K-State Research and Extension

“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.

“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!