stocker cattle management on small grains...
TRANSCRIPT
Stocker Management
Ted McCollum III, PhD, PAS-ACAN Texas A&M AgriLife Extension
Amarillo
Margin Influencers and Leverage Points
Margin Influencer Rate of gain/total gain
Leverage Points Forage availability Supplemental nutrition Additives and implants
Leverage Points The Buy Receiving program
Margin Influencer Morbidity & Mortality
Margin Influencer
Value of weight gain
Leverage Points First cost Final value
Value of Weight Gain
450 750
lb Purchase
$/cwt130 140 150 160
140 1.15$ 1.40$ 1.65$ 1.90$
150 1.00$ 1.25$ 1.50$ 1.75$
160 0.85$ 1.10$ 1.35$ 1.60$
170 0.70$ 0.95$ 1.20$ 1.45$
180 0.55$ 0.80$ 1.05$ 1.30$
lb Market, $/cwt
Value of Added Weight Market structure $140/cwt @ 700, with $8/cwt slide
Sale wt $/cwt $/hd Change
675 142 958.50 700 140 980.00 21.50
725 138 1000.50 20.50 750 136 1020.00 19.50 775 134 1038.50 18.50 Value of Added Weight from 700 to 750 lbs?
($1020.50-980.00)/50 lb = $0.81/lb or $81/cwt What would it cost to put on 5the Additional 50 lbs of “added weight”?
Margin Influencers
Morbidity and Mortality
SUNK COSTS
Margin Influencers
• Morbidity and mortality
Health is first management challenge for stocker programs M&M rates vary, many factors – background of calves
procurement, transportation process conditions, labor and management after arrival
Margin Influencers
• $Cost of Morbidity Sensitivity analysis (Projected Fall 2016) 1% increase in mortality = $6.75/hd reduced profit
1% increase in morbidity = $1.02/hd reduced profit
Margin Influencers
• $Cost of Morbidity Sensitivity analysis Breakdown the $ loss for morbidity – 52.1% attributed to calf mortality 24.3% attributed to treatment costs 23.6% attributed to reduced performance
Leverage Points
“Dealing with BRD in cattle boils down to three things — the weather, the people and the cattle. Ninety percent of death loss with respiratory disease in feeder cattle is associated with those three things.” M. Apley, 2008
Psychological Stress • Fear • Co-mingling or social mixing • New environment • Loud or unusual noises • Restraint
Physiological Stress • Interruption to normal metabolism • Protein and energy deficits or imbalances • Mineral deficits and imbalances • Vitamin deficits
Physical Stress • Usually environmental • Heat or cold • Wet or rainy conditions • Wind or dust • Hunger, thirst and fatigue • Disease and injury
Factors contributing to health challenges with newly received calves
• Weaning (stress) • Exposure to viral and bacterial pathogens • Compromised or naïve immune system • Marketing (sale barn) • Transportation • Adaptation to new environment • Co-mingling • Handling and handling practices • Inadequate nutrient intake (feed/water) • Environmental conditions – temperature
fluctuation, precipitation, dust, mud • Cattle flow, crowding, time
The “Buy”
The Receiving Program
Arrival Processing
• Vaccinations Which antigens? Viral Vaccine type?
Bacterial Administer all at initial processing or delay?
• Parasite control
• Dehorning All at initial processing,
• Castration or delay some?
• Branding
• Metaphylaxis (mass medication)?
Rest Delay processing 12-72 hours Rehydrate Provide fresh, clean water Realiment Manage feed quantity and quality Feed should replenish energy and provide roughage to "refill" cattle
The Three R’s
Nutrition
Challenge: Enhance ability to overcome disease
challenge and/or respond to therapy
Reduce stress level Stimulate intake Minimize potential for digestive upset Provide critical nutrients and additives
Metaphylaxis
• Reduces morbidity and death loss about 50% (Schumann et al, 1990; Gallo et al, 1995; Guthrie et al, 2004; Wileman et al, 2009)
• Increases performance about 0.24 lb/d (Wileman et al, 2009)
• May not reduce chronics (Guthrie et al, 2004)
• Allows cattle to adjust to stresses of transport, commingling, processing, etc.
• Not a cure all
Spire, 2013, KSU Stocker Cattle Field Day Proceedings
Metaphylaxis – economics changing • Cost of Morbidity and Mortality
Recent Projected Past +/-%
Mortality $6.75/% $12/% -43.8
Morbidity $1.02/% $1.43/% -28.7
• Reduces death loss about 50% MM ABX, $/hd Death loss threshold 8 1.2% (2.4) 0.7% (1.4) 12 1.8% (3.6) 1.0% (2.0) 16 2.4% (4.8) 1.3% (2.6) 20 3.0% (6.0) 1.7% (3.4)
Metaphylaxis – economics changing • Cost of Morbidity and Mortality
Recent Projected Past +/-%
Mortality $6.75/% $12/% -43.8
Morbidity $1.02/% $1.43/% -28.7
• Reduces morbidity about 50% MM ABX, $/hd Morbidity threshold 8 7.8% (15.6) 5.6% (11.2) 12 11.8%(23.6) 8.4% (16.8) 16 15.7%(31.4) 11.2%(22.4) 20 19.6%(39.2) 13.9%(28.0)
Leverage Points
• $Cost of Morbidity
1. Manage the purchase and manage the calves to reduce incidence of morbidity
2. Manage to reduce the severity of morbidity and reduce case fatality rate
Labor and time to identify and treat calves
Adequate, palatable feed and water
Reduce stress on calves – people, place, process
Prudent use of metaphylaxis
“Health is a combination of the hand you are dealt and how you play it. Be smart about who's dealing, then add solid programs for vaccination, environmental management, therapy and nutrition to sway the odds in your favor.” M. Apley, 2008
Cumulative cost and Cumulative Value of Gain
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
7 21 35 49 63 77 91 105 119 133 147
$/h
ead
Days
Cumulative Cost Cumulative VOG
Compensatory gain
> Compensatory gain is difficult to predict -
averages about 40-50%
And therefore difficult to manage predictably
> Compensation % varies with -
length of restriction –
less with longer restriction
what is long or short?
degree of restriction –
less with higher degree
what is high or low?
Initial weight and forage nutritive value
• Gain potential on a forage varies among different weight classes of calves - maintenance energy and protein - forage intake capacity
• May need to adjust gain projections for different weights of calves
Initial weight and forage nutritive value
• Relative requirements decrease as body weight increases
• So what? 1. Maintenance has priority over production 2. Forage intake capacity as a function of body weight
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300
Body weight, lb
NEm, mcal/100 BW
Forage intake / MBW
Forage intake / BW
Performance of “light” and “heavy” calves grazing Old World Bluestem pasture
Light Heavy
Initial wt, lb 332 566
Daily gain, lb 1.90 2.20
Total gain, lb 163 185
Adapted from Ackerman et al., 1999 Averaged across two summer grazing seasons
Filling the time gap
From time calves are straight until forage is ready for turnout,
How should we manage the calves? Hold or push?
Two considerations: Cost dilution – 35 to 45% of cost inputs occur in first 21- 28 days of ownership
Compensatory gain – what is the net end result of stepped up gain prior to wheat
Filling the time gap
Cost dilution – 35 to 45% of cost inputs occur in first 21- 28 days of ownership
Pushing for more gain prior to wheat grazing – dilutes the initial costs incurred gain on wheat has to cover less of initial costs insurance gain – if wheat grazing is limited, the cattle have already put on some gain
Leverage Points
Forage availability
Managing Forage Availability
Forage is the nutrient source
Forage intake is the performance driver
Forage availability dictates forage intake
Managing forage availability is first key to managing calf performance
Leverage Points
Wheat Pasture stocker cattle gains, TAMU Bush Farm,
Bushland, Dec-Mar, 2000-01 and 2001-02
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600Stocking Pressure, lbs/ac
Ga
in/h
ea
d, lb
s/h
d/d
No P 2000 P 2000 No P 2001 P 2001
2001
For each for each 50 lb increase
ADG declined 0.25 lb/d .
2000
For each for each 50 lb increase
ADG declined 0.30 lb/d.
Margin Influencers
• Forage allocation
150
200
250
300
4 6 8 10
Stocking Rate (A/steer)
Gain
per
Head (
lb)
20
30
40
50
60
Gain
per
acr
e (
lb)
Margin Influencers
• Supplemental feeding Marginal cost of gain = supplement efficiency X cost of delivered supplement
Supplement efficiency =
lbs supplement/lb added wt
Mineral Nutrition Do not assume - 1. calves do not need mineral supplements 2. mineral supplements will not pay Mineral supplements : the easiest means of delivering ionophores increase gain to same extent as organic supplements
Stocker performance response to mineral supplements
No suppl1 Mineral Suppl1
Mineral Suppl w/ Rumensin
3 studies, Gain/d
Horn 1.56a 1.80b 2.03c
Reuter (rye) 2.12a 2.31a,b 2.50b
Gunter 1.52a 2.05a -
Ave change vs no suppl vs min suppl
0.32 -
0.43 0.21
1No supplements of any type, including white salt
1 Mineral supplement did not include medications
Margin Influencers
• Mineral for wheat stockers Supplement+RUM + 0.43 lb/day gain Supplement intake 0.30 lb/d (high) Suppl efficiency 0.30 min/0.43 added gain = 0.70 lb gain/lb suppl If value of added gain = $0.85/lb then breakeven delivered supplement cost = $0.85 / 0.70 = $1.22/lb suppl or $2429/ton suppl
Supplement conversion efficiency
Conversion efficiency varies
<2.0:1
6.0:1
10:1
Infinity
As conversion efficiency increases, the
economic feasibility declines
Supplementation Decision – Protein and Energy
Improving energy status with limited
supplement (Situation 1)
Improving energy status with limited
supplement (Situation 1) Supplement efficiency
= 2-3:1 If Value of Added Gain
= $0.85/lb Breakeven cost of
supplement =$0.28 – 0.43/lb or $560-860/ton
Protein or Energy
supplement (depends on forage value)
less than 0.4%BW/d
Predicted liveweight response by cattle fed cottonseed meal with low quality forage (Hennessy, 1996)
Max. 1.63 lbs
Min. 0.15 lbs
Diff. 1.48 50%
Summer protein supplements for stocker
cattle on rangeland
• Tallgrass prairie, 10 yr +
+0.35/lb/day, conversion 2-3:1
• Shortgrass prairie, western Kansas
4 years: +.35 lb/day, conversion 3:1
• Shortgrass prairie, northeast New Mexico
+.47 lb/day, conversion 1.74:1
• Mixed grass prairie, Oklahoma, 3 yrs
+0.3 lb/day, conversion 3:1
Stocker cattle response to supplemental
protein on bermudagrass
No Suppl. Suppl.
Arkansas, 1.35 lb/d 1.50 lb/d
1.1 lb 39%CP, 607 lb steers, June - Sept
Oklahoma, .95 lb/d 1.25 lb/d
1 lb SBM, 440 lb steers, Aug 16 - Oct 16
Mississippi, 1.48 lb/d 1.70 lb/d
.25% BW SBM, 545 lb steers, July 20 - Oct 24
Improving energy status with
supplement (Situation 2)
Improving energy status with
supplement (Situation 2)
Supplement efficiency = 4-6:1
If Value of Added Gain = $0.85/lb
Breakeven cost of supplement
=$0.14 – 0.21/lb or $280-420/ton
Energy supplement (15-25%CP)
less than 0.4-.75 %BW/d
Treatment No supp Monensin /
Energy Supplement
Response
Gain (4 yrs)
2.03 2.52 +0.49
Suppl intake/ d
0 2.0 2/.49 = 4.1
Effect of Green Gold on Daily Gains (lb) of
Steers (120 days)
Research conducted by G.W. Horn et al., Oklahoma State Univ.
Maintaining energy status and reducing forage
intake with supplement
(Situation 3)
Maintaining energy status and reducing forage
intake with supplement
(Situation 3)
Supplement efficiency 8:1 to ???
If Value of Added Gain = $0.85/lb
Breakeven cost of supplement
=??? – 0.11/lb or ??? – 220/ton
Energy supplement (<20% CP) more than
0.75 %BW/d
Corn-based supplements for stocker cattle on small grains pasture (rye/ryegrass) (Rouquette, 1995)
Supplement rate, lb/day
Added gain, lb/day
Conversion Cost of added gain @ 4.25 $/bu corn
.74 .38 1.9:1
$0.144/lb
1.43 .77 1.9:1
$0.144/lb
2.44 .45 5.4:1
$0.409/lb
4.06 .45 9:1
$0.683/lb
Projected vs Actual gain (adapted from Rouquette, 1995) Assume 15 lbs forage DM intake with no depression,
67% Forage TDN
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0.75 1.4 2.4 4.1
Lbs Corn
AD
G,
lbs
Proj ADG Actual
Estimated forage intake depression to reconcile projected
and actual gain. Assumes 15 lb base forage DM intake and
67% forage TDN
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.75 1.4 2.4 4.1
Lbs Corn
AD
G, lb
s
Proj ADG Actual
15
15 14
15 15
15 15
12 9.8
Numerical values in the chart are estimated forage dry matter intake required to support the observed weight gain
Substitution
Feed Additives
• Ionophores - Rumensin, Bovatec
• Increase weight gains .20-.30 lbs/day 25 to 35 lbs additional fall and winter gain
• Delivered in mineral supplements or hand-fed supplements
• Added benefits from bloat prevention
• Improve supplemental feed economics
Implants • Increase daily gains by .15-.30 lbs/day
Additional 15 to 40 lbs during the fall and winter
• Most cost-effective tool available but still used by less than 50% of producers WHY?
Implant response to plane of nutrition
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Imp
lan
t ga
in r
esp
on
se, l
b/d
Gain by nonimplanted stockers, lb/d
Ted McCollum, PhD, PAS-ACAN Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Amarillo 806-677-5600 office 806-336-3190 cell [email protected]