Planning Winter Supplementation

For most of the U.S. and Canada, winter feed is one of the greatest costs of cow-calf production. The base ingredient in winter rations is usually standing dormant forage or hay. Heifers, fist-calf heifers, and thin cows that need to gain body condition often need more energy than can be supplied by dormant forage or hay alone. Therefore, many situations require that heifers and cows be fed supplemental protein, energy, or both, depending on the nutrient makeup of the base-forage. Understanding the interaction between starch, fiber, and protein in the cows’ rumen allows producers to determine the most appropriate winter supplement. 

Many different types of bacteria and other microorganisms in the rumen convert forage and supplements into nutrients needed to maintain or increase a cow’s body weight. What makes cattle and other ruminant animals so important to the earth’s ecosystem is that a great deal of the energy stored on the planet is stored in the fibrous parts of plants that cannot be used by non-ruminants (humans, birds, and most animals). In addition, it is important to recognize that even cattle and other ruminants can only use the energy stored in the cell walls of plants when the rumen bacteria have enough protein and other nutrients to actively breakdown the fibrous plant parts. Fiber-digesting bacteria, which are important for digesting forage, are relatively slow growing and are easily killed if the rumen becomes acidic. In contrast, starch-digesting bacteria are important to grain-fed ruminants, and reproduce rapidly when starch is available. Starch-digesting bacteria have a much greater tolerance for increased acid in the rumen than do fiber-digesting bacteria. 

Changes in diet will change which types of bacteria in the rumen are most plentiful. The types of supplements that cattlemen choose to feed will affect the types of bacteria that dominate the rumen which will have an effect on how well cows can convert the base forage into body weight. Some supplements will increase the digestibility of the base forage, some will not greatly affect the base forage digestibility, and some will actually decrease the ability of cows to convert forage into body weight.  

Cattle fed a forage-based diet (grazing or hay) that is deficient in protein (<7% Crude Protein) will benefit by being fed a protein-dense supplement to supply the necessary amount required for reproduction by fiber-digesting bacteria. By increasing the number of fiber-digesting bacteria in the rumen, forage digestibility is increased, the cows’ eat more forage, and the energy yield from the diet is improved.  

However, producers should realize that if the base forage has adequate protein content, additional protein will not improve digestibility or energy yield. A typical 1,200-pound cow of average producing ability will need only about 1.7 pounds of crude protein during the middle part of gestation. Feeding a roughage of fair quality (8 to 10% crude protein) during this period should meet both energy and protein requirements, and feeding a protein supplement is not necessary. In contrast, after a cow calves, her requirement for protein increases greatly. A 1,200-pound cow producing 20 pounds of milk requires 3 pounds of crude protein daily and a forage that was adequate in mid-gestation may be very protein deficient for late gestation and early lactation. 

Because of the competition that takes place in the rumen between starch-digesting and fiber-digesting bacteria, it is important to limit the amount of grain in the diet of cows grazing standing dormant forage or eating hay. If cows are eating forage of moderate quality (protein content and digestibility), supplementing with too much grain, which is high in starch, will actually decrease the digestibility and available energy from the forage even further. This decrease is due to a shift in the population of rumen bacteria away from a population dominated by fiber-digesters, to a population dominated by starch-digesters. Remember, the starch-digesting bacteria can reproduce rapidly when starch is available, and during rapid growth, starch-digesting bacteria produce increasing levels of lactic acid, which will kill many fiber-digesting bacteria. With fewer fiber-digesting bacteria available, forage digestibility is decreased and energy yield from the forage is reduced.  

Because corn and other grains are readily available and often are price-competitive with other sources of energy, producers can use these feeds up to the level where they have a negative effect on fiber digestion. The cut-off for starch supplementation of low-quality forages calculates to be about 0.28% of the cows’ bodyweight for corn dry matter (3.5-4.0 lbs. of corn as-fed for a 1,200-pound cow). For moderate weight gain, a simple diet of forage and less than 3.5-4.0 pounds corn will often be sufficient.  

In situations when the base forage has adequate protein, if more weight gain is required than can be met with a starch-based feed such as corn without a negative effect on forage intake and digestibility, producers can choose to use a fiber-based feed that has higher energy content than the base forage. Many by-product feeds provide energy in the form of highly digestible fiber; because the energy is in the same form as that in the forage, high levels can be fed without harming the fiber-digesting bacteria in the rumen or decreasing forage digestibility. By-product feeds that provide energy in the form of highly digestible fiber include: corn gluten feed, distillers grains, soybean hulls, and wheat middlings.  

Working with your veterinarian, nutritionist, Extension specialist, or other ration-planning resource to help you properly select the type and amount of supplement that compliments your base forage will ensure that your cows maintain adequate body condition and that winter feeding bills are optimized. 

Bulls, Sustainability, Agrotourism

Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat!  Please click on any links below to be taken to sources mentioned in the podcast. Keep an eye out for news regarding the podcast on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

2:35 Bulls  

9:03 Sustainability – How to Implement  

16:06 Agrotourism  

Guest: Debbie Lyons Blythe, U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef  

For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCIFacebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!

Feed Costs: Pasture vs. Non-Pasture Costs

Feed costs typically represent the single largest cost for beef cow-calf producers. Based on Kansas Farm Management Association (KFMA) data for the beef cow-calf enterprise, feed costs (pasture and non-pasture) were 47.0% of total costs in 2021 and 46.4% of total costs for the 2017-2021 average. Thus, it is important that producers know what their feed costs are and how they compare to benchmark values for other producers such that they can manage this important cost for long-term business profitability. While the nutritional requirements of a beef cow are well determined given her genetics, body size, and the environment she is in, the specific feedstuffs used to meet those requirements can vary considerably. There is a trade-off between the use of pasture and non-pasture costs in meeting the nutrient requirements of the cow and her calf. Thus, a producer with higher (lower)-than-average pasture costs might still be competitive with other producers if non-pasture feed costs are lower (higher) than average.  

Reported KFMA feed costs are disaggregated into two categories – “pasture” and “feed”, where “feed” basically represents all “non-pasture” feed costs (i.e., hay, supplements, grain, etc.). While breaking total feed costs into pasture and non-pasture categories is still not sufficient to answer all questions about why some producers are more profitable than others, it does help understand some of the differences between producers. 

To address some of these cost differences between producers, cow-calf enterprise total feed costs data included in the 2017-2021 KFMA beef cow-calf enterprise analysis were used. Multi-year averages were calculated for total feed costs for each of the 82 operations that had a minimum of three years of data. Figure 1 shows the multi-year average pasture and non-pasture feed costs plotted against each other. There are several points that can be made from this figure. First, the black line represents combinations of pasture and non-pasture feed costs that are equal to the average of total feed cost (i.e., $537 per cow). Values to the right of the black line (52% of the points) represent producers that have total feed costs that are above average. Likewise, values to the left of the line (48% of points) represent producers that have total feed costs that are below average. Second, the two dashed lines represent the average pasture costs of $170 per cow (horizontal dashed line) and average non-pasture costs of $336 per cow (vertical dashed line). 

Values in the upper right quadrant (18% of points) represent producers with both pasture and non-pasture feed costs that are above average, which likely will make it difficult for them to be competitive in the long run. Points in the upper left quadrant (29% of points) reflect producers that have above average pasture costs, but below average non-pasture costs. Thus, these producers might be using a longer grazing season and relying less on harvested feedstuffs. The lower right quadrant (30% of points) reflects the opposite scenario where producers have higher non-pasture costs than average, but lower pasture costs (i.e., somebody with a shorter grazing season and relying upon more harvested forages). The points in these two quadrants (i.e., upper left and lower right) reflect producers that are trading off one type of feedstuff for another. Finally, points in the lower left quadrant reflect producers that likely have a competitive advantage as they have both pasture and non-pasture feed costs that are below average (i.e., 22% of operations). 

Being in the lower left quadrant might be something to strive for; however, a word of caution needs to be added about what this might represent. Given that a beef cow requires a certain amount of nutrients, having costs below average for both of these suggests one of two things – either the cow is not receiving adequate nutrition, or the feed is valued at below average price/cost. The first statement may be true in any given year, but cannot happen consistently over time as production would suffer and cows might not rebreed. Likely, pasture and/or non-pasture feed costs are valued significantly below average for producers in this quadrant. Producers should always strive to have a competitive advantage, but it is also important to recognize what might be the driving force behind this and whether it is sustainable. 

Bull Management, Financial Planning, Winter Grazing Techniques

Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat!  Please click on any links below to be taken to sources mentioned in the podcast. Keep an eye out for news regarding the podcast on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

2:12 Bull Management  

10:00 Financial Planning  

16:21 Winter Grazing Techniques

For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCIFacebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!

Liver Abscesses, Prepping Calves for the Sale Barn, Ammoniated Forages

Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat!  Please click on any links below to be taken to sources mentioned in the podcast. Keep an eye out for news regarding the podcast on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

2:24 Liver Abscesses  

9:20 Prepping Calves for the Sale Barn  

15:49 Ammoniated Forages 
More on ammoniated forages can be found on YouTube or at K-State Libraries

Guest: Justin Waggoner, Beef Systems Specialist

For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCIFacebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!

Be Careful Grazing Alfalfa

With dry conditions across much of the western United States, grazing regrowth on irrigated alfalfa fields is likely in fall grazing plans for many producers. Alfalfa is a fairly drought tolerant crop and will produce forage in dry conditions. However, alfalfa has several challenges to grazing from animal and plant health perspective. 

With its high soluble protein content, alfalfa can easily cause bloat in cattle so cattle should be monitored closely, especially the first few days of grazing. One of the keys to reducing bloat when grazing alfalfa is to not create situations that would cause large swings in forage intake. Any situation that would cause cattle to become overly hungry before or while grazing alfalfa can be problematic. 

One method to mitigate the incidence of bloat is to adapt cattle to the alfalfa slowly. First move cattle to the alfalfa field after the morning grazing bout on grass pasture, this way the rumen is full and cattle will not consume large amounts of alfalfa right away. Another method is to only allow cattle access to the alfalfa field for a few hours each day for the first few days so that cattle are consuming other grass forage. However, monitor cattle as some may learn after a few days that they will get access to the alfalfa and wait to eat until then. A third method to mitigate bloat is the use of a feed additive called poloxalene. The compound acts as a surfactant in the rumen to inhibit frothy bloat and can be delivered in a feed supplement or mineral mix. A combination of these methods will likely provide the best bloat prevention. 

Grazing alfalfa after a light freeze, especially followed by warm days, can increase bloat problems because freezing ruptures plant cells releasing more soluble proteins. Cattle should be monitored closely when temperatures approach freezing and possibly removed from alfalfa until night time temperatures return to normal.  

Alfalfa can also contain high levels of phytoestrogens that can negatively impact reproductive performance of females. Fall-calving cows or fall breeding heifers could be negatively impacted by grazing alfalfa in the fall. However, research studies indicate that phytoestrogen levels generally only reach problematic levels with fungal infection of the alfalfa plant. Water stress did not result in increased phytoestrogens in alfalfa. Therefore, if plant disease measures have been implemented, the concern for phytoestrogens interfering with female reproductive performance is low. 

Besides potential issues with the cattle, grazing alfalfa can cause issues with the plant. There are two types of alfalfa: those for hay and those for grazing. This does not mean that you cannot use either type for the other situation, but it does mean that additional care should be taken. Varieties for hay production are bred to produce high quality tonnage based on infrequent complete harvesting of above ground plant material, which then allows the plant to regrow and put down more energy reserves into the roots. But hay production varieties have poor grazing tolerance due to the frequent removal of above ground plant material by the cattle. Hay varieties can also have more bloat potential. In contrast, grazing varieties were bred to withstand more frequent removal of above ground plant material by cattle resulting in a more persistent stand. Grazing varieties are also less bloat prone, but not bloat free. The grazing management system needs to be adjusted to the type of alfalfa. 

Alfalfa regrows from the crowns which are at the soil surface and heavy hoof traffic can damage the crowns. Grazing management plans need to take this into account and consider such things as soil moisture conditions and repeated trampling of plants. Removing cattle if the soil becomes soft from moisture and rotating cattle to new areas of the field to reduce trampling are ways to minimize damage to crowns. 

In contrast to overnight frost, a killing freeze followed by cold days can significantly reduce bloat problems, but also reduces the nutritive value of the forage. Grazing killed alfalfa should occur in the few days/weeks after the killing freeze to capture as much of the nutritional value as possible. Additionally, hoof traffic on frozen ground causes less damage to alfalfa crowns. 

Kelli Almes, Biosecurity Plans, Practitioner Response

Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat!  Please click on any links below to be taken to sources mentioned in the podcast. Keep an eye out for news regarding the podcast on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

3:17 Kelli Almes

8:28 Biosecurity Plans for Your Operation

16:14 Practitioner Response to Disease Outbreaks

Guest: Kelli Almes, Associate Coordinator of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network

For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCIFacebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!