age Serving % with 1 Capacity or more serves Sept . 18 23 . 18 - 21 mo . 2.78 96 % June 18 33 15 - 18 mo . 1.52 76 % Sept . 18 53 11 - 14 mo . 1.36 49 % 16 bulls tested in June with an average serving • capacity of 1.43 were retested in Sept . ( 92 days older ) and the average serving capacity increased to 2.68 . Two of these bulls which had no successful serves on the fast test were successful 92 days later . 1987 Date No . Age Serving % with 1 Capacity or more serves Sept . 8 32 17 - 24 mo . 3.6 93.8 % Sept 14 - 15 78 11 - 13 mo . 2.19 67.9 % There were no significant differences in the serving ca­pacityof 11 , 12 and 13 month old yearling bulls . 4 . In 1987we also examined the differences in serving capacity among sire groups . No significant differences were found to exist . Other studies have found significant differences in serving capacity among bulls from different sires . 5 . All of the bulls tested were Red Angus except 9 ( 3 Brahman crosses in 1985 and 6 in 1986 ) , so inadequate numbers were available toevaluate breed differences . 6 . Generally , serving capacity scores increased with age . 7 . When testing yearlings , they may be in various stages of sexual maturity . One can be certain that yearlings which serve successfully in the 15 to 20 minute test will be capable ofbreeding cows in the field . Seedstock producers can market these bulls with confidence in their serving capacity . Yearlings which do not successfully serve , mayor may not have the libido and ability to successfully breed cows . The reason for test failure may be more because oftheir lack ofsexual maturity than due to real lack of serving capacity . When possible they shouldberetested as long yearlings ifmore accurate data is desired . 8 . Among these Red Angus bulls 18months ofage and older , between 0 and 10 % ( X = 7 % ) never success­fully served a female in the tests . These bulls were sent to slaughter rather than sold as breeding bulls . Yearling bulls which neither mounted nor served were not necessarily sold for slaughter , butwere not offered for sale for breeding purposes until there was proof of mating ability . 9 . A rating system was used ( AAA , AA orA ) based on numberofmounts andsuccessful serves , and printed in the ranch sale catalog . Buyers paid substantially more for the bulls with higher scores ( AAA ) than for bulls with lower scores . While no datawas obtained in this study to correlate test scores with actual breeding performance , several bull buyers reported that their high scoring bulls appeared to be very active breeders . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 23 • • • The Effect of Stage of Maturity and Number of Cutting on Trace Minerals in Alfalfa Grown in Kern County . Ralph L . Phillips , Livestock Advisor , Kern County , John Dunbar , Beef Specialist , UC Davis Roland Meyer , Soil Specialist , UC Davis Introduction TABLE 1 . The Influence of number of cuttings Considerable work has been done regarding trace min­on contents of selected trace minerals in alfalfa . erallevels in alfalfa hay grown in Kern County . Roy Parker Concentration of Mineral 1 conducted a survey in 1950 on the level molybdenum in Date of Mo Cu Zn S Se Fealfalfa . Ralph Phillips conducted a similar survey looking at Cutting ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppmsix trace minerals in alfalfa in 1985 ( 1987 , Beef and Range 3 / 15 / 85 2.69 11.30a 27.70 0.36b 0.09a 184bWorkgroup Report ) . Livestock producers are concerned 5 / 09 / 85 3.08 12.74a 27.80 0.41a 0.05b 194babout the influence of maturity and number of cuttings on 6 / 11 / 85 2.83 9.30b 23.65 0.28c 0.05b 212abthe level of trace minerals in alfalfa . 7 / 10 / 85 2.72 11.99a 26.30 0.36b 0.06ab 249aProcedure There were two different studies ; the influence ofmatur­1 - Mo = Molybdenum , Cu = copper , Zn = zinc , S = ity of alfalfa on six trace minerals and the influence of the sulfur , Se = selenium , and Fe = iron . numberofcuttings on the same six trace minerals in alfalfa . abc - Values in columns with different superscripts dif­Number a / Cutting Study : fer at 0.05 level ofsignificance . Ten alfalfa fields were selected in various locations throughout the county . These fields were sampled at the bud vals . The maturity ofthe alfalfa samples ranged from three stage prior to the first , second , third , and fourth cuttings . to four inches tall to seed set . Again , the alfalfa plants were Cutting dates were May 15 , 1985 , first ; May 9 , 1985 , dried and analyzed for the same six trace minerals as in the second ; June 11 , 1985 , third ; and July 10 , 1985 , fourth . cutting study . Only alfalfa plants were sampled , dried , and analyzed TABLE 2 . The influence of alfalfa maturity on the concentration for molybdenum , copper , sul­ of certain trace minerals . fur , zinc , iron , and selenium . Concentration of Mineral 1 - Mo = Molybdenum , Cu = copper , Zn = zinc , S = sulfur , Se = selenium , and Maturity Study : Four alfalfa fields were se­lectedin four different locations Sampling Date Mo ppm Cu ppm Zn ppm S % Se ppm Fe ppm for the maturity study . Prior to the start ofthe study , the alfalfa in each test area was cut to 4 / 04 / 85 4 / 16 / 85 4 / 23 / 85 6.18ab 9.85a 9.53a 8.25 13.53 12.10 20.01 27.40 24.68 0.33c 0.43ab 0.45a 0.018 0.075 0.070 280 232 258 ground level . Two weeks later ( April 4 , 1985 ) the first alfalfa sample was taken . Twelve days later the second sample was 4 / 30 / 85 5 / 07 / 85 5 / 14 / 85 2 / 21 / 85 7.75ab 5.50b 5.50b 4.78b 14.75 8.80 8.58 9.65 20.00 21.25 22.00 19.25 0.38abc 0.37abc 0.37abc 0.36bc 0.128 0.075 0.148 0.115 276 275 236 319 1taken and five more samples were taken at seven day inter - Fe = iron . abc - Values in columns with different superscripts differ at 0.05 level of sig­nificance . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 24 Stage ofMaturity Continued Results and Discussion Number o / Cutting Study : The results of this study are shown in Table 1 . Number of cuttings had no significant influence on molybdenum and zinc . The third cutting was lower in copper than the other three cuttings . The second cutting had the highest level of sulfur ( 0.41 % ) followed by the first and fourth ( 0.36 % ) and the third cutting was the lowest ( 0.28 % ) . The selenium val­ues were higher for the fIrst cutting ( 0.09 ppm ) than the second and third cuttings ( 0.05 ppm ) , but not the fourth ( 0.06 ppm ) . The fourth cutting had the highest iron values ( 249 ppm ) followed by the third cutting ( 212 ppm ) . second cutting ( 194 ppm ) , and the first cutting ( 184 ppm ) . Maturity Study : The results of the maturity study are reported in Table 2 . The maturity of alfalfa did not significantly influence copper , zinc , selenium , andiron levels . However , molybde­num and sulfur values were the highest at 26 - 33 days growth , then gradually declined for the next 28 days . Conclusion Theresults ofthe number of cutting study would indicate there is no consistent relationship between the number of cuttings , and trace mineral content of alfalfa . Probably en­vironmental and management factors influence trace min­eral content in alfalfa more than the number ofcuttings . It appears that molybdenum and sulfur are at the greatest concentrations just prior to or at harvest time . Alfalfa matur­ity appears to have little influence on copper , zinc , sele­nium , and iron . 1988 BeefWorkgroup Report Page2S Pasture Fertilizatio " n Gary Markegard , Farm Advisor , Humboldt County Introduction A trial was conducted to see what the effects could be from fertilizing a clover and grass pasture that hadn't been fertilized for ten years . We used individual and combina­tions of phosphorus , potassium and sulfur . Procedure On October 9 , 1986 we applied potassium , phosphorus and sulfur to grass and clover pasture on McBride's Salmon Creek Ranch . Potassium was applied at two rates , 100 and 200 pounds of potassium chloride per acre . Phosphorus was applied at one rate - 200 pounds per acre of0 - 45 - 0 . Sulfur was applied at one rate - 100 pounds per acre in the form of gypsum . The fertilizer was spread by hand . The plots were harvested May 6 , 1987 . Results and Discussion Phosphorus more than doubled the number of clover plants present ; it also increased the dry matter yield of clover by three times . Phosphorus increased the total dry matter yield by 23 percent . There were no responses to adding sulfur and potassium . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 26 Range Nitrogen Fertilization Rate Trial William J . van Riet , Farm Advisor , San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties Introduction There is substantial data regarding range fertilization in California , but none for the west side ofStanislaus County . The object ofthis study is to learn range forage response to nitrogen fertilization in the Coast Range ofwest Stanislaus County . Procedure A site was selected at approximately 600 foot elevation west ofPatterson . Soil ph at the start of the trial was 6.63 , EC = . 44ppm , P = 13.3 ppm , SoilN = O . 104 % . Average rain­fall at the site is about 12 inches . Four replications offive rates ofnitrogen were applied as ammonium sulfate on October 30 , 1985 . Winter growth was measured by clipping four - one square foot forage samples from each plot and obtaining wet and oven dried weights on Feb . 11 , 1986 . Total seasonal production was obtained similarly on April 28 just before leaf and seed shatter . On October 15 , 1986 an area immediately adjacent to the 1985 site was re - randomized and fertilized as per 1985 . On February 11 there was less than 1 " ofgrowth on all plots due to the poor rainfall to that date . No samples were obtained . Seasonal total yields , crude protein and TDN values were obtained on April 24 , 1987 . Results and Discussion 1985 - 86 feed year was excellent with rainfall well dis­persed and cattlemen reporting excellent cattle weight gains . Every rate ofnitrogen applied up to 120 lbs . per acre provided significantly more winter growth . By the end of the growing season , these differences had largely disap­peared . Would it have paid to apply the nitrogen at 120 lbs . for winter growth ? Economic analysis showed that the ammonium sulfate cost $ 117.47 per ton and produced the least expensive growth costing $ 25.18 per dry ton at the 30 lb . / acre rate . In addition , livestock would need to be present in winter months to graze the forage . TABLE 1 - 1986 Oven dried forage per acre Lbs . N Winter Total Season per acre ( Feb.ll ) ( Apr . 28 ) o 873 · 3625 30 1540 b 3644 60 1691 ~ 3622 90 1928 = 4238 120 2183d 4456 a , b , c , d Means with different superscripts in a column are significantly different from each other ( p < . 01 ) . TABLE 2 - 4 / 24 / 1987 Lbs . N Oven dry Forage Percent Lbs . / Acre per acre per acre Lbs . / Acre o 2710 · 9.17 230 30 3250 II > 9.68 290 60 3553 abc 11.04 362 90 4631 ~ 11.51 492 120 5040 c 13.05 605 a , b , c Means with different superscripts are signifi­cantly different from each other ( p < . 01 ) . By season's end , all economic advantage was gone . The 1986 - 87 feed year was plagued by an extreme lack of early rains . A ranch a few miles from the site recorded only 4.57 inches for the year . Consequently , germination and sprouting did not occur until late January . Nitrogen uptake occurred later in the year and resulted in significant increases in yield with each increasing amounts offertilizer by season's end ( Table 2 ) . Percent of crude protein also increased incrementally . Least expensive yield increases again occurred at the 30 lb . per acre rate of nitrogen application , costing $ 31.10 perton ofadditional feed above non - fertilized plots . This trial is continuing for three more years to obtain enough data to better assess yearly differences in plant response to nitrogen fertilizer . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 27 Selenium Fertilization Trial Walt Johnson , Farm Advisor , Shasta County Introduction The trial was established as a follow up to previous work testing selenium fertilization of pasture as a means of correcting selenium deficiency in cattle . The fertilizer prod­uct used was one that is commercially available in New Zealand . It has a trade name ofSelcote and is manufactured by Mintech ( NZ ) Limited of Nelson , N.z . The product is a manufactured water dispersible granule containing 2.4 % sodium selenate or 1 % selenium . A common rate of appli­cation in New Zealand is 1 kilpgram per hectare providing 10 grams Se per hectare . Procedures Experimental Fields Three of the Norman Taylor's Lost Creek pastures were used . A 20 acre field was used for fertilizer treatment , and approximately 30 acres were used for control . Most of the fields were in irrigated pasture , and the remaining portions were in trees , brush , and dry grass . Twenty - five cattle were put in the fertilized field , and 35 cattle were put in the control fields . Fertilization Treatment One pound of Selcote was applied per acre by a belly­grinder broadcaster . This provided 4.5 grams Se per acre or 121.2 grams Se per hectare . The date of application was May I , 1987 , 28 days before the cattle went into the pastures . Test Animals The cattle involved were weaned heifers of primarily Hereford breeding but containing some English breed cross­breds . The average weight at the start of the trial was 410 pounds . The calves had all received selenium treatment as baby calves either by injection or being born out of cows that had received selenium pellets . No selenium treatment was given at weaning time at the start ofthe trial . The heifers were individually identified , individually weighed , and put in the test fields May 29 , 1987 . A 23,000 acre wild fire burned through the areain late August and early September . Fences went down September lst and the cattle started getting mixed up at that time . Five heifers went to the home ranch during the frrst half ofSeptember , most ofthe remain­der were brought home September 20th , and seven were found between September 20th and October 1st . One heifer was not available for the October 1stweighing and bleeding but was found later . All cattle had access to all fields from September 1st until they returned home , but it is not known how much or for how long they got mixed up . Results Blood Selenium On October lst at the end ofthe 125daytestperiod , cattle from the Se fertilized pasture had over four times the level ofblood selenium as did the cattle from the control fields . At the end ofthe period three out of24 treated heifers had blood Se below . 04 ppm while 31 of35 of the control heifers were below . 04 ppm . Four of the control heifers had rather high blood Se lev­els which could be a result oflaboratory error or a result of control cattle getting a large supply ofselenium from the Se fertilized field after the fIre mix - up , although there is 30 days or less for this intake and accumulation in the blood to take place . Table 1 BLOOD SELENIUM , ppm 5f29 ! 87 10 / 1 / 87 Ave . Range Ave . Range Control . 011 < . 01 - . 021 . 023 < . 01 - . 186 Fertilized . 010 < . 01 - . 019 . 106 < . 016 - . 170 Weight Gains Cattle on the Se fertilized pasture made average gains per head for the 125 day period of 38 pounds more than the control cattle ( Table 2 ) . Average daily gains for the cattle in the fertilized field were 1.91 pounds compared to 1.60 pounds for control cattle . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 28 Selenium Fertilization Trial Continued Table 2 WEIGlIT GAINS , 5 / 2.9 - 10 / 1 / 87 , 125 Days , lbs . Average Daily Gain Total Gain Control 1.60 200 Fertilizer 1.91 238 Forage Composition Grab - samples of forage growing in the fertilized and control fields were collected July 28 , 1987 , almost three months after fertilization . The selenium concentration in the Se fertilized pasture at . 198 ppm was almost 20 times the level of . 010 ppm in the forage of the control fields . Other constituents analyzed were , for the most part , very similar in both pastures . The one exception was calcium , which was higher in the fertilized field than in the control , although both fields were above recommended nutrient allowances for beef cattle . Conclusions Selenium fertilization with 4.5 grams Se per acre re­suited in : 1 . More than a fourfold increase in blood selenium levels in treated animals compared to controls after a 125 day animal test period . 2 . A 19 % increase in weight gains of cattle on fertilized fields compared to nonfertilized over the 125 day pe­riod . 3 . An almost twentyfold increase in selenium concentra­tion ofthe forage about three months after fertilization . Table 4 . Means from selenium fertilizer trial at Norman Taylor Ranch , Hat Creek , Shasta County . Control is untreated pastures , pellet is Se fertilized pasture . Means are values from English and English cross heifer calves . ( 5 / 2.9 / 87 ) ( 10 / 1 / 87 ) Blood Blood ADG No . Wt . Se Wt . Se 125 d Control 35 414 . 011 614 . 023 1.60 Pellet 24 400 . 010 637 . 106 1.91 Table 3 Forage Compostition , 7 / 2.8 / 87 Selenium Copper Molybdenum Zinc Sulfate - S Phosphorus Calcium Protein ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % % % Control . 010 7.0 1.24 23 540 . 24 . 64 10.7 Fertilized . 198 6.0 1.27 25 660 . 25 . 90 10.6 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 29 Selenium Concentrations in Cattle Blood and Three Range Forages in Kern County Ralph Phillips , Fann Advisor , Kern County Introduction The selenium status of the beef cattle in Kern County has been confusing at best . Many herds should show several different symptoms based on whole blood analysis , but are healthy and productive . This preliminary research was conducted to determine if there is a relationshiIJ between concentration of selenium in forages and adult cow's blood . Procedure Ten adult cows were selected at random from each of . fourranches . Blood samples were drawn from each cow and analyzed for selenium . Cows were sampled during the months ofMarch andApril . Fourforage samples were taken from the same four ranches during the same time period . Each forage sample was hand separated into grasses , fi­laree , and clover . Individual samples were oven dried and analyzed for selenium . Results and Discussion The preliminary results are shown in Table 1 . At this time it would be premature to make sound conclusions . However , this data appears to be a correlation between the selenium content in forage and cattle blood . Also , there appears to be a trend of less selenium in clovers than in grasses or filaree . The variation of selenium in the different forages may account for part of the unexpected animal performance . More research is needed to better understand the sele­nium status of beef cattle . Table 1 . Parts per million of selenium in adult cow's blood , and clover , fiIaree , and grasses from four ranches in Kern County in ppm ofSe Ranch Cow Blood Cloves Filaree Grass 1 0.124 0.057 0.272 0.073 2 0.033 0.002 0.005 3 0.026 0.0 * 0.028 0.032 4 0.016 0.0 0.0 0.0 * Values with 0.0 are reported as 0.010 in lab report . Values for cow blood is an average of ten animals and values for forages are an average of four samples . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 30 Active Immunization Against GnRH : Nonsurgical Contraception in Beef Cattle Tom Adams , Sarah Davis , Betty Adams , Rich Benson , Department ofAnimal Science , U.C . Davis Introduction The entry of heifers into the feedlot is associated with economic liabilities that are not associated with the sale and feeding of steers . As a result , the rancher realizes signifi­cantly lower return from feeder heifers relative to feeder steers of comparable weight and quality . The reason for the price differential between feeder steers and heifers is two - fold . First , a large portion offeeder heifers are pregnant . Recent data from Colorado suggest that 16 - 24 % of the incoming feeder heifers are pregnant . The pregnancy rate among incoming heifers can be as high as 60 % The second loss offeeding heifers is the lower feed effIciency due to increased physical activity and mounting behavior during display of behavioral estrus . Recent studies have sought to mobilize the heifers own immune system to improve production . Several researchers have shown that heifers immunized against estradiol or prostaglandin improved heifer perfonnance in the feedlot . This paper is preliminary experimental data that illus­trates that contraceptive effects of active immunization of feedlot heifers against the hypothalamic neuropeptide go­nadotropin - releasing honnone ( GnRH ) and seeks to evalu­ate the effect of such immunization on feedlot perfonnance and carcass characteristics . Procedure Active Immunization of Heifers Against the GnRH KLH Conjugate : A recent study has soughtto detennine the immunogenic potency ofthe GnRH - KLH conjugate when used to immunize beefheifers in the feedlot . This study , and all subsequent studies using beef cattle , was conducted under the guidelines and restrictions imposed by the Food and Drug Administration as a condition in granting an Investigational New Animal Drug exemption ( lNAD4287 ) . In the first experiment in this series , 40 feedlot heifers were divided into two groups . One group containing 30 animals was actively immunized against the GnRH - KLH conjugate and the second group ( 10 animals ) was unimmu­nized . Animals were housed in the experimental feedlot maintained by the University ofCalifornia in Davis , Cali­fornia . Animals were housed in groups of 10 animals each and were fed a ration containing moderate levels ofenergy . The primary immunization consistedof5 mg GnRH - KLH conjugate in 1 ml saline emulsified in an equal volume of Freund's complete adjuvant . The emulsion wasdelivered to 2 subcutaneous sites in the upper region of the neck . A secondary , or booster , immunization , consisting of 1 mg GnRH - KLH in 1 ml saline emulsified in 1 mlofFreund's incomplete adjuvant . was administered 8 weeks after the primary immunization . Blood samples were collected at 2­week intervals throughout the study . The weight ofheifers was detennined at 28 day intervals , with animals deprived of food for 16 hours prior to weight detennination ( shrunk weight ) . Animals were slaughtered atacommercial slaugh­ter facility 7 months after entry into the feedlot . Effect of Synovex H In Heifers Actively Immunized Against GnRH : A recent trial examined the effect ofimmu­nization against GnRH combined with administration of Synovex H implants on feedlot perfonnance . Synovex H implants replace some of the steroid honnones that are suppressed during immunization and , thus , might be ex­pected to lessen the growth - retarding effects of immuniza­tion . In addition , we sought to compare feedlot perfonnance in immunized heifers with perfonnance of unimmunized heifers receiving either Synovex H or melengesterol acetate ( MGA ) . Melengesterol acetate is as progesterone - like compound that reduces GnRH secretion from the brain and , when added to the feed , MGAreduces reproductive activity in feedlot heifers . The 60 animals in this trial were divided into 4 groups containing 15 heifers each . Heifers in Group 1 were immunized against GnRH conjugated to KLH ( Anti­GnRH ) while heifers in Group 2 were immunized against the carrier protein alone ( Anti - KLH ) . Heifers in Group 3 ( Control ) were unimmunized and MGA ( 0.5 mg / head / day ) was added to the ration of animals in Group 4 ( MGA ) . All 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 31 Active Immunization Against GnRH • • • Continued animals received Synovex H implants and were housed at the UC Davis feedlot facility for 112 days . Animals within a treatment group were housed in a common pen . Shrunk weight was determined at 28 day intervals as described above . Results and Discussion Active Immunization of Heifers Against the GnRH­KLH Conjugate : The means serum concentration anti­GnRH antibodies were much higher for the treated heifers . All of the untreated heifers showed regular reproductive cycles . However , only 4 of 30 immunized animals were cycling at slaughter . The reproductive tracts of the immu­nized heifers weighed 50 - 60 % less than the unimmunized heifers . The feedlot gains were less for the immunized than for the unimmunized heifers . However , immunized heifer gains were similar to what has been reported for heifers that have had their ovaries surgically removed . Effect of Synovex H In Heifers Actively Immunized Against GnRH : All animals actively immunized against GnRH devel­oped high serum concentrations of anti - GnRH antibodies . In contrast , no anti - GnRH antibodies were evident in the blood of unimmunized animals or animals actively immu­nized against KLH . During the final month ofconfinement in the feedlot the total and average daily gain of animals in Groups 1 and 4 were comparable and significantly in­creased over the same parameters in animals in the Control Groups ( 2 and 3 ) . The efficiency of feed utilization was also increasedin Groups 1 and 4 relative to feed efficiency in the control groups . Carcass qUality was improved by active immunization against GnRH and implantation with a growth promotanl Thus , marbling , rib eye area , and quality and yield grades were improved in immunized animals relative to control animals or animals treated with MGA . Similarly , active immunization against GnRH resulted in reduced back fat thickness and reduced percentage of kidney pelvic - heart fat relative to MGA - fed animals . These data suggest that active immunization of feedlot heifers against GnRH is effective in preventing displays of reproductive activity and , when combined with Synovex H implants , such immunization can lead to increased rates of growth and feed efficiency and improve carcass quality . For more detailed information , contact Tom Adams at the Department of Animal Science , University of California , Davis . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 32 ' . ' • • • • ; • • • • • • . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . , : . ' . . • ' . : . . . . . . • . " • " . . ' . . . : . . . ' . . • • ' : : • . . . ' . : : " . ' . : . : : ' . . ' . . ; : • • • • • , , : . . . . . . . . • • : . : . . . . ' . : . : . . ' . . : . . ' ~ ' ~ ' . ~ . . • • • . . . • : . . . : - - . • • • • ; < . : : : : : . . ' ' · · · : ~ · . · . · r : · ~ ~ : · . : > . W : : . . - > : m i I ! • The Effect of GnRH Immunization of Heifers on Pregnancy Rate , Gain , and Carcass Traits - A Progress Report Monte Bell , Tom Adams and Steve Berry University ofCalifornia Cooperative Extension , Glenn County and Animal Science Department , Davis Introduction drylot pens and adjacent to each other . From the time ofthe Pregnant heifers are an economic liability in the feedlot initial weighing until they were shipped to the Harris feed­and this is one of the reasons heifers bring a substantial lot , April 4 , 1987 ( 171 days ) all heifers were fed alfalfa­discount as feeders compared to comparable quality steers . almond hull pellets free choice . New developments in biotechnology have made itpractical At the Harris feedlot all of the heifers were implanted to produce vaccines to immunize heifers against their own with Synovex H and were fed in three separate pens . After hormones . One ofthese is Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone a 116 day feeding period the heifers were slaughtered . The ( GnRH ) . reproductive tracts were examined for fetuses and carcasses This experiment was conducted in cooperation with were graded for quality and yield by a USDA grader . Stegall Brothers Ranch in Colusa County and with Harris Blood samples were taken from the immunized group Livestock Company in Coalinga and Selma . UC Farm initially , when the bulls were turned in and at slaughter for Advisor Aaron Nelson , Fresno , assisted in the carcass data determination of GnRH antibody level . collection . Procedure One hundred longhorn cross heifers out offirst calf heifers and 50 SimmentaV TABLE 1 Gelbvieh cross heifers out oflate calving cows wereallottedatrandom within breed Gain and Carcass Traits of Heifers Immunized against cross to one of three treatment groups . GnRH The treatments were : Immunized against lREATMENT GnRH and exposed to bulls ( IM EXP ) , I1EM IMEXP NIMEXP NIMNEXP not immunized against GnRH and ex­No Head1 44 40 47posed to bulls ( NIM EXP ) and not immu­Preg . Status 0 P 0nized and not exposed to bulls ( NIM Initial wt . lbs . 494 511 500NEXP ) . The longhorn cross heifers were 171 day ADG Ranch 1.24 - 1.28 - 1.12b two to three months older than the Euro­116 day ADG Feedlot 3.21 3.02 3.28pean breed crosses . The dams were crosses 287 day ADG Total 2.03 1.99 1.99between English and European breeds . The heifers were weighed and given an Hot Carcass wt . , Ibs . 646 638 653initial injection of GnRH antigen on Oc­Dressing % 59.9 - 59.0b 6O . 9c tober23 , l986andgiven a second shot on Marbling Score 3 5.58 - b 6.35 - 4.60bDecember 12,1986 . February 2 , 1987 the Rib eye area , sq . in . 12.1 - 11.5 - 12.8­heifers were sorted into two groups . The Backfat , in . . 48 . 46 . 501M EXP and the NIM EXP groups were penned together and exposed to bulls . The 1 . Analysis does not include data from three pregnant heifers in 1M EXP , NIM NEXP group was penned separately Eight open heifers in NIMEXP and two pregnant heifers in NIM NEXP without bulls , but all pens were small groups respectively . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 33 The Effect or GnRH Immunization . . . Continued Results and Discussion The immunization was effective in developing a blood titer and in prevention of pregnancy . Pregnancy rate was 8.5 % for the IMEXP group compared to 83.3 % for the NIM EXP group . Two percent ofthe group that was not exposed to bulls ( NIM NEXP ) became pregnant ( This is a good example of how difficult it is to keep bulls and heifers apart ! ) For the gain and carcass results shown in Table 1 , the data from threepregnant heifers in 1M EXP , 8 open heifers in NIM EXP and 2 pregnant heifers in NIM NEXP groups were removed so that differences due to treatment could be compared without having a mix of pregnancy status within treatment The NIM NEXP group had a poorer average daily gain on the ranch than the other groups , but there was no difference in total gain among the groups . During the ranch phase these heifers were penned next to active bulls , but were not exposed themselves . They might be expected to have more bulling activity . Both open groups had higher dressing percentages than the pregnant group as was expected . Marbling scores re­ported here were taken 18 hours after slaughter instead of the typical 24 hours , and are lower than the final quality grades that they represent . The longhorn cross - European cross data showed a faster feedlot gain for the European cross ( 3.43 vs . 3.05 ) , but a lower marbling score ( average slight vs . small minus ) . This data is compounded somewhat by the 2 to 3 month age difference . Additional statistical and economic analysis is in process . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 34 Annual Medic Variety Trials on Rangeland in San Luis Obispo County Bill Weitkamp , Farm Advisor , February 1988 Introduction Results and Discussion Mostofthe annual rangelands in California are limited in Visual ratings for stand and vigor were made on a scale the quantity and quality of forage produced because of a of1 to 10 during the spring growing seasons . The following nitrogen deficiency . Although native and introduced leg­table shows how each medic variety ranked among all umes are often present , they are prevalent in the higher legume varieties in each trial based on the stand and vigor rainfall areas orduring the wettest years . Legume varieties ratings . The last column in the table lists the average which are adapted to drier climates and alkaline soils are rankings from the five trials with the lowest numbers rather scarce in California . representing the best rankings . Commercial varieties of medics are now available , As a result ofthese trials andobservations ofcommercial however , which can correct this shortcoming . They also seedings in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties , rec­have the potential of fitting into a cereal crop - annual leg­ommendations for medic seed mixes now include Sephi and ume rotation program aspracticed in Australia Annual Medic Variety Trials and Northern Africa . Experimental and com­San Luis Obispo County mercial medic seedings in San Luis Obispo 1985 - 87County since the 1960s have been successful butvarieties introduced since 1985 show even Trial Annual Rainfall Total no . No . medic greater promise for range and grain lands . The No . Name in . cm . legume varieties varieties object ofthe trials described in this report was 1 Wreden 8 20 20 20 to evaluate the suitability oftheserecentintro - 2 CamattaPelinoc 8 20 24 18 ductions for dryland seedings in San Luis 3 CamattaCelpril 8 20 10 10 Obispo County . 4 Work 15 38 14 6 Procedure 5 Guidetti 21 53 20 5 Five trials comparing legume varieties in­Rankingl ofmedic varieties based on visual ratings for stand and vigor in eluding annual medics were seeded andevalu­5 trials : ated during the 1985 - 86 and 1986 - 87 seasons . Trial no . Average The seed was obtained from Walter Graves , Medic variety 1 2 3 4 5 Ranking farm advisor in San Diego County , and from Sephibarre 7 5 1 1 1 3.0commercial sources . In four of the trials , the Serenabur 2 4 4 5 N2 3.7seed was broadcast into barley stubble orrange­Robinson snail 4 8 2 N N 4.7land and then raked lightly . In the other trial Parag ~ obarrel N 10 4 4 3 5.2 ( Work ) , a cone seeder with shank openers Savasnail 3 14 N 3 N 6.7 planted the seed in shallow furrows ina field of Jemalong barrel 8 N 5 N 8 7.0 safflower stubble . The seed was planted in Circle Valley bur N N 5 7 13 8.3October and November and fertilized with 0­Paragosa Gama N 11 7 N 13 10.3 25 - 0 @ 400 - 500poundsperacre for the broad­Paraponto Gama 17 6 12 N 11.7 cast seedings and 150 pounds per acre for the 1 Lowest numbers = best ranking drill seeding . Three replications were seeded 2 N = not in trial in each trial . 1988 BeefWorkgroup Report Production Management Page 35 Annual Medic Variety Trials • • • Continued Jemalong barrel medics , Serena bur medic and Sava or Robinson snail medics . Although Jemalongranked near the middle in these trials , it has been seeded for over 20 years in California whereas the other medics listed here have been introduced only recently . Jemalong has shown excellent longevity in areas with as little as 8 inches of rainfall and its favorable rejuvenation characteristics have also been re­ported in Australia . For these reasons , its inclusion in medic seed mixes is advisable . Cooperative EXlensionpublications with more information Annual Medics for Range and Grain Lands , Range Science Report No . 9 Planting and Managing Annual Legumes and Peren­nial Grasses on Dryland Range , San Luis Obispo County Farm Advisor Fact Sheet No . 5 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 36 . . . . . . ' ' . ' : ' . : : ' . ' : ' : ' . ' . ' : . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . . . . . . . : . . . : . . . . . . : . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . ' . . . . . . . . , . . - : - . . ' . : . . . . . . . - : < . : . : : . . . . . . , : . - : : . = : x - : · " : - : : - : - . « ~ . . ' . - : : - . : i . . . . : - - - : - . . . . : - - . ; • • : . . . . . . . . . . . ' • . . . : : . : ; : . : , . . . . . . . , • • • , . - . • • • • • - : . : : • : - . · : · : . . · . · · · x . - . . : · : - : . . : - : : · : - : = : = : : : : ' : - : - : . . " ; ' . ' . : . : . : . . . : : : . : : . - : . . : : - : : : : ~ ~ $ : : ~ ~ » - - ; : ; : Bypass Protein Growing Range Calves J.R . Dunbar , J.M . Connor , C.B . Wilson , C.A . Raguse , T.R . Farnula , C.A . Daley , and M.R . George Introduction California annual rangeland pasture is generally ofpoor quality in the fall and in short supply during the winter months . To correct these deficiencies , supplemental nutri­ents are typically provided to wintering calves in the latter portion of the dry season ( July to October ) and the inade­quate green season ( October to February ) to maintain adequate performance . Supplemental nutrients may be provided in many forms ; the most common being meals , liquids , and blocks . Supple­ments are usually high in nonprotein nitrogen which aids fiber digestion and microbial synthesis . However , in many situations the protein requirements of growing calves may not be met . Calves fed supplements that contain bypass protein may gain weight faster and more economically compared to cattle supplemented with urea . In the past few years liquid supplements have been based on urea and molasses . Now xanthan gums and clay are being used to suspend small particles such as minerals , natural protein supplements , and other desirable materials in liquid supplements . Procedure Because of potential need of bypass protein in supple­ments for stocker calves on annual grasslands , a study was in the study . Superimposed on supplemental treatment were two levels ofstocking density . Six steers were randomly as­signed to low stocking rate ( 5.33 acres / steer ) and 12 steers were assigned to the high stocking density ( 2.67 acres / steer ) . The experimental range was divided into 4 blocks of 4 fields per block and experimental animals were rotated to anew field every weigh day ( approximately every 28 days ) . Supplement tanks were checked weekly and consumption measured . Supplements were fed at the rate of2 pounds per head daily . Results Initially the supplements were not consumed at the desired level . Itrequired considerable effortand patience on the part ofthe UC Sierra Field Station staff to get the calves to eat the supplements . The all urea - based supplement was the least palatable of all the supplements ( Table 2 ) . Some severe settling problems occurred in the lick storage tank containing theall - bypass protein supplement This problem was corrected by improving mixing techniques in later batches . During the initial phases of the trial , the bypass plus urea supplement was placed in the tank each week to allow a daily consumption of 2 pounds per head . Stocking density had no significant effect on supplemen­tal consumption , but had a highly significant effect ( p < undertaken to evaluate liq­uid supplements as outlined in Table l . One hundred forty - four English - bred steers averag­ing 496 pounds were used in the study . Commercially - for­mulated liquid supplement mixtures containing urea , bypass protein and urea plus bypass protein were used in the study . Corn gluten meal was the bypass protein used Table 1 Experimental Design Animal Treatment Treatment Groups Control ( no supplement ) Liquid Supplements , Urea Liquid Supplements , Bypass Protein Liquid Supplements , Urea plus Bypass Protein Low Stocking Density 6 6 6 6 High Stocking Density 12 12 12 12 0.0001 ) on average daily gain . Cattle in the heavily stocked pasture gained . 63 lb per day compared to the 0.93 in the moderately grazed fields . Performance of the steers during the supple­mental feeding period is summarized in Table 3 . The rate of gain was signifi­cantly high ( p < 0.05 ) for the bypass plus urea treat­1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 37 Bypass Protien Growing Range Calves Continued i • ! ment than all other treatments . This level indicates that NPN Table 3 Supplementation of Growing Calves may have been needed to maintain adequate ruminal ammo­ ( average daily gain in pounds ) nia levels for microbial protein synthesis . Supplement ADG Calves consumed more supplement and gained more Control . 59a weight in the urea and corn gluten meal mix group than the . lJrea . 68ab other supplement groups . They also returned the most profit Bypass . 74b over supplement per dollar per head . lJrea + Bypass . 91e Table 2 Supplement Consumption a.b.e Means in the same column with different letters are ( pounds per head per day ) significantly different ( p < 0.05 ) . Item Consumption Tables 4 and 5 show the overall performance and eco­nomics ofthe experiment . lJrea 1.5 ~ Bypass Protein 1.88b Bypass + lJrea 2.03b a , b Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different ( p < 0.05 ) . Table 4 Performance of Supplemental Calves Control lJrea Bypass lJrea + Bypass Initial Weight ( lb ) 494 499 496 494 Final Weight ( lb ) 561 576 581 598 Total Gain ( lb ) 67 77 85 104 Daily Gain ( lb ) . 59 . 68 . 75 . 91 Daily Supplement 1.50 1.88 2.03 Consumption ( lb ) Lb Supplement / lb Gain 2.21 2.51 2.23 Table 5 Economics of Supplemental Calves Control lJreaa Bypassb lJrea + Bypassb Gain Value $ / head 57 66 72 88 Supplement Consumption 171 214 231 lb / head Cost ofSupplement 12 21 22 $ / head Profit over Supplement 57 54 51 66 Cost $ / head aPrice ofCalves valued at $ 85 / cwt bUrea supplement $ 136.60 byass supplement $ 195.80 , and urea / bypass sup­plement at $ 193.20 per ton . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 38 Controlled Grazing of Irrigated Pasture William J . van Riet , Farm Advisor , Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties Introduction Irrigated clover and grass pastures in central California have traditionally been continuously grazed or , occasion­ally , rotationally grazed . Among the reasons for continuous grazing have been the cost of extensive cross fencing , irrigation scheduling and the requirement for more manage­ment Recent development of lower cost high tensile electric fencing and economic pressures to reduce overhead costs by producing more feed per acre in beef cattle ranches are causing re - consideration . In addition , New Zealand con­cepts of " controlled " grazing give added impetus for evalu­ating alternative grazing systems . Procedure Two separate cell grazing systems are being monitored with the cooperation of Lloyd Stueve of Oakdale . # 1 - Palm Field : A 180 acre Ladino clover pasture was subdivided into 27 paddocks ofapproximately 6.67 acres in sizein late 1981 . Two strands ofhigh - tensile wire were used for all cross fences and electrified with a Gallagher ener­gizer . Fenceline water troughs were installed at fencelines so that one trough serves two paddocks . Holstein heifers were stocked beginning April 28 as range forage deterio­rated so that by June 11,542 heifers weighing 5711bs . were grazing . Hay was cut from 100 acres of the field on June 22 because there was more forage available than these heifers could consume at an optimum stage of growth . The 100 acres that was hayed was then fertilized with 300 # / acre of 16 - 20 - 0 - 19 . Cattle were rotated among the 27 paddocks daily - one day grazing and 26 days rest - except for a two week period after the hay was cut when cattle moves were made twice each day . Cattle were weighed in and out , and at 27 day intervals . On Sept . 8 , 102 heifers were removed weighing an average of825lbs . because it appeared pasture growthratewasslowingdown.OnOct . 21 , theremainderof the heifers wereremovedaveraging709lbs . because weight gains from Sept . 8 to Oct . 21 were only 0.48Ibs . per day . A new group of 88 heifers weighing 517 lbs . were turned in and rotated from Oct . 21 to Nov . 23 . Similar procedures have been employed on this 27 paddock cell from 1982 through 1987 . Exact daily head counts , and in and out weights were kept only for 1982 and 1986 to monitor the system . # 2 - Langworth and Claribel Field : A 50 acre Ladino clover and grass pasture was divided into paddocks in early 1987 . Single strand high - tensile cross fencing and a Pel energizer were used . Sixty Red Brangus bulls were moved into the pasture in late March for a post - weaning gain test on pasture . By rotating the bulls among paddocks so they would be on pasture of optimum nutritional value , it was hoped animal weight gains would be adequate to obtain genetic differences among them . After an adjustment pe­riod , official test weights were taken on April 6 , 1987 . The test ended after 159 days on Sept . 12 , 1987 . Two paddocks were cut 3 times for hay . Bulls not sold remained on the pasture for the remainder of the year ( about 30 head ) . Results and Discussion # 1 - PalmField : a ) High tensile , high voltage electric fence controlled cattle very well each of the six years . It's felt very confidently that one strand would suffice . b ) Composition of the pasture improved , particularly after the first year ( 1982 ) . Visual observations by the land owner and Farm Advisor agreed that there are now more clover and less fibrous weedy species present . c ) In 1982 : Body weight carried / acre Apr . 28 - Oct . 21 ( 175 days ) 19891bs . Body weight carried / acre Oct 21 - Nov . 23 ( 33 days ) 2611bs . Animal gain / acre 4951bs . Head - days / acre 495 days ADG 1.0Ibs . Hay harvested 253 tons 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 39 • . . . . ; . : • • • • • • : . . . . . . : . - . . . . . . ' . : • • ' • • • . c • • : • • • • • : . . . . . . . . ; . : • • • • • ; • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • , ; . . . : . . . . . . . · . · · oF . . . . . . . ; / . . . . , . : . . . . . . : . : . . : . : : : . . . . ; : - : : : ~ > : - ~ Controlled Grazing • • • Continued d ) In 1986 : Body weight carried / acre Feb . 5 - Dec . 30 ( 328 days ) 14131bs . Animal gain / acre 7861bs . Head - days / acre 681 days ADG 1.151bs . e ) Compared to a 6 month grazing season carrying about 1,400 lbs . animal body weight per acre prior to sub­dividing Mr . Stueve is convinced that the additional production paid for the costs of fencing and animal watering systems of S50 / acre in the fIrst year of operation , dependent upon values placed on theadded production . Other advantages included : cattle were never on a wet field , pasture species composition improved , allowed greater flexibility for harvesting portions of field as hay or silage , daily observation of cattle was easier , operation was more flexible , could control height and maturity of plants being grazed compared to continuous , less controlled grazing . # 2 - Langworth and Claribel Field a ) Single strand high - tensile high voltage wire controlled yearling Red Brangus bulls well , excepton one weigh day when because ofpoor working corrals , a couple bulls escaped and could not be stopped by electric fences . b ) The owners of the bulls were very pleased with the bull test . The 60 bulls gained 2.12 lbsjhead / day for the 159 day test . Cost , while not available to the Farm Advisor was said by bull owners to be less than with concentrate bull test programs , while Mr . Stueve received a satisfactory rent . c ) This pasture , stocked at 1,023 lbs . of animal body weight per acre was very severely understocked . Even by cutting hay from 2 paddocks 3 times the bulls could not keep up with growth . Grasses were often seeding when bulls returned to graze a paddock after rotation . While noaccurateperacreproduction figures were able to be obtained , we felt that the monitoring thatwas done indicates an advantage over continuous , less controlled grazing . Monitoring with this ranch will continue . The 50 acre Langworth Claribel property will be used for bull beef production on a controlled grazing system . In addition , another 110 acres has been sub - divided into 15 paddocks . Two groups of cattle grazed it and haylage was made from portions ofit . A moveable fence system is also anticipated . 1988 efforts will be to quantify production through use of clipping studies correlated with the pasture probe and visual observation . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 40 · · : · v . . . » : - - - ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . : . . . ' . ' . . . . : . . . . : : . : . . ' . : . : . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . . . : : . . . . . ' . ' . : : : . ' . ~ . . . . . . . : - : . . " : - . " . . . . . . : . . . . : : : : . : : . . : . , : ' . ' : ' - ' . ~ . : . : . " ' : " ' : : : " . . . ' : : ' : . . ' . . . . . . . x · · · . . . . · · . . ~ . . . . : . . . . . . . : : : - , : . . . . . ~ . : : : ~ : : - : . . : : ; : . : : : - : : : - . > . . • . : ~ ~ . • • • • : . : . : ; . . . : . . . . . . . . ) . . . . . > > > . : : - . . . ~ . · « ~ > ~ * : x Frost Tolerance ofAnnual Clovers Daniel J . Drake , Cooperative Extension , University of California Introduction Annual clovers have been field tested in Siskiyou county in 1952 , 1962 , and 1972 . Records and personal contacts indicate plants germinated but did not persist . In 1982 , a single site encompassing over one acre of rose clover was identified . Interviews indicated establishment of this stand in the early to mid 1970 ' s . Thus at this site rose clover had persisted Trials using Siskiyou county collected rose clover seed along with rose clover seed from Mendocino and Shasta counties and commercial seeds , conducted at Tulelake Experiment Station indicated superiority ofNorthern Cali­fornia wild seed collections over commercial varieties of rose and sub clover ( Drake , 1986 ) . Collections of wild rose , sub and cup clovers from high elevations in the Mediterranean area , supplied by Walt Graves , Farm Advisor in San Diego county , suggested further varieties and species possibly suitable for colder climates . A field trial with natural environmental conditions was conducted to determine germination , growth and flowering traits of numerous rose , sub and cup clover varieties in Siskiyou County , California . Procedure A site was selected from a cooperating ranch near Weed , California at about 3200 feet elevation . Annual rainfall was 14 - 16 inches annually . The site was a pine transition zone . Soil type was Mary stony loam . This is a moderately deep , well drained soil formed in residuum derived domi­nantly from extrusive igneous rock . The average annual air temperature is about 50 degrees F , and the average frost­free period is about 125 days . Typically , the surface layer is dark brown stony loam about 10 inches thick , The upper 7 inches of the subsoil is dark brown loam . The lower 11 inches is dark yellowish brown clay loam and sandy clay loam . Bedrock is at a depth of28 inches . A few stones are on the surface in most places . Permeability of the Mary soil is moderately slow . Available water capacity is low to moderate . Effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches . Runoff is medium to rapid . Prior to the trial crested wheatgrass had been planted in the site and had lasted several years with limited productiv­ity . Twenty one varieties of seed were randomly assigned to a complete block trial . Plot sizes were 4 x 4 foot with blank plots of the same size surrounding each treatment plot . Preplant treatment included broadcast of 7.7 Ibs . of single superphosphate over the experimental area ( 40 x84 feet ) for a treatment across all plots of 20 Ibs P205 / acre . A spring­tooth harrow was used to incorporate the fertilizer and breakup the soil surface . The site was harrowed twice in opposite directions . On September 2 , 1986 thirty gram samples of seed was mixed with an approximate amount of the appropriate inoculant and about 3 ml of mixed pelgel glue . The mixture was allowed to dry for approximately 30 minutes . The entire 30 grams were placed in a glass jar with holes in a metal cap and the sample was sprinldedequally over eachof 3 replicated plots . Upon completion of the seeding a ring roller was used once over lightly to firm the seed bed , being used only in the last direction of the springtooth to avoid covering the seed too deeply . Scores indicating germination or density were assigned by visual estimation on March 2 , 1987 and subsequently on ApriI2,17andMay8 . Scoresrepresentednumbersofplants per plot and were valued as 0 for no plants , l = at least one plant , 2 = an intermediate amount and 3 = abundant . Scores were relative within date , but not across dates . Vigor scores were recorded on April 17 and May 8 . Vigor was judged qualitatively on height and abundance of leaves . Scores were 0 for no growth , l = plants existed but growth was minimal , 2 = an intermediate growth and 3 = maximal height ne flower , 2 for an intermediate number of flowers and 3 for abundance of flowers . Statistical analysis was conducted as a completely ran­domized block with replications as the block and variety as the treatment . Means were separated by LSD . Orthogonal contrasts of rose vs . sub clovers were also conducted for each score . Results There were variety difference ( p < . 05 ) in germination by March 2 , 1987 . Rose clovers had higher ( p = . 02 ) germina­tion scores ( mean = 2.3 ) than sub clovers ( mean = 1.5 ) . As anticipated alfalfa did not survive a fall planting due to 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 41 i • Frost Tolerance of Annual Clovers Continued heaving from frost Thirty days later on April 2 , 1987 a ( p < . OOO ) were more striking with 15 varieties having flow - similar pattern was observed with even greater differences ers and 6 without flowers . Varieties without flowers in - in varieties ( p < . OOO ) and between rose and sub clovers eluded GRS19 Sub , Yuchi Arrowleaf ( which had high ( p < . OOO ) for density ( means 2.1 vs 1.2 , respectively ) . Mean scores for density and vigor ) , SA1S077 Sub , GRS67 Sub , separation indicated smaller groups and the varieties with GRS08 Sub and S preador Alfalfa . Rose clover varieties had greatest relative density being Mendocino Rose , Yuchi higher ( p < . OOO ) flowering scores than sub clover varieties Arrowleaf , Shasta 3200 ' Rose , Siskiyou Rose and Hykon ( means 2.0 vs . . 8 , respectively ) . Rose clover varieties , Rose clovers . By April 17 one of the Cup clovers , Beenog , Siskiyou , Mendocino , and Shasta 4300 ' and 3200 ' ranking had increased and was ranked similar to Mendocino , high in density and vigor also scored high in flowering . Siskiyou and Arrowleaf , while Hykon hadslightly dropped Discussion in rank . The final ranking was consistently with previous Rose clover varieties compared to sub and cup clover observations for variety differences indensity ( p < . OOO ) and varieties consistently showed higher plant density and vigor higher densities ( p < . OOO ) for Rose vs . Sub clovers ( means and increased propensity to flower under field conditions in 2.4vs . 1.4 , respectively ) . The highest ranking varieties for Siskiyou county . This confmns earlier work of Drake density were Mendocino rose , Siskiyou rose , Shasta 4300 ' ( 1986 ) . Wild collections of rose clover from Northern and 3200 ' rose , Yuchi Arrowleaf and GRS19 Sub clovers . California , Mendocino , Shasta 4300 ' and 3200 ' and Early in the growing season there were differences Siskiyou , were usually better rose clover varieties than ( P < . OOO ) in vigor of the treatment varieties , however , rose commercially available varieties . When the plots were and sub clover varieties were similar ( means 1.5 vs . 1.4 , observed on June 10 , subjectively , the only varieties with respectively ) . Most of the varieties did not show good identifIable plants were Siskiyou and Shasta 4300 ' rose growth by April 17 . By May 8 , vigor had increased , variety clovers . differences ( p < . OOO ) were still present and rose clovers Cup clover varieties tended to flower earlier than either were more ( p < . OOO ) vigorous than sub clovers ( means 2.2 rose or sub clovers and Beenog and Yamina Cup clovers vs 1.4 , respectively ) . The varieties ranking highest in den - showed some potential for growth and vigor . sity were also among those with good vigor . These included Sub cioverGRS19 had relatively good density and vigor Mendocino rose , Siskiyou rose , Shasta 4300 ' and 3200 ' but failed to flower . In contrast sub clovers GR434 and rose , Yuchi Arrowleafand GRS19 Sub clovers . GR43S , had more moderate density and growth , but flow - On April 17 only the Cup clover varieties and Hykon ered . The latter two sub clover varieties and the Cup clovers Rose clover had flowers . By May 8 variety difference should be further evaluated . Table 1 . Ranked order of density ( germination ) of plants in plots on March 2 , 1987 scored as O = None , I = at least 1 plant , 2 = few plants and 3 = numerous plants . Mendocino Rose 3.00 A GR434 Sub 1.67 ABCDE Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.67 AB Shasta 4300 ' Rose 1.67 ABCDE GR508 Sub 2.67 AB GR435 Sub 1.33 BCDEF Yamina Cup 2.33 ABC GR567 Sub 1.33 BCDEF Hykon Rose 2.33 ABC WA 65324 - J Sub 1.00 CDEF SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 2.00 ABCD GR494 Sub 1.00 CDEF Yuchi Arrowleaf 2.00 ABCD Beenog Cup 1.00 CDEF GR519 Sub 2.00 ABCD GR450 Sub 0.67 DEF Siskiyou Rose 1.67 ABCDE Cup # 253 0.33 EF SA15077 Sub 1.67 ABCDE Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 F GR448 Sub 1.67 ABCDE a LSD value 1.63 at alpha = . 05 Table 2 . Ranked order of density of plants in plots on April 2 , 1987 scored as O = None , I = at least 1 plant , 2 = few plants and 3 = numerous plants . Mendocino Rose 2.67 A Yamina Cup 1.33 CDE Yuchi Arrowleaf 2.67 A GR448 Sub 1.33 CDE Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.33 AB GR450 Sub 1.33 CDE Siskiyou Rose 2.00 ABC GR435 Sub 1.00 DE Hykon Rose 2.00 ABC GR519 Sub 1.00 DE Shasta 4300 ' Rose 1.67 BCD WA 65324 - J Sub 1.00 DE GR494 Sub 1.67 BCD GR508 Sub 1.00 DE Beenog Cup 1.67 BCD Cup # 253 0.67 EF SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 1.33 CDE GR434 Sub 0.67 EF GR567 Sub 1.33 CDE Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 F SA15077 Sub 1.33 CDE 1988 Beef Workgroup Report LSD value = . 95 at alpha = . 05 Page 42 Frost Tolerance of Annual Clovers Continued Literature Cited Drake , Daniel J . 1986 . Annual Clover Variety Testing . Annual Report . Tulelake Experiment Station , University of California . Table 3 . Ranked order of density of plants in plots on April 17 , 1987 scored as O = None , I = at least 1 plant , 2 = few plants and 3 = numerous plants . Mendocino Rose 3.00 A WA 65324 - J Sub 1.67 CDE Siskiyou Rose Yuchi Arrowleaf 2.67 AB 2.67 AB SA15077 Sub GR508 Sub 1.67 1.67 CDE CDE Beenog Cup Hykon Rose Shasta 4300 ' Rose 2.33 2.00 2.00 ABC BCD BCD GR448 GR435 GR494 Sub Sub Sub 1.33 1.33 1.33 DE " DE DE Yamina Cup GR519 Sub Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.00 2.00 2.00 BCD BCD BCD GR567 Sub Cup # 253 GR450 Sub 1.33 1.00 1.00 DE E E GR434 Sub 1.67 CDE Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 F SA65321 - A Cream Sub 1.67 CDE LSD value = . 89 at alpha = . 05 Table 4 . Ranked order of density of plants in plots on May 8 , 1987 scored as O = None , I = at least 1 plant , 2 = few plants and 3 = numerous plants . Mendocino Rose 2.67 A WA 65324 - J Sub 1.67 BCD Siskiyou Rose 2.67 A GR494 Sub 1.67 BCD Shasta 4300 ' Rose 2.67 A GR435 Sub 1.33 CD Yuchi Arrowleaf 2.67 A GR450 Sub 1.33 CD Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.33 AB GR567 Sub 1.33 CD GR519 Sub 2.00 ABC Cup # 253 1.00 o Yamina Cup 1.67 BCD SA15077 Sub 1.00 D GR434 Sub 1.67 BCD GR448 Sub 1.00 D Beenog Cup 1.67 BCD GR508 Sub 1.00 D Hykon Rose 1.67 BCD Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 E SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 1.67 BCD LSD value = . 99 at alpha = . 05 Table 5 . Ranked order of vigor of plants in plots on April 17 , 1987 scored as O = No plants , I = weak growth , 2 = moderate growth and 3 = maximal growth . . . . Yuchi Arrowleaf 3.00 A SA15077 Sub 1.33 DE GR494 Sub 2.33 B Mendocino Rose 1.00 E GR450 Sub 2.00 BC GR519 Sub 1.00 E Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.00 BC GR567 Sub 1.00 E GR435 Sub 1.67 CD Cup # 253 1.00 E WA65324 - J Sub 1.67 CD Yamina Cup 1.00 E Siskiyou Rose 1.67 CD GR434 Sub . 1.00 E SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 1.33 DE Beenog Cup 1.00 E GR448 Sub 1.33 DE GR508 Sub 1.00 E Hykon Rose 1.33 DE Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 F Shasta 4300 ' Rose 1.33 DE LSD value = . 60 at alpha = . 05 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 43 I Frost Tolerance of Annual Clovers Continued , I • I I , . , Table 6 . Ranked order of vigor of plants in plots on May 8 , 1987 scored as O = No plants , I = weak growth , 2 = moderate growth and 3 = maximal growth . Shasta 4300 ' Rose 2.33 A GR435 Sub 1.33 BCD Siskiyou Rose 2.33 A GR450 Sub 1.33 BCD Yuchi Arrowleaf 2.33 A GR448 Sub 1.33 BCD Shasta 3200 ' Rose 2.33 A GR508 Sub 1.33 BCD GR494 Sub 2.33 A WA 65324 - J Sub 1.33 BCD Hykon Rose 2.00 AB SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 1.00 CD Mendocino Rose 2.00 AB SA15077 Sub 1.00 CD GR434 Sub 1.67 ABC GR567 Sub 1.00 CD GR519 Sub 1.67 ABC Cup # 253 0.67 DE Yamina Cup 1.67 ABC Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 E Beenog Cup 1.33 BCD LSD value = . 91 at alpha = . 05 Table 7 . Ranked order of flowering score of plants in plots on April 17 , 1987 scored as O = No flowers , I = at least one , 2 = intermediate number and 3 = maximal amount . Beenog Cup 2.67 A WA 65324 - J Sub 0.00 E Yamina Cup 2.00 B Shasta 4300 ' Rose 0.00 E Cup # 253 1.67 C GR448 Sub 0.00 E Hykon Rose 1.00 D GR567 Sub 0.00 E Mendocino Rose 0.00 E SA 65321 - A Cream Sub 0.00 E GR434 Sub 0.00 E GR494 Sub 0.00 E GR519 Sub 0.00 E GR450 Sub 0.00 E SA15077 Sub 0.00 E Shasta 3200 ' Rose 0.00 E Siskiyou Rose Yuchi Arrowleaf 0.00 0.00 E E GRS08 Sub Spreador Alfalfa 0.00 0.00 E E GR435 Sub 0.00 E LSD value = . 30 at alpha = . 05 Table 8 . Ranked order of flowering score of plants in plots on May 8 , 1987 scored as O = No flowers , I = at least one , 2 = intermediate number and 3 = maximal amount . Beenog Cup Hykon Rose Yamina Cup GR434 Sub Siskiyou Rose Cup # 253 Shasta 3200 ' Rose Mendocino Rose GR435 Sub Shasta 4300 ' Rose GR448 Sub LSD value = 1.43 3.00 2.67 2.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.33 at alpha A AB ABC ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD ABCD BCDE = . 05 WA 65324 - J Sub GR494 Sub SA 65321 - A Cream Sub GR450 Sub Yuchi Arrowleaf GR519 Sub SA15077 Sub · GR567 Sub GR508 Sub Spreador Alfalfa 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CDE CDE DE DE E E E E E E 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 44 Integration of Livestock and Cereal Cropping Operations into a Ley - Farming System Jim Sullins , Area Livestock and Range Advisor , UCCE San Bernardino County , Walter Graves , Range Advisor , UCCE San Diego County Baameur Abdelaziz , Farm Advisor , UCCE Riverside County Introduction Annually , several million acres are dryland farmed as cereals in California . This cropping system places a heavy fossil fuel demand with inputs of nitrogen fertilizer and machinery as well as a high risk potential of adverse weather preventing a return on the higher input costs . The dryland cereal system may include a fallow rotation or no rotation as in southern California . The fallow system in­creases the occurrence of weeds and potential for erosion , and the no rotation system places a continual drain on the system's ability to provide nitrogen for the crop . Livestock traditionally utilize the grain stubble as low quality after­math feed . Ley - farming is a cereal - annual legume rotation system utilizing minimum tillage farming practices as well as a livestock component for nitrogen incorporation . Australian studies have reported that annual legume introductions and varietal improvements since the 1930 ' s have contributed substantially to doubling cereal grain and animal produc­tion in south Australia . The climate ofsouthern California is similarto the areas in southern Australia where ley - farming has proven to be a successful farming technique . A project has been initiated to explore and screen Medi­terranean annual legumes that have potential of high bio­logical nitrogen fixation and regeneration under minimum tillage and livestock grazing for adaptation to a cereal­annual legume rotation or ley - farming system . The ley system is being evaluated for adaptation as a management alternative that will : reduce fossil fuel consumption of cereal producers ; lower the use , cost . and environmental risk ofnitrogen fertilizer and herbicide applications ; benefit sheep producers by providing more and higher quality forage ; and provide environmental benefits for the region by reducing erosion , improving water retention , and aes­thetics . Procedure A three year trial was designed to assess the applicability and benefits of a ley - farming rotation system utilizing sheep , legumes , small grains , and minimum tillage . Soils at the Moreno Valley Field Station , Moreno Valley , Califor­nia on which the ley - farming trials have been established are sandy loam in the Greenford and Ramona series . The soil pH is neutral to slight ! y acidic with the phosphate level determined to be adequate for proper annual legume growth . The plot design consists of 19 annual legume variety treatment and one control ofweed fallow . The plots of each replication are 25 ' by 25 ' placed adjacent to a large wheat on - wheat plot of 50 ' x 250 ' in size . The annual legume plots are arranged in a randomized block design with four repli­cations . The legume varieties used in this trial are : Medi­cago laciniata ( Cut - leaf medic ) , Harbinger ( Strand medic ) , Jemalong ( Barrel medic ) , Paraggio ( Barrel medic ) Sephi ( Barrel medic ) SAPO ( Gama medic ) , Paragosa ( Gama medic ) , Sava ( Snail medic ) , Nungarin ( Subclover ) , Northam ( Subclover ) , Geraldton ( Subclover ) , Dalkeith ( Subclover ) , Daliak ( Subclover ) , Kondinin ( Rose ) , Hykon ( Rose ) , Beenong ( Cup clover ) , Yamina ( Cup clover ) , Circle Valley ( Burr medic ) , and Serena ( Burr medic ) broadcast at 25lbs . / ac . and cultipacked to cover on February 11 , 1987 . Because of the lateness in establishing the legumes , the trial had to be supplemented with minimal irrigation during the growing season . During the legume establishment year , sheep will graze the legume stand in order to measure livestock pro­duction potential , manage weeds , enhance legume seed productions for self - regeneration and maximize nitrogen incorporation . Wheat ( the small grain component ) will be cropped on the established legume area and post - harvest , the stubble will be grazed to quantify the total benefits ofthe ley - farming system . Minimum and no - till farming cultural practices will be used during the cereal cropping cycle . Wheat production parameters will also be assessed . Four samples per plot using 0.25m2 quadrats will be used to determine production , total N , P , K , and micronutrient concentrations immediately prior to harvest or grazing . Priorto planting , 2 meter soil samples will be analyzed in 25 cm increments for total extractable N , P , K , texture , struc­ture , pH , and salinity . Each year prior to planting wheat , the surface 25 cm of soil will be sampled for extractable N and P . Depending on funding , other soil parameters will be measured to determine soil benefits including inftltration 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 45 Integration of Livestock and Cereal • • • Continued rate , soil strength , and aggregation to detennine potential energy savings for nitrogen fertilization , weed control and tillage operations . Results and Discussion Just prior to grazing with sheep , the plots were sampled between May 8 and May II , 1987 for weed and annual legume biomass using a 0.25m . 2 . All above ground plant growth of both the weed and the legume component were removed to ground level , oven dried for 24 hours at 160 F . , weighedandsenttoourUC - R 1 # for proximate analysis for N , P , K , Ca , Mg , B , S , and ADF . During the grazing phase in 1987,49 head ofmature ewes and one ram grazed the test plot for 1.5 days perreplicate for a total of 6 days , approxi­mately the equivalent of 2 AUM . No measurements of animal perfonnance were taken . In following years total animal weights will be taken on and off the plots . Observa­tions of the flock indicated a high degree ofacceptance for all the annual legumes tested in this trial , as well as a general preference for the annual legumes over the weedy species . The flock also appeared to continue to gain well through the grazing period with no detrimental effects . On November 10 , 1987 , at the start of the second year's growth season visual stand evaluations were made to detennine reseeding potential of the annual legume varieties . Following the observations , wheat was planted on the annual legume plots using minimum till . The results of the weed and legume · above ground biomass production and the regeneration es­timates are on Table 1 . Due to the lateness in which supplemental irrigation was applied , the weed population consisted mainly of a late spring / summer weed complex of mainly lambsquarters , pigweed , goosefoot and London Rocket . As indicated in Table I ' statistical analysis resulted in the annual legume varieties separating into 3 groupings according to produc­tion . The highest producing group was Sava , varieties separating into 3 groupings according to production . The highest producing group was Sava , Serena , Circle Valley , and Sephi which also tended to be the lowest group for weed production . As one would suspect . the better annual legume producers offer more competition for weed growth and provide a weed suppression effect . In fact , there is a fairly strong negative relationship between legume biomass pro­duction and weed production throughout the total range of legume varieties . The poor producing group consisted of Kondinin , Harbinger , Geraldton , Yamina , Daliak , Sapo , Nungarin and Paragosa It should be noted that varieties such as Paragosa and Sapo are newer medic cultivars recently selected by Australian breeders to replace some of the older varieties , and that Daliak subclover's poor per­fonnance is consistent with previous southern California trials . The poor perfonnance of these newer varieties that have done well in Australia is indicative of the need to validate the new arrivals for regional conditions prior to making seeding recommendations . The second year regeneration results follow only some­what the variety production pattern of the establishment year results . There are some exceptions and one can see that the snail medic variety , Sava , while demonstrating superior production quality the fIrst year , was only average for second year regeneration . Also Nugarin subclover moved up from the poor fIrst establishment production level into the top regeneration varieties for the second year . These . second year reestablishment evaluations may have only passing interest for the cereal - legume rotation program since the true test will come during the third year when rees­tablishmentofthe legume component is of most importance for the range pasture year in the cycle . While it is too early to draw conclusions from these establishment results forour long - tenn regeneration needs , there seems to be an adequate number of varieties showing good fIrst - year establishment results to allow for third year regeneration following a wheat crop to make preliminary varietal recommendations of annual legumes for a cereal ! legume rotation cropping system in southern California 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 46 Integration of Livestock and Cereal • • • Continued • TABLE 1 . ANNUAL LEGUME ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS PRODUCTION ESTIMATION ON FIRST YEAR ESTABLISHMENT AT THE MORENO VALLEY FIELD STATION , UC - R , AND 2ND YEAR REGENERATION ESTIMATES . 2nd Year LegumeLegune Weed RegenerationVariety Production Production ( 0 - 10 ) 2 Kg . / Ha . 1 Kg . / Ha . 1 Sava 2440 A3 830 IHG3 4 Serena 2200 AB 500 I 9 Circle Valley 2080 AB 660 IH 6 Sephi 1850 BC 1020 IHGF 1 Cut - Leaf 1510 CD 1780 HGFED 6 Paraggio 1320 CDE 1220 IHGFE 2 Jemalong 1280 DEF 1750 HGFED 3 Hykon 950 DEFG 1800 HGFED 4 Northam 940 DEFG 1400 IHGFE 4 Beenong 860 EFG 2680 DCB 1 Dal keith 750 FGH 2160 FEDC 4 Paragosa 680 GH 2330 EDCB 1 Nungarin 670 GH 2310 EDCB 6 Sapo 620 GH 2780 DCB 1 Daliak 510 GH 1980 GFEDC 1 Yamina 480 GH 2990 CBA 1 Geraldton 470 GH 2670 DCB 2 Harbinger 430 GH 2800 DCB 4 Kondinin 170 H3 / 3470 BA 1 Weed Control 3980 A3 / LSD ( 0.50 ) 510 1020 1.6 1 Based on 1 / 4 m . 2 quadrat sampled from May 8 , 1987 to May 11 , 1987 . 2 Visual Estimation - O = No regeneration , 10 = Excellent Regeneration over the total plot area . 3 Duncan's multiple range test for treatment . rreans separation ; those varietites with unlike letters are significantly different p < = ( 0.05 level ) 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 47 Monitoring Seasonal Forage Production San Joaquin Experimental Range Niel McDougald , Farm Advisor , Madera County Introduction The San Joaquin Experimental Range ( SJER ) is the oldest range research station in California . Weather and forage production information have been collected since 1935 ; however , seasonal forage production data has been limitedafewofthe early years ofthe Station's existence and since 1972 - 73 with the advent ofthe International Biologi­cal Project ( IBP ) Annual Grassland BlOME Study . Such databases are rare and are invaluable for use in modeling and other studies looking at biological and land manage­ment relationships . Since 1980 the monitoring has been conducted jointly by the University ofCalifornia Coopera­tive Extension , U.S . Forest Service Pacific Southwest For­est and Range Experiment Station , and CA TI , CSUFresno . Procedure Designated locations at the SJER in Range Units 1 and 51 have been sampled during the growing season since 1980 to monitor forage production and herbaceous compo­sition on two range sites - slope and swale . Each of these two sites in turn had a grazed and non - grazed area . The " slope grazed " sampling is used to represent typical forage response for SJER . Sampling was done periodically during the year for several years , and more recently at dates to represent the winter , spring , and fall seasons . Earlier samples were clipped and separated by species group , then dried and weighed . More recently a double sampling technique has been used for total forage production and the step point method used for estimation botanical composition . The data is stored on the computer in the University ofCalifor­nia Cooperative Extension Range Unit ( Agronomy Exten­sion , UC Davis , 95616 ) and is being used with such projects as climate , forage relationships characterizing typical for­age production for any given year , modem validation , and management programs . Results and Discussion Examples ofthis data are presented for the slope - grazed forage production at the midwinter and peak : production . The information shows the variation in total forage produc­tion between the different years and the relative presence of grass , erodium ( fIlaree ) , and other forbs at both of these times . Material from the previous year's growth ( litter ) is also included since this has a bearing on the total feed available for livestock and influences on the current year's forage growth . The variation between the seasons and between years shows the diffIculty oftrying to characterize annual rangelands by one single production fIgure or spe­cies composition . Publications and / or Papers Clawson , W.J . , N.K . McDougald and D.A . Duncan . Seasonal herbage production ofthe central Sierra foothills . Paper at 37th An . Mtg . Soc . for Rng . MgmL , Rapid City , SD , Feb . 1984 . Proc . Abstr . No . 261 . Clawson , W J . , N.K . McDougald , D.A . Duncan and J . Larson . Season Influence of herbage consumption of the annual grasslands . Paper at 38th An . Mtg . Soc . for Rng . MgmL , SaltLakeCity , UT , Feb . 1985 , Proc.Abstr.No . 223 . George , M.R . W J . Clawson , J.W . Menke and J . Bar­tolome . Annual grassland forage productivity . Jr . ofRange­lands 7 : 17 - 19 . Feb . 1985 . Seasonal Forage Production Characteristics San Joaquin Experimental Range 1980 / 81 ( 1981 ) - 10 / 30 , 12 / 31 , 2 / 18t , 3 / 24,4 / 17 , 518t , 6 / 4,7 / 15 1981 / 82 ( 1982 ) - 11 / 4 , 12 / 15 , 2 / 25t , 3 / 25 , 4 / 22 , 5 / 13t , 6 / 3,8 / 26 1982 / 83 ( 1983 ) - 1 / 14 , 3 / 4t , 4 / 29t , 5 / 26 , 6 / 24 1983 / 84 ( 1984 ) - 2 / 23t , 3 / 30 , 4 / 25t 1984 / 85 ( 1985 ) - 12 / 27,1 / 31 , 3 / 6t , 4 / 2 , 5 / 22t 1985 / 86 ( 1986 ) - 1 / 22,3 / 4,5 / 2 t Dates used for mid - winter and peak forage production Table onfollowing page 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 48 Monitoring Seasonal Forage Production • • • Continued Mid - Winter and Peak Forage Production - Slope / Grazed Pounds per Acre ( percent ) Total Litter Green Grass Erodium Forb 1980 / 81 2 / 18 2,280 915 497 ( 54 ) 307 ( 16 ) 111 ( 12 ) 5 / 08 1,209 2,686 1,846 ( 69 ) 639 ( 24 ) 201 ( 7 ) 1981 / 82 2fl5 1,661 1,113 564 ( 52 ) 269 ( 24 ) 280 ( 24 ) 5 / 13 424 4,097 2,287 ( 55 ) 1,146 ( 28 ) 664 ( 17 ) 1982 / 83 3 / 4 618 1,560 462 ( 30 ) 1,013 ( 65 ) 84 ( 05 ) 4fl9 512 3,452 1,324 ( 38 ) 1,514 ( 44 ) 614 ( 18 ) 1983 / 84 2fl3 1,2215 1,971 528 ( 27 ) 1,424 ( 72 ) 19 ( 1 ) 4fl5 670 4,249 1,280 ( 930 ) 2,946 ( 69 ) 23 ( 1 ) 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 49 • Pasture Probe Calibration - A Progress Report Melvin R . George , Peter B . Sands , Ronald S . Knight , and Kenneth Taggard Introduction Many indirect dry matter assessment techniques have been developed including visual estimation , height and density measurements ( i.e . , ruler , rising plato meter ) , and non - vegetative attributes ( capacitance , beta attenuation and radiometry ) . The use ofa capacitance meter for estimating herbage mass has been under development for several years . Most early models were very sensitive to sample water content . An earth plate capacitance probe developed by Vickery and Nicol ( 1982 ) has largely overcome this - problem . . The Pasture Probe is a version of the earth plate capaci­tance probe developed by Design Electronics Palmerstor North , New Zealand and marketed by Snell Systems ofSan Antonio , Texas , ThePasture Probe has become a useful tool for estimating herbage mass in ryegrass - white clover pas­tures in New Zealand . This single probe capacitance meter is mainly responsive to the surface area ofthe herbage and it is less sensitive to variations in moisture content of th pasture than previous meters . Thus it can be calibrated to measure the mass of herbage dry matter to ground level , reducing the need to collect dry herbage samples for fre­quent recalibration of the instrument . Herbage mass readings taken by the probe are saved in an electronic control box and can be downloaded to a microcomputer . There is space before and after grazing readings from ninety pastures . Date , time and pasture size information are also saved in the control box . Computer programs for downloading to a text file or spread sheet are available from the author . Programs for feed budgeting are under development The control box can be carried over the shoulder or around the waist with a belt Readings are taken with the Pasture Probe by walking across a pasture as if the probe were a cane and taking herbage mass reading each time the probe touches the ground . The average of the capacitance meter readings is converted to dry matter yield using a linear equation developed during calibration . The equations be­low estimate kg / ha . but the probe is set to convert these estimates to lbs / a . The Pasture Probe's electronic control box contains several equations developed in New Zealand . These equations are programmed into the pasture probe so that the conversions occur instantly as you sample in the field . The following equations are programmed in the probe : 1 . General use when the pasture is not moist : 2 . Early Autumn ( before rains but forge is green Y = CMR + 353 3 . Autumn ( after rains ) Y = I1.9 CMR + 608 4 . Winter to Early Spring Y = 10.9 CMR + 212 5 . Late Spring to Early Summer Y = 15.1 CMR + 341 6 . Summer Y = 19 CMR + 854 7 . Tropical Grasses Y = 25.8 CMR + 232 8 . Corrected Meter Reading ( CMR ) Because these equations were developed on perennial pastures dominated by perennial ryegrass and white clover , it was not clear whether any ofthem would work on annual range pastures . During the 1986 - 87 growing season the Design Electronic Pasture Probe was calibrated on annual rangeland . Procedure Calibration was conducted on open grasslands at the O'Connell Ranch in Tehema County with supplemental data collected atthe UC S ierra Foothill Range Field Station . A double sampling procedure was used to determine the linear relationship between CMRandherbage mass ( forage dry matter ) . A one square foot quadrant was probed 9 to 12 times depending on the amount ofvariation in herbage mass within the quadrant . The plot was then clipped close to ground level and probed again to determine the residual CMR . Regression was used to compute the linear relation­ship for the difference between the probe readings before and after clipping ( X ) and the dry matter weights ( Y ) . Sampling was done six times at the O'Connell Ranch from February 18 to May 1 , 1987 , and two times , February 26 and April 28 , atSFRFS . Due to a dry fall and early winter , 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page SO Pasture Probe Calibration Continued green forage was not sufficient for measure with the probe inches in height ; after completing the seasons sampling it • until February . Cold winter temperatures also reduced was learned that the pasture probe would only measure for­forage productivity . A late January attempt to begin cali­age up to 12 inches in height . We are currently testing anew brating the probe was aborted because herbage mass was pasture probe that measures forage to a 24 inch height . inadequate . The calibration equation Y = 14.95 CMR + 114 for the The flrst calibration was done in an ungrazed paddock of O'Connell Ranch is very close to the equation 5 contained O'Connell's original cell . Most clipped plots contained in the control box for late spring to early summer . Further fllaree and drill rows of annual ryegrass . Annual clovers testing in 1988 may confmn that equation 5 is a satisfactory were generally not present . Onclose inspection a few newly estimator for feed budgeting . germinated clover plants could be found , but their contribu­The pasture probe is a useful research and management tion to the standing crop was negligible . The higheststand­tool . When used for research , site specffic and seasonal ingcropsand probe readings were measured in a spot where calibrations may be necessary to reduce experimental error . fertilizer and ryegrass had apparently been spilled . Filaree Depending on the nature ofthe research , a sequence oftwo was not a signiflcant contributor to these samples . or three equations may be adequate as forage matures and The second calibration was conducted on March 10 , dry matter increases . As a management tool , a greater 1987 , in the hardinggrass fleld surrounding the O'Connell sampling error is acceptable . A single calibration equation house , Hay Field and WestBig Field Flat . Heavy rainfall in for the entire annual range green season may suffice for the early afternoon forced an end to the calibration sam­many situation . John 0 ' Connell used the pasture probe and pling . Hardinggrass , ryegrass , and clover were the domi­the pooled equation to budget forage in a break grazing or nant species in the hardinggrass fleld by the house . The daily ration grazing program on annual range gained 3 to ryegrass was in drill rows . The other flelds had ryegrass in 3.75Ibs . per day . drill rows to a height of3 - 5 inches . Clover , star thistle and Based on New Zealand's experience and our prelimi­flddleneck seedlings were also present in these flelds . In nary experiences on annual range , the pasture probe may later sampling clover and other forbs became more impor­make it possible for the ranch manager to measure how tant components of the sample so that the calibration much forage he has very quickly at any time . This funda­samples taken from late March to May were mixtures of mental piece ofinformation has been unavailable to many grass , forbs , and clover . On the last sampling date atSFRFS ranchers , and its lack is at the root of inefficient forage an attempt was made to collect pure grass , clover and fllaree management on rangeland and pastures . With this informa'­samples . tion short and long - term planning becomes more precise Results and economic control is strengthened . The yields , drymatter content , and calibration equations for each sampling date at the O'Connell Table 1 . Ranch and SFRFS are presented in Table 1 . Before the forage began to mature , Dry Matter yield ( lbs / a ) and herbage dry matter ( % ) correlation when plant moisture was high ( 78 % to with CMR for eight sampling dates at two locations in 1987 85 % ) the CMR correlated well with in Yield Dry Matter dry matter production ( r > 0.95 ) . How - Location & Date lbs / a b a r % r ever , as the plant moisture began to - O - ' C - on - n - e - n - R - a - n - c - h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -­ decline in April the CMR correlation 1015 14.33 - 235 0.98 15 - 0.31with dry matter decreased ( r < 0.9 ) February 18 March 10 1090 9.93 142 0.95 15 - 0.28The March 10 sample was small 1443 15.05 - 71 0.97 22 - 0.85because rainfall aborted completion of March 27 1552 16.82 - 215 0.96 19 - 0.7the sampling . No herbage mass samples April 9 1784 15.56 521 0.86 25 - 0.65were collected in the upper end of the April 20 1711 14.550 748 0.73 33 - 0.08herbage mass range and many of the May 1 clipped plots contained hardinggrass , Total 1538 14.40 107 0.84 21 - 0.33 potentially producing the signfficant Total ( Excluding decrease in slope ofthe calibration curve March 10 ) 1312 14.95 114 0.85 22 for that date . Therefore , the March 10 SFRFSsamples were excluded from the pooled February 26 - 27 630 14.39 - 71 0.94calibration curve for the entire season at April 28 ( grass ) 1019 7.33 450 0.7 28 - 0.76the O'Connell Ranch . April 28 ( fllaree ) 1213 15.62 633 0.78 30 - 0.33Samples exceeding 3500 lbs / a were April 28 ( clover ) 1127 9.98 637 0.73 32 - 0.47dropped from the analysis in an effort to April 28 ( all ) 1112 4.72 844 0.43 29 - 0.62exclude those samples exceeding 12 Total 954 8.73 481 0.61 1988 Beef Workgroup Report PageS1 Warm Season Grass Trial Melvin R . George , Charles B . Wilson , Peter Sands , Roger Ingram , Michael Connor Introduction The cool season species commonly used in foothill and valley irrigated pastures are not very productive during the hot summer months . Only dallisgrass , a warm season grass , remains productive during July and August . Warm season grasses , being of tropical origin , have a high optimum temperature for growth and therefore do quite well under hot summer temperatures . Additionally , several warm sea­son grasses are drought tolerant , producing green forage with as little as three inches ofprecipitation per month . The objective ofthis study is to test several warm season grasses for their adaptability to foothill irrigated pastures during the summer and to determine yield response to adequate and reduced irrigation . The irrigation treatments are not reported in this progress report . This project was initiated with a grant from the Califor­nia Cattlemen's Association and seed from the USDA Soil Conservation Service Plant Material Centers . Procedure The trial is being conducted at the UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station in Yuba County at an elevation oflOOO feet . Land preparation was conducted from summer , 1984 , through spring , 1985 . On June 10 , 1985 , treble super­phosphate ( 0 - 40 - 0 ) was applied at the rate of400 lbs / a . Six replications of 20 plots each were laid out . Irrigation water delivery was delayed until late July 1985 . On July 25 , 1985 , 16 of the 20 entries were seeded . On August 13,1985 , the buffelgrass entry was seeded and the stoloniferous entries were transplanted . Sudangrass was the fIrst entry to emerge and required clipping on August 15,1985 . All entries were mowed and fertilized with ammonium nitrate at the rate of 40 lbs / a of nitrogen on September 20 , 1985 . All warm season grasses were dormant by early December . The buffelgrass and sudangrass entry did not survive the winter of 1985 - 86 . On May 20,1986 , the buffelgrass and sudangrass entries were replaced with Verde kleingrass and laurisagrass . All replications were irrigated weekly . The trialwas fertilized twice each year in the spring and summer with approximately 50 lbs ofN as ammonium nitrate . On May 20 , 1986 , the plots were mowed for weed control purposes . Yield was measured in 1986 on June 10 , July9 , August 15 , andSeptember25 and in 1987 on May 15 , June 16 , July 15 , August 18 , September 15 , andOctober 15 . Results and Discussion Table 1 reports the dry matter yields for 18 entries that were harvested on all four harvest dates in 1986 . Table 2 reports the total yield for the last two harvest and includes the yield of Verde klein grass and laurisagrass that were added to the trial in June 1986 . Tables 3 - 6 report protein , ADF , NDR , and ash on four harvest dates in 1986 . Table 7 reports the yields for 1987 except for perennial ryegrass which died early in the summer . Neutral detergent residue ( Table 5 ) is an indicator of digestibility . As NDR increases digestibility decreases . In 1986 switchgrass was the most productive over four harvests followed by indiangrass , sand lovegrass , and side­oats grama . Sand lovegrass is an exotic used in the south­western states where summer rainfall occurs naturally on these rangelands . The other three are natives of the North American Prairie . In 1987 indiangrass , big bluestem , Lehmann's lovegrass , little bluestem , and Boer lovegrass were most productive . The cool season grasses , tall fescue , perennial ryegrass and orchardgrass , were least productive over four harvests in 1986 and six harvests in 1987 . The stoloniferous entries , bermudagrass and limpograss , were among the least pro­ductive of the warm season grasses in both years . Perennial ryegrass died during the summer of 1987 . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 52 Warm Season Grass Trial Continued Table 1 Total forage dry matter yield for the wann season grass trial at UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station harvested monthly from June - September , 1986 Common Name Variety Yiel d ( I bs / a ) Swltchgrass Kanlow 9620 A Indlangrass Osage 9216 AB Sand Lovegrass Bend 8684 ABC Sideoats Grama EI Reno 8512 ABC Lehmann's Lovegrass 7768 BCD Little Bluestem Aldous 7760 BCD Klerngrass Selection 75 7720 BCD Da Illsgrass Common 7572 BCD Big Bluestem Kaw 7200 CDE Boer Lovegrass Catalina 7144 CDE Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 6700 DEF Bermudagrass Tifton 68 6572 DEF Bahlagrass Pensecola 6108 DEF Bermudagrass NK Pasto Rico 5520 EF Llmpograss Bigaita 5432 F Tal I Fescue Fawn 3760 G Orchardgrass Akaroa 3476 G Perennlat Ryegrass Arlkl 2444 G Yields fol lowed by the same letter are not significantly different ( p = 0.05 ) . Table 2 Total forage dry matter yield for the iast two harvests of the warm season grass trial at UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station in August and September , 1986 . Common Name Variety Yield ( Ibs / a ) Klelngrass Verde 4450 A Lehmann's Lovegrass 4218 AB Sand Lovegrass Bend 3976 ABC Swrtchgrass Kanlow 3958 ABC S I deoats Grama EI Reno 3718 ABCD Klelngrass Selection 75 3642 ABCD Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 3636 ABCD Indrangrass Osage 3564 ABCD Laurrsagrass 3454 ABCD Llmpograss Brgalta 3186 ABCD Lltt I e B I uestem AI dous 3140 ABCD Bermudagrass TIfton 68 2990 BCDE Big Blue stem Kaw 2950 BCDE Dallisgrass Common 2908 BCDE Boer Lovegrass Catal Ina 2656 CDE Bahlagrass Pen seco I a 2536 DEF Bermudagrass NK Pasto Rico 2468 DEF Tall Fescue Fawn 1770 EFG Orchardgrass Akaroa 1304 FG PerennIal Ryegrass Arlki 804 G Yields fol lowed by the same letter are not significantly ( p = O . 05 ) . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 53 Warm Season Grass Trial Continued Table 3 Protein ( % ) on four harvest dates in 1986 . Common Name Entry June Jul Aug Sept Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 5.01 7.27 8.52 8.80 Bermudagrass Tifton 68 10.24 8.56 9 . 72 9.07 Bermudagrass NK Pasto Rico 6.29 7.23 7.92 6.66 L Impograss Bigalta 7.20 8 . 11 8.33 7.05 Big Bluestem Kaw 6 . 79 7.06 7.78 7.86 Sideoats Grama EI Reno 5.80 8.08 6.76 Boer Lovegrass Catal Ina 10.85 5.01 7.32 6.60 Lehmann's Lovegrass 4.32 6.55 7.50 7.08 Sand Lovegrass Bend 3.84 5.80 8.61 7.90 Kletngrass Selection 75 5.58 7.01 7.90 8.58 Swltchgrass KanlC1fl 10.12 6.57 9.72 8.75 Da II tsgrass Common 6.64 7.21 7.99 7.58 Bahlagrass Pensecol a 7.71 7.25 12.49 8.31 Indlangrass Osage 4.29 6.88 9.49 7.51 Little Bluestem Aldous 8.46 7.34 9.09 8.98 Laurlsagrass 8.63 8.02 Klelngrass Verde 10.33 8.95 Orchardgrass Akaroa 5.07 10.74 15.23 14.20 Tall Fescue Fawn 6.91 11.05 15.68 13.27 Perennial Ryegrass Arikl 7.45 9.2911.5116.84 Table 4 ADO ( % ) on four harvest dates in 1986 . Common Name Entry June Jul Aug Sept Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 37.65 39.18 38.42 38.03 Bermudagrass TIfton 68 37.00 41.00 37.62 38.86 Bermudagrass NK Pasto RIco 36.36 37.23 36.00 36.94 Llmpograss Bigaita 34.83 38.68 35.67 38.64 Brg BI.uestem Kaw 3 & . 92 41.63 37.59 39.48 Srdeoats Grama EI Reno 38.30 42.96 39.28 42.45 Boer Lovegrass Catal Ina 39.51 43.19 40.57 43.11 Lehmann's Lovegrass 41.82 45.85 44.31 45.15 Sand Lovegrass Bend 34.74 36.00 36.55 40.37 Kleingrass Selection 75 33.62 34.67 36.52 35.33 SWitchgrass Kanlow 36.32 36.47 35.13 36.06 Da I I I sgrass Common 42.45 44.80 43.21 43.66 Bahlagrass Pen seco I a 37.07 40.75 39.79 40.20 Indlangrass Osage 41.41 44.51 42.32 44.17 Little Bluestem Aldous 40.54 43.51 40.63 41.70 Laurlsagrass . 00 . 00 37.33 39.28 Klelngrass Verde . 00 . 00 37.33 35.48 Orchardgrass Akaroa 37.65 38.48 34.76 35.03 Tall Fescue Fawn 35.35 35.67 35.08 33.71 PerennIal Ryegrass Ar Ik I 38.63 42.96 33.05 32.47 · 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 54 Warm Season Grass Trial Continued TableS NDR ( % ) on four harvest dates in 1986 . Common Name Entry June Jul Aug Sept Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 Bermudagrass Tifton 68 Bermudagrass NK Pasto Rico Llmpograss Bigaita Big Bluestem Kaw Sideoats Grama EI Reno Boer Lovegrass Catalina Lehmann's Lovegrass Sand Lovegrass Bend Klelngrass Selection 75 Swltchgrass Kanlow Da I I I sgrass Common Bahlagrass Pensecola Indlangrass Osage Little Bluestem Aldous Laurlsagrass Klelngrass Verde Orchardgrass Akaroa Tall Fescue Fawn Perennial Ryegrass Arlki 23.51 20.94 25.13 16.71 18.59 22.15 33.05 27.69 22.97 23.20 31.00 22.36 24.49 20.12 24.22 . 00 . 00 22.70 21.08 26.59 23.57 24.30 27.17 16.10 20.77 25.68 47.08 36.38 35.30 24.27 29.76 22.85 28.50 19.77 23.28 . 00 . 00 19.74 24.02 29.24 22.35 22.90 27.25 19.98 26.22 41.56 38.06 28.98 26.05 27.93 26.91 23.66 40.00 24.82 40.53 42.83 27.33 16.67 17.97 26.03 24.62 24.31 29.18 19.18 20.32 32.21 42.13 29.51 32.75 26.78 34.74 26.58 31.44 25.69 27.25 28.65 24.21 16.20 18.18 15.96 Table 6 Ash ( % ) on four harvest dates in 1986 . Common Name Entry June Jul Aug Sept Bermudagrass Coastcross 1 Bermudagrass Tifton 68 Bermudagrass NK Pasto Rico Limpograss Blgalta Big Bluestem Kaw Sideoats Grama EI Reno Boer Lovegrass Catal ina Lehmann's Lovegrass Sand Lovegrass Bend Klelngrass Selection 75 Swltchgrass Kanlow Da I II sgrass Common Bahlagrass Pensecola Indlangrass Osage Little Bluestem Aldous Laurisagrass Klelngrass Verde Orchardgrass Akaroa Tall Fescue Fawn Perennial Ryegrass Arlki 11 . 71 14.42 10.43 14.12 9.23 10.36 8 . 78 8.23 7.33 9 . 77 8.31 11.92 11.45 10.02 9.25 ' . 00 . 00 12.97 14.75 11.24 12.06 16.48 13.00 ' 12.81 10.18 1r . 35 10.32 8.97 8.67 9.84 10.12 11.69 10.64 11.27 10.49 . 00 . 00 15 ' . 80 17.16 13.12 10.92 12.30 10.98 10.32 8.96 10.77 8.47 7.91 8.21 8.80 8.03 10.89 10.26 9.97 8.71 14.70 10.66 12.95 13.57 11.85 12.17 13.80 11.73 12.88 10.28 12.70 9.51 8.71 8.08 10.77 8.76 10.97 10.21 15.13 10.64 16.38 11.76 12.47 14.56 13.87 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 55 Warm Season Grass Trial Continued Table 7 Total forage yield for the six harvests of the warm season grass trial at U.C . Sierra Foot­hill Range Field Stateion in 1987 . Indlangrass Big Bluestern Lovegrass Little Bluestern Boer Lovegrass Klelngrass Swltchgrass Sand Lovegrass Sideoats Grama Bahlagrass Klelngrass Bermudagrass Laurlsagrass Oal I I sgrass Bermudagrass Llmpograss Bermudagrass Tall Fescue Orchardgrass Perennial Ryegrass Cultlvar Osage Kaw Lehmann's Aldous Catalina Selection 75 Kanlow Bend EI Reno Pen seco I a Verde Coastcross 1 Common NK Pasto Rico Bigaita Tifton 68 Fawn Akaroa Arlkl YIelds fol lowed by the same letter are different ( p = 0.05 ) . Yield ( Ibs / a ) 7849 A 7632 AB 7456 ABC 7025 ABCO 6873 ABCDE 6520 BCDEF 6450 BCOEF 6341 COEF 6171 COEF 6023 DEFG 5882 OEFGH 5586 EFGH 5459 FGHI 4890 GHI 4724 HI 4708 HI 4596 HI 4289 IJ 3363 J not significantly Warm Season Grass Grazing Preference Trial Charles B . Wilson , Roger Ingram , Peter Sands , Melvin R . George , Michael Connor Introduction Warm season grasses are frequently higher in fiber and lower in protein than cool season grasses . The warm season grass trial in the preceding report contains a wide array of species with different growth habits . Some have a high leaf to stem ration , some have very course stems , some keep their stems close to the ground , and some maintain a higher tissue moisture content . These characteristics will influence animal preference . This is a report of observed animal preference . Procedure The morning following plot harvest ( see preceding re­port ) three heifers were allowed to graze the unharvested forage remaining in each plot . Following overnight fasting , the heifers were grazed the warm season grass plots for two hours . The same heifers were used on each offive grazing dates on June 17 , July 16 , August 19 , September 16 , and October 16 , 1987 . Each heifer was assigned an observer who recorded the time spent gr8zing in each plot . Only the time spent actively grazing and chewing was recorded . Results and Discussion Table 1 reports total time spent grazing each entry by the three heifers . Over the entire summer season dallis­grass was most preferred followed by orchardgrass , lim­pograss , T68 bermudagrass , tall fescue , Pasto Rico ber­mudagrass , and CC 1 bermudagrass . Tall fescue and orchardgrass reached their greatest preference level in September and October . Limpograss waspreferred through September , but lower preference in October lowered its total preference score . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 56 : : . - : . : . . . . : . : . - . . . . . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . : . : . : . ; . : . . : : . . : : : : : : . . . . . . . . : : . . : : : : . . . . ; . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . Warm Season Grass Grazing . . . Continued On a dry matter ranking basis , the most preferred entries tend to be among the less productive halfofthe entries ( see preceding report ) . In the past recommendations might have been made on the basis of yield trial only . Clearly , animal preference and performance must be included in the forage trial process , especially on plant materials that are reputed to be oflower quality than traditional cool season grasses . Table 1 . Time ( min . ) Spent Grazing 20 grass entries by three heifers on 5 dates in 1987 at UC Sierra Foothill Range Field Station Grass Entry 6 / 87 7 / 87 8 / 87 9 / 87 10 / 87 Total CC 1 Bennudagrass 14.95 23.98 5.69 27.3 7.9 79.82 T68 Bermudagrass 11.63 34.19 5.38 17.1 22.76 91.06 Pasto Rico Bennudagrass 18.72 23.08 3.45 18.5 17.72 81.47 Bigalta Lirnpograss 21.53 24.18 10.63 30.5 5.47 92.31 Kaw Big Bluestem 3.85 . 75 4.36 1 6.11 16.07 El Reno Sideoats Grama 0 . 35 . 62 1.13 2.6 4.7 Catalina Boer Lovegrass . 75 2.17 6.38 2.71 12.96 24.97 Lehmann's Lovegrass . 33 0 . 2 . 6 1.22 2.35 Bend Sand Lovegrass . 5 . 87 0 0 . 87 2.24 Selection 75 Kleingrass 3.13 5.12 3.95 9.1 19.8 41.1 Kanlow Switchgrass 0 . 97 1.8 . 23 4.38 7.38 Dallisgrass 21.02 60.61 15.87 38 29.82 165.32 PensacolaBahiagrass 0 3.2 1.58 0 . 93 5.71 Osage Indiangrass 0 0 0 1.12 3.67 4.79 Aldous Little Bluestem 1.32 1.12 9.83 . 62 . 58 13.47 Laurisagrass . 88 1.97 3.07 3.56 7.05 16.53 Verde Kliengrass 2.5 10.36 4.15 12.3 5.22 34.53 Akaroa Orchardgrass 16.52 13.97 11.38 47.5 31.32 120.69 Fawn Tall Fescue 4.89 9.32 7.2 41.5 18.89 81.8 Perrenial Ryegrass 14.12 4.65 0 0 0 18.77 Totals 136.64 220.86 95.54 25277 199.27 905.08 1988 Beef Workgroup Report PageS7 • • . r . ~ . . : . . : : . : • • . , : • • « • . , : . : . ; " ' . . . . . . ' : . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . r ' : ; : : - : - . : - : . : : : • • • • : . . . . : : . « , , : - , , : : = : , ~ , - : - x : . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . J ' • . - " , ' . . . . . : - : < . : . : : > • • , ' , . , . " : • • • • " : ' : ; : " x " x : ' : . . : : ; : : : : . . . . : - - . . · . · · · : · x : . · . : . : : - - : . · . : . . . . . . . ' : , . . . . . . . . . · : : : : < : tx ~ Microcomputer Recordkeeping Program ( COWCALF ) Steven Berry , Bill Van Riet , Jim Farley , Monte Bell , Chuck Wilson , Dan Drake , Nancy Martin , and Abbas Ahmadi Introduction Recordkeeping and analysis have been identified by producers and farm advisors ( Beef Crisis Report ) as a management reproduction area lacking in many beef opera­tions . There are several microcomputer programs available but these lack the versatility and detailed analysis ofrepro­ductive performance to help with national management decisions . A decision was made to develop a microcom­puter COWCALF recordkeeping program aimed at com­mercial beef cattle producers . Procedure In 1987 , a meeting was held to outline the program structure and functions . Input screens , calculated cow and calf information , and file structure have been designed and coded in dBase illPlus " ' . The program is designed to allow maximum flexibility in database management and report writing . The outputs have been designed and are presently being written in the same program code . Results and Discussion Currently , the inputs modules are nearly complete and the output modules should be ready for Beta - testing by summer or fall of 1988 . The program is being written to be user - friendly , flexible and to provide comprehensive ana­lytical reporting of reproductive performance in the cow herd . The program is also designed to be able to use or supply data to pasture , business , or other programs as they are developed . COWCALF is designed for the commercial producer who wishes to keep records on individually se­lected cows and calves . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 58 Fly Ash Trial Gary Markegard , Farm Advisor , Humboldt County Introduction A fly ash trial was started to determine its value as a soil admendment Procedure On September 30 , 1987 we put out 20 ' x20 ' treatment plots that consisted of : control , 8 tons , 16 tons , 24 tons , 32 tons , 40 tons and 64 tons offly ash equivalent per acre . The fly ash was broadcast by hand . In addition to these treat­ments we used a commercial fertilizer ( 16 - 20 - 0 ) treatment at the mte of300 lbs / acre . These treatments were replicated three times and applied on a grass and clover pasture . Peter Bussman , a rancher who lives near Blue Lake is the coop­emtor . Results and Discussion Dry matter yield will be taken in Spring 1988 . There is a large amount offly ash that has been stockpiled . If we can find a good use for the material , it will not only be a benefit to the power plant owners but also to the ranchers as well . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Production Management Page 59 " . : . ' : . ' , ' . . . . . . . ' V • • • • • ' • • • • • • ' : . : " ' . • ' : : . ' : ' ; . . . . : • • • : ' • • : . : ' " " , • • • " ' . " " . , . ' " ' : . : • • : : . . ' • • • • : : • • • • • • : : : : : : ' : . : • • : • • • • • ' : . ' ' ' ' ' , • • • ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • • • • • • • • • • • : • • ~ . : : - . . . . - = : . . • . : : : - : . . . . ~ : : : : : - < . . . . . . ~ : s : : - . . . . . : - . . . . . . . . : Integrated Ranch Management 1986 University or California BeerDay The program was designed to educate beef producers and allied industry people in the area of beef industry activities , consumer demands , marketing , ranch manage­ment , and new production techniques . Programs were pre­sented in four locations throughout the state ; thus , provid­ing the opportunity for more beef producers to attend the meetings . . . . The instructors were from the University of California , U.S . Meat Research Center , Colorado State University , California Cattlemen's Association , California BeefCoun­cil , andthebeefindustry . Contact person was Bill Weitkamp , San Luis Obispo County and John Dunbar , UC Davis . 1988 BeerWorkgroup Report Production Management Page 60 • Mountain Meadow Monitoring Workshop The purpose of this program was to educate public land managers in the latest techniques used in monitoring range . collecting data . and how to interpret this data . Public land managers from all over California attended the program . Instructions were from two California Universities . a local rancher . University of Arizona . and the U.S . Forest Service . Contact person was Neil K . McDougald . Madera County . \ 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Government Page 61 Fly Control Trials Walt Johnson , Farm Advisor , Shasta County Introduction Two trials were established from August to October 1987 testing Terminator ear tags containing 20 percent diazinon manufactured by Fermenta Animal Health and / or Max - Con ear tags containing 7 percent Cypermethrin , 5 percent Chlorphyrifos , and 3.5 percent Piperonyl Butoxide manufactured by Y - tex Corporation . Trials were at the Crowe Hereford Ranch at Whitmore and Rancheria Angus at Hat Creek , Shasta County , California . All ear tagged animals received one tag in each ear at the start of the trial . There was no significant loss of ear tags during the courseof the trials . Procedures Crowe Hereford Ranch This trial took place in an irrigated foothill valley at 1500 feet elevation 30 miles east of Redding . Three groups of cattle and three pastures were involved . The stable field and alfalfa field were separated by about 500 feet , while the oakhouse field bordered both the stable and alfalfa fields , separated only by a stream and streambank vegetation . All cows were sprayed with Deltox at the label recommended rate as thecattle were collected and sorted into their summer pasture groups during May and June . One August 10 , 1987 , the cattle were assigned to three treatment groups : 1 . Oakhouse field - 28 cows and calves , no additional treatment 2 . Alfalfa field - 30 cows and calves , each cow given two Terminator ear tags . 3 . Stable field - 13 cows and calves , each cow given two Max - Con ear tags . Face fly counts were made on the full face and hom fly counts on one side of 7 - 10 animals in groups two and three prior to ear tagging , all three groups one week after ear tagging , and then at approximate two - week intervals until the end of the trial October 23 . Cattle were gentle enough so that all counts were made by driving up alongside individ­ua1 animals and counting right out of the vehicle . Rancheria Angus This trial was carried out on irrigated pastures in a mountain valley at 3800 feet elevation approximately 70 miles east of Redding . Two pastures and two groups of cattle were used . The two pastures were adjacent , separated by Hat Creek and streambank vegetation . On August 12 , 1987 , the cattle were treated in two groups as follows : 1 . Cemetery field - 50 cows and calves , Deltox spray 2 . Patton field - 23 yearling heifers , two Max - Con tags . The sprayed cows received no other treatment until the end of the trial October 23 . Hom fly and face fly counts were made as above on both groups prior to treatment 8 / 12 / 87 . Additional counts were made one week after treatment and then at approximate two - week intervals until the trial's end . Results and Discussion Crowe HerefordRanch Table 1 shows fly counts for each inspection date . hom fly counts on control animals were generally over 100 through August and September , tapering off to 40 at the end of the trial . Treatment with terminator tags practically eliminated hom flies throughout the course of the trial . Treatment with Max - Con tags eliminated hom flies one week after tag application and kept hom fly counts below 20 throughout the remainder of the trial . Face fly counts ranged from 6 to 15 per face in the control cows except for the last reading . Cows treated with Max­Can tags had only 2 to 4 face flies during the same period . On the other hand , Terminator tags had no useful control of face flies ; and , in fact , had face fly counts higher than the control animals at most observations . Hom fly resistance has been high on this ranch as measured during 1985 and 1986 . Terminator tags gave superb control of resistant hom flies for two and one - half months , and Max - Con tags gave entirely satisfactory con­trol of hom flies for the same period . As far as face flies are 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 62 Fly Control Trials Continued concernedMax - Con tagsprovided satisfactory control while Tenninator tags provided no control . Rancheria Angus The Deltox spray almost eliminated hom flies one week after treatment and then maintained hom flies at tolerable levels for the rest of the trial . The Max - Con tags practically eliminated hom flies for the entire trial following treatment ( Table 2 ) Face fly counts on the sprayed cows ranged from 6.6 to 19.2 except at the fInal reading . Face flies on the Max - Con aged heifers ranged from 0.8 to 4.5 during the trial , a substantial and very satisfactory reduction . Summary Max - Con tags provided satisfactory face fly and hom fly control in both trials . Tenninator tags provided excellent hom fly control in a resistance situation , but had not effect on face fly numbers in the Crowe Ranch trial . Table 1 Crowe Hereford Ranch - 1987 Hom Flies Face Flies Spray 2 Tags 2 Tags Spray 2 Tags 2 Tags Control Tenninator Max - Con Control Tenninator Max - Con Oak House Alfalfa Stable Oak House Alfalfa Stable 8 / 10 / 87 127.0 74.2 16.4 9.7 8 / 17 / 87 163 . S 0.2 0.0 15.7 11.3 3.1 9 ( 2 / 87 170.0 0.2 13.9 6.9 12.2 3.9 9 / 15 / 87 89.0 0.4 19.2 5.9 16.9 2.4 9 ( 29 / 87 136.5 5.2 17.9 14.2 17.3 2.7 10 / 13 / 87 67.5 0.8 10.0 10.8 15.7 3.2 10 ( 23 / 87 41.7 1.6 6.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 Table 2 Rancheria Angus - 1987 Hom Flies Face Flies Spray 2 Tags Spray 2 Tags Control Max - Con Control Max - Con Cows Heifers Cows Heifers 8 / 12 / 87 69.0 50.1 7.6 6.8 8 / 19 / 87 3.0 0.8 15.3 4.5 9 / 4 / 87 30.0 0.3 19.2 2.9 9 / 15 / 87 21.0 0.6 6.6 1.1 10 / 1 / 87 24.3 0.3 8.3 1.0 10 / 14 / 87 32.5 2.0 13.4 0.8 10 ( 23 / 87 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' - : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " : . ' ' ' ' : - : ' . . . ' . . . - : - : : - : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · x · · . . . : - . . . . - : ' . : - : . : . . . . . ; . : . . . . . - : - . : . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ; . . . . . . ' . : . ; . . ' : ' . ' : ' . ' . . . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . . : . : . . . . . : . . . . . . : : : : : . . . . . . . . : . : . . : . . ; . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . « ~ . . . : : " ' ; ' : ' . : - : : . . . . : : : « - : . . : . . . . : . . . : ' ~ ~ y . The Seasonality of Internal Parasite Eggs in Cattle Feces in Kern County Ralph L . Phillips Fann Advisor , Kern County Introduction Internal parasites are ofgreat concern to beefproducers . Their concerns are ; how wormy are their cattle ? what drugs should they use ? and when is the best time to treat cattle ? The objective of this study is to determine if there is a seasonal pattern to the infestation rate in beef cattle under range and irrigated pasture management . Procedure The McMaster's flotation technique was used to deter­mine the number of internal worm eggs present in cattle feces . These datawere used to estimate an infestation rate of each herd and each age class of cattle . Fifteen percent of each class was sampled monthly . There were two herds ofcattle monitored . The ftrst herd was a range herd . The cattle are wintered at about 2,000 feet and summered from 3,500 to 5.500 feet . The major part of the forage for the cattle was native plants . The cows in the range operation were not dewormed . The calves are fall born and were dewormed at weaning time in the fall . Calves were not sampled on a regular basis until April , as it was difficult to sample free - roaming calves . Monthly calf samples were taken until the steers were sold or heifers turned in with the main cow herd . Rainfall data was also collected in the range area . The second herd ran on irrigated pasture at about 400 feet . The cows were dewormed on an irregular schedule . Calves were creep - fed on pasture and weaned in corrals , therefore , parasite cycles would have been hard to interpret . Calves were not sampled . Cows received supplemental feed during the winter months they were fed on the ground . Results and Discussion The data presented is preliminary . The author feels there needs to be at least two more year's data collected in order to get a better estimation ofparasite cycles . However , there are some trends that appear to be developing . The data for the cows in the range operation are shown in Table 1 . There appears to be a seasonal trend for a higher infection rate from July through January . Also , there is a trend that previous years rainfall ( Table 3 ) does influence infestation rate ofcows . The range calf data are shown in Table 2 . The infestation rate in calves is higher and more varied than for the cows . The deworming of calves in the fall appeared to be only effective for one or two months at best . The drug used for deworming only killed adult worms . Data from the irrigated pasture study ( Table 4 ) are limited because of lack of support . However , one year's data would indicate that fall treatment of cows was not as effective as spring treatment . The drug used in both treat­ments only kills adult worms . More data is needed from both management systems , such as data to different classes ofdewormers and when to treat . The author would like to see if temperature and rainfall has an influence on infestation rate of beef cattle with internal parasites . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 64 Worm and Mineral Trial Gary Markegard , Farm Advisor , Humboldt County Introduction A trial was conducted to evaluate Ivomec , Safeguard , Paratect , and Levalsol as wormers and to evaluate selenium and copper boluses as mineral supplements on replacement heifers . Procedure On December 24 , 1986 we started a ttial with 155 replacement heifers weighing between 560 - 725 pounds . The ttial had two parts : one was evaluating Ivomec , Safe­guard , Paratect , and Levasol ; the second part was evaluat­ing boluses of selenium , copper , and selenium plus copper against a control . The heifers were grazed on grass and clover pastures on Salmon Creek Ranch which borders Humboldt Bay . The heifers were weighed at the start of the ttial , on February 18 , 1987 , and a final weight was taken on April 13 . Results and Discussion The results were that wormers are effective in increasing gain on bottomland pastures ; there were no significant differences between individual wormers . Selenium supple­mentation was significantly greater than the control and copper supplementation . Copper and selenium together produced less gain than either copper or selenium by itself . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 65 Effects of Ivermectin on First - Calf Heifer Performance and Calf Weight Gain R . Delmas & D . Drake1.2 Introduction Control of internal parasites is a management decision of beef cattle production . This decision is often difficult due to varied data regarding non - clinical parasitic loads . Past studies have documented the adverse affect large numbers ofparasitic nematodes have on the growth performance of young beef cattle and weight loss in mature animals . How­ever , the economic benefit of treating cattle which have non - clinical or unapparent parasitism is still debatable . Two recent studies using the anthelmintic ivermectin have demonstrated a significant weight gain advantage . Work in Georgia3 showed a 35 lb . ( p < 0.05 ) weight advantage for calves treated with ivermectin and in North Dakota4 combined data showed calves from cows treated with ivermectin prior to calving had a 15.5 lb . ( p < 0.02 ) weight advantage at 205 days over the control group . Individual response of the four herds in the North Dakota study showed a positive response in pounds of 8 , 1 67 , and 9 , respectively , in favor ofthe ivermectin treatment groups over the two years of this study . The inconsistency of these herd responses could possibly indicate a differential para­sitism rate , or other environmental factors , effecting the herds tested . Procedure This trial was conducted to determine if beef first - calf heifers treated with ivermectin prior to calving would wean heavier calves . The heifers were located in Modoc County , California , and maintained on irrigated meadows ( pre­dominantly grass ) through the spring , summer and early fall . Late fall and winter the heifers were run on meadow aftermath and full - fed alfalfa and meadow hay . Thirty - two head ofheifers were randomly sorted , weighed , and placed into the treatment ( ivermectin ) or control ( untreated ) group , December , 1985 . Treatmentconsistedof9 cc . ofivermectin injected subcutaneously ( 1 ml = 10 mg . ivermectin ) . The treatment rate was 0.2 mg / kg body weight . Panurition dates and weights on all cows and calves at the end of the trial ( December 1986 ) were recorded . All frrst - calfheifers were run together throughout this trial . Fecal samples were randomly taken from 50 % of the frrst - calf heifers at the start of the trial and were examined for the presence of nematodes using the flotation method on a 3 gram sample and counting all eggs present Results and Discussion Calves from the ivermectin treated heifers gained 5 % more ( ADG 1.56 ) than the calves from the control heifers ( ADG 1.48 ) Table I , This response is not statistically significant A similar trial in North Dakota4 with a larger number of cattle ( 1046 head ) found a 2.6 % increase in average daily gain that was significant at the P < 0.02 level when all data was combined . Under the parameters of this trial , a 9 % or greater increase in gain is necessary for detection of statistical significance . This data suggests response of calves to ivermectin given their dams during gestation to be small and similar to the non - published findings of Baker . ' No significant differences were found in the Modoc test offrrst - calfheifer beginning weights , ending weights , gain , nor re - breeding conception rates between the control and ivermectin groups , Table 2 . The magnitude of the response to ivermectin will vary considerably depending on the degree of parasitism , nutri­tionallevel , and management practices . Heifers in this trial were non - clinically parasitized , ( having 16 strongyle eggs ! gram / fecal sample ) , were well managed , and the response 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 66 : : : : . . . . : : - : . : . . ' . ; . " : " ' : : " : ' : ~ : : : : ' : " : " ' " . . . . . . . : : : : : . : . : : . : : : : : : : : : . . ' : " . . . - : . . . • . ' : : : : : : : ' " ' . . . . ' : . : - : . • : : . : . : . : . : : : : ' . : . : - : - : : . : - : . . . ; : = : : : : : . , The Effects oflvermectin • • • Continued ' . Table 1 . Calf Average Daily Gain ( ADG ) & 20S - Day Weight Males Females Combined 205 - Day Wt . No . ADG No . ADG No . ADG Lbs Control 10 1.49 6 1.46 16 1.48 303.4 Treatment 10 1.61 6 1.49 16 1.56 319.8 Table 2 . First - Calf Heifers Average Weight & Percentage Rebreeding Beg . Wt . Final Wt . Gain Percent lbs . lbs . lbs . Pregnant Control 924 987 63 Treatment 896 917 21 Not significant at the . 1 level to ivennectin was small . Heavier parasitism , lower plane of nutrition , reduced immuno - competence and / or increased stress may result in greater response . Diversified livestock management practices and varying financial circumstances suggests use ofivennectin be con­sidered on a case - by - case basis . The author is grateful to Dr . NonnanBaker , Parasitology Department , University of California , Davis ; and Dennis Dierksen , MSD - AgVet , Merck and Company for donating the Ivomec - for this study . 93.7 93.7 1.2Richard E . Delmas , Extension Livestock Farm Advi­sor , University ofCalifornia , Modoc County , Calif . 96101 and Daniel Drake , Extension Livestock Farm Advisor , University ofCalifornia , Siskiyou County , Calif . 96097 3 Smeal , M.G . , P.l . Nicholls , I.K . Hotson , et al : The Effect of Anthelmintic Treatments on Growth of Beef Cattle in New South Wales . Aust . 1 . Agric . Res . 32 : 813 - 823,1981 . Leland , S.E . , F.V . Davis , H.K . Galey , etal : Economic Value and Course ofInfection After Treatment of Cattle Having a Low Level of Nematode Parasitism . An I Vet Res . 41 : 623 - 633 . 4 Ciordia , H . , H.C . McCampbell , G.V . Calvert , R.E . Plue : Effect ofIvennectin ofPerfonnance of Beef Cattle on Georgia Pastures . An . Vet . Res . 45 ( 11 ) : 2455­2457,1984 5 Wohlgemuth , K , I.M . Melancon : Relationships between weaning weights of North Dakota beef calves and Treatment ofTheir Dams with Ivennectin . Veteri­nary New North Dakota State University , Fargo , North Dakota , Vol . 10 , No . 2 , 1987 . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 67 Efficacy of Selenium Pellets in Beef Cows Walter H . Johnson , Ben B . Norman , John R . Dunbar , Michael N . Oliver Introduction Selenium ( Se ) deficiency has been identified in much of Northern California and the Pacific Northwest , in addition to localized areas worldwide . Various means have been developed to provide Se supplement to beef cattle under range conditions . Pellets or boluses comprised of Se and other compounds that are administered orally have been used with variable results . This report summarizes trials with Se pellets in beef cattle in Shasta County , California , an area known for Se deficiency . Procedure Four trials testing efficacy of Se pellets ( 10 % Se , 90 % Fe ) for raising and maintaining whole blood Se in beef cows were established in Shasta County , CA in 1980 . Each pelleted cow received two 30 gram pellets by balling gun . Two trials had groups that received occasional injections of Se - vitaminE . All available cows were bled from two to four times a year with whole blood analyzed for total Se . Statis­tical analyses for trials with two groups were byT - tests . The trials with three groups were analyzed by one way analysis of variance using Tukey's studentized Range Test and P values shown for these trials are from T - tests comparing pelleted to control cows . Results Trial A - Table 1 . - Duration 1312 days ( 43 months ) Blood Se was significantly higher in the pelleted cows at all dates after treatment except the final date when cow num­bers were low . Blood Se varied seasonally in the pelleted cows but not in the control cows . No pelleted cows declined to the control mean for 36 months ; at43 months 25 % ofthe cows were below the control mean . Trial R - Table 2 . - Duration 1257 days ( 41 months ) Pelleted cows had significantly higher blood Se levels at all dates after treatment Seasonal variation was similar with the control and pelleted groups . 4.6 % of the pelleted cows were below the control mean at 12 months , 0 at 25 and 36 months , and 12.5 % at 41 months . Trial T - Table 3 . - Duration 1227 days ( 40 months ) Pelleted cow blood Se was significantly higher than control and inject groups at all dates after treatment . Both control and inject groups received injections during the latter half of the tiiaI because of concern for their health . There was seasonal variation in the pelleted group , but not in the other groups . Only one cow ( 4.8 % ) was below the control mean at any time during the trial ; this occurred at 23 months . Trial G - Table 4 . - Duration 1826 days ( 60 months ) Pelletedcows had significantly higher blood Se then control cows for 60 months based on T - tests . Tukey's analysis showed differences between pelleted , inject , and control groups at 249 and 368 days ; and showed all treatments similar at 1740days . The inject group received no injections after 616 days . There was seasonal variation in all three groups . 3 to 6 % of the pelleted cows were below the control mean for 48 months . At 60 months 30.8 % of the pelleted cows were below the control mean . 1988 Beer Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 68 Oxidized Copper Wire Particles as an Oral Supplement for Cattle J.R . Dunbar , J.G . Morris , B.B . Nonnan , A.J . Jenkins , C.B . Wilson , N . Martin , and J.M . Connor Introduction Areas ofendemic copper deficiency occurin California and animals show a response in production to supple­mentation . Methods of supplementation which have been used included mineral blocks , concentrate mixes or liquid sup­plements containing copper are offered on a free choice basis . However , copper intake varies widely between ani­mals . Injectable fonns of copper are readily administered and can cause tissue reactions while producing lesions , which result in carcass damage . Studies indicate that oral dosing with oxidized copper wire particles is an effective method of raising the copper status ofcattle . Procedure The University ofCalifornia S ierra Foothill Range Field Station was chosen as the site for the experiment because of the control that could be exercised over the trial . One hundred twenty Hereford heifers aged 6 - 9 mos . averaging 460 lbs were randomly assigned to 3 treatment groups . One group of 40 heifers were left untreated , a further 40 heifers were given 10 g of orally administered oxidized copper wire particles in a soluble capsule , while the remaining 40 received subcutaneous injection ofMolyCUll ( 120 mg ofcopper as cupric glycinate ) . Heifers grazed as one herd during the duration of the study . Liver biopsies and blood samples for copper and selenium assay were collected from a randomized sample of 13 heifers in each treatment group at day oand at28 , 91 , and 158 days . Results Copper injection produced significant ( p < . 05 ) increase in liver copper levels over the other groups at 28 days ( Table 1 ) . Oxidized copper wire particles produced a significantly higher level ofliver copper at 28 days compared to controls and at 91 days compared to controls and copper injection heifers . Although liver concentrations in control heifers were generally below those in treated heifers , they were indicative ofadequate copper status . No significant differ­ence in liver copper status existed among groups at 158 days . Mean plasma copper values were not altered by treatment . Copper injection caused severe tissue reaction in 30 of40 heifers . Blood selenium values were not altered by copper treatment . Table 1 - Liver Copper mg / kg DM . Days After Treatment o 28 91 158 Control Copper Injection Copper Pellet 123 & 152 · 142 & 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Animal Health Page 69 Selenium Pellet Trial - Nursing Heifer Calves Walt Johnson , Farm Advisor , Shasta County Introduction Se containing pellets have been administered to adult and stocker beef cattle in Shasta County and other areas providing satisfactory supplemental Se levels . Few trials have been reported on the efficacy of orany administered , rumen resident Se pellets in young nursing beef calves . A trial at Rancheria Angus , Hat Creek , Shasta County , Cali­fornia was conducted to determine effects on blood sele­nium and weight gain of young calves given Se pellets . Procedure On December 16 , 1986 , 20 angus nursing heifer calves were randomly assigned to two treatment groups : 1 . Control : No treatment 2 . Pelleted : Each calf given two Australian selenium pellets by balling gun The calves were treated on the home ranch at Hat Creek and moved shortly thereafter to foothill range near Manton . They were brought back to the home ranch in early May , weaned , and weighed and bled on May 16th . By the end of May the calves were moved to the Babe Miner Ranch north ofGlenburn along Fall River near Spring Creek where they stayed until the end of the trial on August 19 , 1987 . A fmal blood sample and individual weight was taken . Results BloodSe Blood Se was nine times greater in the treated calves compared to the controls , . 131 ppm versus . 014 ppm . at the end of the foothill grazing period . a span of 151 days . After another 95 days at the conclusion of the trial , the pelleted calves had six times as that the problems with the earlier pellets have been im­proved . Weight Gains There was no significant difference in weight gains between the two groups in spiteofthe low blood Selevels of the control calves . and the reason for this is not known . One possible explanation is that there was no fertilized feed or pasture available to these calves during the course of the trial . Metal Detector All calves were examined with a metal detector at the end of the trial on 8 / 19 / 87 . All control calves gave a negative reading . Of the ten pelleted calves , nine gave a positive reading and one gave a negative reading . The one giving the negative reading was calf number 258 , which was the youngest calf ( 72 days ) at the time of treatment . Blood Se on this calf was slightly above average for the pelleted group after 151 days , and was right at the average for the group at the end of the trial . It is possible that an incorrect reading was made with the detector , and it is possible that the pellets may have been expelled close enough to the end of the trial so that a reduction in blood Se would not have occurred prior to the fmal bleeding . Summary Treatment with selenium pellets resulted in more than adequate blood Se levels for eight months , but had noeffect on weight gain . It is possible , though not confIrmed , that one calf may have lost the pellets during the course of the trial . Table 1 . Means ( n = IO ) for nursing heifer calves at Rancheria Angus , Hat Creek.much blood Se as the Controls are untreated , pellet treatment was oral administration of 2 Se pellets at aboutcontrol calves , . 080 ppm vs . . 013 ppm . Blood Se declined dur­ing the latter portion of the trial as expected . but did not reach the low levels experienced in Controlthe 1986 trial . It appears Pellet 1988 Beef Workgroup Report No . Age 10 97 10 100 100 days ofage . Initial Intermediate ( 12 / 16 / 86 ) Blood Blood Se Wt . Se . 024 248 . 014 . 023 249 . 131 Animal Health ( 5 / 16 / 86 ) ADG Wt . 151 d 525 1.84 536 1.90 Final ( 8 / 16 / 86 ) ADG ADG Blood Per . 2 Overall Se Wt . 95d 246d . 013 625 1.06 1.54 . 080 615 . 83 1.49 Page 70 The Effect of Blue Oak Removal on Forage Production Bob Willoughby , Butte County Introduction Will removing Blue Oaks at different canopy levels increase forage production and ifso , how much ( pounds per acre ) ? Oak canopies being looked at are 0 % , 25 % , 50 % , 75 % . The project was started in 1980 by Henricus Jansen , CSUC . ! took it over in 1987 to complete in 10 years . Procedure This project is set up to measure forage production within plots located under and outside of oak tree canopies of 0 % , 25 % , 50 % , 75 % and in areas where the trees were removed at different canopy covers . The 96 plots are clipped three times during the growing season to look at time of increased growth , if there was a difference . Results This project is set to go on for 10 years . The average of six years showed a 67 % increase in forage production at all canopy levels ( 25 % , 50 % , 75 % ) in the plots that had all the trees removed when compared with plots that had no trees removed . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Land Page 71 « - : : . . . . . : : . : : : . : : : . . . . . . " : ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . " . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . : . : . . . . : : . - : : = : : : : : : : • • : . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • . . . . ' • • : . ; . . • • . . . : • • • • : . . . ' . : . • • • : - . : - . ' . " : : . : ' : . ' : ' : ' : : : : : . : . . . ~ . ; . . : . . : , : ~ : • • : Managing Mule Deer and Cattle on Summer Range in the Sierra Nevada Eric R . Loft & John W . Menke , Department of Agronomy & Range Science , University of California , Davis Introduction Study of the impacts of domestic livestock on native ungulates has resulted in a wealth of published work , but few universal patterns . On mountain meadow summer ranges in the Sierra Nevada there is concern on the part of sportsmen and wildlife managers that cattle may compete with mule deer for forage or habitat , or may socially displace deer from preferred habitats . To explore these relationships , the U.S . Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station , California Department ofFish and Game , and the Univer­sity of California atDavis have recently completed a 3 - year study on the Stanislaus National Forest . Here we briefly summarize some of the results of the study . Procedure The study was conducted in the McCormick Creek Basin ( elevation 7,300 - 8,500 ft ) near SonoraPass on the boundary of Alpine and Tuolumne Counties . The basin was divided into 3 fenced range units , each stocked with cattle at a different rate . Ungrazed , moderate grazed ( current manage­mentrate ) , and heavy grazed treatments were rotated among units each year from 1983 to 1985 . The study area was comprised of six habitat types : Meadow - riparian ( 12 % ) , Conifer ( 29 % ) , Aspen ( 4 % ) , MontaneShmb ( 34 % ) , Sage­brush ( 20 % ) and Dry Meadow ( l % ) . Summary paper presented to University of California , Cooperative Extension , Beef and Range Workgroup , Feb­ruary 12 , 1988 . Using transects and exclosures we monitored seasonal vegetation changes due to stocking rate . Radio telemetry techniques were used to determine deer and cattle habitat preferences and social relationships . Radio - collars were fitted on deer captured in corral traps and on cattle prior to their release in the allotment We are grateful to Don Whittle for his cooperation during the study . There were 3 main phases ofthe study : 1 ) Determine the impact of varying stocking rate on habitat by monitoring standing herbage in meadows , levels of browsing on wil­low , and changes in hiding cover available to deer in aspen , com lily , and willow vegetation types . These effects were monitored using paired cattle exclosures in each range unit 2 ) Determine habitat selection patterns of deer and cattle during summer under different stocking rates . Habitat se­lection was monitored by locating each radio - collared ani­mal every 1 - 1.5 hours for 24 - hour sessions conducted 1 - 2 times / week . 3 ) Determine spatial relationships between deer and cattle by monitoring movement rates , home range use patterns , and simultaneous use of shared areas . Results and Discussion Impact on Habitats In ungrazed treatments , standing herbage in meadows increased to about 1960 lbs / a in mid - August , then declined with senescence and weathering . At both moderate and heavy stocking rates , standing herbage increased until July when consumption began to exceed production . Less than 445 lbs / a remained in meadow areas by September . Browsing ofwillow twigs by deer was light in ungrazed treatments , but increased as the season progressed in cattle grazed areas and as stocking rate increased . Cattle significantly reduced hiding cover available to deer in aspen and com lily vegetation types which are dominated by herbaceous species of low structural resil­ience . Cover in the woody dominated willow type was not affected as much at moderate grazing , but was reduced late in the season at heavy stocking rates . Cattle had little impact on the remaining habitats on a seasonal basis . Habitat Selection In the absence of cattle grazing , deer preferred aspen and meadow - riparian habitats . During grazed treatments deer still preferred meadow - riparian areas , but use of aspen habitat declined significantly . Less desirable conifer , mon­tane shrub , and sagebrush habitats were increasingly se­lected as stocking rate increased . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 72 : . . . . : : : - - . : : = - . . . . : . . . . ' . . : : . : : . . . . . . : ; . . . ; . : . . . : . . ; ' . . . . . . : : . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . . : . . ; : . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . " ' : ' : : : ' : ; ' ; . ' : : . : . : : : . . ; : : . : . . . . . . . ; . : : : : ; . " " Managing Mule Deer and Cattle • • • Continued During summer , meadow - riparian habitat was preferred most by deer early in the season and least during late summer in all 3 treatments . Deer preferred aspen habitat all summer in ungrazed treaUDents but avoided the type late in the season with cattle grazing . Cattle highly preferred aspen and meadow - riparian habitats all summer because forage , water , and shade were in proximity . The conifer habitats were slightly preferred and provided valuable resting habitat during the warm summer days . As the season progressed however , cattle spent less time resting and more time feeding because of the decline in forage availability in meadow areas , more so with heavy grazing . Spatial Relationships Cattle stocking rate had a significant effect on deer home range size . Homeranges were 17and22 % larger in area at moderate and heavy stocking rates , respectively , than with no cattle grazing . Radio - collared does in each unit maintained aver­age distances of620 and 675 yds from cattle in the same unit during moderate and heavy grazing , respectively . How­ever , on a seasonal basis , neither cattle nor the effects of cattle grazing , displaced deer from using key low - lying meadow - riparian areas of the basin where cattle concen­trated most of their activity . Analysis of simultaneous observations of deer and cattle indicated that both species were spatially attracted to shared areas ( areas of overlap ) but that there was some avoidance ( temporal ) of shared areas exhibited by deer toward cattle . At the heavier stocking rates , cattle distributed them­selves more widely and utilized a greater proportion of the area available . Some of the additional areas occupied how­ever , were the upslope shrub cover types which deer inhabit during the day . Conclusions The reduction of cover ( and by association , forage ) in aspen habitat due to cattle grazing is a form of consumptive competition that results in habitat shifts by deer to alternate , less desirable habitats . . Meadow - riparian habitat is more resilient to grazing impacts ( but not overgrazing ) than aspen habitat and is preferred by deer with or without cattle . By late summer , competition becomes a factor as herbaceous forage matures or is utilized . Deer increase their browsing of willows while reducing their preference of meadow - riparian habitat as the season progresses with grazing compared to no grazing . Deer and cattle are spatially attracted to the same areas of the basin where meadow - riparian and aspen habitats are located . Deer exhibit some temporal avoidance of shared areas when cattle are present , but we attribute habitat shifts in deer primarily to the consumptive effects of cattle in mutually preferred habitats . Competition between deer and cattle in Sierra Nevada summer ranges could partially be alleviated with prescribed burning and improving habitats such as the abundant , but little used , montane shrub habitat . This could provide some alternative , high quality forage for deer . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page 73 Mojave Desert Range Project Jim Sullins , Area Livestock and Range Advisor , UCCE San Bernardino County , Jim Clawson , Range Specialist , UC Davis Introduction The Mojave Desert is a unique ecosystem requiring special management strategies . There is much potential for improving management decision making in this extensive rangeland resource area . The Mojave Desert is located far from any land grant university , limiting the attention research and extension personnel have been able to devote to the management of it's natural resources and production management . Procedure The Mojave Desert Range Project ( MDRP ) was organ­ized in 1982 in an effort to serve the various user groups of the Mojave Desert . Arizona , California , Nevada , and Utah are actively participating in the project , providing a focus for identification ofproblems and issues on the Mojave that can be solved through education and research . The main­stay of the project is the Cooperative Extension Service of each state . Other active participants include state and fed­eralland management agencies , user groups and concerned organizations . The ftrst objective for the MDRP was to identify and prioritize the problems and issues that could be effectively addressed , and to design educational programs or sponsor research for their resolution . The second objective was to compile a data base of available resources to be used by project members in resolving these problems and issues . Results & Discussion Through the use of clientele surveys , MDRP prioritized ftve problems and issues on which to focus the four states ' resources : 1 . The desert tortoise and livestock grazing relationship 2 . Effect of urbanization pressures such as vandalism , theft , offroad vehicles , and camping , on the desert , its wildlife and livestock producers 3 . Livestock production economics 4 . The desert bighorn sheep and its relationship to livestock grazing 5 . Grazing systems that should be analyzed for use in the Mojave Desert . A data base " A Literature Review ofthe Mojave Desert " has been made available to project members , and under a grant by the Renewable Resources Act , is being published for general distribution . To address the desert tortoise issue a workshop was sponsored to identify those areas in which theMDRP could be effective . A sub - committee was formed which included project members as well as concerned groups and manage­ment agencies . This sub - committee has become the focal point for the desert tortoise issue , and has made research recommendations as well as solicited funds for applicable research . A desert tortoise educational program for school age children has been introduced in the Las Vegas , Nevada school system and is being adapted for use as a 4 - R project in California . Educational programs are being developed , with the help of Renewable Resources Act funds , to help in the Range Citizenship of the user groups that have the largest impacton the desert rangelands . In addition , a workshop on the impacts of OHV was conducted to lay the groundwork for the development of an ORV taskforce to address this issue . The economics of desert livestock production was a priority issue to be addressed by the MDRP . To begin a resolution to this issue , a Beef Marketing Tour was organ­ized and sponsored by the MDRP . This tour focused on marketing alternatives in the desert region including feeder calf sales , video sales , and retained ownership , as well as on the tools needed to be successful in these alternatives such as break even calculations , risk management by use of futures , futures options , and forward contracting of cattle and feed . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Land Page 74 Mojave Desert Range Project Continued • The MDRP has sponsored two Range Monitoring work­shops to help in the evaluation of grazing systems and progress of grazing management in the Mojave Desert . These workshops have been well attended by both agency managers and ranchers . The workshops have been instru­mental in the increase in monitoring as well as the quality of the data collected . Summary The MDRP has been successful in focusing the com­bined resources of the four participating states on priority issues in the Mojave Desert . The impact of this combined effort far exceeds what each state has been able to accom­plish on their own . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Page7S • . . Desert Range Monitoring Workshop This program was designed to help public land manag­ers , researchers , and ranchers understand the concept of range monitoring and its value under multiple use manage­ment . The audience was from California , Arizona , Nevada , and Utah . The speakers were from five state universities , one federal agency and a ranch . The program provided a good understanding for the people involved in public land use . Contactpersonwas Jim Sullins , San BernardinoCounty . 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Land Page 76 . . . ' . ' . . ' : ' : . : . : . " . . . . . ' . ' ' . : ' : ' . . . . . . . . . . . : . ' . . . . ' : : . ' : : : ' : . ; . : : . . ; ' . : . . . . . . . : : : : ' " . ' : ' : . ' . . . . . ; . : : : ' : ' . . . . . : . ' . . ' : ' ; " . . : : . ' . ' . . . . . : . : . : . : . : : . . . , ' : ' . . . . . . . : . . . . . : . . . : . . : . . : · : : ~ ~ : x > ~ ~ : x : ~ ~ : . . • Hardwood Rangeland Monitoring Workshop The program was developed to educate range profes­sionals ( public and private ) on the latest techniques used in monitoring oak woodlands . Also , there was a good discus­sion as to the value of these lands to the beef industry . The instructors were from the University of California , U.S . Forest Service , and Fresno State University . Contact person was Neil McDougald , Madera County . , 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Land Page 77 . . : : . : . . • . • : . : : : : : : : . ' : ' . : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : - : . ' . : ' . • " : ' : ' . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . : : . . . . . . " . : . : : • • : : : : . : : : : : : : . : . ' : : : : . : ' . • . . . . : • • • : . . . . . . ' : : . : ' : • . • . • : • • • • • • • : - : . ; . . . • • . • . • . . ' " • • : . : : . : • . . . • : • • : • • : . : : : . : : : . : : : : : . : . : . : . • • . : . : • • . : : : . : . : % • • : : : : : : . : - : - : : : : » • . . . . : . : . : . : % . . . . . • Riparian Area Management An educational meeting was conducted on Riparian Management for ranchers , environmentalists and agencies from California , Oregon and Nevada . The program was de­ velopedand sponsored bytbe Modoc - Washoe Stewardship program . Speakers were from : Range DepL , Oregon State University ; Range and Fisheries , BLM ; Stream Classifica­ tion , University of Nevada , Reno . The program covered aspects of : Stream classification , stream and uplands management , habitat requirements for fIsheries andpresent I and futureconcems for water quality and riparian issues . A video tape is available . Contact persons : Rick Delmas , Cooperative Extension and John Lawry , SCS , Modoc I • Ii County . Ii , • 1988 Beef Workgroup Report Land Page 78