Beef Today: Cattle Nutrition

By Luke Miller, nutritionist at Great Plains Livestock Consulting

High grain prices, low pastureland supply and weather challenges have many cattle producers in a tight spot. However, we have already seen a relatively high level of heifer retentions this winter. As the national cowherd begins to rebuild, where are these cattle going to go, and what are they going to eat?

Many producers are looking for an economical supplementation program to help increase stocking rates. There are a number of feeding programs that utilize self-feeders. Assume mature cows consume 8 lb. per head per day of supplemental feed. This would allow stocking rates to increase by 15% to 25%. Assuming a mix of at least 50% protein/limiter supplement valued at 30¢ per pound and 50% corn at 11¢ per pound, we have a complete feed cost of $410 per ton. If cows are limited to an intake of 8 lb. per head per day, the supplement alone would cost $1.64 per head per day.

Another supplement program to consider is a mixture of pelleted soybean hulls and pelleted corn gluten feed at a 1:1 ratio. Adding a pelleted mineral supplement to this mix at 250 lb. per ton, with the ability to control intake, would allow us to make a relatively fair comparison between two programs that utilize a self-feeder. If gluten feed costs $200 per ton, soybean hulls cost $180 per ton and the pelleted limiter costs 35¢ per pound, the complete feed would run about $254 per ton. If intake is 8 lb. per head per day, this mix adds $1.02 to the cost of running a cow for one day. Hand-feeding a similar product, but without the self-limiting technology, would cost closer to 76¢ per head per day.

Get what you pay for. Tubs are a convenient way to provide additional protein to cows and increase forage utilization. As with any product, you get what you pay for—some have a high level of mineral fortifi cation and others have little. Likewise, intake may vary from 0.5 lb. to 1 lb. per head per day. Assume we feed a molasses-based tub that weighs 200 lb., has an expected consumption of 0.6 lb. per head per day and costs $90. This product contains 20% crude protein and has a relatively high level of mineral fortifi cation. This would cost 27¢ per head per day and would supply 0.12 lb. of protein per head per day.

An alternative to tubs is handfeeding corn gluten feed and a free-choice mineral without phosphorus. On average, these minerals cost about 7½¢ per head per day. Hand-feeding 2 lb. of corn gluten feed at $200 per ton would cost another 20¢ per head per day—almost exactly the same as feeding the tub. However, because we are feeding 2 lb. of gluten
feed, which is about 20% crude protein, we’d supply about 0.4 lb. of protein per head per day, or about 330% more than the tub.

As more hay fields are plowed under, we may need to utilize wheat straw or cornstalks. Grinding these roughage products and mixing them with a wet byproduct feed can be a good option for cattle. Depending on the cost of high-energy feeds, a limit feeding program may be an alternative to help stretch hay, but will require additional management skills,
labor, equipment and bunk space.

Don’t forget other management practices that impact nutrition. Rotational grazing can nearly double grazing effi ciencies. Ionophores, such as Rumensin and Bovatec, can improve feed effi ciency by 3% to 5% at a cost of about 3¢ per head per day, to improve conception rates and reduce coccidiosis in calves.

LUKE MILLER is a nutritionist at Great Plains Livestock Consulting in Eagle, Neb., with a masters degree in ruminant nutrition from the University of Missouri–Columbia. A cow–calf producer himself, he enjoys helping farmers and ranchers maximize profitability.

By Dan Larson

The dollars associated with developing the heifer are one of the largest costs she will accrue in her lifetime. Many of us learned at some point that a heifer should reach 65% of her mature weight by the first breeding season. In many cases, we meet this target, but often we exceed it and increase development cost.

It is not uncommon for heifers to be developed in the same lot as feeder cattle. While this system is quite convenient, it is not ideal for developing high-quality replacements. Rather, a well-designed nutrition and management program is essential for appropriate replacement development.

Providing inadequate nutrients to the developing heifer may reduce her reproductive performance, but overfeeding will limit her lifetime productivity. Heifers developed to greater than 65% to 70% of mature weight deposit fat in the udder, leading to reduced milk production. Fat heifers are also more prone to calving difficulty and may be more difficult to rebreed after their first calf.

Research studies conducted in the last 10 years show that developing heifers to 65% of mature weight is not optimal. Rather, 85% to 90% of heifers developed to as little as 55% of mature weight at breeding became pregnant. More importantly, these heifers were developed using inexpensive feed sources such as cornstalks and dormant winter grass. By moving heifer development out of the drylot in favor of standing forage, cost was reduced by $45 per pregnant heifer.

Drylot disadvantages. Heifers developed in the drylot are often fed diets including corn-processing coproducts, which are excellent sources of energy and protein for the growing heifer calf. However, the protein level in distillers’ grain or corn gluten feed may exceed the energy requirements of the heifer. Providing excess protein in the diet prior to breeding has the potential to reduce fertility in the subsequent cycle at which the heifer is bred. Diets with too great a protein concentration during the breeding season may lead to embryonic death and lower pregnancy rates.

It is important to monitor protein levels in heifer development diets in order to meet requirements without exceeding needs. Appropriate mineral nutrition is also an integral part of heifer development. Mineral nutrition is often overlooked and expensive; however, it is often the deciding factor in the success or failure of the breeding season.

Dairy nutrition research has taught us the value of trace minerals such as zinc and manganese. Macro minerals, such as phosphorus, calcium, salt and magnesium, are also important. The National Research Council recommendation of 40 parts per million of manganese in the diet is most likely low. A more appropriate target is 50 to 60 ppm. Likewise, zinc should be nearly equal in concentration to manganese and copper should be at a 3:1 ratio to zinc. Most likely, if heifers are being fed corn coproducts, their phosphorus need is being met. The only macro minerals which require supplementation are calcium, magnesium and salt.

Estrous synchronization is an essential component of heifer development. But regardless of the system, appropriate nutrition is essential to produce a heifer that will stay in the herd and be productive. Without a balanced strategy for nutrition and management, money spent on reproductive technology may be wasted.

DAN LARSON is a ruminant nutritionistat Great Plains Livestock Consulting,Inc. His experience in both cow–calf and feedlot cattle operations offers a unique perspective on the beef industry.

By Whitney Rounds, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Services Manager at Kemin Industries

In today’s market, beef cattle fed under commercial feeding practices are subject to multiple stresses, all potentially detracting from maximizing red meat production at the lowest possible cost.

At weaning, beef calves separated from dams, marketed through typical feeder cattle channels, involving auctions, order-buyer barns, sorting and often long haul transport generally respond negatively to exposure of pathogens and unfamiliar environments. At the feedlot, feeder cattle are further challenged with new feed and water sources, rapid ration changes and feedlot processing. During the feeding period, beef cattle are further challenged with high concentrate diets with minimal roughage levels, fortified with growth implants and feed additives to maximize lean tissue accretion. With the addition of beta agonists, further metabolic stress is imposed at the end of the feeding period.  Feeder cattle that successfully negotiate this process are often those provided adequate nutrition including trace minerals.

Maximizing the genetic potential of high performance cattle demands an increase in energy efficiency. Enhancing glucose uptake increases the opportunity to maximize performance and increase profits. Chromium (Cr) plays a significant role in this process providing an increase in glucose to the animal at the cellular level.

Chromium Propionate is a highly bioavailable source of chromium for use in cattle feeds1. Chromium Propionate allows cattle to utilize energy more efficiently. The primary role of chromium is to potentiate the action of insulin. Increased insulin activity promotes intracellular glucose uptake, providing more efficient energy utilization.

Research conducted by Dr. Brad Johnson and Bryan Bernhard at Texas Tech University was presented at the ASAS2 meetings in New Orleans in July 2011. One hundred eighty (180) steers were selected for use in the study, blocked by weight and randomly assigned to pens. The study was a completely randomized block design, (36 pens; 9 pens/treatments; 4 pens/block; 5 steers/pen). Cattle were housed in dirt-lot pens with ad-libitum access to sudangrass hay upon arrival. The following morning, a 63% concentrate basal ration was fed on top of the sudangrass hay. Cattle were processed upon arrival. Cattle were fed once daily in the morning. Cattle were fed the 63% concentrate diet from days 0 to 14, then increased at day 14 and day 28 to 73% and 83% concentrate diets, respectfully. The 83% concentrate diet was fed for the remainder of the trial. Cr was supplied in the form of KemTRACE®brand Chromium Propionate 0.04%. Premixes were top dressed and hand mixed into the delivered daily ration. Cattle health was evaluated daily for clinical signs of illness. Rectal temperatures were taken on cattle pulled. Cattle with temperatures > 39.7ºC were treated and returned to their home pen.

Researchers reported that steers fed chromium propionate showed a linear increase in average daily gain (P<0.03) and feed efficiency (P<0.05) as chromium propionate concentrations increased, with an increase of 10.8% and 4.2%, respectfully (when comparing the control and 0.3 mg/kg) (Figures 1 and 2). In Figure 3, steers fed chromium propionate displayed a tendency to increase their dry matter intake (DMI) (P = 0.12) linearly as the level of chromium propionate was increased. The morbidity data showed results with a tendency (P = 0.07) for a linear decrease in the number of cattle treated at least once for respiratory symptoms as the chromium propionate concentration increased. Numerically 12.5% less cattle were treated at least once for respiratory symptoms in the 0.3 mg/kg treatment group versus other treatment groups.

This study was initiated to gain additional insight into feeding KemTRACE® brand Chromium Propionate to feeder cattle typical of the U.S. commercial cattle feeding business segment. Results of this study suggest that supplementation of chromium propionate to the basal diet can have a beneficial effect on newly received steers. More specifically in the research reported by Bernhard et al. (2011), addition of 0.3 mg/kg of chromium propionate to the basal diet resulted in the strongest performance advantages and reductions in the incidences of morbidity over the entire trial period. When comparing cattle supplemented with 0.3 mg/kg of chromium propionate to control cattle, there was an 8 kg difference in final BW and over 18% fewer cattle were treated at least once in this study. This translates to selling more pounds of beef, with less treatment cost2.

By Zeb Prawl

At a time when the nation’s cow numbers are still falling, increasing the productive life of a cow is worth more than ever. A decrease in calf numbers has raised calf prices, which will continue. Drought has crippled major cow–calf areas, and even those cows may not be there much longer. Now is the time to make sure cows are earning their place in the herd.

The cost to replace a cow in the herd today is substantial. If you keep replacement heifers, two years of feed costs along with their worth as calves mean those heifers are worth $1,400 or more by the time they have their first calf. If you buy young bred cows, be prepared to spend more than ever. While these costs are high, the good news is that calves are selling higher too, so it is possible to recoup your investment within a reasonable amount of time.

How long does it really take to get that money back? If you look at more than just initial cost, the answer is: Longer than you think. The table below illustrates the flow of money from initial purchase of a female through several years of production, taking into account feed and interest costs.

In this example, a cow doesn’t actually turn a profit until she is six years old (as shown with the negative number). If that cow was open as a four-year-old, she would be sold with her salvage value and three calves, netting you $248.59, or $82.86 per calf profit. However, if she doesn’t come up open until after her seventh calf, her net calf profit is $228.52 per head. Keeping her bred every year is of the utmost importance!

A solid nutrition plan is the key to keeping cows in the herd longer. It is easy to look at high feed costs and be discouraged. But calf prices are extremely high too. The reward is still there.

Cutting back on nutrition will not make you more profitable in the long run. If some cows missed a breeding cycle from lack of nutrition, how much would that cost? If you had 100 cows and 50 of them didn’t breed on the first cycle, that would be about 20 days of lost calf growth due to later calving times next spring. If those 50 all bred in the second cycle, you have 50 calves that lost 40 lb. each (2 lb. per day gain for 20 days). At today’s calf prices, that would be at least $2,800 in lost revenue due to one missed pregnancy cycle. That could almost pay for a year’s worth of mineral for the entire herd!

I could offer more examples, but the bottom line is: You can’t starve a profit out of your cows.

ZEB PRAWL is a ruminant nutritionist with Great Plains Livestock Consulting, Inc., located in Eagle, Neb. For more information, visit www.GPLC-Inc.com.

By Dan Larson, ruminant nutritionist at Great Plains Livestock Consulting, Inc.

Reproductive technologies such as AI and embryo transfer (ET) are excellent methods to improve the genetics of your herd. However, whether due to cost or labor requirements, neither technology is widely used in the beef industry. Less than 10% of all beef cows are bred using AI and far fewer producers use ET.

Constraining the use of these technologies is the inconsistent success of either program. The most common sources of failure in AI and ET programs are improper protocols, not adhering to the protocol, inability to detect animals in estrus and incorrect technique. However, many producers who successfully employ the protocol still fail to get cattle pregnant. Nutrition is often overlooked in these situations and, while the animals may appear to be in good condition, significant problems may exist.

The most accurate way to assess nutritional status in cattle is to evaluate body condition score (BCS). In order to rebreed in a timely fashion, a heifer should have a BCS of 6 and a mature cow should have a BCS of at least 5.5 prior to calving.

Energy and hormones.

Balancing rations for nitrogen (protein) and energy is the key to a successful AI or ET program. Both technologies rely on a cow producing at least one viable oocyte (egg). In order for the cow to do so, she must resume estrus, which requires a ration that meets her energy and protein needs. First-calf heifers require an 11% protein ration and cows require a 10% protein ration, with adequate energy.

Energy is important in breeding females because certain hormones (i.e., insulin) are increased by
energy consumption. These hormones signal the body to resume estrus and produce oocytes. This is especially important to cows in ET programs. Supplementing donor and receipt cows with a small amount of starch can help boost insulin and other hormone levels to increase embryo yield and viability.

While inadequate nutrition is detrimental to AI and ET success, overfeeding can be equally, and perhaps more, problematic. In ET programs, many donor cows are overconditioned because they do not have a calf every year. Rations that provide excess protein and energy can reduce embryo viability and pregnancy rates.

Cows handle excess nitrogen (protein) by producing ammonia and converting it to urea, which is excreted in the urine. Cows are more susceptible than heifers to the negative effects of high-protein diets because their rations are often lower in energy and they require less protein, leading to a greater excess in the body.

When ammonia levels increase, the acidity of the blood increases, leading to acidity in the uterus and reducing the viability of sperm and embryos. For example, a cow in superovulation for ET may respond well but yield few fertilized embryos. It’s possible that there was too much protein in her diet, compromising sperm viability. If there is a high percentage of degenerate embryos, perhaps their viability was compromised by the acidity of the uterus.

As a rule of thumb, balance cow rations for less than 12% to 14% protein and heifer rations for less than 15% protein. Cattle on pasture are often less susceptible because there is adequate energy available.

AI and ET technologies are excellent ways to improve your herd’s genetics. But without the proper nutrition, both will fail.