K-State Research and Extension

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Tips for Managing High Commodity Prices”

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

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

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“The Basics of Mineral Nutrition”

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

Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Receiving Protocols”

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

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

By: Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

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. Maximizing calf revenue is important for cow/calf producers every year. 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, complex decisions, that 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 isn’t important. However, that information, when used with resources like Beef Basis (www.beefbasis.com) that use data to evaluate different market scenarios, from selling six 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. Data has value in today’s world. I 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 cattle were managed within the guidelines of the program. If you don’t 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.

By: Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Silage Harvest: Think Safety”

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 the surroundings. Let’s face it, there are a lot of highly repetitive operations in putting up silage. One of the number one factors that lead 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 and 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 1 in 3 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.

By Justin Waggoner, Ph.D., Beef Systems Specialist

“Let’s Talk About Water”

Most cattle producers fully understand the importance of water. After all, providing an adequate supply of clean, fresh water is the cornerstone of animal husbandry and there are very few things that compare to the feeling of finding thirsty cows grouped around a dry tank on a hot day. Water is important, and in situations where the water supply is limited, or we are forced to haul water, one of the first questions we find ourselves asking is “how much water do those cows need?” The old rule of thumb is that cattle should consume 1‐2 gallons of water per 100 lbs of bodyweight. Accurately determining the amount of water cows will voluntarily consume is difficult and is influenced by several factors (ambient temperature, moisture and salt content of the diet, body weight, lactation, etc.) Water consumption increases linearly as ambient temperature increases above 40° Fahrenheit such that cows require an additional gallon of water for every 10 degree increase in temperature. Additionally, lactation also directly increases the amount of water required by beef cows. The table below summarizes the daily water requirements of beef cows of several different body weights, milk production levels. and ambient temperatures (Adapted from Spencer, 2016).