Blog

June 19, 2018

by Loomix

I have spent the last few months traveling from Texas to Montana and Nebraska to Idaho and across the board, if you talk to cow/calf producers, you will hear a common theme: Things are tough going right now. There is no doubt that is true but at the same time, I think we need to look at reality. While there are some issues and warts, there are also some gold nuggets that we can look at and utilize to show that there is hope as we go into this feed season and beyond.

First, let’s deal with the warts. If you look at Cattle Fax average prices for a 550# calf, we have seen decreases in prices from the high in December of 2014 of $289.14/cwt to a current price for the same 550# calf at $124.71/cwt. On average. That is a difference of $164.43/cwt. If we look at year over year differences, calf prices are down by $80.50/cwt from $205.21 to $124.71 comparing October 2015 to October 2016 prices. On a year over year basis, this is a decrease of over $440 per head.

By now you probably want to go curl up in a corner. Don’t do that just yet. The sky is not falling and there are a lot of factors that we can point to that show that in fact, the sky is not falling and that there are great opportunities for utilization of the products we produce and sell on a daily basis. Let’s take a look.

First, input costs are down substantially. While cattle markets are down, we can take some solace in the fact that many input costs are down in price at virtually the same percentage.

monthly-us-hay-and-corn-futures-prices-graph

Second, grazing and forage production conditions in most of our market areas have been superior this year. Fortunately, spring and summer precipitation has been above normal for most of the geography that we cover. Therefore, most cow/calf producers will be able to take advantage of increased production when it comes to winter grazing, grass hay production and CRP hay production in order to keep costs in check.

us-drought-monitor

Finally, the numbers don’t lie. There should be continued profitability for cow/calf producers that manage their operations to be efficient in production and can manage to be a “high return” or “average return” producer. Many people hear the term “high return” producer and think it means producers in these categories don’t purchase inputs for their cattle. That is not necessarily the case. While keeping costs low will be key to profitability for cow/calf producers at this point in the cattle cycle, it does not mean that we don’t have a fit with our products and nutritional programs that we provide. More on that later though, for now, let’s take a look at the reality that cow calf producers are currently dealing with.

average-cow-calf-profitloss

The above charts show past profitability and carrying costs for cow/calf producers in three different categories (High Return, Average Return and Low Return). The cow costs listed are based on a survey in 2015. If we assume costs will be similar moving forward, cash cost break-even prices for a 550# calf would range from $157.18/cwt for “low return” producers to $78.00/cwt for “high return” producers with an average break-even of $1.18/cwt on a 550# calf. So the question becomes, if that is the break-even, what can cow/calf producers expect for revenue on a 550# calf in 2017?

price-expectations

The chart above shows the expected average price and range of prices on a 550# calf for 2017 based on the Cattle-Fax Long-Term Outlook released in late July of 2016. Since then, these projections have been updated to a range of $120/cwt to $155/cwt for a 550# calf depending on the point in the seasonal cycle. Based on that, if we use $137/cwt as an average and an average production cost of $118/cwt, cow/calf producers should recognize a profit of $19/cwt or $104.50 per head. While that is not the level of profitability this segment of the industry has seen in the past year or two, it is still profitable and that is important.

So, where do we fit in all of this? As providers of supplements and nutritional programs to help maximize forage utilization, we need to realize that the products we supply fit in this market and in the current point in the cattle cycle. Whether it is Loomix or QLF products, the point is that we provide cow calf producers tools to utilize and get the most they can out of lower cost, poor quality forages while helping ensure cattle in the herd perform at a peak level of their capability.
In most cases, most spring calving herds weaning has occurred or is about to occur. We all know that most cow herds are on a schedule where right now and for the next 90 to 120 days is the most economical time to put weight on females in the herd. In fact, you could argue that the most economical and highest ROI nutritional program for cow/calf producers would be to make sure they are incorporating liquid supplementation into their feeding program right now and moving forward especially when you consider that most cow herds are still in a grazing situation on grass or may be going to crop aftermath soon. The point is, by supplementing forage at this point in the production cycle, this is one time where you can have a major impact on the productivity of the herd now, through calving and breeding and on through next year’s weaning.
I titled this article “Is there Hope?” Yes I was being facetious but I also know if you have spent much time talking to producers and even ourselves as salespeople and dealers lately, it can seem like there isn’t hope. The reality is there is hope and the time to be talking to producers about what we can provide is now, because in many ways right now is when our products and programs can have the biggest impact on the producers herds productivity and in the end, the producers profitability.

November 1, 2016

Corn Stalk Grazing
No Comments / in Loomix / by Loomix

Grazing corn stalks is a common practice and typically one of the most cost effective ways to winter cows. Historically corn stalks have had a predictable feed value and could maintain body conditions (BC) on a bred cow with minimal supplementation. If managed correctly cows can gain BC while grazing stalks, however, over grazing and loss of BC is always a concern. Producers always want to get the most out of a field sometimes at the expense of BC.

Grain, husk and leaves are the most palatable and nutrient dense fractions left in the field. Stalks and cobs are the least palatable and least nutrient dense fractions and cows do a great job of foraging for the grain, husk and leaves when first introduced to a field leaving stalks and cobs for last. Husk and leaves make up about 40% (Wilson et al. 2004) of the dry matter of a stalk field. Therefore, the take 50 leave 50 is a good rule of thumb for grazing stalks. Once 50% of the fodder is removed by the cows what is left will not have the nutrients needed by a cow. Therefore cows must be moved or an increase in supplementation must occur to maintain BC.

Many producers have expressed concerns that corn stalks have a lower feed value today than they have in the past, and many of the corn stalk analysis I have seen seem to agree with that. Not only lower energy but also lower in calcium, magnesium and protein. National Research Council reported values for corn stalks in both their 1984 (this did not include husk) and 2000 publications. Values from the 1984 NRC were 50, 6.6, 0.57, 0.10 and 0.40; values for 2000 were 65.9, 6.5, 0.62, 0.09, and 0.00 (percent TDN, CP, Ca, P and Mg; respectively). Table one contains the analysis from 3 fields of corn stalks analyzed in 2014. It appears that concerns over nutrients decreasing in corn stalks are justified; also stalks seem to be more variable in their nutrient profile. The reduction in energy could be due to breeding plants with more lignin in the stalks making them stronger and less likely to fall and resulting less ear drop as well. Also breeds of corn may have a different ratio of husk and leaves to stalks and cobs. Better harvest equipment leaves less grain in the fields for the cows reducing the energy value of what is in the field. The change in Calcium and Magnesium are a little harder to explain but could be due to breeding or simple mining the soil of these minerals by not replacing them with fertilization. With all of this in mind supplementation has become more important than ever.

In many cases, NRC may over estimate nutrient value of corn stalks which will diminish cow performance. Table 2 demonstrates the gap that would need to be bridged by a supplement for a cow grazing an average of the stalk fields in table 1. To bridge the gap with a 2 lbs/hd/d supplement it would need to be 35% CP, 30% TDN, and 0.31% Phos. In stalk field 1 Ca supplementation would be needed as well. Alliance Liquid Feeds tries to be proactive; when a trend of declining Ca levels in stalks was noticed, Ca was added to bitter formula to help offset this trend. However, Ca levels in liquid supplement have to be limited for a number of reasons. Therefore, if feeding rates are restricted or if the base forage is significantly deficient another source of Ca must be fed. Properly sampling stalk fields for analysis is important part of managing feed resources and avoiding nutrient deficiencies that can cause production losses. If samples are not taken Alliance Liquid Feeds recommends that you assume a worst case scenario and feed additional Ca. Calcium mix with loose salt, alfalfa or a dry mineral with Ca and P are all good options to insure Ca is sufficient in the diet. For more information about supplementing strategies or for help balancing rations please contact Technical services.

Table 1. Corn stalk analysis for winter of 2014 (DM basis)

Items	Stalk Field 1	Stalk Field 2	Stalk Field 3	2001 NRC
Crude Protein, %	3.8	5.4	5.5	6.5
TDN, %	38.0	58.3	56.2	65.9
Calcium, %	0.21	0.34	0.48	0.62
Phosphorus, %	0.10	0.11	0.09	0.09
Magnesium, %	0.08	0.13	0.2	0.00

Table 2. Gap between the requirement and nutrients provided by base forage for a 1300 lbs cow -Last Trimester

Items	Requirement	Average of Stalks	Difference
Stalks, lbs DM		26
Crude Protein, lbs/hd/d	2.0	1.3	-0.7
TDN, lbs/hd/d	13.8	13.2	-0.6
Calcium, g/hd/d	29.5	40.1	10.6
Phosphorus, g/hd/d	18.9	16.1	-2.8

NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Seventh Revised Edition. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

NRC. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Sixth Revised Edition. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Wilson, C. B., G. E. Erickson, T. J. Klopfenstein, R. J. Rasby, D. C. Adams, and I. G. Rush. 2004. A review of corn stalk grazing on animal performance and crop yield. Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports 2004:13-15.

March 30, 2016

Does Fly Control Bug You?
No Comments / in Loomix / by Loomix

by Dr.Kelley Neuhold, Loomix Technical Service Specialist

I am a 4th generation SE Colorado rancher, at the age of twelve I took the money I had saved and purchased two bred cows. Those two baldy cows were the start of my current cow herd. From that time forward my dad and I have run cows together and one of the common conversations we have each year is should we feed fly control. Two of our common concerns are does feed thru fly control work and is it cost effective.

We make a common mistake many producers make, which is starting to feed fly control too late. Dad and I don’t start thinking about fly control until we see flies which is about 30 to 60 days too late. Oral fly control should start being fed 30 days before the last hard freeze. In the continental U.S. start dates range from March 1st in the south to May 15th in the north. If a fly population is established prior to feeding fly control it will take 35 days to see a reduction in fly numbers. A pour-on, spray, or rub could be used in those situations to help decrease the adult fly population.
In my experience many producers mistake fly control for fly eradication, thus their disappointment with their control program. Fly eradication is nearly impossible to accomplish and never cost effective. Two hundred flies per animal is the economic threshold, if the fly population exceeds this threshold production and/or economic losses will occur. Table 1 demonstrates this point very well. Campbell (1976) evaluated the effect of fly control (treated cows 15 flies per cow vs untreated cows 469 flies per cow) on steer weaning weights in the sand hills of Nebraska. Under the conditions of this study fly control increase weaning weights 13 lb at $1.60 per pound that would mean an extra $20.80 per steer weaned. They did not report body condition scores of the cows but I would assume similar if not better body condition for the treated cows.

A three year study conducted in Louisiana evaluated the effect of fly control on replacement heifer performance (Table 2). Pregnancy rates were not different between the two groups, however replacement heifers treated for horn flies gained 15 pound more than heifers not treated over the 140 day feeding period. The greatest gains were realized in heifers that remained open. Open heifers treated for flies gained 0.25 lb/hd/d more than open heifers that were not treated for flies. This makes treated heifers 35 lb heavier over 140 feeding period, at $1.37 per pound, those heifers are $48 more valuable at sale time. This helps offset some of the cost associated with developing an open heifer.

Horn flies are the most economically relevant fly to the cattle industry, this is especially true for pasture cattle. Confinement operations may need to control other types of flies as well as horn flies. Face flies can also have an impact on your bottom line through the spread of disease such as pink eye. Houston (2010) estimated that pinkeye cost producers $150 million annually. Make sure the product you use is labeled for the fly or flies that are on your cattle. One benefit of oral fly control is that there is no need to rotate products, once you find one that works for you, you can stay with it.

To have a successful fly season remember these three keys. First start thinking about fly control before you have flies, don’t be like my dad and I. Second remember it is fly control, some flies are acceptable. Realist fly control reduces the population by 75 to 80%. And finally keeping fly population below 200 flies per animal can add pounds to your cattle and dollars to your bottom line.

Table 1. Effect of treating beef cows
for horn flies on steer weaning weights.¹

Item	Treated	Untreated
Weaning weight, lb	387^a	374^b
Horn flies per cow	15	469

¹Adapted from Campbell 1976.

²Means with in a row with different superscripts differ
(P < 0.05).

Table 2. Effect of horn fly treatment
on replacement heifer performance.¹

Item	Treated	Untreated	SEM	P<
Initial weight, lb	781	778	5.5	0.71
Final weight, lb	906	891	6.0	0.01
ADG, lb	0.91	0.82	0.022	0.001
Total gain, lb	128	113	3.1	0.001
Pregnancy Rates, %	75	78	2.8	0.46
ADG Bred, lb	0.89	0.83	0.022	0.004
ADG open, lb	0.98	0.73	0.066	0.002

Campbell, J. B. 1976. Effect of Horn Fly Control on Cows as Expressed by Increased Weaning Weights of Calves. Journal of Economic Entomology. 69:711-712(2).
DeRouen, S. M., L. D. Foil, A. J. MacKay, D. E. Franke, D. W. Sanson, and W. E. Wyatt. 2003. Effect of horn fly (Haematobia irritans) control on growth and reproduction of beef heifer. Journal of Economic Entomology. 96:1612-1616.
Huston, C. 2010.Pinkeye in Cattle. (Publication 2608) Extension Service of Mississippi State University.

March 18, 2014

Is It Worth The Price?
No Comments / in From the Field / by Loomix

-by Dick Carlson, Colorado and Southern Wyoming District Sales Manager

Often times when visiting customers at the feedlot, dairy or ranch they confront us with questions, such as:

Is this feed worth the price being asked?
How do I determine the value of the feed source from a feed test?
What is important to review when I receive results from the lab?

RMR_7446_web

Regardless of whether or not feeds are expensive, we must determine the best feed for the value of a given nutrient. Whether feeding cows or feeder cattle we must put a pencil to the ration to determine the best feeds to incorporate, based

on the dollar value of that nutrient provided

to the animal. Following is a list to be used when determining which nutrients should be purchased at a particular price.

Inventory feed currently available on-hand.
Determine the rations needed to identify the amount of total feed required.
Determine when you will feed your best and worst rations.
Test your feeds to identify the nutrients lacking in those diets.
Determine the best value of requireed nutrients based on dry matter.
Know the cost of transporting feeds, especially wet feeds.
Determine the palatability of the feed and potential waste.

Feeds cannot be compared fairly based on price alone. The lowest priced feed may not be the most economical feed in the long run. Evaluating the additional supplements your customers will need to purchase is esstential in providing what the cheap feed is not. To determine if the feed is right, first look at the dry matter cost of the particular feed.

Also, we need to determine which nutrient, such as protein or energy, the feed lacks when developing a ration for a certain group of

animals. Let’s work through a few examples.

Example 1:

Alfalfa priced at $160/ton; 18% crude protein (CP);

56 total digestible nutrients (TDN); 87% dry matter (DM).

Cost/ton of DM: $160/ton / 20 cwt / .87 = $9.20/cwt DM

Cost/pound of CP: $9.20/cwt DM / 18% CP = $0.51/lb. CP

Cost/pound of TDN: $9.20/cwt DM / 56% TDN = $0.165/lb. TDN

Comparing corn with distillers grain is a common practice, which reinforces why we need to identify the moisture and the cost of transporting that feed. Example 2 only compares moisture, but to go further protein and energy should also be compared when considering wet distillers.

Example 2:

Corn priced at $4.60/bu; Wet distillers grain delivered at $69.80/ton

Corn: $4.60/bu / 56 (lb/bu) / .845(15.5% DM) x 20 cwt = $194.42/ton

WDG: $59.80/ton + $10/ton freight / .35(35% DM) = $199.43/ton

Obviously, there are other things to consider when selecting feeds. Some may be less expensive providing a good source of scratch for the rumen but have no feed value. Therefore, the remaining diet will need to be more dense with the other essential nutrients.

Or, let’s go for adding Hay Treat and make

poor feed a

usable commodity with additional protein. Additionally,

High Fat products provide a great solution to add energy with the side benefit of conditioning the ration.

The art to using different feedstuffs, whether poor or excellent quality, is

how we make the rations all fit together and be edible. Hopefully, working through these examples reinforces the need to balance rations and help you answer those questions during visits

to feedlots, dairies and ranches.

Dick Carlson can be reached at Dick.Carlson@allianceliquidfeeds.com.

From the Loomix® Doctor’s Office

–by Dr. Kelley Neuhold, Loomix Technical Service Specialist

As I sat down to write this article, I was reminded of a sign that hung above the door in the sale barn café. It said “Cows may come and cows may go, but the bull in this place is forever.” Unfortunately, actual bulls won’t last forever but their useful life can sure be reduced with improper management and nutrition. Many times bull management is overlooked because they only make up 2.5 to 5 percent of a herd; however, keep in mind they contribute to 50 percent of the reproduction equation. Fertility problems in bulls can have a major impact on a ranch’s bottom line by lengthening the calving season, reducing calving percentages, and the cost of feeding open cows. Fertility is influenced by both the animal’s genetics and environment. Environmental factors include nutrition, health and management. Once a bull is born nothing can be done to improve his genes, but nutrition and management can be used to increase his breeding longevity.

Feeding and caring for mature bulls, older than 3 years, in good body condition (BC) is much like feeding and caring for dry cows in the second trimester of pregnancy (Table 1). A good BC score for a bull is similar to that of a cow. Prior to and during breeding season bulls should have a BC between 5.5 and 6.5 (Walker et al. 2008). Extremely thin and extremely fat bulls can have semen quality and libido issues for different reasons. Bulls should always have plenty of fresh water, a warm dry place to lie down (bedding maybe needed during extreme cold weather), room to exercise and full access to low to medium quality forage (6 to7 percent CP). Young bulls, younger than 3 years, need more consideration than mature bulls. These bulls are still developing and are more likely to be timid. Young bulls have higher protein and energy requirements (Table 1) than mature bulls due to their growth requirement.

Vitamins and trace minerals (TM) play a very important role in male reproduction. Manganese deficiency is associated with reduced male libido. Zinc (Zn) and vitamin A deficiencies are related to a reduction in spermatogenesis (Bearden and Fuquay, 1992). NRC (2000) suggests vitamin and TM requirements are similar for bulls and cows (Vitamin A = 1,275; Zn = 30 ppm). Arthington et al. (1995) used yearling bulls to evaluate Zn concentration and source on fertility. The three treatments were 1) 40 ppm from Zn sulfate, 2) 40 ppm 1/3 organic Zn 2/3 Zn sulfate, 3) 60 ppm Zn sulfate. They found across all fertility measurement evaluated bull on treatment number two had the most favorable results followed by treatment number three than treatment number one, suggesting that 30 ppm Zn suggested by the NRC maybe too low for yearling bulls. Rowe et al. (2011) used mature bulls to evaluate TM source (organic vs. inorganic) on semen quality and found bulls who were fed organic TM had improved semen quality (Table 2) over bulls fed the same concentration of inorganic TM. These experiments suggest providing bulls a portion of their TM from organic source may improve semen quality, which may improve conception rate in the herd.

Management of bulls should not be overlooked, it can mean the difference between being profitable and not. Keep in mind it takes about 60 days to produce mature sperm; therefore, it will take at least 60 days before management

changes will be realized. This emphasized the importance of evaluating BC and rations 90 days prior to breeding to give time for any change to take effect. The best advice I can give is to preform breeding soundness exams each year on your bulls. This is very cheap insurance, especially for producers who have single bull pastures.

Table 1. Nutrient requirement for young and mature bulls (Dry matter basis).¹
Weight, lb	ADG, lbs	CP, %	TDN, %	Zinc, ppm²	Vitamin A, IU/lb
1,100	1	10.1	55.0	40	1,275
2,000	0	6.5	45.9	40	1,275

¹Based on NRC 2000.²NRC suggest zinc

level at 30 ppm, however research presented would suggest a minimum

of 40 ppm.

Table 2. LS Mean sperm measurements of bulls assigned to inorganic or organic trace mineral treatments over the 9 week study.¹
Sperm Parameters	Inorganic	Organic²	P values
Motile, %	56.1 ± 2.8	65.5 ± 2.6	0.024
Progressive, %	38.4 ± 2.2	47.0 ± 2.0	0.011
Rapid, %	52.8 ± 2.9	62.3 ± 2.6	0.027

¹Adopted from Rowe et al. 2011.²Organic trace minerals were provided

from Zinpro Availa4.

Sources’

Arthington, J., K. Johnson, L. Corah, C. Williams, and D. Hill. 1995. The effect of dietary zinc level and source on yearling

bull growth and fertility. J. Anim. Sci. Abstract.

Bearden, H. J., and J. W. Fuquay. 1992. Nutritional management. In: Applied Animal Reproduction. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 283-292.

NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Seventh Revised Edition. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Rowe, M. P., J. G. Powell, E. B. Kegley, T. D. Lester,

C. L. Williams, R. J. Page, and R. W. Rorie. 2011. Influence of organic versus inorganic trace mineral supplementation on bull semen quality. Univ. of Arkansas Systems Div. of Ag., Dept. of Anim. Sci., Fayetteville, Ark. AAES Research Series 597.

Walker, J., G. Perry, and

K. Olson. 2008. Bull Nutrition. SDSU Extension Extra Anim. and Range Sci. ExEx2065.

Dr. Kelley Neuhold can be reached at Kelley.Neuhold@allianceliquidfeeds.com.