Hay Value Comparisons

[Running Arrow Bill]

I've been doing some thinking and math things...Will appreciate any comments on the "logic" of what I'm addressing...

First: I'll set the stage of "constants": 1000# Round Bale of "anything". 10% Protein Content of the bale. $100. for this bale. Assumption: All the hay is the "same" quality. (Just using powers of "ten" for simplicity).

Now...

1000# Round Bale = 10% Protein = $100. Cost

Therefore, "Relative Value/Cost of":

2000# Round Bale = 10% Protein = $ 200. Cost
500# Round Bale = 10% Protein = $50. Cost

Therefore:

1000# Round Bale = 20% Protein = $50. Cost
1000# Round Bale = 5% Protein = $200. Cost

Does this analysis make sense to y'all?

If so, and if my assumptions are correct, then when buying hay, it would be very important to look at the protein analysis of the hay to arrive at the "actual" cost of that bale one is buying.

Then, IF a $100 bale of quality hay is compared with a lesser quality/protein content hay, then the POORER quality hay is in reality MORE expensive to buy and feed than the quality hay is.

Opinions, discussion y'all???

 

[littleboss]

You lost me. .

How to figure it. Figure the cost of protein per lb.

1000 lb round 10% protein cost $50.00 equals .50 per lb for protein ($50/100lbs of protein)

1000 lb round 15% protein cost $65.00 equals .43 lb for protein ($65/150lbs of protein)

Dairy farmers are interested in RFV but I have never saw a cattleman who bought hay ask about it (relative feed value).

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

You lost me. .

How to figure it. Figure the cost of protein per lb.

1000 lb round 10% protein cost $50.00 equals .50 per lb for protein ($50/100lbs of protein)

1000 lb round 15% protein cost $65.00 equals .43 lb for protein ($65/150lbs of protein)

Dairy farmers are interested in RFV but I have never saw a cattleman who bought hay ask about it (relative feed value).

Ok...don't know about the Dairy industry...

Bottomline of my question or comment: "Higher Protein Hay costs less than Lower Protein Hay when BOTH are priced the SAME for a given size round bale."

Since cattle need X amount of protein to maintain proper condition and nutrition... I'm not getting into TDN, RFV, and all that stuff.

-----
An analogy: "A regular Coke and a Diet Coke costs the same for same size bottle (or can)...But, the Regular Coke has more calories and more Bang for your Buck"... I'm assuming the same concept applies to protein content of hay...

 

[Dave]

The reason RFV is a better judge of hay quality is it considers a number of different feed values. Buying hay or feeding hay based on crude protein alone is probably missing the boat by a wide margin.
But in general buying better quality higher priced hay is cheaper when you look at nutients. There are however limits. Right now I could buy 16% protein feeder alfalfa for about $145. Dairy quality 24% protein alfalfa is about $175. On a protein basis alone the better stuff is cheaper. But my cows don't need that much protein and it will come trailing out the back of the cow. So it is only cheaper to the extent that your animals will utilize the protein then it starts becoming more expensive.

 

[dcara]

Then, IF a $100 bale of quality hay is compared with a lesser quality/protein content hay, then the POORER quality hay is in reality MORE expensive to buy and feed than the quality hay is.

IMO
Your analysis is actually just priceing the cost of the Protien and is correct as far as that goes. That is, if you pay the same price for 2 bales of hay but one bale has twice as much protien as the other then you can say you payed only half as much for the protien in that bale of hay as the lower protien bale.

However, both bales cost the same so you can't say one is cheaper than the other untill you take into account the weight gain (or other performance measure) of the animal eating the hay, which brings TDN into the equation. Since TDN is normally related to CP in hay you can generally say the higher the CP the higher the TDN and the less the animal has to eat to maintain a given body condition (or gain weight). Although higher CP levels actually increase intake to a point.

I have written spreadsheet calculators that estimate weight gain versus caloric/TDN/CP intake for different feeds and associated costs. If you want to pursue this further let me know and I can email them to you

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

The reason RFV is a better judge of hay quality is it considers a number of different feed values. Buying hay or feeding hay based on crude protein alone is probably missing the boat by a wide margin.
But in general buying better quality higher priced hay is cheaper when you look at nutients. There are however limits. Right now I could buy 16% protein feeder alfalfa for about $145. Dairy quality 24% protein alfalfa is about $175. On a protein basis alone the better stuff is cheaper. But my cows don't need that much protein and it will come trailing out the back of the cow. So it is only cheaper to the extent that your animals will utilize the protein then it starts becoming more expensive.

Makes a lot of sense, Dave!

I also think where this "protein %" issue comes into play at its best is when people pay "quality hay prices" for that very low protein, marginal hay stuff. In some cases they think "hay is hay". This is generally true for the roughage issue. If one has great grass in pasture, then roughage hay has much less relevance for protein.

What I hate to see is someone's cattle having a BCS of 3 or 4 and they are feeding 5% +/- protein junk hay and either (a) haven't a clue as to why their cattle look so bad, or (b) they are trying to "starve a profit" out of their animals.

The same thing happens with horses and other species of "farmed" livestock...

 

[Jogeephus]

Makes a lot of sense to me. If you buy the cheap "filler hay" two things will happen. Either your cows' condition will go down the tubes or you will need to supplement the cows in some manner and this is an added cost. Knowing the quality of your hay would seem important so you can provide proper nutrition.

 

[BTRANCH]

RAB,
hubby and I went to the TSWCRA School for Successful Ranching last month. They talked about this very topic. I went back to my notes to see if I remembered right and I did. Yea!

A cow only needs about 6% crude protein. As long as the hay you are feeding meets that requirement, it is a waste of money to buy higher protein hay unless there is not enough pasture and/or cows are lactating.

 

[dcara]

A cow only needs about 6% crude protein. As long as the hay you are feeding meets that requirement, it is a waste of money to buy higher protein hay unless there is not enough pasture and/or cows are lactating.

BTR- I would like to better understand the context of the "6%" reference. Do you have an email address for the speaker. I'm thinking that 6% CP is a minimum maintenance only requirement for non-bred, non-latating, non-weight gaining cattle (i.e. non-producing). And of course if your raising non-producing cattle then you are really wasting money.

In order to stimulate appetitie for weight gain a total ration CP of 12-16% is more normal. For lactation/breeding I think I recall that 10% CP is minimum. As mentioned previously, actual caloric intake (i.e TDN or other measure) is really what matters. CP just supports higher intake by increasing digestion (i.e. number of rumen micro organisims)

 

[MikeC]

A 1200 lb. cow at peak milk output needs at least 28 lbs. of Dry Matter Intake per/day. & 2.97 lbs. of Crude Protein Intake per/day.

This would put Crude Protein at approx 10.5% minimum.

If the hay she was getting was only 6% CP, she would have to eat approx. 50 lbs. per day to meet her CP needs.

6% hay would need supplementing.

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

RAB,
hubby and I went to the TSWCRA School for Successful Ranching last month. They talked about this very topic. I went back to my notes to see if I remembered right and I did. Yea!

A cow only needs about 6% crude protein. As long as the hay you are feeding meets that requirement, it is a waste of money to buy higher protein hay unless there is not enough pasture and/or cows are lactating.

Guess I'll have to disagree with the TSWCRA people! True, a bovine could "survive & maintain some weight" on a minimal ration. However, for calves, yearlings, lactating females, bulls in production, etc., 6% CP (from all sources) would short-change those animals. If someone was only running "non-producing pasture ornament range quality" animals...well...why waste money on "quality" nutrition!...LOL... :shock:

Considering the general "average" types of pastures in the Western parts of the USA (i.e., West of I-35), I have rarely seen high quality pastures at any time of the year in these areas; and the stocking rates are VERY low in many of these areas.

 

[Stocker Steve]

Then, IF a $100 bale of quality hay is compared with a lesser quality/protein content hay, then the POORER quality hay is in reality MORE expensive to buy and feed than the quality hay is.

Opinions, discussion y'all???

This makes sense if you only need protein. Yes - good hay is usually the cheapest source of protein available. Poor grass hay and tubs are an expensive combination. Poor upland hay mix in this country runs 11 to 12% CP. Good upland hay mix runs 15 to 17% CP. "Dairy hay" may be a little higher if it is put up right.
If you are looking at food value in general you need to look at TDN as someone else pointed out.
There are a lot of RFV vs. RFQ articles out there. Basically they measure the fiber value differently. My lab reports RFV. Changing the grass variety in an alfalfa grass mix (or delaying cutting) will easily drop relative food value 20%, so I only buy hay out of certain fields. Price per ton and color are the same but the testing lab and the cattle both know the difference.