home → articles → Feed & Nutrition | Email to a Friend

A Systematic, Simple Approach To Feeding Cows

published: June 7th 2007
by: Rick Machen, Ph.D. Texas Cooperative Ext

Review the list of all production expenses for commercial cow/calf operations and you’ll find supplementation expense among the top five; feed costs often occupy the #1 position on the out-of-pocket (variable cost) expense list. Large expense categories receive the initial attention when it comes time to tighten the belt and survive tough times like these. Following is a prioritized list of suggestions for developing a nutrition management program and getting a grasp on feed costs.

1. An appropriate stocking rate is essential if efficiency and economy are expected of the supplementation program. The purpose of supplementing grazing cattle is to correct a nutrient deficiency of the diet. The quantity and quality of available forage have as much or more to do with the success or failure of a feeding program as the characteristics of the supplement.
2. Nutrient requirements of the cow must be matched with productivity of the environment. Genotype x environment interaction is a critical management consideration with significant impact on the success of a supplementation program. Results of a Nebraska study indicated that, under liberal feed conditions and/or in the presence of a stress-free environment, larger mature size, heavier milking cows were more efficient that moderate size cows. However, when feed supply was restricted and/or environmental stress was present, moderate-size and moderate-milking cows were more efficient producers. Cows with smaller nutrient demands have a greater chance of achieving their biological production potential in any given environment.
3. For the commercial cow/calf producer, the production period with the greatest nutrient demand (calving, lactation) and the period of greatest expected nutrient availability should coincide. Forage maturity and quality are inversely related, while maturity and quantity are typically directly related. Native range forages traditionally exhibit their highest quality during the spring and early summer; hence one of the reasons a large portion of the cows in the Southwest calve during that time of year. Management decisions which ignore this nutrient supply: demand relationship may result in supplementation programs with reduced efficiency. Production and/or marketing objectives for summer, fall or early winter calving programs may compensate for this loss of efficiency.
4. Sort cows by physiological condition to improve supplementation efficiency and reduce costs. The first 60-80 days post-calving is the period of greatest nutrient demand experienced by a cow during the production year. During this period, cows are trying to recover from calving, reach and maintain peak lactation, cycle and rebreed and thereby deserve more attention. Heifers with their first calf at side and going through this process demand special consideration if high conception rates for the second calf are a priority. Body condition adjustments are most efficiently made during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Under today’s production parameters (high feed costs, short forage supply and low feeder calf prices), open cows cannot be tolerated. Therefore, if possible, sort cows by age and expected calving date. Implementation of a 90-110 day breeding season greatly facilitates this sorting process.
5. Initiation and termination of the supplementation program are critical decisions.A frequently asked question is ‘When should I start feeding?” The theoretical answer is as soon as the cows begin to experience a nutrient deficiency. Maintaining body weight is tough enough - attempting to replace lost weight/condition and subsequently improve condition is economically inefficient. In reality, if cows are in “better than necessary” condition, some weight loss is tolerable and will result in feed savings. Tardy initiation and/or an unwarranted continuation of supplementation result in increased costs. Relatively new computer modeling technology developed by Texas A&M offers cattlemen an opportunity to estimate the nutritional status of grazing cattle. The program, called NUTBAL (Nutritional Balance Analyzer), involves fecal analysis to predict nutrient intake and comparison of this intake with calculated requirements to yield an estimate of the nutrient balance of the grazing animal.
6. Nutrient content of the supplement has a significant impact on the response observed. Protein is often the first-limiting nutrient for cattle grazing dormant forages or consuming poor quality hay. When compared to energy, protein is commonly the more expensive component. Feed purchasing decisions should be based on a $ per pound of nutrient (usually protein) basis, not simply on a $/cwt. or ton basis. Comparing two feeds of differing nutrient content strictly on price per unit weight is like comparing apples and oranges. High protein supplements (those >30% crude protein), fed at 0.1-0.3% of body weight per day, stimulate forage intake - research results indicate the intake improvement can be as large as 60%. Increases in forage intake provide a large boost in energy and demonstrate why correcting a protein deficiency is usually the first priority in supplementation programs. Generally, as % crude protein in a feed increases, the cost per unit of protein decreases. Comparing extremes on a cost per unit of protein basis, the difference between whole shelled corn (10% CP, $180/ton) and cottonseed meal (44% CP, $300/ton) can be as large as 260% (the $/lb CP for corn can be as much as 2.6 times higher than for cottonseed meal). In contrast, starchy, high-energy supplements (i.e. cereal grains) tend to reduce forage intake and digestibility, a phenomenon referred to as negative associative effect - the net effect can be a reduction in performance. Energy supplements (10-18% crude protein), when fed at 0.7-1.0% of body weight daily, can be used to extend a limited forage or hay supply without reducing performance. In between the high protein and energy supplements are the “general purpose” feeds, of which the 20% crude protein formulation is perhaps the most popular. Feeds of this type are an excellent choice when attempting to maintain forage intake and improve performance (body condition). Recommended feeding rates are 0.3-0.5% of body weight per day.
7. Purchasing and provision decisions also offer opportunities for reducing supplementation costs. Forward contracting - Traditionally, feed prices are the lowest in mid to late summer and highest in the winter. Contracting feed in late summer for use the following winter can result in substantial savings. Review of feed prices during the 1995-96 feeding season would indicate increases of $40-50/ton from late summer ’95 to spring ‘96. Forward contracts are typically confined to larger volumes of feed and may not be appropriate for smaller operations. In addition, cash flow restrictions may prohibit some cattlemen from forward contracting. Bulk feed - Handling feed in bulk reduces labor inputs and generally results in a $5-20 per ton reduction compared to sacked prices. Again, bulk handling may not be applicable to smaller operations and does require some up-front investment in storage and feeding equipment. Reduce feeding frequency - Research results from several universities indicate little or no difference in performance of cows supplemented 2 or 3 times per week compared to those fed daily. Recent studies would indicate that feeding once a week yields results comparable to those fed more frequently. Reduced feeding frequency saves labor, fuel and equipment wear. High protein supplements (>30% CP) perform well when offered infrequently. However, high-energy supplements (10-18% CP) perform best when offered frequently and in small amounts. Infrequent feeding of large amounts of grain/high energy feeds can cause serious illness. Reproductive performance (% calf crop weaned) is the key to survival during tough times. The profit margin (if any) per cow is small; therefore it takes the production of several cows to pay the expenses associated with non-productive cows. Cows can generate income in one of two ways: wean a marketable calf or go to market as a cull cow. As previously mentioned, large expense categories often draw the most attention when it comes time to tighten the belt. However, those expenses that directly influence productivity must be evaluated with care. Sustainable grazing management systems, cost effective supplementation programs and an effective preventative herd health plan are fundamental requirements for achieving performance goals.

Calculating $/lb of crude protein:

• % crude protein x volume of feed (cwt., ton) = lb crude protein
• feed cost ($/volume of feed) / lb crude protein = $/lb. crude protein
• Example - A 20% CP feed costing $200/ton. What is the $/lb. CP?

1. 20% x 2000 lb = 400 lb crude protein
2. $200 / 400 lb - $0.50/lb. crude protein