K-State Research and Extension

“Commercial Feeding Economics”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

A feedyard is a business, but a very different kind of business than a cow/calf operation. It’s important to understand what the revenue streams are and how the feedyard adds value to a beef animal.

The first way feedyards add value is simply by turning grain into added animal weight and fatness, ultimately resulting in a more desirable market animal for the packer. But there are often-overlooked subtleties within this process as well.

Most ranchers, with some investment of capital, time, and training, could effectively background or finish their calves. Specialization and economies of scale make this transition from calf rearing to finishing difficult and potentially unprofitable.

The cow-calf producer is the person in the beef production chain who actually “produces” something; the rancher turns grass (originating from sunshine and CO₂) into a live calf (some might say the process is a bit more complex than that, and perhaps they’re right.) The remaining links in the chain simply modify inputs (calf, corn, grass) into a slightly different output. The stocker, backgrounder, and cattle feeder provide the calf with additional feed, to make a bigger, fatter, calf. And the packer takes the fed animal and reduces it into its constituent components.

All segments add value, but each in a different way. The good news for the stocker and feedlot is that if the price of calves or corn are too high, they have the choice to not feed cattle (probably not a very attractive choice, but it’s there nonetheless). The rancher, on the other hand, has cows and bulls and grass and sunshine, and can’t simply decide to not ranch this year because of high input costs; once you’re out of the game, it may be cost-prohibitive to get back in.

The real challenge is that the segments which add and extract value from an already existing calf are limited by those very same input costs. Most of the profit obtained by feeding cattle is created during the buy or the sell. So when margins are tight, the only real opportunity left is to increase efficiency. This is accomplished either by applying additional technologies to the process of feeding cattle, or by simply adding more units of throughput to the existing system—and usually both.

A short list of the enterprises within a feedyard include: manufacturing a balanced, energy dense diet; adapting cattle to the diet; delivering the diet to the cattle; managing multiple sources of operating capital; and squeeze the utmost efficiency out of the each enterprise within the system. These enterprises require a very specialized skill set which may be very different from the skills needed to run a cow-calf operation.

However, ranchers may have an advantage in reduced cost of feed, labor, or facilities. By acquiring the alternative skill sets needed to step outside the world of beef calf production and into the world of cattle feeding, many ranchers have become successful, effective, and profitable cattle feeders. However, the rancher must not mistake a lifetime of knowledge of cattle with knowledge of cattle feeding.

Before taking on the challenge of finishing calves, bring the needed expertise into the operation in the form of nutritional, veterinary, and business management consulting. With trustworthy counsel, the knowledgeable cattleman can become highly efficient at feeding cattle, and potentially create profit opportunities during economically challenging times for the cow-calf operation.

“Confinement Feeding Cows” 

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Here’s hoping this article is completely irrelevant for 2013.

As spring calving season draws to a close, we move forward to planning for summer grazing. But in the event that spring and summer rains don’t provide for a full summer of grazing for all or part of the cow herd, confinement feeding is one viable option.

Confinement feeding of cows should not be approached lightly; there are many critical factors to consider.

• Do you have adequate feed on-hand?
• Do you have appropriate pens, fences, feed bunks, water tanks, feeding equipment, and processing facilities?
• Can you afford to ship to off-site pasture?
• Do you have access to crop residue?
• Are your cows well-vaccinated?
• Are your costs lower than those of a custom feedyard?
• Where will you calve out the cows next spring?
• Can you alter your breeding, weaning, and culling strategies to minimize costs of shipping and feeding the herd?

Each of these questions leads to numerous additional and essential questions. Culling down the herd, only to rebuild later may be cost-prohibitive. Before you make that very difficult decision, make sure you’ve explored every possible avenue. Involve multiple trusted outside experts to ensure that even non-traditional feeding options and possibilities are explored.

Confinement feeding of cows is not easy, and may not be right for every producer. But if it is feasible, it may be a cost-effective way for producers to keep the factory together through difficult times.

“Mud Mitigation” 

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 for ranchers and cattle feeders. And each of these factors that forces cattle outside of their comfort zone, called the “thermo neutral zone”, steals performance. With respect to mud, however, we know that the cost of fighting mud is high in terms of lost performance, and we can prepare for the inevitability of it.

Researchers have estimated that although pastern-level mud has little effect on performance, hock-deep mud is costly. A 500 lb steer gaining 2.8 lb/day, without any environmental stress, uses exactly half of its daily energy intake just for maintenance. So if the calf is eating 20 lbs of feed, 10 lbs are spent just to “keep the lights on and the furnace running”, and only 10 lbs are available for gain. But if calves are on a diet designed to gain 1.5 lb/day, only about 1/3 of the total energy is available for gain.

If calves are gaining 2.8 lb/day and environmental stress (cold, rain, mud, heat) increases the energy requirement by 10%, it also decreases the amount of energy available for gain by 10%. But if calves are only gaining 1.5 lb/day, a similar increase in energy requirement will reduce gain by nearly 20%.

But mud also decreases feed intake, so in addition to the extra energy required to maintain body functions, intake may steal away energy from the other side of the equation. So it’s conceivable that gain will be reduced by 1/3 to 1/2 when cattle are fighting deep mud.

Preparing for mud won’t totally eliminate these performance costs, but we can reduce the losses:

Mounds within the pen. Cattle should have about 25 ft2 of mound space per animal on top of the mounds (not including the slopes). 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 from the mound to the bunk.

Increase pen space per animal. Whereas 125 ft2 of pen space might be adequate during dry conditions in the summer, 350 ft2 may be barely sufficient during wet conditions. Adapt as conditions dictate. 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.

Raising cattle has many rewards. By preparing pens for the wet times of the year cattle can continue to perform up to expectations, even during difficult environmental conditions. Sometimes, if we burn some diesel, we can help the cattle to actually SAVE energy!

“Ionophores in the Cow Herd”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Use of ionophores in the feedlot industry is commonplace, but they are still a relative novelty in the cow/calf sector. It may help clarify the function and value of ionophores by starting with a refresher course on how the cow’s rumen works.

We often say “the cow feeds the bugs, and the bugs feed the cow.” Rumen bacteria and other microbes break down the complex carbohydrates that are the major components of forage consumed by the cow, and in the process release much smaller compounds that the cow can use for energy. Some types of bacteria create byproduct compounds which have greater total energy value to the cow and produce less energetically wasteful byproducts, such as methane, than other types of bacteria.

Ionophores function by selectively killing certain types of bacteria in the rumen, which produce the less efficient fermentation, improving rumen environment for other bacteria that produce a more useful and efficient fermentation. By shifting the rumen population, the cow can get about 10% more useful energy out of a given feedstuff.

There are 2 ways to use this extra value. Since rumen volume and intake are limited by how much forage cows can consume, thin cows or heifers can get 10% more energy out of the same amount of forage, in order to put on body condition. But equally valuable is that we can actually reduce the forage needs for fleshy cows by 10% while still maintaining body condition.

It’s up to the manager to decide how to make best use of the added efficiency, but given the current situation, it’s nice to have these kind of choices.

“Body Condition Scoring Beef Cows” 

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

In spite of the high cost of feed, ranchers need to be vigilant to the condition in which our cows go into calving. If cows are thin at calving time, there will be reductions in quality and quantity of colostrum, calf vigor, and subsequent fertility during next summer’s breeding season.

Cows which calve thin will delay their return to estrus and breed back late. If these cows do not maintain a 365-day calving cycle, after 1-2 late breedings they could effectively “cull themselves” due to being open at preg check time. Young cows are especially susceptible to this possibility because they are gestating a calf, nursing a calf, and still growing frame and muscle themselves. Unfortunately, young cows are the future of your herd and possibly your most progressive genetics. Hopefully these cows aren’t culled simply for lack of nutrients.

Body condition score (BCS) on a beef cow is the closest thing we have to a dip stick for determining, at a glance, her nutritional status. But scoring cows properly and really benefitting from this tool requires a bit more effort and observation than simply looking at the herd as a whole and thinking, “They look a little thin”. We need to look at each cow individually and make a record. Depending on your calving date, there may still be time to adjust nutrient supply to get the cows into the target BCS by calving time.

To properly evaluate an individual cow, you should look at her topline, brisket, ribs, flank, round, and tail head. The “ideal” or “target” BCS for cows at the time of calving is the BCS = 5. This cow will show the last 1-2 ribs first thing in the morning before feeding, have good fullness of muscle in the round with definite muscle definition, the spine will be apparent but individual vertebrae will not be discernable, and there are no obvious fat depots behind the shoulder or around the tailhead. We would say this cow has a good “bloom”, but isn’t fleshy. A borderline thin cow (BCS = 4) will clearly show 3-4 ribs first thing in the morning, will have no fat depots in the brisket or tailhead, and you can see the individual vertebrae along the topline. The cow still shows some muscle through the round, and you could say she looks “healthy but thin”. In a borderline fleshy cow (BCS = 6) the ribs and vertebrae will not be obvious, as they are covered by fat. The muscling down through the round will be plump and full, but muscle definition is still apparent, and there will be small but noticeable fat deposits behind the shoulder, in the flank, brisket, and around the tailhead.

A change in BCS (from BCS 4 to 5, for example) requires addition of from 75 to 100 lbs live body weight, depending on the mature size or frame size of the cows. If you’re 2 months from the start of calving and need to add 1 BCS, you’ll need to feed the cows for maintenance, last 1/3 of gestation, and an additional 1.0 to 1.5 lb/day gain. This means increasing the amount of good quality hay as well as the amount of supplement. Thin cows (BCS 4 or below) can be separated off and fed a higher plane of nutrition. The argument can be made that this creates “welfare cows”. However, good record-keeping will indicate whether these cows are perennial “hard-keepers” or if they are simply too young or too old to compete with the mature cows. If they’re too young, another year of maturity should cure this; if they’re too old, you may consider culling them after weaning time. The key here is that good record keeping allows YOU to cull intentionally based on productivity, as opposed to the cow “culling herself” due to nutritional infertility because of lack of observation and management.

Body condition scoring the herd is a simple process, and can be done on a large paper tablet. Make columns for BCS 3, 4, 5, and 6 and as you pass through the herd first thing in the morning, make a tick mark for each cow in each of the columns. Count up how many cows you’ve got in the critical scores of 3 and 4. 4’s can be easily fed into the 5 range, but 3’s could potentially not cycle in time to stay in the herd. If 3’s can be fed up into the 4-range, they’ll at least have a chance to breed, albeit late during the normal breeding season.

Take a little time to truly, critically evaluate the nutrient status of your cow herd this winter, and use this simple, but powerful tool to manage the fertility and health of your herd going into next spring, and give yourself full control over the genetics of your herd for years to come.

“Can We Cut Down on Wasted Hay?”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Once upon a time, feed was cheap, but those days are gone. In the “good old” days wasted hay was not given a second thought; today, everything has value. Feeder design and processing of hay can have a major impact on utilization of hay.

K-State research suggests that processing hay into bunks can save between 11 and 15% of the value of the hay fed compared with simply unrolling onto the ground; we’ve probably all seen cows bedding down in hay. This will be worse if the ground is muddy and cows are desperate for a warm, dry, place to bed.

Simply using a bale feeder can reduce wastage by about 10% vs. unrolling onto the ground (again by preventing bedding onto unconsumed hay); however, design of the bale feeder can further reduce wastage.

Feeders with individual feeding stanchions can reduce waste by about 8% vs. those with no stanchions; cows are less likely to fling hay out or head-butt other cows during feeding if their lateral movement is restricted.

Hay feeders with a sheet metal floor reduce waste by 8%; moisture wicking upwards into the bale from the ground will make hay undesirable. An additional 8% of hay value can be retained by using they type of feeder which includes a “cone” in which the bale rests; the bale doesn’t contact the floor directly and cows have easier access to clean hay.

Studies suggest that hay wastage in floor-bottomed hay feeders with a bale cone can have wastage between 2.5-5% of the hay; conversely, wastage of hay fed in the open will range from 20-40%! If hay costs $130 per ton, we feed 24 lb per day for the next 120 days, the hay cost per cow will be $187 per cow. If we reduce wastage from 25% down to 5%, we can save over $30 per cow for the entire winter feeding season! That’s the equivalent of feeding one cow for FREE for every 5 cows in the herd.

“Turning over Rocks”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

This has been a year of constant challenges for beef producers. Forage and grain costs are historically high. But for the creative producer, these challenges also hide opportunities.

A recent study conducted across Kansas demonstrated that ammoniation of low quality forage dramatically improves the nutritional value of wheat straw. A $20/ton investment can yield an increase of $60 in forage value and reduce supplemental protein needs by $30 per cow this winter.

Ionophores have been around for decades but haven’t been used extensively in beef cows. But with elevated forage costs, this may be the perfect time to consider change. Research shows an improvement of 10% forage utilization when Rumensin® is included in beef cow diets. That could reduce forage costs this winter by $10-15 per cow.

Another often overlooked factor is feed wastage. Again, when forage was cheap, this wasn’t a huge deal, but when poor quality forage is costly and good quality forage almost non-existent, every savings is important. Bale feeders are not all created equal. A bale feeder with a cone insert prevents the bale from wicking moisture from the ground and molding. Angled stanchions encourage the cow to remain in the feeder once inside and not turn and fling hay backwards and also prevent the boss cow from moving laterally to push other cows aside. Research suggests bale feeder with the cone insert can save feed wastage by $10-20 per cow for the entire winter feeding season

Taken individually, these aforementioned savings are certainly worth considering. But taken in concert, the $50-70 in total feed savings may mean the difference between culling even deeper and keeping more productive females, and may help producers keep the factory together until better days return.

“The Other Side of Preconditioning”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist 

When we discuss preconditioning, we almost universally think about pre-weaning vaccination. This is probably a mistake.

While on their dam, calves over 3 weeks old rarely get sick. The national cow herd has about 3.5% calf mortality rate, and those losses are split fairly evenly between the 1^st 24 hours after birth, the 1^st 3 weeks after birth, and the rest of the pre-weaning phase. So there is about 1% mortality in calves greater than 3 weeks old. About 1/3 of this loss is due to respiratory problems; the rest is spread out due to digestive problems (22%), weather (10%), lameness, predators, and other causes.

The reason for this 99% success rate, in older calves, is that calves are well-suited for the environment in which they’re living. Aside from the occasional late blizzard, calves aren’t stressed environmentally; aside from the recent drought, calves have nearly all their nutrients provided in abundance from milk and grass; and immune challenge rarely exceeds the ability of the calf to suppress the challenge.

So that begs the question: If we have so few health challenges in the wide-open world of the home ranch, why do some calves undergo such severe health challenges after weaning and shipment to the feedyard?

One answer, covered recently is stress for which the calves are not adequately or properly prepared. But another important way we can prepare calves for life off the home ranch is through proper pre-weaning nutrition.

In some production years, calves are weaned because it quits raining. And we often wean 6 weeks early but we’re already 6 weeks late, nutritionally speaking. The cows may have dried off and the calves may have been sliding sideways (or even backwards) nutritionally for weeks when we finally get them to market. Add this to multiple transitional stressors, and this is a good recipe for a compromised immune system.

To avoid this situation, keep a balanced, palatable, loose mineral near water sources to make sure calves are getting adequate trace minerals. Although creep feeding sometimes does not provide a competitive cost of gain, providing a palatable source of energy and protein will ensure that calves maintain the ability to mount an immune response when the challenge occurs, and the creep feeder can be pulled into a dry lot to ease the transition from pasture to dry lot and bunk feeding.

Once again, the rancher who can capture some of the efficiencies provided by weaning on the ranch of origin may have an advantage over those forced into “blacktop weaning”. Just be sure your marketing plan is designed to capture the full economic premiums available for value-added calves, in order to offset the added expense of preparing the calves for life off the ranch.

“The Elephant in the Room”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist

Calf health is probably the most scrutinized yet poorly understood areas of cattle feeding. The beef industry has voluminous data on sickness and death loss in various classes of feedlot cattle. We tirelessly investigate the science behind modern vaccines and antimicrobials. And yet the U.S. beef industry has not substantially improved the health outcome of feedlot cattle in 30 years.

Vaccine technology has continued to progress and producers certainly have better knowledge of the use and administration of vaccines than only a generation ago. The veterinary community has, necessarily, increased pharmacovigilance in order to preserve the efficacy of available antimicrobials. Most diagnostic labs currently keep a running database of antimicrobial resistance in populations of respiratory organisms.

And yet, in spite of all our advanced technology and knowledge, the most effective program for reducing respiratory disease in calves, is reducing stress.

Stress is the enemy of immunity. We see this in cattle, and we see this in our own human bodies. In otherwise healthy people, the greatest risk of cold and flu comes during or after periods of stress. Stress changes the way the body responds to invading pathogens—either viral or bacterial.

Most respiratory bacteria can be isolated from the respiratory tract of healthy cattle. But it usually requires the damage caused by a viral invasion for these bacteria to take over. The simple presence of viral pathogens is not sufficient to elicit disease, either. The critical factor causing a “tipping point” is stress.

Stress can come in the form of inclement weather, abrupt weaning, isolation, commingling with unfamiliar cattle, extended transport, rough handling, mud, dusty conditions, etc. Unfortunately, many of these conditions are unavoidable when receiving calves into the feedyard. We simply must deal with the outcomes of these stressful conditions.

Fortunately, in home-weaned and home-raised calves, we CAN prevent many, if not all, of these disease-causing stressors. By raising the calves locally, you can dramatically reduce or eliminate transport, commingling, and isolation. Through low-stress, quiet handling techniques we can (and should) eliminate rough handling. Using fence-line weaning or other techniques we can reduce weaning stress. We can affect pen conditions by scraping and bedding, and we can provide shelter to alleviate poor weather conditions.

The rancher who weans and raises calves at home has a tremendous advantage over commercial feedyards with respect to health outcome of weaned calves. While a commercial feedyard must simply manage health to the best of their ability in spite of the numerous stressors, ranchers can prevent a huge proportion of disease simply by reducing stress.

And with estimates of lost profitability of $150-200 for sick calves, reducing stress sounds like money in the bank.

“Ammoniation of Forages Improves Feeding Value”

by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist 

In a market such as the Summer of 2012, everything has value. Ingredients we never would have considered as suitable for feeding a few years ago are now in high demand. But while we want to give every opportunity due consideration, we’ve got to be sure to know what the true nutritional value of a feedstuff is, as well as any potential for toxicity.

Wheat straw has traditionally been fed to beef cows and can provide energy to gestating cows if supplemented with protein; however, ammoniation of the straw can effectively improve its feed value.   Lignin (the “glue” that holds the cells together and gives strength to the stalk) normally prevents ruminal microbes from breaking down much of the cellulose in mature forages. Ammoniation breaks down the bonds between lignin and the cellulose and hemicellulose, allowing access for rumen microbes, and releasing energy for the cow to use.

Ammoniation not only adds nitrogen and increases the crude protein content of the forage, but also improves digestibility and consumption of the forage as well. Simply, ammoniated wheat straw has protein and digestibility values similar to moderate quality prairie hay.

The ammoniation process is relatively simple and inexpensive. Stack the straw bales in either a 3-2 or 3-2-1 pyramid. Leave several inches between bales to allow ammonia to flow freely between bales. Cover the stack with a single sheet of 6 mil plastic and completely seal the plastic around the base of the stack with soil. Any holes in the plastic should be sealed with tape.

Insert a hose from the anhydrous ammonia nurse tank under the plastic at the base of the stack at the midway point of the stack and seal the plastic around the hose. A manifold can be used to disperse the ammonia more evenly throughout the bale stack.

Most sources recommend applying anhydrous ammonia at the rate of 3% of the bales’ dry weight; however, some evidence suggests that 1.5% may be nearly as efficacious but for a reduced cost. Studies are currently underway at K-State to evaluate these 2 levels of addition. At a 3% addition rate, 60 lbs of anhydrous ammonia will be added for each ton of hay. For simplicity, a nurse tank can be used containing the exact amount of anhydrous ammonia for the amount of hay in the stack, and the tank can be allowed to empty completely. Apply the ammonia slowly to prevent rapid expansion and breaking of the plastic.

WARNING: Anhydrous ammonia is very toxic to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Therefore, only conduct ammoniation in an open, well-ventilated area, always work upwind from the ammonia source, and always wear goggles and rubber gloves when exposed to the anhydrous ammonia. Have abundant clean water available in the event of exposure of the eyes or skin to the anhydrous ammonia.

The time required for the chemical breakdown to occur depends on ambient temperature: allow 1-2 weeks to cure if daily temperatures are in the 80’s or 90’s; increase this time to 4-6 weeks if ammoniating during the winter. Prior to feeding, remove the plastic and allow the bales to aerate for several days to allow excess ammonia to escape.

Corn stalks can also be successfully ammoniated and forage quality effectively improved in a similar manner. The value of wheat straw and corn stalks can be dramatically improved by ammoniation. The cost of ammoniation is presently $30-40 per ton of forage, which makes the ammoniated crop residue more cost-effective than prairie hay which might need to be hauled from a distance. In the present market, all forage has some value; however, it’s imperative to test all forages to determine what that value is.