Yard & Garden

Yard and Garden

May 23, 2015

Q.   I have a question today is related to rabbit wire or 1/2" by 1/2" wire. We use this to keep squirrels, snakes and birds, etc. out of our garden.

     While installing this wire I noticed that it is coated with lead. In the past we have used bird netting which worked well but over time breaks down and holes appear, thus letting these pests rob us of our vegetables. The question is, does the lead (toxic material) pose a problem over time breaking down then leaching into the soil? Also will the plants absorb the metal and translocate them to the edible parts of the plant? We grow mostly tomatoes, chiles, and a few types of lettuces.

A.    Are you sure the wire mesh is coated with lead?  Most of fencing materials such as what you have described are galvanized – coated with zinc.  Lead is indeed toxic if you ingest it in sufficient quantities.  Lead paint was banned from household paints many years ago and more recently from paint used for toys and furniture.  The problem was mostly from direct ingestion of paint chips or children chewing on painted surfaces.  Elemental lead (metallic lead) used to coat wire would be very insoluble in water at pH (acidity/alkalinity) levels common in the garden environment.  In this form it has a high affinity for soil particles and will bind to the soil and will not be easily absorbed by plant roots.  Since minerals must be dissolved in water to be absorbed by plants, the chances for entering the plants and creating toxicity problems are minimal.  Even plant leaves (lettuce) that come into direct contact with elemental lead will probably not absorb the lead, but there would be a very small chance that it could be adsorbed on the leaf surface.  Keep lettuce plants and whatever will be eaten from directly contacting the wire, if it is coated with lead.

     Check your fencing material again to be sure it is indeed lead that has been used to coat it.  It is more likely to be coated with zinc.  Zinc is a plant micronutrient, meaning that plants need small quantities of it so you ingest zinc when you eat plant materials all the time.  In high concentrations it can be toxic, but that is again very unlikely.  Many people actually take zinc dietary supplements.  Zinc is also relatively insoluble in water at pH levels common in the garden.  We must sometimes treat soil or plants with zinc to overcome deficiencies in the plants. 

     If the wire proves to be coated with lead you may want to purchase galvanized fencing material.  You can tell the difference because lead is quite soft and easily scratched from the surface of the wire.  Zinc is much harder and will require steel or some hard material to scratch it from the wire.

    

Send your gardening questions to Yard and Garden, Attn: Dr. Curtis Smith, NMSU Agricultural Science Center, 1036 Miller Rd. SW, Los Lunas, NM 87031. You may also send to cwsmith@nmsu.edu or leave a message at https://www.facebook.com/NMSUExtExpStnPubs.  Curtis W. Smith, Ph.D., is an Extension Horticulture Specialist, retired from New Mexico State University’s Cooperative Extension Service.  NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

Cow/Calf Corner

COW/CALF CORNER

The Newsletter

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

May 11, 2015

In this Issue:

North American cattle trade impacts U.S. cattle supplies

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

Look back at the spring calving season and start to make improvements now

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

North American cattle trade impacts U.S. cattle supplies

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

Canada and Mexico have been a source of feeder and slaughter cattle for many years.  This is in addition to bilateral trade in beef, with both countries among the major markets for U.S. beef exports as well as major sources of beef imports.  In 2014, U.S. imports of Canadian slaughter steers and heifers represented 1.7 percent of total U.S. steer and heifer slaughter.  These yearling slaughter cattle imports were up 13.9 percent from 2013 and included a 24 percent increase in slaughter heifers compared to a 7.4 percent year over year increase in slaughter steer imports.  With the latest trade data for March, year to date slaughter steer and heifer imports from Canada are down 40.6 percent from last year based on a 49.5 percent decrease in slaughter steer imports and a 27.4 percent decrease in slaughter heifer imports.

Total feeder cattle imports from Mexico and Canada in 2014 amounted to 4.8 percent of the total 2014 U.S. calf crop.  This was the largest relative contribution of Canadian and Mexican feeder cattle to U.S. feeder supplies in data back to 1992.  U.S. imports of feeder cattle from Canada are up 11.7 percent year over year from January to March.  This follows a 37.8 percent year over year increase in Canadian feeder cattle imports in 2014.  Canadian feeder imports in 2014 consisted of a 60 percent increase in feeder heifers from the previous year.  However, year to date imports of Canadian feeder heifers are down 10 percent compared to the January to March period one year ago.  In contrast, feeder steer imports are up 57.1 percent so far this year. The weight of Canadian feeder cattle imports is also quite different this year compared to last.  For the year to date, imports of Canadian feeder cattle over 700 pounds are up 58.0 percent from last year while imports of Canadian feeder cattle less than 700 pounds are down 10.6 percent.

Virtually all U.S. imports of Mexican cattle are feeder cattle.  Imports of Mexican feeder cattle are up 7.5 percent in the first three months of 2015 compared to last year.  This follows a 12.8 percent annual increase in Mexican feeder imports in 2014.  Similar to Canada, 2014 Mexican feeder imports included more heifers, up 23.3 percent year over year compared to a 10.4 percent increase in Mexican feeder steer imports. However, year to date in 2015, imports of Mexican feeder heifers are down 17.3 percent while steer imports are up 13.1 percent.   Mexican feeder cattle are generally lighter in weight than Canadian feeder cattle with most Mexican feeders split between the 450 to 700 pound category and those under 450 pounds.  Few Mexican feeder cattle imports weigh more than 700 pounds.  Compared to last year, year to date imports of Mexican feeder cattle between 450 and 700 pounds are up 30.7 percent while imports of feeder cattle under 450 pounds are down 20.3 percent. 

Several implications are indicated from these trade flows.  First, fewer heifers are being imported from Canada and Mexico suggesting that domestic herd expansion may be beginning in 2015 in both countries.  Second, fewer heifers and generally tight cattle inventories in both Mexico and Canada may limit total cattle imports additionally later in the year.  Feeder cattle imports may total close to year ago levels and could end up smaller if monthly imports drop sharply later this year.  Finally, imports so far this year from both Canada and Mexico have included fewer lightweight animals than is typical in each market.  This suggests that imports are somewhat “front-loaded” with respect to weight, which will have some implications for total U.S feeder supplies later in the year.

Look back at the spring calving season and start to make improvements now

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

Only 1 to 2 months ago the spring calving cows were calving, the temperature was cold and some of the calving pastures were muddy. Experience would say that you do not want to ask cow calf operators how “calving” is then, because the response would be less than objective, reflecting bone-chilling cold and not enough sleep. However if you wait too long, perhaps until this fall, time will have mellowed most of the events and one soon has difficulty matching a calving season with particular problems. Now is perhaps the best time to make a few notes on what to change for next year.

The first step is to list the dead calves. Hopefully, your cattle are in a record system that will provide that information. If not, grab a piece of paper and pencil and list the calves. Your calving notebook should have the dead calves checked off and a brief notation on what happened to each. Until all the calves are listed, the shock of lost opportunities has not had its full impact.

 

Can you identify a pattern of problems? 

Was most of the death loss right at delivery and involved two-year old heifers?  This could indicate that sire selection needs to be done more carefully, with attention being paid to low birth weight EPD sires for heifers.  Perhaps the heifers were underdeveloped.  This could contribute to more calving difficulty than necessary.  Do you provide assistance to heifers after they have been in stage II of labor for one hour?  Longer deliveries result in stress on both calf and cow.

Was the death loss more prevalent after the calves had reached 10 days to 2 weeks of age?  This of course often means that calf diarrhea (or scours) is a major concern.  Calf scours will be more likely to occur to calves from first calf heifers.  Calves that receive inadequate amounts of colostrum within the first 6 hours of life are 5 to 6 times more likely to die from calf scours.  Calves that are born to thin heifers are weakened at birth and receive less colostrum which compounds their likelihood of scours.  Often, these same calves were born via a difficult delivery and adds to the chances of getting sick and dying.  All of this means that we need to reassess the bred heifer growing program to assure that the heifers were in a body condition score of 6 (moderate flesh) at calving time. 

Did you introduce a baby calf from another herd during the calving season?  A calf may have been purchased from a neighbor or at a livestock market.  Perhaps the new calf was brought home to foster on to a cow that lost her calf.  This has been shown to introduce new pathogens into a herd even though the purchased calf appeared healthy.  Placing the new calf and foster mother in a separate pen for at least 30 days should greatly reduce the risk of introduction of new diseases into the rest of the calves.  

Do you use the same trap or pasture each year for calving?  There may be a buildup of bacteria or viruses that contribute to calf diarrhea in that pasture.  This particular calving pasture may need a rest for the upcoming calving season.  Plus it is always a good idea to get new calves and their mothers out of the calving pasture as soon as they can be moved comfortably to a new pasture to get them away from other potential calf scour organisms.   A complicated, but effective method of curtailing calf diarrhea outbreaks in larger herds is the “Nebraska Sandhill Calving System”.  Read more about this at the following website: https://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/symp-2007-17-xx.shtml

Pre-calving scours vaccines (to the cows) may be recommended by your veterinarian for next winter and spring.  This should be considered an important short-term plan to reduce the incidence of calf diarrhea.  The above suggestions are more long-term solutions to the problem. 

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services.  References within this publication to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.

Yard & Garden

Yard and Garden

May 16, 2015

Q.   All of my front porch potted flowers, except my wax begonias, are thriving (photos e-mailed). Even my geraniums, which you cannot see in the picture, because they are hanging in a basket, are doing well. However, though still alive, I have not noticed any growth with the begonias since I planted them about three weeks ago. Further, there is a brownish coloring appearing around the edges of the leaves.

     The plants get the afternoon sun in southeastern New Mexico and I give them a good dousing with the hose when I get home from work. However, I think I may be overwatering the begonias. Do they require less water than other popular flowers? Thanks.

Tim H.

A.   Tim, thank you for the photographs, they are good photographs and very helpful.  Begonias (and geraniums) are succulent plants and can indeed suffer from overwatering.  Based on the pictures, that is one possibility for your problem.

     Your pictures show that the plants have many flowers.  An old recommendation is to choose bedding plants with few or no flowers since the energy of the plant is directed at producing flowers instead of growth.  The bedding plants may have been treated with plant growth regulators to keep them compact and encourage flowering.  Since people prefer to purchase plants with flowers to be sure they have the flower colors that they prefer, this makes sense, but the growth inhibition may continue for a while after transplanting.  This may be part of the situation with your begonia plants.  While these plants are growing more slowly, their water requirements are less.  With succulents like the begonias, this may contribute to an overwatering problem.  The other plants are not succulents and do not appear to be as strongly inhibited (except the geraniums that are not in the photographs, but they are probably larger and perhaps not treated with growth inhibitors or as strongly affected as begonias).

     I think I can see the exposed edges of peat pots in the close up picture of the pot containing the wax begonias.  I do not see that in the pots with the other plant species (but then there is no close up picture of those). The exposed edges of the peat pots can serve as wicks drying during the day and exposing the plant roots to accumulated salts (minerals left as the water evaporates).  The browning edges of the wax begonias may be due to salt burn mediated by the exposed peat pots. This salt damage to roots can result in root death and root rot.  There appear to be some symptoms of drying in some of the leaves of the begonia plants.  This may be due to loss of roots, even when the potting soil remains moist.  Once again the succulent nature of the wax begonias can enhance the problem with root loss and development of root diseases.

     Reduce watering a little, perhaps watering some in the morning and then a little more in the evening, to see if this will help the plants.  Continue watering the other plants as you have been watering since they are growing well. 

     Wax begonia leaves have an interesting characteristic of developing a frosty, glazed (dull green) appearance when the plants are in need of water.  Let that be a guide to direct your watering.  The begonias and geraniums, more than the other bedding plants, can tolerate and even benefit, from a little drier growing conditions.  Do not begin fertilizing until the plants have established their roots and begun growing more foliage.

    

Send your gardening questions to Yard and Garden, Attn: Dr. Curtis Smith, NMSU Agricultural Science Center, 1036 Miller Rd. SW, Los Lunas, NM 87031. You may also send to cwsmith@nmsu.edu or leave a message at https://www.facebook.com/NMSUExtExpStnPubs.  Curtis W. Smith, Ph.D., is an Extension Horticulture Specialist, retired from New Mexico State University’s Cooperative Extension Service.  NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

Cow/Calf Corner

COW/CALF CORNER

The Newsletter

 

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

May 4, 2015

 

In this Issue:

 

Proper injection sites to remember at calf-working time

By Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

Unusual cattle markets

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

 

 

Proper injection sites to remember at calf-working time

By Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

The month of May is traditionally the time when “spring round-ups” take place.   This is the time that large and small cow/calf operations schedule the “working” of the calves.  As the majority of the calves reach their second month of life, it is time to castrate the male calves and immunize all of the calves to protect them against blackleg.  Also the new information suggests that in some situations, calves may be vaccinated for the respiratory diseases, i.e. IBR and BVD.    Check with your veterinarian for vaccination advice.

 

Correct administration of any injection is a critical control point in beef production and animal health.  There is a negative relationship between meat tenderness and injection sites, including injection sites that have no visible lesion.  In fact, intramuscular (IM) injections, regardless of the product injected, may create permanent damage regardless of the age of the animal at the time of injection.  Tenderness is reduced in a three-inch area surrounding the injection site.  Moving the injection-site area to the neck stops damage to expensive steak cuts.    Therefore, cow/calf producers should make certain that their family members, and other hired labor are sufficiently trained as to the proper location of the injections before the spring calf-working begins. 

 

Give injections according to label instructions.  Subcutaneous (SQ) means under the skin, intramuscular (IM) means in the muscle.  Some vaccines (according to the label instructions) allow the choice between intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SQ).  Always use subcutaneous (SQ) as the method of administration when permitted by the product’s label.  Remember to “tent” the skin for SQ injections unless instructed otherwise by the manufacturer.  Proper injection technique is just one of many components of the Beef Quality Assurance effort that has had a positive impact on the entire United States beef industry.

 

Another important aspect of the Beef Quality Assurance effort is keeping of accurate treatment records.  Treatment records should include:

 

·         Individual animal/group identification

·         Date treated

·         Product administered and manufacturer’s lot/serial number

·         Dosage used

·         Route and location of administration

·         Earliest date animal(s) will have cleared withdrawal period

·         Name of person administering the product

 

Treatment records for cattle should be stored and kept for a minimum of three years after the animal(s) have been sold from your operation.  Beef producers are encouraged to learn and practice Beef Quality Assurance Guidelines.  You can learn more about the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance program by going to the website: http://oklahomabeefquality.com/  The Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance Manual can be downloaded from that site.  Examples of treatment records to be kept and stored are available from the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance Manual or the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance program website.

 

 

 

Unusual cattle markets

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

 

Unusual market conditions lead to unusual incentives that result in unusual market behavior.  This makes markets unusually difficult to figure out.  There is considerable variability in views across the industry about the current and coming fed cattle market for the remainder of 2015.  And for good reason; we are seeing extremes in conditions and behavior that are clouding the picture.

 

The April 1 cattle on feed inventory was essentially unchanged from one year ago.  However the makeup of that inventory was unique in several respects.  The number of heifers on feed was not only down 10.1 percent from one year ago, it was the lowest quarterly heifer on feed number since 1996.  This is not surprising given the anticipated heifer retention and herd expansion that is underway.  Fewer heifers in feedlots would naturally suggest that steers make up a bigger percentage of total cattle on feed.  More than that however, the number of steers on feed actually increased in April, up 5.4 percent year over year, to the highest quarterly steers on feed total since January, 2008.  As a result, the April 1, 2015 steers on feed total was 69 percent of total cattle on feed, 2.4 percent higher than one year ago and a new record level.  Until now, the 2014 total was tied for a record percentage of steers on feed that only occurred once prior (in 2005) in data back to 1996.  It appears that feedlots have drawn heavily from available steer supplies to maintain feedlot inventories so far this year.

 

Variability in placement weights also adds to the challenge of determining the timing of fed cattle production.  For many months, monthly feedlot placements have tended to swing between large proportions of lightweight cattle (less than 600 pounds) and placements of heavy feeders (over 800 pounds), often with fewer cattle in the traditional feeder placement weight categories of 600 to 800 pounds.  The “tails” of the placement weight distribution add to the difficulty because there is no way to estimate the average weight in the category, especially for the heavy feeders.  Average placement weights vary because of changes in average animal size and because of changes in the steer to heifer mix.

 

March placements consisted of 39.4 percent of placements over 800 pounds, the highest monthly level for the weight category in available data back to 1996.  The average of January through March placements has the 800-plus pound category averaging 35.8 percent of total placements compared to 31 percent for the same period one year ago.  A 12 month moving average of placements by weight group confirms that placements of 800-plus pound feeder cattle are at a record level at the current time.  The average weight of this group could vary from just over 800 pounds to over 900 pounds and change the timing of marketings of these animals by a month.  A casual review of auction reports suggests that significant numbers of steers up to and exceeding 1,000 pounds have been marketed this spring. This may suggest a somewhat bigger seasonal increase in feedlot marketings into the third quarter and a bigger tightening of fed cattle supplies late in the year.  However, variability in the total number of placements and in the weight distribution in recent months makes this anything but a clear picture.

 

Steer and heifer carcass weights continue to push well about year ago levels as a result of several factors.  On the one hand, heavier carcass weights offset declining cattle slaughter to reduce the impact of declining beef production in response to high beef prices.  Steer and heifer slaughter is down 7.1 percent so far this year while total beef production is down only 5.2 percent, due to increased carcass weights.  Both feedlots and packers are complicit in pushing slaughter cattle to heavier weights as a result of this general market incentive. 

 

Feedlots continue to have additional production incentives to feed cattle longer and to bigger weights, as they have had for several months.  Limited supplies of feeder cattle, record high feeder cattle prices and lower feed costs all contribute to feedlot incentives to hold cattle longer, which keep feedlot inventories higher despite declining feedlot production.  Data from several Kansas feedlots confirms that average days on feed are at record levels.  The increase in days on feed for heifers is even more pronounced than for steers, contributing to the lack of seasonal decline in heifer carcass weights so far this year. 

 

In pursing market incentives to delay cattle marketings and push cattle to bigger weights, feedlots are trading animal performance on the animals currently in the feedlot for the costs of replacing inventories with new animals.  The Kansas feedlot data has shown for several months that average daily gains are lower year over year and feed conversions are higher; both expected outcomes of feeding heavier animals longer.  As a result, feedlot cost of gain has not decreased as much as lower corn prices would suggest because poorer performance is offsetting some of the cheaper feed cost.  This tradeoff suggests there is a limit to how far feedlots can push fed cattle weights.  It also suggests that the incentive could change abruptly if feed prices were to increase.

 

Finally, the relative role of dairy animals in total feedlot production is at an unprecedented level.  Declining beef cattle inventories and declining veal slaughter (most of which is dairy calves) mean that dairy animals accounted for nearly 26 percent of the net (adjusted for veal slaughter) 2014 calf crop; a record level.  Dairy calves are typically placed on feed at very light weights and stay in feedlots up to a year.  This means that relatively large numbers of dairy calves are impacting fed cattle markets in 2015.  Analysts often uses measures such as estimated cattle on feed over 120 days to assess the currentness of feedlot marketings.  However. such measures are difficult to interpret when dairy calves play a proportionately larger role in cattle feeding as they do now.

 

 

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services.  References within this publication to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.

 

 

Yard & Garden

 

Yard and Garden

May 9, 2015

 

 

Q.   I have seen this shrub before, but do not know what it is? (Photo e-mailed for identification.) A friend said her son ate some of the berries and luckily is OK!  She is wondering if she should get rid of this plant.  What do you suggest?

Cibola County

 

 

A.   The plant in the pictures you sent is a Cotoneaster.  Plants in this genus are in the rose family.  It is a common ornamental plant in the rose family and is related to pyracantha, roses, and apples.  As you notice some of these plants are edible, however, there is information on the internet that states that the fruit of the cotoneaster is mildly toxic (you have to eat a fairly large quantity relative to body weight) to get sick).  The toxic element was not clearly identified in the material I found, but apple seeds and other plants in the rose family contain cyanogenic glycosides, chemical compounds that release cyanide when in contact with stomach acids.  In most cases it takes a fairly large quantity to be toxic to an adult.  Children with lower body weights than adults will exhibit toxicity at lower doses. The fact that the child is doing well suggests that he did not ingest enough to be toxic. One of the symptoms would be stomach problems.

     If your friend’s child can be taught that he should not eat the pretty berries (or other parts of this plant) the plant may not need to be removed.

     There are many plants grown in landscapes and native environment that have the potential to cause harm if some parts are any part of the plant is eaten.  The range of toxicities, the poisonous parts of the plants and the toxic compounds vary greatly.  Children should be taught not to eat anything without permission.  When my son was very young, he loved to eat in the garden when my wife and I were harvesting vegetables.  He loved to eat peas, beans, and other fresh vegetable right in the garden, but he was good about not eating things I told him not to eat, even when he was 3 yrs. old. 

     Because there are so many things in the garden and nearby environment that can be toxic it may be impossible to remove everything.  Education as to what is safe to eat and watching over children in the garden and elsewhere is the best way to provide safety.  It may help to provide approved, tasty, edibles that the child is taught are safe to eat.  Since some plants are extremely toxic they should be removed or only grown where children will not have access to them when not under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult.  The cotoneaster is of low enough toxicity that it should not be a problem unless a child continues to eat its berries.  If the child persists in eating things without permission removal of the cotoneaster shrub and other toxic plants from areas to which the child has access may be necessary.

 

 

 

Send your gardening questions to Yard and Garden, Attn: Dr. Curtis Smith, NMSU Agricultural Science Center, 1036 Miller Rd. SW, Los Lunas, NM 87031. You may also send tocwsmith@nmsu.edu or leave a message athttps://www.facebook.com/NMSUExtExpStnPubs.  Curtis W. Smith, Ph.D., is an Extension Horticulture Specialist, retired from New Mexico State University’s Cooperative Extension Service.  NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.