Beef Tips

Category: Feedlot Facts

Early Weaning: How Early and How Much Will I Gain?

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

A couple of questions have come up recently regarding early weaning: 1). How early can I wean a calf and 2.) What is the expected benefit of early-weaning? Early weaning is not a term that is well defined, but in general refers to weaning a calf at less than 200 days of age (conventional weaning 180-220 days of age). Calves raised in conventional extensive environments have a functional rumen at approximately 45 days of age and are capable of using dry feeds. However, various research suggests that 120-150 days of age is optimal for implementing an early program. In terms of what can be gained by early weaning. Early weaning is one of the easiest ways to manage cow nutrient demands and reduces the energy requirements of the cow by 25-30%. This effectively means that the nutrients consumed by the cow that were being used to sustain lactation may now be used to improve cow condition. A study designed to evaluate preconditioning duration conducted at K-State documented that cow body condition scores improved as calf age at weaning decreased. The cows on this study remained on native grass pastures following weaning and the observed increase in body condition score in this study occurred over a 60 day period. The results of this study suggest that early weaning calves may improve body condition of cows (up to 0.5 Body condition score) grazing native pastures late in the grazing season.

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

Cow Herd Mineral Supplement Selection Tips: Phosphorous

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

It can be challenging to select a mineral program, as there are many different products and mineral formulations currently available. When evaluating mineral supplements the phosphorous concentration may be used as guide to determine if the mineral fits the production stage of the herd and forage base. Phosphorous is one of the most common mineral deficiencies in grazing systems around the world and is one of the primary reasons we provide mineral supplements to grazing beef cattle. The table below illustrates the amount of phosphorous required in a mineral supplement required for cattle at various production stages consuming forages with different phosphorous concentrations. Forage phosphorous concentrations vary and are typically greatest during the spring and lowest in the winter. In Kansas, phosphorous content of native range in the spring is typically between 0.15 and 0.20%. Thus, the maintenance requirements of lactating cow (20 lbs milk/d) could be met by a mineral with at least 8% phosphorous (average of 6 and 10 in the table).

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

March 2023: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., KSU Extension Beef Systems Specialist, Garden City, KS

“Focus on Feedlots: Cattle Performance in 2022”

The K-State Focus on Feedlots is a monthly publication that summarizes feedlot performance and closeout data from cooperating commercial cattle feeding operations in Kansas. Each year I summarize the data from the monthly reports, in an effort to document annual trends in fed cattle performance and cost of gain. The tables below summarizes the average performance and closeout data reported for steers and heifers in 2022.

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

February 2023: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Feedyard 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 duration of the finishing period. What does a typical industry receiving protocol look like and how do commercial cattle feeders transition cattle to a finishing diet. A survey of consulting nutritionists conducted by Samuelson et al., (2016), summarized responses from 24 consulting nutritionists (servicing more than 14,000,000 head annually) and reported that 66% of the feed yards they service allow cattle to rest 12 to 24 hours prior to initial processing, and approximately 30% allow cattle to rest more than 24 hours. The majority of the consulting nutritionist (64%) suggest that cattle 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 4 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 2-ration blending program to adapt cattle (effectively a starter and finisher diet). Those that used a 2-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.

January 2023: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Body Condition Scoring: A Herd Management Tool”

Body condition Scoring is one of the most valuable management tools at the disposal of the cattle manager. This one number gives us a direct indication of an individual cow’s previous plane of nutrition and future reproductive capability. Although the individual body condition scores are important, we don’t necessarily manage individual cows, we manage groups of cows. Thus, it is important for us to look beyond the individual scores and look at the distribution of body condition scores within the herd. If we have a herd (Herd 1) with an average body condition score of 5 that is essentially characterized by the classic bell curve, with a few thin cows (3’s), the bulk of cows in the middle (4’s and 5’s) and few over‐conditioned cows (7’s) everything is good. Alternatively, we could have a herd (Herd 2) with an average body condition score of 5 that is essentially the result of a few thin cows (3’s) and some over conditioned cows (6’s and 7’s). Body conditioning scoring also has more value when it is done on the same group of cows at multiple times during the production year. If Herd 2 was scored at calving and had been previously scored at weaning and had an essentially normal distribution (similar to Herd 1). We need to ask ourselves what happened. Did we change anything? Although these examples are somewhat extreme, they illustrate that we have to look beyond the individual body condition scores of cows at one point during the production year to get the most of body condition scoring.

We have several resources on body condition scoring available on the web that may be accessed at https://www.asi.k‐state.edu/research‐and‐extension/beef/feedandwater.html including the quick reference guide to body condition scoring shown below.

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

December 2022: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Feedyard Receiving Protocols”

The fall can be an exceptionally challenging time of year to start calves on feed, regardless if calves are home‐raised, weaned calves, or newly received calves in a commercial feedyard. Successfully managing newly weaned or received calves and the process of adapting cattle to growing and finishing diets are important components of managing cattle that ultimately affect cattle performance for the remainder of the feeding period. What does a typical industry receiving protocol look like and how does the cattle feeding industry transition cattle to a finishing diet? A recent survey of consulting nutritionists conducted by Samuelson et al., (2016), which summarized responses from twenty‐four consulting nutritionists (servicing more than 14,000,000 head annually) reported that 66% of the feed yards 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 nutritionists (64%) suggested that cattle should be provided access to hay for four 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 2‐ration blending program to adapt cattle (effectively a starter and finisher diet). Those that used a 2‐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.

November 2022: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Cost of Gain in Kansas Feedlots”

One of the more common questions I have addressed recently is “What is the current cost of gain in feedyards?” The September edition of the Kansas State University Focus on Feedlots reported an average cost of gain of $131.34/cwt for steers and $142.78/cwt heifers marketed in September. The average reported projected cost of gain for cattle placed on feed in October was $144.20/cwt for steers and $150.60/cwt. for heifers. The figures below illustrate feedlot cost of gain for steers and heifers from 2020, 2021, through September, 2022. Cost of gain for both steers and heifers has steadily increased since January/February of 2021. The highest reported cost of gains for steers and heifers in the Focus on Feedlot data (Jan. 1990‐present) occurred in March 2013 ($133.72/cwt. for steers and $136.76/cwt. for heifers). Thus, the average reported cost of gain for heifers in August ($142.18/cwt.) and September ($142.78/cwt), 2022 have now become the highest cost of gains reported in the Focus on Feedlot data.

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

October 2022: Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Forage Analysis: What Numbers Do I Need?”

One the more common questions I receive with regard to analytical testing of forages and other feedstuffs is “I have the sample, now what do I test for or what analysis package should I select?”

The basic components that nutritionists need to evaluate a feedstuff or develop a ration are dry matter or moisture, crude protein, an estimate of the energy content of the feedstuff (Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN), Net Energy for Maintenance (NEm), Net Energy for gain (NEg), and the macro minerals, Calcium and Phosphorous. These are the most basic numbers that are required, but including some additional analyses in the report can give us additional insight into the quality of the feedstuff or improve our ability to predict animal performance, which is the primary reason we analyze feedstuffs. I recommend that the report include acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). The amount of NDF in forage reflects the amount of cell wall contents (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) within the sample. The NDF fraction is often associated with the respective bulkiness of forage and is correlated with dry matter intake of the forage or feedstuff. Therefore, the amount of NDF may be used to estimate the expected dry matter intake associated with the forage. The ADF number represents the amount of cellulose and lignin within the forage and is correlated with the respective digestibility of the forage. In general, a higher ADF value is associated with forage that has a greater proportion cellulose and lignin and would likely be more mature. Additionally, the ADF fraction is used to calculate the energy estimates TDN, NEm, and NEg that appear on the report. There are a number of different mathematical equations that the testing laboratory may use to calculate these numbers, based on the type of sample (corn silage, alfalfa, grass hay, etc.). If the ADF is included in the report, the nutritionist can adjust or recalculate the energy estimates, if necessary.

If the forage will be fed in combination with a byproduct feed, such as wet distiller’s grain, including an analysis for sulfur can be beneficial if the forage will be used in a growing or feedlot ration. Additionally, if the forage is a known nitrate accumulator (forage sorghums, sudangrass) or may have been stressed due to drought, including a nitrate analysis should always be considered, especially if the forage will be fed to pregnant cows.

Most analytical laboratories have a number of different analysis packages which encompass the most common procedures or numbers that a nutritionist or producer needs to know about their feeds. These packages will typically include the basic procedures (DM, CP, TDN) and then add on specific analyses such NDF, or the Macrominerals (Ca, P, Mg, K, Na, Cl, S). Some laboratories may group analysis packages by the type of sample (forage vs. mixed ration) or production purposes (dairy vs. beef).

The objective of analytical testing of forages and feedstuffs is to improve our ability to meet the animal’s nutrient requirements and ultimately predict animal performance. The unequivocal best method of evaluating the quality of a feedstuff is feeding the feedstuff to an animal and evaluating performance over a set period of time, under a specific set of conditions. Since that would not be cost effective or timely, analytically evaluating feedstuffs in a laboratory is the next best thing and, although it is not perfect, it is unequivocally better than the “this looks like really good stuff” method of evaluating feedstuffs.

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

September 2022 Feedlot Facts

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Some Thoughts on Calf Revenue”

The air is now crisp in the morning, and it won’t be long before we see the glimmer of ice crystals in the water tank. Many producers are weaning and will be marketing calves in the coming weeks and months. Margins in the cattle industry and agriculture in general are often unfortunately narrow and this year is no exception. Maximizing calf revenue is important for cow/calf producers every year but is even more important in years where the probability of loss is greater than profit. Calf revenue from my academic perspective is driven by three factors, 1.) the number of calves sold, 2.) sale weight of calves, and 3.) price received. Cow/calf producers to some extent have control over the number of calves sold and sale weight. The number of calves sold is essentially a function of stocking rate, cow fertility, and/or reproduction on an operation. The sale weight of calves is more complex, but is a multi‐factorial combination of genetics, calving distribution, calf age, nutrition, management, and technology use (implants). Price received is likely the most influential of the three factors that drive calf revenue and is the factor that cow/calf producers often believe they have the least ability to control. Once a set of calves enters the sale ring or appears on the video screen their value is determined by what two prospective buyers are willing to pay. Although it is impossible for producers to directly influence what buyers are willing to pay, I would argue that they are not completely helpless. Cow/calf producers directly control what they will sell (weaned calves, value‐added calves, or feeders) and determine when they will sell. These are difficult and complex decisions which shouldn’t necessarily be made based upon weekly cattle sale reports or the thoughts of your favorite livestock market commentator. I am not saying that keeping informed about current market conditions is not important. However, that information, when used with resources like Beef Basis (www.beefbasis.com) that use data to evaluate different market scenarios from selling 6 weight calves the first week of December to seven weights in February, helps producers make the best decision for their operations. Producers also control what information or data they pass along to the new owner. We all know that data has value in today’s world. I like to compare marketing calves to selling a beautifully restored pickup. If you were selling a pickup, you would share with a prospective buyer every bit of information you had and the details of the process, from the atmospheric conditions when the truck was painted to the actual sales invoice from 1972. Why should selling a set of calves be any different? Value‐added programs and certified sales provide potential buyers with some degree of assurance that your cattle were managed within the guidelines of the program. If you do not participate in a defined program, providing the auctioneer or sales representative with as much information as possible about your cattle only helps them do their job better which is to get the best price for your cattle.

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

August 2022 Feedlot Facts

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.