Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The experts open the episode by answering a listener question from Australia regarding cull cows. The experts continue the show by discussing a listener’s question about the possibility of transferring feeder heifers into breeding heifers. This edition of Cattle Chat winds down with Dr. Brad White asking the experts about the future challenges and opportunities in the beef industry.
2:27 Australia Listener Question: Culling cows with smaller calves.
9:22 Listener Question: Heifers in feedlot being transferred to breeding.
14:36 Challenges and opportunities in the beef industry.
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on X at @The_BCI, Facebook, 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!
In this edition of Herd Health: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast, Dr. Bob Larson and Dr. Brad White discuss the importance of trace minerals and being able to calculate them. The experts dive into a paper about the role of trace minerals in spermatogenesis and later they go over Dr. Larson’s spreadsheet that helps calculate the amount of trace minerals your animals are receiving. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show!
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The show kicks off with the experts answering a listener’s question about pinkeye. The episode continues with Dr. Paige Schmidt giving an update on her research. The experts conclude this edition of Cattle Chat by responding to another listener’s question concerning a liquid feeds. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
3:21 Listener Question: Pinkeye
7:36 AIP Research Update from Dr. Paige Schmidt
16:23 Listener Question: Liquid Feed
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, 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!
A big conversation topic today is methane emissions. How does the beef industry affect greenhouse gas emissions and what are we doing to help. Dr. Phillip Lancaster and Dr. Brad White explain all things methane during this episode of Diving into Diets: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The show kicks off with Dr. Phillip Lancaster answering a listener’s question about feeding rye grain to cattle. Dr. Brad White continues the episode by announcing a grant the Beef Cattle Institute has received from the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research. The experts conclude this edition of Cattle Chat by responding to another listener’s question concerning a producer moving from South Africa to Alabama. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
3:21 Listener Question: Feeding rye grain
7:36 FFAR ICASA Grant: Program description, research projects and anti-microbial resistance
16:23 Listener Question: Moving locations
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, 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!
Every summer ranchers cut and bale hay for the winter and don’t think much about it. But the nutritive value of hay is highly variable and not always represented by the visual appraisal of the hay.
The nutritive value of hay is primarily a function of protein concentration and digestibility. The protein in hay is primarily digested by the bacteria in the rumen which are then digested by the animal in the small intestine; thus, providing the animal the protein that it requires. As grasses grow the protein concentration decreases; however, this change in protein concentration is not consistent among species of grasses or for the same species across years.
Digestibility is a function of the fiber concentration in the grass. There are several types of fiber, but neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) are two types of fiber related to digestibility. NDF is the total amount of fiber in the plant and ADF is the amount of poorly digested fiber in the plant. As the total amount of fiber (NDF) increases the digestibility of the grass decreases, and as the amount of ADF increases the digestibility of the grass decreases. From the NDF and ADF concentrations in the hay, we can calculate an estimated digestibility (TDN). As grass grow, the NDF and ADF concentration increases and similar to the protein concentration, this change is not consistent among species or across years.
Visual appraisal of hay can be deceiving. Figure 1 is a picture of some bromegrass hay that has a high number of leaves and relatively few stems. Although, stems are present indicating that the plant had reached reproductive stage prior to cutting and baling. The reproductive stage, when seed heads are visible, is one of the later stages of plant growth indicating a lesser quality hay will be produced. However, bromegrass hay is usually a relatively high-quality grass hay.
Figure 2 is the nutritive analysis of the hay in Figure 1. Even with a high number of leaves the protein concentration is quite low at 6.39 %. Feed tables list the protein concentration of bromegrass hay at >8%, which will meet the protein requirements of mid-gestation dry cows; 6% protein will not. Late gestation and lactating cows will need a protein supplement to meet requirements as their protein requirements are 9 to 10%.
The NDF concentration of the hay in Figure 1 was 63% and the ADF was 41%. This calculated to an estimated TDN of 51%, which is just enough to meet energy requirements of mid-gestation dry cows. And with the marginal protein concentration in the hay, the cows will need a protein supplement to be able to digest the hay up to the potential calculated TDN of 51%.
Visual appraisal of hay is not always adequate to assess the nutritional value of the hay. Even home-grown hay can have nutritive value very different than what is expected or what forage analyses from previous years indicates. A basic forage test that will provide protein, NDF, ADF, and TDN concentrations costs $20 to $40 per sample. One sample from each cutting and each field is adequate, but the sample needs to comprise of hay from multiple bales. The best way to sample hay for forage analysis is to use a hay probe on a cordless drill and collect a core from 10% of the bales. The $100 to $200 spent on forage analysis is worth the cost of 1 open cow from feeding hay that results in thin cows at calving.
Have you ever wondered if simultaneously giving two modified live vaccines will affect their respective efficacies? In this After the Abstract: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast episode, Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Brad White examine a study that asked the same question and yielded intriguing results.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! The hosts begin the episode by answering a listener’s question about the causes and prevention methods associated with dummy calves. Dr. Brian Lubbers progresses the show with a conversation about health label claims on food products. The experts wrap up this edition of Cattle Chat by updating the listenership on the summer research projects they have been working on with BCI students. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
2:00 Listener Question: Dummy Calves
10:16 Yogurt Health Claims: A discussion on the implications of health label claims on animal-derived food products
14:45 Summer Research Update: AIP, cowherd simulators and data
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, 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!
Scott Fritz, DVM, ABVT Toxicologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University Scottfritz@vet.k-state.edu
Sources
Warm, stagnant, surface water, often with a mechanism of phosphorus and nitrogen loading. Algae may appear as a scum on the surface that resembles paint. These blooms are buoyant and often concentrate on the downwind side of ponds.
Mechanism
Hepatotoxic algal toxins disrupt the microstructure inside hepatocytes resulting in acute, severe hepatocellular necrosis.
Neurotoxic algal toxins cause a severe neuromuscular blockage.
Signs
The most common clinical signs observed is acute death. The neurotoxins produced by these algae are some of the most potent biotoxins known and can result in death in minutes. The hepatotoxic varieties are the most commonly-encountered in most places where cattle production occurs. Death from exposure often occurs in 24 hours. Clinical signs, if observed, are typically non-specific. Animals may only appear depressed which progresses to tachypnea with signs of abdominal pain and death.
Treatment
Due to the severe nature of the exposure, effective treatments have not been identified. Once animals show clinical signs, a lethal dose has likely been consumed.
Diagnosis
Identification of algae and toxins in water sources, histopathology of the liver.
Fritz, S. A., Charnas, S., & Ensley, S. (2024). Blue Green Algae. Veterinary Clinics of North America: EquinePractice, 40(1), 121-132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cveq.2023.10.006
Two 10-year-old cull cows were placed into a small pasture to put some weight on before going to town. Two weeks later, they are both dead with no clinical signs of disease. Dr. Scott Fritz and Dr. Brad White get to the bottom of this case in this edition of Tox Talk: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the show!
The toxicology website and Bovine Sciences with BCI podcasts have been sponsored in part through a veterinary services grant that Dr. Scott Fritz, Dr. Steve Ensley and Dr. Bob Larson have received to share more toxicology information and examples for people to understand what to submit and how to submit. Another part of that grant has been working with people and producer in the field.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! To kick off the show, Dr. Dustin Pendell and the other hosts examine a recent report from the Kansas Farm Management Association titled 2023 Executive Summary, which contains data about net farm income, government payments and insurance in Kansas. To continue the show, Dr. Phillip Lancaster explains how to properly body condition score cattle. Lancaster concludes this edition of Cattle Chat by discussing with Dr. Brad White the beef production challenges associated with excess rain. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
2:27 KFMA 2023 Executive Summary: Net farm income, government payments, net worths, averages
13:55 Body Condition Scoring: A How To
18:45 Excess Rain: effects on pasture, cow performance, foot rot, water logged grasses
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, 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!
Bob Larson, DVM, PhD Reproductive physiologist and Epidemiologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University RLarson@vet.k-state.edu
Beef production has become more efficient in the 30-plus years that I have been involved in the industry. This achievement is due in large part due to the genetic selection efforts of seedstock suppliers. I am surprised at times when this achievement is overlooked and sometimes even derided by some beef producers and agriculture detractors.
As in all discussions, it is important to clarify the meaning of key words. Efficiency in beef production is defined as the value of all inputs or amount of inputs of particular value divided by the quantity or value of output. Some examples include, dollar value of all inputs divided by pounds of weight sold or amount of specific inputs such as acres of land, gallons of petroleum products, or number of breeding females divided by the number or value of pounds sold. Using modern breeding, health, and growth management, U.S. beef producers produce much more beef per acre, per gallon of petroleum product, and per bred female than was conceivable a generation ago.
Some of the areas within beef production that I think have not reached their potential efficiency include: number of calves born per exposed female, percentage of calves that survive to market, growth efficiency (pounds of weight gain per calorie consumed), water use efficiency, number or pounds of calves per acre of land, and percentage of USDA Choice and higher grading carcasses per inputs such as acre of land or calorie of feed. Improving efficiency in these areas involve all aspects of cattle and beef production including genetic selection, grass and range management, reproductive management, health management and disease prevention, and nutritional management.
One important caution when designing a management system to improve efficiency using a single measure is the risk of decreasing efficiency as determined by other measures. For example, a single-minded effort to increase pounds per calf weaned may decrease calves weaned per acre and calves weaned per cow exposed – thereby decreasing efficiency measures such as pounds/value sold per acre or pounds/value sold per exposed cow. Sometimes efforts to improve cost efficiency when measured as dollars of expense per cow exposed will backfire if number of calves weaned per cow exposed or weight/value of calves weaned decreases, resulting in higher expenses per dollar of income.
It is important when determining how you want to improve efficiency to recognize what resources on your farm are most valuable and need to be conserved. If land is your most valuable resource (as determined by being the input accounting for the highest percentage of cost), you must not lose sight of value of outputs per acre of land. If cows are your most valuable resource, you most emphasize value of output per cow exposed. By focusing your management plan on improving the efficient use of the most important two or three inputs on your particular operation, improving efficiency has the most opportunity to improve profitability of your cattle business. Over time, the values of some inputs are likely to increase or decrease in relative importance, meaning that you must occasionally evaluate which inputs are currently the most valuable and readjust your management to emphasize their efficient use.
Many people will quickly recognize that increased efficiency does not equal increased profits. This is due to the fact that the value of both inputs and outputs are largely driven by the supply and demand of competing products – independent of beef production costs. In addition, the value of key inputs such as land has grown even faster than the growth in efficiency of land use. What is often incorrectly implied is that since increased efficiency does not automatically lead to increased profits – that decreased efficiency would automatically lead to increased profits. However, it is difficult to imagine a successful long-term business plan based on production of less beef per valuable resource such as acre of land, gallon of gasoline, or bushel of corn or ton of hay. Profitability for beef production relies both on increasing efficiency and strengthening ones marketing position in relation to competitors.
The beef industry should be proud of the fact that we have learned to use the resources that this country greatly values (i.e. land, labor, petroleum, and feed) more efficiently. There are still opportunities to continue this tradition of stewardship and I look forward to seeing the improvements that we will achieve during the rest of my career in the beef industry.
