K-State Research and Extension

“Grain Processing Matters”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Livestock feeders often may feel like they are held hostage by the vagaries of the rest of the global market, particularly when it comes to feed cost. But there are a few things you can do to make sure you’re getting the most out of your substantial investment.

Making sure you have an active implant with less than 100 days working in the cattle at all times is one idea. Another is ensuring adequate extent of grain processing to get thorough digestion and efficient utilization of the grain.

For decades, Midwestern feedlot nutritionists have recommended that “a coarse crack” is sufficient to get acceptable levels of digestion without risking bloat and acidosis. Interestingly, however, in the high plains, away from the corn belt, the feedlot industry felt the need for extensive grain processing 40 years ago when we all lived in a kinder, gentler, grain market. Now that grain prices have risen to stratospheric levels, we need a new paradigm. Some research data suggests we can improve the efficiency of corn utilization by 4-5%—$20/head in today’s corn market—by fine grinding (1,000-2,000 microns) instead of coarse cracking the grain.

The other factor which can help us change our paradigm is our ubiquitous use of wet corn milling byproducts. These products are routinely priced at a value to corn, and are often included from 20-60% of the ration dry matter. This makes the diet a completely different beast than what nutritionists had to work with in the ‘70’s, ‘80’s, and ‘90’s. If all the ingredients are dry, finer particles will tend to sift through the diet mixture and fall to the bottom of the bunk. If these fine particles contain mostly rapidly fermentable starch, there’s a good risk of bloat.

Although the particle size of distillers grains is very fine, due to their fibrous nature, distillers grains fines do not present nearly as great of risk for causing bloat as corn fines. And the high moisture content improves the positional stability of the total mixture such that the fine particles remain mixed as opposed to settling to the bottom of the bunk. Those fines which do settle out will be a blend of corn fines and distillers grains, with a reduced risk of bloat.

Grinding corn to hog-feed consistency flies in the face of convention. But if you are using at least 20% (dry matter basis) of a wet milling byproduct ingredient, consider grinding the grain to a finer particle size to ensure maximum utilization of your sizable investment.

“Mud – Save Yourself Some Trouble”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist 

As cattle people we grudgingly accept the various natural elements as part of the cost of doing business. Rain, snow, ice, and extreme temperatures are part of life in Kansas for ranchers and cattle feeders. And each of these factors that moves animals outside of their comfort zone, called the “thermal neutral zone”, steals a measure of performance. With respect to mud, however, we know that the cost of fighting mud in terms of lost performance is high, and we need to prevent these losses if we can.

Researchers have estimated that although pastern-level mud has little effect on performance, hock-deep mud is costly. Daily gain is reduced by 1/3 to ½ when cattle are fighting mud. Mud is the “gift” that just keeps giving, and hurts performance in several ways:

1. The energy required to reach the bunk or water trough increases dramatically when slogging through mud, so a large part of their daily energy intake is lost to this expenditure;
2. The stress of fighting mud will actually discourage cattle from making the trek to the bunk, thus reducing their intake;
3. Cattle have a hard time finding a comfortable place to lay down and rest, causing an increase in energy wasted just standing around instead of resting;
4. Wet hide from laying down in the mud will cause cold stress to increase because they don’t have a good, dry, insulating hair coat.

When we consider that under stress-free conditions, only about half of animals’ normal daily energy intake goes toward gain, all these increases in energy expenditures dramatically cut into what is left over for gain.

Preparing for mud won’t eliminate these costs, but we can reduce them. Here are some suggestions:

1. GET THE SNOW OUT! Feeders can save themselves and their cattle a tremendous amount of stress and lost performance by removing snow from feeding pens BEFORE it melts and becomes water—and MUD! A rule of thumb is that an inch of snowfall contains about 1/10 inch of rain moisture equivalent. But because the snow will melt slowly, the resulting moisture is allowed to permeate the pen surface and little will run off, creating extremely soft pen conditions. So think of 10 inches of snow like a 3-day drizzle dumping an inch of total moisture. A slow drizzle is better for crops and pastures because the ground can soak up the moisture; and it’s harder on pens for the same reason.
2. Build and repair mounds within the pen. Cattle should have about 25 ft² of mound space per animal in the pen. Mounds should have a slope of about 1:5 on the sides to facilitate moisture to flow away from the cattle and the ‘valleys’ between mounds should slope about 3-4% away from the bunk. The end of the mound nearest the bunk should connect to the concrete pad so cattle don’t have to slog through deep mud to get to the bunk.
3. Increase pen space per animal. Whereas 125 ft² of pen space is sufficient during dry summer conditions, 350 ft² may be not nearly sufficient during wet conditions. Adapt as conditions dictate.
4. Smooth pen surfaces whenever the weather allows. The longer muddy conditions persist, the worse the pen conditions become and cattle will have an even greater difficulty moving throughout the pen.

Living and raising cattle in Kansas has many rewards. By preparing pens ahead of time for the wet times of the year we can improve animal comfort and performance in order to reap the rewards.

“An Open Winter”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Lack of precipitation during the winter is a double edged sword: moisture is essential for spring grass to come on strong and for water sources to fill; frozen moisture blowing sideways at 35 mph is hard on both man and beast. So although we openly breathe a sigh of relief for every winter day without a blizzard that same lack of snow fall means one more rain we’ll need come spring.

But there is an additional potential hidden pitfall to lack of snow cover: Managerial Overconfidence. Just because we can see grass on the hillsides or crop aftermath in the fields where cows are grazing, doesn’t mean we can let those cows entirely fend for themselves.

The first reality is that, although cows are designed to utilize low quality forages, such as dormant grass and crop residues, they can make much better use of it with appropriate supplementation. For example, a 1,300 lb cow can eat roughly 20 lb of low quality (<7% crude protein) forage without supplementation, and digest roughly 50% of it for a net intake of 10 lb of total digestible nutrients (TDN). If we supplement those same cows with 3 lb of soybean meal or 4.5 lb of distiller’s grains daily, those same cows will consume 24 lb of forage and digest 55% of it for a net intake of 13.2 lb of TDN—that’s a 32% increase! There’s no free lunch in production agriculture, but the returns from protein supplementation on a low quality forage diet is as close as we can get.

The second thing to realize is that just because we can see grass and not a snow bank doesn’t mean that the cows aren’t fighting off the winter cold. For 1,300 lb cows with a good, dry, winter hair coat, the thermoneutral zone is about 30-32°F. That’s the wind chill temperature, not simply air temperature. For every 10° that the effective temperature (wind chill) drops below 32°, the cow’s energy needs increase by 10%. So if the effective temperature drops from 30° to 10°, and feed isn’t in excess, we’ll need to supply an additional 5 lbs of hay. If temperature drops from 30° to 10° below zero, we need to supply an additional 10 lbs of hay.

Finally, know what your cows weigh. Genetics have changed dramatically in the past 20-30 years; cows are bigger and heavier. The average cow in the Angus Association weighs about 1,350 lbs. So unless the bulls siring your replacement heifers have had lower than average yearling weight EPDs, your mature cows probably weight 1,300 lbs too. The downside of underestimating your cows’ weight is that for every 100 lbs you underestimate cow weight, you’ll underfeed the cows by about 1 lb of hay and 0.33 lbs of protein supplement. You’ll save on feed costs in the short run, but cow body condition will slowly slip downward, and cows will be undernourished at calving time, resulting in reduced calf health, greater number of days required to breed back, and reduced breed back percentage. Make a point to weigh a handful of cows at some point when they’re in good body condition. If they’re thin, add 100 lbs per cow to the scale weight to reflect what the cow’s target weight should be.

“Watch the Fat”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Since the advent of cattle feeding, we learned early on that cattle make very good use of by-product feeds that monogastrics—pigs, chickens, and people—can use very little of productively, especially if cellulose—fiber—makes up the majority of the feed. The corollary to that guideline is that if cattle have to compete with humans for a feedstock, humans win.

Three decades ago, wheat was a common ingredient in feedlot diets throughout the high plains. Today, the opportunity only occasionally presents itself due to temporary pricing inversions. We like our bread and Twinkies—humans win.

A similar, but more subtle phenomenon has taken place gradually over the past few years, since the ethanol industry boom began. Corn oil is worth more marketed to humans as that—corn oil—than to livestock in the form of distillers’ grains (DG), and the ethanol plants have developed novel technologies to extract an increasing amount of that oil, although not nearly all, from the by-product.

I am a capitalist and am in favor of ethanol companies finding a way to increase their income from their secondary product streams, but as a cattle nutritionist, I also must be aware of changes the removal of oil will make on the value of the by-product for cattle feed.

Early on, the fat content of corn DG was commonly between 11 and 13%; however, today, some corn DG with fat levels near 8%, and some as low as 4%. Fat in cattle feed contains about 2.25 times more energy than carbohydrates, so removing fat such that the void left is filled with predominantly cellulose, would be expected to result in a lower energy feed.

Recent research conducted at South Dakota State University concluded that for every 1% decrease in fat content of the finishing diet, we should expect a 1 Mcal NEg / cwt reduction in energy value. So if DG makes up 40% of the finishing diet, and fat content of those DG was formerly 12% and is now 8%, we’ve lost 1.6% fat in the final diet, or 1.6 Mcal NEg/cwt.

Wet DG with solubles has about 15% greater NEg vs. dry-rolled corn. If the value of DG over corn was previously 15% in a dry-rolled corn-based finishing diet, we can reasonably expect the new value to be about 12.5% over corn. So if we had been paying $5 / bushel for corn, we should expect a decrease in feed value of the DG of $5.24 / ton on a 100% dry matter basis.

More broadly, if the fat percentage in DG has decreased over time, the feed value of DG for a cattle finishing diet is also decreased, and the astute cattle feeder should adjust pricing expectations accordingly.

“Zilmax Update”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

You may have heard a great deal about Zilmax® (zilpaterol hydrochloride) lately in either the popular or beef industry press. Zilmax is a growth promotant feed additive in the class called beta agonists, which is used during the final days of the finishing phase to increase carcass weight and lean muscle mass in beef cattle.

Beta agonists have been used in the U.S. cattle finishing industry since 2004 and in the swine industry since 2000, at which times ractopamine hydrochloride was made available for use in cattle (Optaflexx®) and swine (Paylean®). Zilmax was approved for use in cattle in 2006 and became widely available in 2007.

Since their respective approval dates, implementation of both beta agonists increased steadily through 2012 when approximately 70-80% of the finished cattle in the U.S. received a beta agonist. Extreme heat stress conditions occurred in various cattle feeding areas during the summers of 2011, 2012, and 2013, which coincided with greater than anticipated late-term mortality. Because growth in beta agonist use, and Zilmax use in particular increased during that same time frame, questions surrounded the coincidence. However, because Zilmax increases the lean muscle mass and reduces fat and marbling content of the carcass, cattle are typically fed for an additional number of days and to a greater finished weight, which mitigates the marbling reduction. This increase in number of days fed and the weight of cattle when finished confounds the investigation into changes in heat-related mortality.

In August 2013, a number of packing plants reported that a small percentage of cattle which had been fed Zilmax were “reluctant to move” after arrival at the packing plant, and announced that they would suspend acceptance of cattle fed Zilmax. Merck Animal Health, the manufacturer of Zilmax, suspended sale of Zilmax on August 16, 2013.

In relation to these decisions by the manufacturer and the packing firms, it is important to note that no food safety issues were involved. The decisions were instead made to provide the industry with the opportunity to investigate the issue of certain animals’ reluctance to move after arrival at the packing facility. Also, Optaflexx has not been similarly implicated in this issue.

Merck, Elanco (manufacturer of Optaflexx), the major packing companies, and the beef industry are pursuing investigations into potential causative factors contributing to the impaired mobility issue. Unfortunately, with the cessation of summer heat conditions, and with the withdrawal of Zilmax from the marketplace, thus changing feeding and marketing decisions, it is difficult to duplicate the conditions which may have combined to cause the impaired mobility issue. However, research models are being developed which may provide answers and management practices which will prevent the issue in the future.

“Be Flexible” 

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

For cattle feeders young and old, it’s important, albeit a little academic, to recognize that commodity prices have likely been the most volatile in history. Certainly there have been brief periods of volatility—checkmarks in a relatively stable curve, but since 2005, it seems like the only thing that has been consistent has been change.

From a nutritionist’s perspective, the first element to consistent cattle performance is a constant diet. In the 1960’s and 70’s nutritionists learned the nutritional value of different grains, by-products, and roughages and liberally and frequently alternated between them. If a few loads of an alternative could be had on the cheap, it was snapped up and squeezed into the diet, often leading to weekly changes in the diet. However, throughout the 1990’s and 2000’s, because feed ingredient prices became fairly stable, the finishing diet in a feedyard changed little—if at all—for months at a time.

From a performance and predictability standpoint there is something to be said for stability. But in business there are two kinds of operators: the Quick and the Dead. If you have sufficiently deep pockets, you can ride out price fluctuations. Or if you’re in a very favorable long-term contract, you can ignore opportunity ingredients. But for the cattle feeder who is feeding fairly hand-to-mouth, it can definitely pay to keep one’s eyes open for opportunity.

Unfortunately, this kicks open the back door on performance predictability. Although our USDA Grading standards ensure that grains are fairly consistent, there is no such thing for by-products and roughages—buyer beware. And even if the ingredient is consistent from load to load, it will be different from what it replaces, so nutritional adjustments will likely be needed in terms of roughage percentage or the makeup of the supplement.

There is value in consistency, and there is opportunity in remaining nimble. When something is gained, something is often lost. Remain attuned to the marketplace to capture pricing advantages, but make sure you trust your nutritionist to make the appropriate, timely, adjustments in the remainder of the diet to keep cattle on track.

“High Moisture Corn”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

For feeders that are willing to put in a little extra work at corn harvest, high moisture grain can be an excellent addition to their cattle feeding operation.

Properly ensiled high moisture corn has nearly equivalent digestibility and energy content compared to steam-flaked corn, yet doesn’t require the extensive up-front capital outlay. Harvesting corn early in the season can reduce field losses due to ear drop, and doesn’t require extra mechanical drying. Longer-growing season varieties may be used to capitalize on additional growing days, resulting in greater yield.

However, it does require extra planning, preparation, and management to make sure a rapid and complete anaerobic fermentation occurs.

There are 5 critical steps to putting up and getting the most from your high moisture corn. They are:

1. Harvesting the grain at 24-33% moisture,
2. fine grinding the grain,
3. uniformly applying a quality commercial microbial silage inoculant designed for high moisture grains,
4. effectively packing the grain as it is added to the pile
5. completely sealing the grain pile or bunker

Rapid fermentation after packing results in accumulation of acids, reducing the pH of the grain pile which prevents mold growth. Once the pH of the grain drops down to about 4.5, the grain can be stored for a long period, provided oxygen is excluded. If oxygen is permitted into the system, mold can form, spoiling the grain.

High moisture corn is more highly and rapidly fermented in the rumen. If fed as part of a high-grain finishing diet, an additional element of caution and nutritional management is required. However, if grain processing by-products such as distillers grains or gluten feed are included in the diet at or above 30% of diet dry matter, or if the high moisture corn is used in a forage-based grower diet, the increased fermentability should not adversely affect performance.

Harvesting corn at high moisture and properly storing the grain can improve utilization of the grain for any cattle producer. Make sure to get quality technical advice during harvest, processing, storage, and feeding to make the most of this opportunity.

“Get Better Every Day”

 by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

 Prior to initiation of the Beef Quality Assurance program back in the early 1990’s, The National Beef Quality Audit had shown that 22% of top butts were damaged with injection site lesions. Injections of high value cuts don’t simply damage the tissue from the actual scar caused by the needle and the compound injected, but the tissue trauma and the subsequent healing process actually makes the meat around the injection tougher as much as 4 inches away from the injection site.

Once the data became well-known, U.S. beef producers at every level collectively and individually asked, “Why are we ruining our own product?” Family, friends, neighbors, veterinarians, university scientists, and extension personnel all were asking the same question and telling each other the same answer: “Just STOP!”

The results of that level of universal, coordinated, and uni-directional mutual self-improvement effort were resounding, if not even astounding. The subsequent beef quality audit said that injection site lesions damaged less than 3% of top butts.

When everyone is saying the same thing, and then reinforcing words with actions and changes in formerly commonplace practices, nearly miraculous changes can take place. Once was normal or common to see someone vaccinate an entire snake full of cows or calves, poking each one in the top butt because it was easy. And today, if we saw someone do the exact same thing, we’d be shocked. Huge changes can be made if an entire industry decides that the changes will make us all better.

Animal welfare is the modern equivalent of the injection sites of twenty years ago. An astounding change has occurred throughout the beef industry in attitudes, practices, and facilities—for the better.

We have always cared for our livestock, but we accepted situations which were less than ideal as “normal”. Today, we have an eye toward improvement of every facet of our operations, from sub-optimal facilities to improving our approach to low stress handling and general stockmanship.

We can change anything if we decide, individually and collectively, that the change will make us better.

“Grain Processing Matters” 

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist 

As the cost of grain rises, the livestock feeder is held hostage by the vagaries of the rest of the global economy. But there are a few things you can do to make sure you’re getting the most out of your substantial investment.

Making sure you have an active implant with less than 100 days working in the cattle at all times is one idea. Another is ensuring adequate extent of grain processing to get thorough digestion and efficient utilization of the grain.

For decades, nutritionists have recommended that “a coarse crack” is sufficient to get acceptable levels of digestion without risking bloat and acidosis. Now that grain prices have risen to levels we once considered stratospheric, we need a new paradigm. Some research data suggests we can improve the efficiency of corn utilization by 4-5%—$15/head in today’s corn market—by fine grinding (~2,000 microns) instead of coarse cracking the grain.

The other factor which can help us change our paradigm is our nearly-ubiquitous use of wet corn milling byproducts. These products are routinely priced at a value to corn, and are often included in the finishing diet at 20-60% of the ration dry matter. This makes the diet a completely different beast than what nutritionists had to work with in the ‘70’s, ‘80’s, and ‘90’s. If all of the ingredients are dry, then fine particles will sift through the diet mixture and fall to the bottom of the bunk. If these fine particles contain mostly rapidly fermentable starch from finely ground corn, there’s a good risk of bloat. However, that’s not the case today.

Although the particle size of distillers grains is very fine, their fibrous nature means that the fine particles of distillers grains do not present nearly as great of risk for causing bloat as corn fines. And the high moisture content of the byproducts improves the positional stability of the total mixture such that the fine particles remain mixed as opposed to settling to the bottom of the bunk. Those fines which do settle out will be a blend of corn fines and distillers grains, with a reduced risk of bloat.

Producers can send off a sample of processed grain for particle size analysis, but the goal is to have all particles under 3mm in size. This maximizes ruminal and total tract utilization of starch and increases efficiency of feed use. While having a uniform blend of ¼ and 1/8 kernels looks good, it’s not going to help you get the most from your corn.

Producers may wish to have their extension specialist or feed supplier collect fecal samples for starch analysis. (1) Combine 5-10 freshly voided fecal samples (about a golf ball-size each) in a plastic bag from 5-10 different cattle which have all been on the finishing diet for at least 3 weeks; (2) freeze the samples immediately after collection; (3) clearly identify the sample bags with producer name and pen number; (4) include a note requesting a fecal starch analysis, your email, and your billing address; (5) send the sample to the lab overnight such that it will arrive prior to the weekend. The goal is to have fecal starch <10% on a dry matter basis; if starch is >20%, there’s a fair amount of money being left on the table.

Grinding corn to hog-feed consistency flies in the face of convention. But if you are using at least 20% (dry matter basis) of a wet milling byproduct ingredient, consider grinding the grain to a finer particle size to ensure maximum utilization of your sizable investment.

“Heat Stress Abatement: Prevention IS the Cure”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Summer is upon us and is promising some record temperatures and heat conditions across the Midwest, and we’re just coming into the time of greatest concern for heat stress. As beef producers and those of us who support the beef industry, it’s our duty to prepare for all the possible contingencies that summer weather can bring. So, that being said, what are the tools we have in our toolbox to be better prepared to deal with the heat?

1. Pasture cattle fare better than confined cattle during heat events, provided that they can find adequate shade, elevated areas to catch more breeze, and abundant water quality and quantity to alleviate heat stress during the hottest times of the day.

2. Black-hided cattle sustain the greatest challenge due to absorption of more solar radiation compared to light-hided cattle, and the problem is exacerbated in heavy, long-fed cattle. Heat stress is caused by the combination of actual temperature, high humidity, lack of wind, and lack of cloud cover.

3. Shade works. Keeping solar radiation to a minimum during extreme heat events may eliminate the need for emergency intervention. Even some kind of temporary or portable shade structures which can be placed in pens prior to extreme heat events will give cattle relief and get you through the worst heat episodes.

4. Wind breaks contribute to heat stress. Even if no extreme heat stress may be evident, reducing potentially cooling breezes can make cattle less likely to consume and perform up to their full potential. If wind breaks are needed for the winter, consider some form of temporary wind break which can be removed for the summer months.
5. Building mounds isn’t just for during wet, muddy, conditions. Cattle will climb mounds for improved access to breezes. Cattle don’t lie: if they’re using shades and using mounds, they are probably more comfortable.

6. Extra drinking water space may provide comfort and alleviate the demand on the water system during peak heat hours. Remember: cattle cool themselves through evaporative cooling from their lungs and this can move a tremendous volume of water which needs to be replaced. Extra water space can be in the form of steel tanks or even feed bunks with tarps and sand bags on the ends to convert part of the bunk to an extended water tank. Space is critical as dominant cattle may simply stand at the water trough to breathe the cooler air over the water, and prevent others from getting needed water.

7. Bedding the pen with straw or light-colored hay provides a lighter-colored, reflective surface to provide cattle a (relatively) cooler place to lie down and rest, thus reducing their activity and comfort during already stressful conditions.

8. Sprinkling cattle may be essential. Spraying cattle is costly, time-consuming, and can contribute to increased humidity within the pen, but it also may be the difference between life and death for extremely heat-stressed cattle. Be hyper-vigilant for signs of extreme heat distress: open mouthed, labored, unabated, panting. Both cattle surface temperature and soil surface temperature are reduced as a result of spraying water which then evaporates, taking heat out of the surface. Have a full water truck on hand when the forecast calls for elevated temps, high humidity, minimal wind, and lack of cloud cover.

As summer heat comes at us, we all need to be prepared. Shade, extra water space, mounds to elevate cattle to catch extra breeze, and removal of wind breaks can help cattle effectively alleviate heat stress. Preparation is much more effective at reducing the costs of heat stress than interventions after extreme heat stress is obvious.