SEARCH

Winter is coming. It’s not just a phrase on a popular premium cable TV show, it’s a fact. The leaves on the ground, the frost in the morning and the calendar tell us it’s inching closer. Whether your winter means a snow pack or grazing rye grass, the common denominator for all of us is what to do about supplementing.

More often than not, we use the cost per ton as the deciding factor when choosing a supplement program. However, we need to remember to add in other on-farm costs the cost per ton of supplement. These include labor to handle the supplement and mileage to and from the pasture. Derek Bailey, with Montana State University, looked at 2 supplement strategies, cake and low moisture blocks, to determine cost effectiveness. 160 cows were divided into 2 treatments, 20% cake fed 3 times/week and CRYSTALYX^® BGF-30 offered free choice, on pasture October thru December.

The results of study showed that cattle supplemented with BGF-30 performed the same as cattle supplemented with cake while eating less. The BGF-30 cattle consumed an average of 0.70 lb (with 0.46 lb of free choice salt) whereas the cake cattle consumed an average of 1.69 lb (with 0.13 lb free choice salt). The exact driver behind the performance results was not determined in this study, but it does leave a person with a lot to think about. Another interesting observation in this study is pasture utilization. The BGF-30 cattle were tracked utilizing pastures at higher elevations than cattle fed cake.

From this research we can pull out 3 criteria for determining the economics of a supplement.

Supplement Cost – The total cost includes cost per ton of supplement, cost per ton for delivery to farm/ranch and storage cost per ton in addition to how many pounds/head/day during the supplementation period.

Labor Cost – How many hours does it take to put out the supplement for each feeding, and how many times per week do you do this?  What is your time or the hired hand’s time worth when other tasks could be completed?

Travel and Equipment Cost – How much does it cost you to drive your truck/tractor to the pasture round trip?

What it adds up to is cost of feed + cost of labor + cost of travel = total cost of supplement program. To see the numbers come together for yourself, click on the Crystal Clear Economyx^® page. There you can use our cost calculator to do a quick comparison on the cost of a low moisture block to another type of supplement. Or you can download the Crystal Clear Economyx^® spreadsheet and really crunch some numbers.

For more information on the research mentioned above, click on the ‘HOW IT WORKS’ tab above, then Supplementation Research and select Effects of Self-Fed vs Hand Fed Protein Supplements… under the Northern Agricultural Research Center Montana State University drop down.

The reduced cow herd and strong demand for fewer calves creates an optimistic outlook for the cow calf producer for the next several years.  This is if you have both forage and cows.  The drought in the Southwest is making it tough to maintain cow numbers in that region.  One would assume the Southeast and Midwest would grow their cow numbers.  However, the lack of affordable pasture is making that decision difficult.  Using a dry lot feeding program for part of the year is a viable option; however, making the assumption that expensive feeding equipment is necessary can greatly reduce the income potential.  The investment of tractors, feeder wagons and feed bins has to be paid for by pounds of beef sold.   

An advantage of a pasture-based system is the ability to produce marketable beef without a large investment in tractors, fuel and specialized feeding equipment.  In areas where pasture has been converted to row crops some producers are making a modified dry lot feeding program work.  Some of those farms are feeding free choice hay with some silage and self-fed supplements while others are feeding total mixed rations.  Depreciation is often the largest expense for a beef cow-calf operation.  The equipment depreciation, fuel cost and labor cost must be accounted for in a dry lot feeding program.    Most economic evaluations of cow-calf ranches are for a pasture based system.  Stan Bevers of Texas AgriLive Extension Service has published benchmark expenses for pasture based ranches.  The top expense items are listed in Table 1.   These benchmarks can be used as a point of reference for decision making related to dry lot feeding.   With the potential for sustained high calf prices and increased value of breeding stock over the next 3-4 year period, dry lot feeding may be feasible if the investment in equipment and fuel can be controlled.  This system could offer an opportunity for entry into or expansion of the beef cow herd in the Midwest and Southeast.

Table 1:  Operating Expenses of the Cow calf Ranch – adapted from Bevers, 2007

In a dry lot program, rent and lease cost could be reduced while keeping depreciation, labor and fuel cost from increasing significantly.  Items to consider for a successful dry lot program include:

1.     Be conservative with equipment investment.

2.     Minimize additional labor and fuel cost.

3.     Minimize shrink associated with storage and feeding of forages.

4.     Utilizing grazing of crop residue.

Let’s look at of these items more closely.  Assumptions for cost will be per cow calf pair. 

1.     Can the cost of an additional tractor and mixer wagon be supported?  You must first determine what percent of the equipment will be charged to the cows.  A conservative estimate of $100,000 investment and depreciated over 7 years has depreciation cost listed below.  The percentage is how much of the equipment is charged to the cow herd

a.     100% = $142

b.      50%=$71

c.      25%=$35.

This analysis would suggest a system where free choice feeding of hay/forage that minimizes equipment cost would be most economical.   

2.     Labor cost accounted for 15% and fuel accounted for 4.5% of total cost in the Texas data.  A dry lot system will need more labor and fuel than a pasture system.  The time and fuel needed for daily mixing and delivery must be considered if a total mixed ration program is planned.  Each additional hour per day can add up to $36.50 per cow-calf pair, depending on wage and fuel cost. 

3.     Forage costs have increased and if hay cost $200/ ton, each 1% shrink (waste and dry matter loss at harvest) will add an additional $2.00 per ton.  We need to consider both shrink at harvest and at feeding.  Extension service estimates of shrink for hay can be as high as 50% under poor conditions and poor management.  Efforts that reduce shrink will result in better returns and less total feed needed. 

4.     Grazing crop residue such as corn stocks can be an excellent means of providing economical forage that can reduce dry lot feeding days.  This will have the benefit of lowering stored forage needs, labor and fuel cost.

If the cow herd is to stabilize and eventually expand, I believe that dry lot feeding of the cow herd in conjunction with limited pasture and grazing of crop residue will be implemented successfully in some areas of the country.  Attention to and controlling total feed cost will be necessary if this is to be a viable and profitable option to a traditional pasture based system.  Total feed cost is the combination of the investment in feed, feeding equipment, fuel and labor cost associated with delivering the diet to the animals.  Crystal Clear Economyx® available on the Crystalyx.com website is a spreadsheet which allows you to evaluate various feeding situations.  Current and future calf prices offer an excellent opportunity to expand your herd or enter the cow calf business.  If pasture availability is an obstacle then a dry lot program may be an option.   Crystalyx® offers a full line of self-fed supplements that have proven to be convenient, time saving and cost effective in many different feeding programs.  Look at your all of your resources available to see if a beef-cow calf operation makes sense for you.

We have all heard sayings like “a little dab will do ya”, “less is more”, “a little ______ goes a long way” or a number of others that refer to how a very small input can result in a large output or response!  If you are interested in exploiting this concept when evaluating your inputs for the beef cow herd, there is no doubt you either are a low-moisture block (LMB) supplement customer currently, or should consider LMB supplements as an option for delivering supplemental nutrition.
 
What are some of the benefits of thinking small and why do these characteristics fit so well into a beef cow-calf production system?  Beef cow herds are required to produce the calf crops that are eventually harvested as beef.  Any extra resources that are expended to maintain a commercial cowherd over and above those required to raise a healthy calf to weaning age with an acceptable body weight, usually go unrewarded.  This means that there is no financial benefit for overfeeding a cow herd.
 
Managing cow weight throughout the year is critical to the financial success of a beef cow-calf enterprise and matching cow requirements to forage growing conditions further minimizes the need for supplemental inputs.  Beef cows will store energy by increasing their fat reserves with increased body condition when nutrient supplies exceed requirements and is typically observed during summer grazing when pastures are actively growing.  Cows can rely on these body stores to help them through the winter periods when forage availability and quality usually diminish in order to perform at the required levels as described above.
 
This is where small strategic delivery of supplemental nutrition can help cows maintain their body weight more easily without furnishing significant quantities of the diet.  The key dietary resource for most cow-calf systems is ample forage availability.  As quality of forages fluctuate and diminish at the end of the growing season the most critical nutrient to help maximize forage utilization is protein delivery.  Ruminants have a unique ability to extract energy by fermenting fiber from forages.  A consistent supply of small quantities of nitrogen that is degradable in the rumen from free-choice protein supplements can be a highly effective way of optimizing rumen fermentation, low cost forages and ultimately cow performance.
 
The key for managing the beef cow herd is matching inputs that provide optimal production. Operations that optimize nutritional inputs for a beef cow herd rarely maximize cow body weight performance.  Rather, optimal nutrition supplements provide the herd timely inputs that improve forage utilization so they produce a live, healthy calf that weans at an acceptable body weight, while maintaining a yearly calving interval.  Heavy cows with excess body condition are not the target for profitable cow-calf herds.
 
What are the little things in CRYSTALYX^® supplements that provide big returns?
 
1)      CRYSTALYX^® LMB supplements provide the first incremental units of nutrient delivery.  This may not always maximize production responses but it provides supplemental nutrients that contribute to consistent, profitable results of a beef cow herd.
2)      Reduced need for supplement processing, storage or delivery equipment.  CRYSTALYX^® supplements come ready to place in the pasture.  No additional preparation, processing, shelf-life considerations or storage facilities are required.  There is no need to spend extra capital in equipment or facilities for CRYSTALYX^® supplements.
3)      Self-fed supplement availability greatly reduces costs associated with more frequent feeding requirements of other supplement options.  This advantage can be even more important during periods of inclement weather when feeding livestock is difficult and unsafe for producers.
4)      Predictable intakes of CRYSTALYX^® mean predictable and affordable cost per head per day without the worry of excessive consumption.
5)      CRYSTALYX^® is virtually waste-free.  There are essentially no losses associated with feeding CRYSTALYX^® LMB supplements under a variety of wet, windy, hot, cold or dry conditions.
6)      Dehydrated molasses LMB products like CRYSTALYX^® contain little moisture resulting in supplements with the highest dry matter delivery compared to other types in the market.  This reduces transportation and handling expenses of supplements that contain higher levels of water.
 
If you are in the cow-calf business and are evaluating your supplementation program, consider how CRYSTALYX^® LMB supplements can help you manage your cow herd body weight and condition without the significant investment in delivering other supplemental nutrition programs.  While cost per ton is higher when compared to other forms of supplement, once you evaluate daily consumption, self-fed delivery, low requirements for other processing, storage or frequency of delivery costs, you will surely be surprised at the cost effectiveness of the CRYSTALYX^® supplement program.  You may even come up with a new saying - a little lick of CRYSTALYX^® will do ya!

There’s always been a lot of attention to supplement cost. Some will argue it’s more true now than ever with higher input cost for beef production, but I don’t recall a time ever in the past when feed and supplement cost was NOT a factor. Earlier bog topics the past several months by my colleagues and I have addressed many cost and value topics pertaining to feed and beef production.

The cost per ton or other unit of a supplement is only the starting point in figuring true cost. Proper supplement management will affect cost. Way too often we in the feed industry witness or hear of producers who purchase what they think is a good deal, only to realize later that what they’ve really purchased failed to meet their needs.  Sadly, this usually results in improper or incorrect use of a supplement; which in the end is simply a waste of money. Below are common errors or misconceptions that may be seen with managing free-choice supplements.

1.     Improper number of free-choice feeding stations in place

a.     Not enough blocks, mineral feeders, containers (lick barrels/tubs etc.), placed for the number of head being fed.  For example, if you are using Crystalyx^® barrels, a common barrel to animal ratio is 1 barrel for every 20-30 head of cattle.  If one barrel is placed for 250 head, there’s going to be a large number of animals that do not get adequate access to the supplement.

b.      Too many feeding installations are used.  In this case, too much consumption may be experienced.

2.     Location(s) of free-choice supplements and distance between blocks and/or tubs.

a.     It’s generally accepted that supplements can be placed near water and loafing areas, this will help animals acclimate and find the supplement. Some labeling does however recommend that supplements can be fed farther from these areas to help spread or distribute grazing or to influence consumption. Ridley Block Operations has extensive research showing how Crystalyx^_® can be effectively used to lure cattle to underutilized pasture areas, thus improving grazing distribution and overall economics of feeding.

b.     Put some distance between supplement placements. Often times I see numerous blocks/tubs being placed nearly side by side. This can cause crowding by the animals, trampling of the ground and ultimately lead to variable intake.  Put some distance between blocks and tubs.  This is easy to do when feeding on pasture. Small pressed blocks require at least 10’ between them while large tubs/barrels can be spread at distances over 300’.

a.     It’s important to know your intake of supplement and gauge it accordingly.  Having empty feeders for any period of time means most animals are not consuming supplement at regular intervals.  Animal behavior, environmental and geographic influence, may also describe supplement intake variance. But don’t add to this by simply not monitoring intakes and placing supplement when needed. For some help in this area, visit the Crystalyx^® Supplement scheduler at www.crystalyx.com/scheduler/. By entering a time frame of supplementation, estimated consumption and Crystalyx^® product selection, this tool will send you e-mail reminders as to when it is time to be placing supplement again.

4.     Waste and Weatherability

a.     All free-choice supplements are not created equally. Some need to be fed in weather proof containers (some mineral and salt supplements), while others are more weatherized and hold up very well to the elements.  Be prepared for weather as a poorly weatherized program will lead to supplement waste, poor palatability, etc.., ultimately impacting supplement cost and performance.

Good Supplement management should not be overlooked. Improperly managed free-choice supplements are usually inconvenient, don’t perform and are simply a waste of money. It may be better (cost wise) to forgo supplementation vs. having a program that is implemented incorrectly. Ridley Block Operations, the manufactures of Crystalyx^® brand supplements, takes pride in having effective free-choice supplement programs that are easy to manage, predictably consumed, and cost effective.