Presentation to cow calf producers on management decisions to improve profitability.

1. Low Input Methods to
Improve Returns
Keith Martin
Wildcat District
Livestock Agent

2. Current Situation
• Different Environment than past
– Higher Calf prices
– Higher feed prices
– Higher input costs
• Fuel
• Equipment
• Fertilizer
• Land
– Different Value/gain
– Higher risk
– More reward
• What does this mean?
Returns (+ or -) to management are greater

3. First questions to answer:
What are your personal & financial goals?
What available resources do you have to help
you meet these goals?
Are you making the best uses of these resources
to meet those goals?

4. Where are resources best spent?
• Increasing Production?
• Reducing Costs?
• Focus on Cost of production
– Per pound of weaned calf
– Per pound of gain

5. Rethink your Management Decisions
Question everything
• Cost/benefit
– Does spending more return more?
– Does spending less return less?
• What is the effect on production?
– Weaning Weights
– Calving pct
• What is the effect on costs?
– Feed
– Fixed Costs

6. Duh Decisions
Just do it
– Castration
– Dehorning
– Implanting (natural market?)
– Worming
– Using Ionophores
– Vaccination
– Feeding 3x per week
– Feeding in evening
– Culling Decisions
– Breeding soundness exams on bulls

7. Culling
Easy Decisions
• Open
• Ornery
• Old
• Odd ball
Decision which needs more information
• Cull below average producers
– Weights
– Records
– Gives most return

8. Do bigger cows wean heavier
calves?
Cow-1344, Calf-623
Cow-1080, Calf-601
275 279
Cow-1098, Calf-325 Cow-1350, Calf-344
J.R. Jaeger KSU-ARCH data

9. Bilogical Efficiency
800
700
Calf Wght
600
500
400
300
900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Cow Wght
Maintenance Requirements are based on surface area of animal not
body weight.
NEm = 0.007 X BW0.75

10. Process Calves at 2 – 4 months
• Castration
• Dehorning
• Implant
• Worm Calves
• Vaccinate

11. Source: Kirkpatrick, et al. 2008. JAVMA Vol. 233, No. 1, Pages 136-142.

12. Reproduction & Genetics
• Reproduction most important measure
• Utilize Heterosis
– Crossbred cow more fertile
– Longevity
• Apply selection pressure on cowherd
• Select heifers for fertility
• Select bulls with end in mind
• Buy vs raise replacements

13. Feed & Forage Costs
• Highest cost in beef production
• Spend dollars to gain most benefit
• Reduce costs with least reduction in production
• Cow is 4 – legged forage harvester
• Cow is 4 – legged fertilizer cart

14. Forage
• Manage grazing or shut and open gates
• Weed & Brush control
– Weeds are a symptom of a management issue
– Some weeds are more problematic than others
– Most economical to spray weeds when small
– Spray weeds or fertilize
• Fertilization
– When is forage short?
– What forage is most beneficial?
– Which forage responds best to fertilizer?
– Legumes vs grasses
– Cost of alternatives

15. Haying
• Costs
– Baling costs
– Storage costs
– Feeding costs
• Value gained
– Harvest protein vs grazed protein
– Timely harvest
– Can hay replace purchased supplements

16. Native Grass
• Hay • Graze Dormant
– Consistent – Increase root reserves
– 6% Crude Protein – Nutrient recycling
– Palatable
– Baling – 4 – 5% Crude Protein
– Hauling – Fencing
– Storage – Water
– Feeding
– Supplement with protein

20. Feed
• Supplement vs substitute
• Protein is usually first limiting nutrient
– Price per unit of protein

22. Predictability of Ruminal Response to
Supplementation of Low-Quality Forages
• Associative effects occur when a mixture of feeds in the diet
results in a production response that deviates from linearity.
Associative effects can be negative or positive.
200
RDP
Digest ible DMI ( % of Cont rol)
180 Fiber
St ar ch
160
140
120
100
80
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Supplement DMI (% BW)
Schmidt et al. (2006)

23. Effect of Supplement Protein Content on Low-Quality Forage Intake
80.0
75.0
)
0.75
70.0 141 treatment
averages from 31
Forage OMI (g/kg BW
65.0
experiments
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
None <15% 15.1 to 20% 20.1 to 30% >30%
% CP in Supplement
Heldt (1998)

24. • Situation: Forage quality is poor (CP < 7%)
• Forage intake is 1.0 to 1.5% of cow BW
• Diet digestibility is 35 to 45%
• Cow loses 1 BCS / month
• Solution: Add about 1.0 lbs / d of supplemental
RDP
• Forage intake improves to 2.2 to 2.8% of cow BW
• Diet digestibility improves to 55 to 65%
• Cow gains 0.25 to 0.5 BCS / month

25. Influence of Corn on Forage Intake
25
Forage
Supplement
20
DMI (lbs / day)
15
10
5
0
1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Supplemental Corn (lbs / day)
Chase and Hibberd (1987)

26. Influence of Grain Supplementation on
Total Energy Intake
10
Digestible OMI (lbs / day)
8
6
4
2
0
1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Supplemental Corn (lbs / day)
Chase and Hibberd (1987)

27. Feed to BCS 5 or 6 at calving

38. BCS vs Birth Weight

39. Fescue Endophyte
• Improves grass persistence
• Reduces blood flow to extremities
– Increases core temperature
– Fescue Foot
– Lost switches
• Reduces viability of sperm
• Increase early embryonic loss

40. Calf Performance 2 yr avg.
fall spring
• Pasture 100 E+ 25 NE+ 100 NE+ 100 E+ NE+
• WW Actual 530 547 582 492 502
• WW Adj 478 491 527 453 462
• Calving Pct 94% 97% 87% 42% 80%
• Lbs/Cow Exp 498 532 506 206 401

42. Summary
Season of calving season had an impact on:
• calf weaning weight (42 lb)
• calf price ($ 6.31/cwt.)
• calf value ($ 80/hd)
• pregnancy rates (33%)
• calf value/cow exposed ($241)

43. Adding 25% NE
Spring Calving Cows
• Increased pregnancy rates 34% from spring-calving
cows
• Increased calf value/cow exposed ($101)
• Improved weaning weight (23 lb)

44. Conclusions
Producers with E+
• Should consider fall calving.
• If you choose spring calving
– Avoid high temperatures during breeding season
– Establish non-endophyte Kentucky 31
– Other warm season forages
• Bermudagrass
• Summer annuals

45. Novel Endophyte
• NE+ is a viable option
– Forage intake will increase
– Will take time and expense to establish
– New NE+ varieties are available
• Texoma, MaxQII, from Pennington Seed
• Estancia, Mountain View Seed
• Duramax Armor, DLF International Seeds
• BarOptima Plus E34, Barenbrug USA

46. Summary
• Make decisions based on how they both production
and costs
– Cost per pound of weaned calf
– Cost per pound of gain
• Each operation’s goals and resources are different
• K – State Research & Extension, provides research
based information to aid you in reaching your goals

47. Questions?
Contact
Keith Martin
(620) 784-5337
rkmartin@ksu.edu