Feedlot Numbers Down but Plentiful Currently

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

The October USDA Cattle on Feed Report showed that feedlot placements in September were 97.1 percent of last year and marketings were 96.9 percent of one year ago.  The placement total was lower than expected while the marketings were just slightly lower than expected.  The on-feed inventory on October 1 was 11.55 million head, 1.4 percent lower year over year. This is the fourth consecutive month of year over year decreases in the feedlot inventory.

Following the ripple effects of last year’s pandemic volatility, it appears that feedlot production has moved past the cyclically peak numbers and will decrease consistently going forward.  The quarterly breakdown of steers and heifers shows that the number of steers in feedlots decreased year over year in July and again in this October report.  The number of heifers in feedlots, however, was up 1.8 percent year over year in October, after being down in July.  This may be the result of some heifers being diverted from breeding to feeding because of drought.

Beyond the cattle on feed numbers are the demographics of the mix of cattle placed in recent months.  Feedlot placements have been impacted by overall cattle herd dynamics, the drought and sharply higher feedlot costs of gain.  Over the past six months, which covers the majority of cattle currently on feed, placements of cattle under 700 pounds were down 4.8 percent year over year while placements over 800 pounds were up 1.3 percent compared to last year.  Focusing on the past three months, July to September, placements of cattle under 600 pounds has been down 6.1 percent year over year while placements over 800 pounds have been down just 0.5 percent year over year.   Within the 800 plus pounds placements in the past three months is a 3.0 percent larger total of placements over 900 pounds compared to last year.

These numbers indicate that feedlots are front-loaded with heavy cattle and will remain so for a few more weeks, likely into December. This explains much of the inability of the fed cattle market to move into the tighter numbers needed to break out of current levels.  However, the September placements show a very different picture ahead.  Out of the overall 2.9 percent decrease in September, placements under 600 pounds were down 1.2 percent year over year and placements over 800 pounds were down 5.3 percent (including a 7.4 percent year over year decrease in placements over 900 pounds).  The implication is that, while it is taking longer than expected to turn the corner on tighter feedlot numbers, the change may be relatively sudden and dramatic when it does arrive.  Feedlots have responded to higher costs of gain by focusing more on heavy placements as long as possible.  However, the overall decline in cattle numbers and the seasonal dynamics of fall placement weights should result in a rapidly changing feedlot situation by December and into 2022.

Evaluating Money Saved When Purchasing Feed on Cost per Unit of Protein and Energy Basis

Mark Z. Johnson, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Breeding Specialist

Last week we looked at how to evaluate feeds based on cost per unit of crude protein (CP) and energy (TDN) basis rather than just purchasing based on price per ton or bag.  The final point of that article was this: determining the most cost effective ration or supplement should be based on the feeding or supplementation objective.  Many factors impact the nutrient requirements of cattle.  This week we take a closer look at a specific goal and show the money saved by evaluating purchased feed on a cost of nutrient basis.

The Scenario & Objective
We have 60 mature cows, average weight of 1,300 lbs., due to calve in late January, entering the last trimester of pregnancy, cows are in a Body Condition Score (BCS) of 5.5.  We have ample standing forage in the form of native grass which forage analysis indicates is 5% CP and 55% TDN.  On grass of this type, cows should consume 1.9 – 2.0% of their body weight resulting  in forage dry matter consumption of 25 lbs./day.  Knowing that reproductive efficiency is highly correlated to nutrition, our objective is for cows to maintain current weight and BCS until calving.

These cows will need 1.84 lbs. of CP and 13.3 lbs. of TDN per day over the next 100 days.

Whenever possible we would like to maintain cows by utilizing the standing forage.  Can this be done?

25 lbs. Forage DM intake x .05 CP = 1.25 lbs./day CP intake.

1.84 lbs. CP required – 1.25 lbs. from the forage equals a daily CP deficiency of .59 lbs./day

25 lbs. Forage DM intake x .55 TDN = 13.75 lbs./day TDN intake.  There is no energy deficiency.

We have identified a supplemental need for protein.  Research have consistently shown that protein supplementation is extremely effective for cattle grazing protein-deficient forage. In fact, energy supplementation will not be effective if dietary protein is deficient.

Now the questions is: Which of the two protein supplements evaluated last week can most cost effectively meet our goal? The 20% CP range cubes at $312/ton or the 38% range cubes at $425/ton.

It would take 3 lbs./day of the 20% cubes to meet the CP requirement.  For example: .59 lb. CP deficiency/.20 CP content = 3 lbs.  Last week, we determined the cost per unit of CP in the 20% range cubes to be $.78.  Taking the .59 lb. CP deficiency x $.78 = $.47/day cost with 20% cubes to meet CP needs.  This daily cost x 100 days of supplementation x 60 cows equals an expense of $2,820

It would take 1.58 lbs./day of the 38% cubes to meet the CP requirement.  For example: .59 CP deficiency/.38 CP content = 1.58.  Last week, we determined the cost per unit of CP in the 38% range cubes to be $.56.  Taking the .59 lb. CP deficiency x $.56 = $.33/day cost to supplement the cows with 38% cubes to meet their CP needs.  This daily cost x 100 days of supplementation x 60 cows equals an expense of $1,982.40

Supplementing the 38% range cubes purchased at a cost of $425/ton instead of the 20% cubes at a lower price per ton resulted in a savings of $837.60 to supplement the 60 cows for 100 days.

Un-needed supplementation increases feed cost without real benefit.  The goal of supplementation is to feed just enough of the right supplement to improve the overall diet.  Determining the most cost effective means of supplementing cows requires the evaluation of feeds on a cost per unit of protein and energy provided.  Can you afford not to?

Computer software, such as OSU Cowculator, can better pinpoint an animal’s nutrient requirement at a specific time and in a specific stage of production. These and other useful tools can be found at beefextension.com.

References

Beef Cattle Manual. Eight Edition. E-913. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension. Chapters 16 and 17.

The Rancher’s Thursday Lunchtime webinar series is currently about Controlling Winter Feed Costs featuring a current cattle outlook by Dr. Derrell Peel (OSU Extension: Controlling Winter Feed Costs - YouTube), and Efficient Use of Range Cubes by Earl Ward (OSU Extension: Controlling Winter Feed Costs - YouTube). Go to Rancher's Thursday Lunchtime Series — Beef Extension (okstate.edu) for links to all the previous Rancher’s Thursday Lunchtime Webinars.

Test Don’t Guess!

Dana Zook, Northwest Area Extension Livestock Specialist

This year has flown by and we are back to feeding and supplementation season in Oklahoma.  By now most producers have begun the process of taking inventory of hay supplies, pricing supplements, and making feed purchases necessary to bridge the gap between the fall grazing season and springtime green-up.  Within this process it is also a good idea to submit hay samples to determine their best use within a feeding plan.

Is hay use in your winter-feeding plan?  Winter hay feeding is a reality for most Oklahoma producers and some use high quality hays such as alfalfa for supplementation.  In both instances, a forage analysis is essential to cost effective and efficient use of the hay.  Hay quality varies each year due to the stage of maturity at cutting, soil fertility, growing conditions, harvest circumstances, and storage methods.  A real understanding of nutrient value of hay comes only from 1.) accurate sampling procedures and 2.) thorough analysis at the lab.  Values obtained from previous years hay analysis or “book values” will work in a pinch but can lead to inaccurate feeding.

So, what makes a good hay sample?  Forage samples must closely resemble the entire “lot” of forage.  A “lot” of forage consists of forage harvested from one field within a 48-hour period.  Each “lot” should be uniform in the forage it represents.  For example, the type of plants, amount of weeds, field where it was cut, cutting date, storage conditions, and pest and disease damage should all be consistent in that lot.  When these characteristics differ, separate samples should be obtained.  Alfalfa producers may have 4 or 5 lots of hay per season from one field.  Be sure to sample from each of these lots and keep the analysis separate.

How should the hay be sampled?  Baled hay should be sampled after curing with a core sampler or hay probe.  When sampling, the hay probe should penetrate at least 12-18 inches into the bale and have an internal diameter of no less than 3/8-in.  It is recommended to take no less than 20 samples (1 sample/bale) or cores from a “lot” of hay.  Lots greater than 200 tons will require around 40 samples.  Large round bales should be sampled by pushing the hay probe straight in at the center of the curved side of the bale.  This gives an accurate sample of the entire windrow rather than just a single point within the windrow.  Combine the sub-samples within each lot in a bag or bucket, mix well, and then submit a composite sample.  Most OSU county extension offices have core samplers that can be loaned out to producers for hay sampling.

What should forage samples be tested for?  Hay sources should be analyzed for moisture, protein, and energy as they are all needed to correctly formulate supplemental diets.  Producers may also want to test for minerals or for potential issues of nitrate toxicity.  Forage samples can be sent to the OSU Soil, Water, and Forage Analytical Lab from your local county extension office.  Costs vary depending on the specific test, but most range from $14-20.  Speak with your local county extension educator if you have questions about feed and forage testing or would like help interpreting the hay test results.

Accurately testing hay takes time and money.  However, accurate results are extremely valuable when formulating cost effective supplements and winter-feeding programs.  In a climate of high feed prices and low stocks of hay, it may be a good time for producers to sharpen pencils and evaluate the quality of the forage fed to cattle this winter.

Other resources:

Collecting Forage Samples for Analysis fact sheet http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2553/PSS-2589web2013.pdf

Supplementing Beef Cows fact sheet https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/supplementing-beef-cows.html

Dr. David Lalman discussed testing hay quality on Sunup on August 14, 2021. Testing Hay Quality 8/14/21 — SUNUP TV (okstate.edu)