K-State Research and Extension

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Silage Harvest: Think and Practice Safety First”

One of the busiest, most fast paced operations that occur this time of year is silage harvest. Cutters and choppers in the fields, trucks racing from the field to the pile or bunker, multiple tractors pushing and packing silage. The speed at which we can harvest silage today is amazing, but we should never allow the speed at which we can accomplish a task to compromise safety. In the infamous words of Dr. Keith Bolsen “Every silage accident could have been prevented.” Listed below are a few things to consider during this year’s silage harvest.

• Don’t become complacent. Stay aware of your surroundings. Let’s face it, there are a lot of highly repetitive operations in putting up silage. One of the number one factors that leads up to an accident is almost always complacency or lack of situational awareness.
• Truck drivers should always slow down when approaching houses and intersections on all roads, every time. Those houses along the road belong to our neighbors and friends, some of which have children. The increased traffic on gravel roads creates dust, and the crops are tall, both of which reduce visibility at intersections. Our neighbors should not fear going to their mailbox due to our silage trucks.
• People (especially children) should never be allowed near a drive over pile or bunker silo during filling. If people have to approach the area, get on the radio to inform the drivers/operators. Those on the ground in the area should always wear a bright colored orange safety vest.
• Never fill higher than the top of the bunker wall. This happens more than it should and creates a dangerous situation from the day the silage is packed until it is removed. The pack tractor cannot see the edge of the bunker well, if at all. The silage does not get packed well (which leads to poor silage) and the edge of the silage is unstable and more likely to collapse. Don’t do it.
• Be aware of steep slopes. To reduce the risk of tractor roll‐over, a minimum slope of one in three on the sides and end of piles should be maintained.
• Never inspect or make repairs to equipment near the bunker or pile. Equipment should be removed from the area as soon as possible. Repairs almost always involve people on foot and potentially people who may not be familiar with silage activities and the associated risks.

  For more information, contact Justin Waggoner at jwaggon@ksu.edu.

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Early Weaning…It’s About the Cow”

Many cattle producers are weathering an exceptionally dry grazing season and may be considering early weaning calves. Many discussions about early weaning focus on managing lightweight calves and the benefits to the cow and the ranch become lost in the discussion. Weaning calves 30‐60 days earlier than normal (approximately 120‐150 days of age) is an excellent management tool that reduces the nutrient requirements of the cow and reduces daily demand for forage resources. A 450 lb spring‐born calf is capable of consuming approximately 7 lbs of forage per day. A dry 1400 lb cow can easily consume 28 lbs of dry forage per day (2% bodyweight). If we divide the 28 lbs of forage needed to maintain the cow by the 7 lbs spared in a pasture by removing the calf, we learn that for every 4 days that a calf is not grazing with the cow we get one grazing day for the cow. If we wean calves approximately 30‐60 days early, we gain an additional 1‐2 weeks of forage to support the cow. Additionally, research at Kansas State University (Bolte et al, 2007) documented that weaning calves at 100 to 145 days of age increased body condition scores of cows grazing native pastures from an average of 5.46 to 5.85 in 120 days. The change in cow body condition score ranged from 0.25 to 0.50 of a condition score on this study. These results are more impressive if we also consider that forage quality was likely declining and yet these cows were still able to increase body condition. The results of this study demonstrate that the optimum time to improve body condition on cows is immediately following weaning as the nutrient requirements of pregnant cows are lowest during this time. Furthermore, what is the value of improving cow condition in the fall to the ranch in a tough year? A lot, especially when the benefits may include less feed/supplement during the winter and improved breed up in the subsequent production year.

For more information, contact Justin Waggoner at jwaggon@ksu.edu.

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Tips for Managing High Commodity Prices”

The increased commodity prices we are currently experiencing, coupled with the persistence of drought conditions in many regions, have cattle producers considering the costs associated with their feeding and management programs. Here are a few tips that producers should consider when evaluating commodities and feeding programs.

• Evaluate commodities on a cost per unit of energy or crude protein basis. These calculations should be done on a dry matter basis to facilitate an appropriate comparison between dry commodities, such as corn, and wet commodities, such as silage or wet distiller’s grains. Additional cost such as freight, grain processing, and shrink may also be included.
• Maximize use of commodities or ration ingredients produced on-farm. I am sure there are many different versions of the old saying “the best way to make a profit with land and livestock is to walk the crops off the farm.” On-farm commodities, especially forages, are usually more cost-effective than purchased commodities. Increasing the inclusion of on-farm produced commodities in the diet or even including a small amount of lower-cost ingredients like straw may reduce ration costs. However, the impacts of these changes must be evaluated against cattle performance.
• Reduce commodity shrink and feed waste. How much of the commodities you purchase are lost in storage and handling before they make it into the bunk? On most operations, these losses range from 2-10% depending on the commodity. Although these losses are minimal, they do add up (1% of a ton = 20 lbs; 1% of 20 tons = 400 lbs). The cost associated with minimal losses may add substantial cost to a commodity (400 lbs at $250/ton = $50 or $2.50/ton). These losses often occur when commodities are handled or being loaded into feed mixers. The key to reducing commodity loss comes down to increased awareness.
• Focus on efficiency. Feed to gain is always important, period. It is the benchmark by which feeding programs can most easily be evaluated on. Feeding technologies like ionophores or feeding management strategies such as limit-feeding should also be considered to further improve feed conversions.
• Seek the counsel of a nutritionist or other professionals. Nutritionists, not only balance rations but also assist producers with evaluating commodities and estimating the effects of any ration changes on animal performance. Most Extension professionals can also assist producers with evaluating commodities or put them in contact with Extension specialists with training in nutrition.For more information, contact Justin Waggoner at jwaggon@ksu.edu.

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“The Basics of Mineral Nutrition”

Most beef cattle producers recognize that mineral nutrition is important. However, a mineral program is only one component of an operation’s nutrition and management plan. An exceptional mineral program will not compensate for deficiencies in energy, protein, or management. Additionally, the classical signs associated with clinical deficiency of a particular mineral (wasting, hair loss, discoloration of hair coat, diarrhea, bone abnormalities, etc.) are not often or are rarely observed in production settings. The production and economic losses attributed to mineral nutrition in many situations are the result of sub‐clinical deficiencies, toxicities and antagonisms between minerals which are often less obvious (reduced immune function, vaccine response, and sub‐optimal fertility). The figure below, adapted from Wikse (1992), illustrates the effect of trace mineral deficiency on health and performance and the margin between adequate mineral status and clinical deficiency.

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Receiving Protocols”

Receiving cattle management and the process of adapting cattle to grain‐based finishing diets are important components of managing feedlot cattle that can ultimately impact cattle performance for the remainder of the finishing period. What does a typical industry receiving protocol look like and how does the feeding industry transition cattle to a finishing diet? A survey of consulting nutritionists conducted by Samuelson et al. (2016), which summarized responses from 24 consulting nutritionists (servicing more than 14 million head annually), reported that 66% of the feedyards they service allow cattle to rest 12 to 24 hours prior to initial processing and nearly 30% allow cattle to rest more than 24 hours. The majority of the consulting nutritionist (64%) suggested that cattle should be provided access to hay for 4 days after arrival. Approximately 56% of the nutritionists surveyed used multiple step‐up diets with an average forage concentration of 40.7% roughage. On average, four transition diets were used with diets being fed for 6 days before moving to the next diet. Thus, cattle on average are transitioned to the finishing diet within 24 days of feeding the first step‐up diet. Alternatively, approximately 40% of the nutritionists utilize a two‐ration blending program to adapt cattle (effectively a starter and finisher diet). Those that used a two‐ration program recommended 38% roughage in the starter ration and cattle adapted to the finishing diet within approximately 27 days.

For more information, contact Justin Waggoner at jwaggon@ksu.edu.