Category: Uncategorized

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.

3:13 AI programs expectations

11:04 Heifer and cow synch programs

16:44 Sexed semen in beef cattle

Guest: Sandy Johnson, extension beef specialist
Beefrepo.org 

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!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Known cattle production efficiency and health problems, new challenges and opportunities, changing economic and societal situations, and human curiosity all drive the need for beef cattle research. Recognizing the need for research means that cattle producers, scientists, and many other stake-holders agree that there are opportunities to improve diverse areas of cattle health and well-being, production, and economics. From a veterinary perspective, investigations of management, genetic selection, and technology interventions to increase reproductive efficiency, improve forage utilization, avoid disease, and enhance disease treatment effectiveness are exciting areas of research. Because of ongoing research, veterinarians and beef cattle producers can look forward to having more information and new tools to improve cattle health and well-being, production efficiency, and long-term sustainability.

Careful and accurate observation of cattle and their environments plays an essential role in scientific research, but observation alone will not lead to new understanding about how to improve cattle production. Research combines careful observation with specific strategies to account for the natural variation that occurs when different individual cattle are treated identically, and with methods to limit unintended biases from interfering with a true interpretation of how cattle behave and respond to different environments and treatments.

 The reason that cattle research must be carefully planned is that cattle health and well-being and production efficiency are influenced by a complex interaction of many biologic and economic factors. The biologic factors include: cattle genetics, forage quality and availability, the presence and types of different disease risks, the varying impact of temperature, humidity, and other environmental features on different cattle, how cattle respond to the stresses they encounter, and many other factors. Observations of relatively few animals or observations taken over a short period of time often fail to allow a person to accurately understand the many factors that interact to cause an outcome.

Because of these challenges, even well-planned research projects can only answer one or two fairly limited questions at a time. But a long-term approach to solving the important questions facing cattle veterinarians and producers through a series of studies carried out on a variety of cattle types, ages, and environments, slowly allows researchers to build an understanding of the interacting factors that can be managed to improve cattle production.

Some of the interesting areas being researched now include: investigations into the role that genetics plays on which cattle are most likely to be resistant to various diseases, research comparing the ability of diagnostic tests to more accurately identify cattle that can spread disease to other animals, and comparisons between different methods of preventing or treating diseases that commonly affect cattle. In addition, there are very interesting investigations of how cattle management can enhance utilization of available forages, and how nutrition at one stage of life affect other stages of life. There are also exciting areas of research to improve reproductive efficiency of cattle by investigating more accurate ways to sort bulls into high- and low-reproductively sound classifications, to enhance the fertility of cows, and to reduce the risk of abortion in pregnant cows. Many studies are looking for ways to utilize new technologies such as computers, genetic testing, GPS tracking, and miniature robots to improve cattle production. Other areas of study include investigations of cattle behavior, grazing patterns, rumen function, growth efficiency, response to vaccinations, and resistance to disease based on time-tested production methods.

Regardless of the area being studied, research is a slow, step-by-step process with very few leaps in new knowledge. But the results of multiple well-planned research studies evaluated over time and across different production situations gradually adds to our understanding of the factors that impact cattle health and well-being and production efficiency. Current cattle producers and veterinarians benefit from many decades of research that has provided valuable strategies and tools that are used daily. The research that is being conducted today will provide additional breakthroughs in the coming years.

In After the Chat, the BCI experts go in deeper about topics from this week’s episode, but also other ideas:

This episode contains a follow on bacterial vaccine efficacy.

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!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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.

2:21 Small calves

7:38 Peak nutritional needs

13:56 Clean-up bull planning

21:08 Manheimmia on environmental surfaces
Read the article here

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!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Dry weather across most of the central plains since last fall is creating signals, that a major drought may be on the horizon for this grazing season. The reliance on pasture of most cow herds means that some hard decisions will likely need to be made. The primary decision revolves around feed sources to replace hay or pasture or stretch hay or pasture. Several commodities can be used to replace or stretch hay and pasture; mostly by-products from grain milling.

Two key nutrients are total digestible nutrients (TDN) and crude protein (CP). TDN is the measure of energy used with beef cows, and is the nutrient needed in greatest quantities to maintain performance. CP is the next nutrient needed as far as quantity. Feeds have different concentrations of TDN and CP, and have different costs. Figure 1 illustrates the cost per unit of nutrient of common commodities, which is an effective way to compare feed cost. Hay at $100/ton has the lowest cost per unit of TDN and CP. However, when hay reaches $200/ton, which may happen in severe drought situations especially if trucking long distances, it has the greatest cost per unit of TDN and second greatest cost per unit of CP. Additionally, hay supplies may be limited even if hay is the cheapest source of nutrients.

Currently, corn at $6.50/bu is the least expensive source of TDN followed by soybean hulls at $210/ton and dried distiller’s grains at $280/ton. Dried distiller’s grains is also the least expensive source of CP making it a valuable feed. Therefore, a mixture of corn, soybean hulls, and dried distiller’s grains would be an economically and nutritionally viable option to replace or stretch hay or pasture.

A 1300-lb cow in late lactation requires about 14 lb of TDN and 2.10 lb of CP per day. A mixture of 15% dried distiller’s grains, 20% corn, 35% soybean hulls, and 30% hay fed at 20 lb/day (80% of ad libitum intake) would meet the TDN and CP requirements of the cow. The calf will consume about 4 lb/day of hay or pasture for a total of 24 lb/day. If calves are weaned early at 4 months, 15 lb/day will meet the TDN and CP requirements of an early gestation, dry cow, but then the calf will eat 7 lb/day of mixed ration to gain 2 lb/day for a total of 22 lb/day.

If the price of hay is $100/ton, it is more economical to feed the lactating cow with a nursing calf at $2.11/day, but if the price of hay is $200/ton, it is more economical to wean the calf early and feed a dry cow plus calf at $2.49/day. If the price of hay is $150/ton, then both management options cost the same. This economic calculation is based on the prices of feeds used, and the tipping point will depend upon local hay and commodity prices.

Even though feeding commodities to beef cows and calves can be an economically viable option, it requires the correct management. Feeding large amounts of commodities to beef cows who have full access to pasture or hay will not save much hay and result in greater feed costs. The cost savings is in the fact that less total feed (reduction in hay intake) can be fed to maintain cow performance, which requires limiting access to pasture or hay. It does not require a fenceline feedbunk and mixer wagon. Use the resources you have such as labor, hay intake can be limited by restricting access to the round bale feeder by moving cows in and out of the pen with hay feeders. Early-weaned calves also require more managerial skills in that they are more susceptible to disease and require daily feeding and observation. The rumen of these young calves is not developed enough to effectively digest long-stem hay, and they require moderate energy diet based on grains and commodities to perform well.

Finding alternative feed sources during a drought can be challenging especially if the drought is widespread and hay has to be hauled long distances. Grains and byproduct commodities are viable alternatives that can be used to maintain performance of the cow herd, but feed costs are going to be greater. Additionally, limit feeding moderate concentrate diets to beef cows and managing early-weaned calves requires the correct facilities and managerial skills.

Recently, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association committed the U.S. beef industry to be climate neutral by 2040, but what does that really mean, how are we going to get there, and what does it mean for the individual producer? Climate neutral is different than carbon neutral in that carbon neutral indicates that carbon emissions are equal to carbon sequestration whereas climate neutral indicates no net global warming effect. Beef cattle most probably can never be carbon neutral due to the biogenic carbon cycle (Figure 1) because it would require carbon sequestration to be as great as the carbon synthesis in plants every year. However, beef cattle can be climate neutral because carbon/methane emissions are part of the biogenic carbon cycle rather than a permanent addition to the atmosphere. If methane emissions and photosynthesis are in equilibrium then there is no net global warming.

Aren’t we already in equilibrium? Short answer is no. It takes a decade or more of static cattle numbers and methane emissions before the cycle is in equilibrium, and beef production results in other gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, that increase global warming. Over the last 30 to 40 years, the beef industry has reduced the carbon emissions intensity (carbon per unit of beef) primarily through increased efficiency (lesser inputs per unit of beef) and diluting maintenance requirements of the cow herd with heavier, faster growing calves. U.S. beef industry is the most efficient production system in the world, but we are maximizing growth and size, and so future reduction in global warming potential will need to come through reductions in total carbon emissions per animal.

What does this mean for the rancher? The reduction in carbon emissions and global warming potential will come from application of several management practices and technologies. For example, improved grazing management and use of cover crops will increase soil carbon sequestration, but also improve soil health and forage/crop productivity. Many new feed additives are being developed to reduce methane emissions, some with potential to increase feed efficiency. Genetic tools will allow selection of animals to reduce maintenance energy requirements, and genetically engineer will produce animals resistant to disease. These practices and technologies and many others will be available to ranchers to reduce carbon emissions and global warming potential, but importantly these practices and technologies will improve economics of beef production. Achieving the climate neutrality goal will be challenging, but will spur many new advancements that will make beef production better for the rancher, consumer and environment.

Recent cow-calf model analysis from the Beef Cattle Institute at Kansas State University indicates that forage yield per acre is a very important driver of profitability; more so than increased reproductive efficiency, decreased maintenance energy requirements or increased forage digestibility (Figure 1).  Increasing reproductive efficiency reduced replacement heifer costs. Decreasing maintenance energy requirements or increasing forage digestibility increased calf growth and calf revenue. But the reduction in replacement costs or increase in revenue was not as great as the reduction in winter feed costs from more forage yield and longer grazing season. Thus, increasing forage yield per acre is one of the most powerful management tools to increase cow-calf profitability.

Plant biodiversity is beneficial for grassland ecosystems by providing food and habitat for wildlife and improving nutrient cycling, soil organic matter, water infiltration, and total biomass production to name a few. Monocultures are easier to manage but may be hurting the productivity of the grassland and making it less resilient to drought and heavy grazing. Mixtures of forbs, legumes, and grasses can boost grassland productivity in the long-run and are more sustainable ecosystems.

When we think of cattle grazing pasture or rangeland, we picture cattle consuming grass, but cattle consume much more than grass. Many plants/forbs considered weeds such as ragweed actually have better nutritional profile than many grasses, and cattle will eat many of them at different stages of plant development. Some of these plants have large tap roots that bring water and nutrients up to the soil surface where the fibrous roots of grasses have access. Non-grass plants can grow between clumps of bunch grasses and provide increased forage through both primary production but also by improving nutrient cycling and soil function for growth of the whole plant community. Additionally, mixtures of grass species that have primary growth at different times of the year such as fescue and crabgrass also increase grassland productivity. The difference in timing of primary growth allows nutrient cycling in a grazing system as the defecated nutrients from one grass fertilize the other.

Not all forbs are consumed by cattle, but forbs that fix nitrogen can be beneficial by adding nitrogen to the soil through decomposition even when not consumed. However, some forbs such as sericea lespedeza can have negative effects on overall grassland productivity, and must be kept in check.

Herbicide sprays often kill both harmful (e.g., sericea lespedeza) and beneficial (e.g., Illinois bundleflower) forbs and legumes, which may reduce overall productivity rather than increase it. Assessing the plant species composition of harmful to beneficial forbs is critical to evaluate whether herbicide application will be cost effective. Other tools such as prescribed burning can also be used to manage the plant species composition without detrimental effects on all forbs and legumes. The take-home message is that a clean field of grass is likely not the most productive or profitable, but neither is a field of weeds: the goal should be to balance the species composition to maximize consumable biomass over the long term.

In this episode, we go into what sustainability is and the different components of sustainable beef production, cattle’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and what family and small farms are in the United States. These podcasts are sponsored by Beef Checkoff. Follow BCI on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. If you have any questions email us at bci@ksu.edu.

Podcast (sustainablebeefproduction): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Animal health and welfare are important components of social sustainability. In the beef industry, bovine respiratory disease complex is likely the largest issue, and also influences antimicrobial stewardship. Nutritional stress when adapting cattle to high grain diets occurs in the form of subacute acidosis predisposing cattle to other health challenges such as bovine respiratory disease. Acidosis occurs from overproduction of lactic acid from rapid fermentation of starch, and the slow adaptation of cattle to a high grain finishing diet is necessary to allow the population of lactic acid utilizing bacteria in the rumen that keep the lactic acid concentration low and rumen pH high.  Subacute rumen acidosis has been linked to the release of lipopolysaccharides from dead bacteria causing inflammation that may predispose cattle to other health issues. Early bovine respiratory disease research indicates that high concentrate starting diets and lack of adequate roughage intake during the receiving period, both of which could result in subacute rumen acidosis, increase the incidence of respiratory disease.

A major lactic acid utilizing bacteria in the rumen is megasphaera elsdenii.  Inoculation of cattle with M. elsdenii when introducing a high starch diet, stabilizes rumen pH, prevents subacute rumen acidosis, and allows stepping cattle up to the finishing diet quicker. Additionally, inoculation of feedlot cattle on arrival can reduce respiratory morbidity, particularly in higher-risk calves, although the number of studies is limited (Figure 1).  Clinical signs of rumen acidosis and respiratory disease are somewhat similar and misdiagnosis can occur. Thus, the reduction in respiratory morbidity could be those calves with rumen acidosis being misdiagnosed as bovine respiratory disease.  But either way, inoculation of cattle with M. elsdenii at arrival can reduce animal disease and antimicrobial use. Nutritional technology plays a role in animal health-improving antimicrobial stewardship and social sustainability.

Choosing the optimum time to calve beef cows involves thinking through a multitude of factors such as potential for extreme weather, availability of grazed forage, marketing and seasonality of calf prices, and availability of labor. Thirty years ago, the logic used for choosing a calving season focused on maximizing calf nutrient intake. At about 3 to 4 months of age, the calf’s nutrient requirements exceed the cow’s milk production, and thus calf nutrient intake and growth could be increased by coinciding this time with the time of highly nutritious forage. In order to accomplish, cows needed to calve in February and March for most latitudes. However, this results in increased feed costs because lactating cows consume more harvested forages and the nutritive value of harvested forages is generally not adequate to meet the nutrient requirements of early lactation cows. Thus, supplemental feed is usually necessary to keep cows in adequate body condition (≥ 5) prior to breeding to ensure high pregnancy rates.

Matching the calving season with the onset of green pasture synchronizes the high nutrient demands of the cow during early lactation and breeding with the time of maximum forage nutritive value. By doing this, stockpiled forages and crop residues can meet the nutritional requirements of cows through December reducing winter hay feeding. Additionally, cows that calve in synchrony with forage nutritive value do not require supplemental feed to maintain body condition prior to breeding. Figure 1 shows the difference in winter hay and supplemental feed usage and delivered feed costs for cows in a Kansas native range forage system with an average calving date of March 1 or April 15.

Many factors affect the sale price of calves including supply and demand, cost of gain the feedlot, and geopolitical issues, all of which the producer has very little control over. Several analyses of performance and financial records indicate that the most profitable operations are those that have low cost of production, which the produce has more control over. Even though later born calves will be lighter at the same sale date and likely even at the same age, controlling costs can improve net returns. Thus, matching cow requirements with forage nutritive value by adjusting the calving season can increase the economic sustainability of a beef operation.

With the high cost of pasture and rangeland, alternatives to grassland cow-calf production are being investigated with cows and/or calves being in confinement all or part of the production cycle. There are many management options with year-round confinement in regions where grazing grass or crop residue is not possible or desirable, short-season grassland grazing during summer and confinement during winter, or confinement during summer and crop residue/cover crop grazing during winter. Harvesting and delivering feed to the cow rather than the cow harvesting feed herself always adds cost to the production system, and thus, confinement or semi-confinement cow-calf systems have additional costs that need to be offset in some way.

One advantage of having cows in confinement is improved feed management with control over the quality and quantity of feed consumed by the cow-calf pair. By limit feeding cows a high energy, by-product diet during the confinement period, maintenance energy requirement is reduced 20 to 40% compared with a low-energy, forage diet fed ad libitum. This reduction in maintenance energy requirement decreases the total feed energy necessary to maintain the cow. Additionally, the calf has access to higher quality feed (ration vs. grass) and weaning weight is increased if the confinement period coincides with mid and late lactation. The higher quality and lower quantity of feed consumed by the cow reduced methane emissions and would likely require less land improving the sustainability of beef production.

But, as mentioned above, there are additional costs for feed, facilities and equipment, and labor; studies indicate that the net returns decrease as the length of the confinement period increases. Additionally, even though less total land would be used, the amount of land under intensive crop production would likely increase reducing ecosystem services provided by grasslands. Also, the conversion efficiency of non-human edible protein to human edible protein decreases with the use of high-energy, by-product diets because more human edible protein is used in the diet. Protein conversion efficiency is one of the most positive attributes of using ruminants for food production and should be a primary goal in designing any cattle production system.

Developing an economically and environmentally sustainable cow-calf production system will be difficult. Changing one aspect of the system to cause an improvement in one metric can easily result in moving another metric in the wrong direction. The beef cattle production system needs to be evaluated as a whole and careful analysis should be completed before making decisions.