|
|
Have you thought about your cow's winter nutritional program re
By Michael Fisher CSU Area Livestock Extension Agent Colorado I would like to continue our discussion on ways that may help you lower your winter supplementation costs. In part two, we visited about pricing supplementation based on the pounds of crude protein that you were purchasing within a product. In part three, I want to share some information about supplementation frequency. Over the years, research has been conducted in several of the range states that looked at cattle responses compared to how often they received supplemental feed. We can find data from a multi-year, Oklahoma study (McIlvain and Shoop, 1962), that began in 1956 which suggests that weaned calves on winter range can be provided a supplemental feed source every third day or once weekly and show no significant difference in winter weight gain when compared to those calves fed daily. These researchers also monitored the weight gain of test calves over the subsequent summer and again noted no significant difference in weight gain. More recently, Chris Schauer (now Dr. Schauer of the NDSU Hettinger Research Extension Center) and his major professor, Dr. David Bohnert, from the Eastern Oregon Agriculture Research Center evaluated the potential for feeding supplemental CP to open range cows in this non-traditional fashion. They conducted both a dry lot study and a three-year range study to evaluate cow performance when fed a natural, high-protein source of supplemental CP on differing frequency schedules. The drylot study utilized 55 percent CP soybean meal fed daily, every third day, or every sixth day. Additionally, a control group did not receive any supplement. Those treatment groups that received supplement had an equal amount over a six day period. In other words, each supplemented cow was provided with 9.78 pounds of soybean meal in a six day period, broken down by their treatment group's supplementation frequency. All of the treatment groups had free choice meadow hay (5 percent CP) and a trace mineral. In the range study, the researchers fed a 43 percent CP cottonseed meal to two groups of cattle. One group was fed two pounds of supplemental feed daily; while the other group received twelve pounds every sixth day. In this study, a third group of cows, which received no supplemental CP was also observed as a control. All cows were provided with a trace mineral and stocked on open range (7 percent CP). The researchers determined that there was no significant end difference in weight gain or body condition score between the cows receiving the various supplementation frequency treatments. However, control cows in the drylot study did lose weight following calving. Furthermore, the researchers saw no negative effects on subsequent calf performance, pasture utilization, dry matter intake, or forage digestibility among the differing supplementation frequency groups in the range study. This research suggests that we can provide a high-protein source of supplemental CP as infrequently as once every six days without adversely effecting nutrient intake, nutrient digestibility, or cow performance. Additionally, data from this trial would suggest that grazing behavior was not hindered and the cows that were fed less frequently actually were more consistent at consuming their targeted amount of supplementation. While there are other research reports out there that will demonstrate some of the same ideas, I chose the Oregon study to relay to you because these researchers did something else that was interesting. They tracked the economic impacts of the differing supplementation frequencies. They calculated that on the average ranch it would take 2.5 hours to supplement the herd and required three gallons of fuel each time. By plugging in an hourly wage of $7.50 and assuming a winter fuel price of $3.20 per gallon, we can predict that a six-day supplementation frequency, when compared to daily feeding, would save us $708.75 over a 30 day period, in labor and fuel costs. That is an 83 percent savings. A three-day supplementation frequency would save you 67 percent, while simply going to an every other day supplementation will save you 50 percent of your labor and fuel costs. This strategy can allow you to significantly reduce some of your winter feeding input costs. Someone out there is surely thinking, "Well, that's nice, but I do not pay myself labor." In that case, think of it as though you have just gotten an extra 62.5, 50, or 37.5 hours for the month, in which you could be doing something other than feeding. If you are considering taking a look at this type of strategy, there are a couple of things you should be aware of before you start. The available data on the long periods between supplementations tend to be with natural proteins. Non-protein nitrogen, such as urea or biuret, has been successfully modeled in sheep on an every-other-day feeding. Also, if you are using one of the extended frequency supplementation strategies, your cows will not realize what day is feeding day. Therefore, you need to train your cows to come to the bunk. This is relatively easy. I have seen people use a can-style airhorn, like you might carry on a boat or take to a football game. They simply blow the horn about ten minutes before feeding. Once trained, the cows will come running for that airhorn. If you have questions on developing your winter feeding program, feel free to contact me at the Yuma County Extension office, 970-332-4151 or by e-mail at mj.fisher@colostate.edu. Date: 10/29/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
