Liquid Feed Results

[Rydero]

Congratulations. ...keep working maybe someday you won't have to work for anyone.
I don't understand how that effects your knowledge of south Texas pasture. I do enjoy your opinion.
But brute stated he thought it was working for him. And I've certainly seen it work well for others in his situation. I guess I put more credibility in what I've seen than what I hear.

That's the goal but I started with nothing 10 years ago and Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm happy enough being well paid to continue to learn the cattle business, unfortunately I don't know everything yet.

Brute thanked me and seemed open minded to me for freely using software I paid for to give him information that might save him money. I made statements that would've been generalizations and just anecdotes if I didn't confirm them some other way. While I don't have specific knowledge of South Texas I accounted for weather as well as the breed of cattle. I'm quite sure it's the same species of animal and nutrition works the same way in Texas as the rest of the world.

If you can certainly see results of using a product and feel that it justifies the cost of course use it. I lack that ability to certainly see things - my mind comes up with other reasons I might be getting those results. Maybe there's more nutrition in that stockpile I didn't feed test. Maybe they're eating more variety when I take away the range cubes because they now have to eat more to fill their rumen every day. Before I pay for something that'll cost me thousands a year I like to hear about it, see how it's working somewhere else and understand as best I can (usually through science) how it works in objective reality.

 

[callmefence]

That's the goal but I started with nothing 10 years ago and Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm happy enough being well paid to continue to learn the cattle business, unfortunately I don't know everything yet.

Brute thanked me and seemed open minded to me for freely using software I paid for to give him information that might save him money. I made statements that would've been generalizations and just anecdotes if I didn't confirm them some other way. While I don't have specific knowledge of South Texas I accounted for weather as well as the breed of cattle. I'm quite sure it's the same species of animal and nutrition works the same way in Texas as the rest of the world.

If you can certainly see results of using a product and feel that it justifies the cost of course use it. I lack that ability to certainly see things - my mind comes up with other reasons I might be getting those results. Maybe there's more nutrition in that stockpile I didn't feed test. Maybe they're eating more variety when I take away the range cubes because they now have to eat more to fill their rumen every day. Before I pay for something that'll cost me thousands a year I like to hear about it, see how it's working somewhere else and understand as best I can (usually through science) how it works in objective reality.

And like brute , I thank you.
Good luck reaching your goals.

 

[cjmc]

So. Assuming a 1400lb Brahman cross cow in good body condition a couple months into lactation Desired average daily gain .25lbs/day. If your stockpile is at 6% protein and 55 TDN % (I used the value they have for overwinter grass but bumped the feed value a little assuming it would be a little better there). I put the stockpile grass as $0/lb (I'd need some details to give it a value) From your earlier post .1 bales per cow of hay I put 1.5lbs a day of 14% protein 51.5 TDN% hay at $75/bale in as well.

All things being equal except 2.5 lbs/h/d of 32% liquid protein (generic nutrition values I'd need info from the tag to be exact) at $235/ton.

Without the protein - Net energy for maintenance total (Mcal) is 17.05 (18.16 desired), protein (grams) is 951 (1343 desired) - cows will lose 1/2 a body condition score in 213 days on this ration and costs .08/h/d

With protein - Net energy for maintenance total is 17.34 (18.16 desired), protein is 1263 (1344 desired) - cows will lose 1/2 a body condition score in 287 days and cost is .38/h/d

If you fed 2.5 lbs of barley a day instead - Net energy for maintenance total is 18.12, protein 1026 - cows would lose 1/2 a body condition score in 400 days and cost .33/h/d

They'll be losing body condition more from lack of energy than lack of protein and the supplement does very little to help that for the cost imo. For me it's ok at certain points for cows to very slowly lose some condition to save me thousands but that's me. What do you think?

I'm assuming we are talking native winter range here. Which in that case 55% TDN is high & depending on where in Texas- maybe way to high. Most alfalfa hay will run between 50-60% TDN for reference. If he is SE texas near Arkansas where it rains a lot & they raise a bunch of grass. NDF could be in the 60 plus range and TDN could be sub 40%. In general- winter grass quality gets lower as you travel south east. NDF becomes very important because it may physically limit their ability to consume the amount of grass you typically think they would. Example if a 1400 pound cow would typically eat 32 pounds- dry matter. When given hay that is 75% NDF she could only actually eat 22.4 pounds dry matter. I didn't look hard- but did find a sample of grass in October in Oklahoma (yeah I know that's a long way away- but it shows my point) it was 4.5% CP and 75% NDF- didn't have a TDN number with it but I would guess less than 40%

One thing your computer program does not take into consideration is the impact of protein- or lack there of on intake of low quality forage. If cattle consume a diet sub 6-7% CP then intake falls off & depending on how far below that 6-7% you are depends on how low intake will fall- this would exacerbate the difference between the two scenarios and the non-supplemented cattle will consume significantly less Mcal's & lose a lot more weight than the supplemented cattle. NDF is mostly indigestible- but the protein supplement will help increase it's digestion to some degree.

Another thing to consider is that the liquid may contain a VTM package in it. And therefore may be hiding about $0.10/h/d of value.

With DDG in the Texas at $300 plus/ton the liquid seems like a pretty decent price right now/ unit of CP- reason being is I would assume it's mostly NPN.

Winter protein supplementation is typically a large expense- protein is expensive in general but especially this year with corn & beans jumping in price. If your feedstuffs alone are enough to hit MP & Mcal requirements that's great. But if they aren't & you decide not to try and save money by shorting them- it will cost you more in the long run from lower & later bred-backs to lighter calves or less performance in the feedyard.

Precalving all he probably needed was the protein & depending on the grass some energy the last 45 days before calving. Post calving with the diet mostly native range he'll need both a protein source & some extra energy to hit both MP & NEm requirements.

 

[TexasBred]

That's an important question and would make a serious difference.

Many liquid feeds use urea as a non-protein nitrogen source. Urea has 287% equivalent protein so it's not hard to make a 32% mix even on an as fed basis.

 

[Rydero]

I'm assuming we are talking native winter range here. Which in that case 55% TDN is high & depending on where in Texas- maybe way to high. Most alfalfa hay will run between 50-60% TDN for reference. If he is SE texas near Arkansas where it rains a lot & they raise a bunch of grass. NDF could be in the 60 plus range and TDN could be sub 40%. In general- winter grass quality gets lower as you travel south east. NDF becomes very important because it may physically limit their ability to consume the amount of grass you typically think they would. Example if a 1400 pound cow would typically eat 32 pounds- dry matter. When given hay that is 75% NDF she could only actually eat 22.4 pounds dry matter. I didn't look hard- but did find a sample of grass in October in Oklahoma (yeah I know that's a long way away- but it shows my point) it was 4.5% CP and 75% NDF- didn't have a TDN number with it but I would guess less than 40%

One thing your computer program does not take into consideration is the impact of protein- or lack there of on intake of low quality forage. If cattle consume a diet sub 6-7% CP then intake falls off & depending on how far below that 6-7% you are depends on how low intake will fall- this would exacerbate the difference between the two scenarios and the non-supplemented cattle will consume significantly less Mcal's & lose a lot more weight than the supplemented cattle. NDF is mostly indigestible- but the protein supplement will help increase it's digestion to some degree.

Another thing to consider is that the liquid may contain a VTM package in it. And therefore may be hiding about $0.10/h/d of value.

With DDG in the Texas at $300 plus/ton the liquid seems like a pretty decent price right now/ unit of CP- reason being is I would assume it's mostly NPN.

Winter protein supplementation is typically a large expense- protein is expensive in general but especially this year with corn & beans jumping in price. If your feedstuffs alone are enough to hit MP & Mcal requirements that's great. But if they aren't & you decide not to try and save money by shorting them- it will cost you more in the long run from lower & later bred-backs to lighter calves or less performance in the feedyard.

Precalving all he probably needed was the protein & depending on the grass some energy the last 45 days before calving. Post calving with the diet mostly native range he'll need both a protein source & some extra energy to hit both MP & NEm requirements.

You seem to be making some valid points but it's very difficult to quantify anything with so many assumptions and generalizations. It matters a lot where his protein level is at because you're contending they're at a point where they'll consume less dm but we don't know that's true and you don't say by what percent consumption will drop off. You also make a statement my program doesn't account for that but do you actually know?

I wasn't given any actual numbers to work with - it was mentioned this stockpile may have been growing as late as last week so I bumped the protein and TDN a little higher than I'd expect to see in dried old grass. If you're right and the TDN is way lower the cattle are already losing weight mostly due to lack of energy which the liquid won't address because they don't consume enough of it. In that case feed that contains energy and protein (grain) fed in amounts to supply the needed energy would be a better investment than basically supplying only protein.

You may know more about feeding cattle nutrient deficient diets - we generally use the software and feed tests to balance our rations so sub optimal protein levels aren't a problem. We balance the ration then play with it to drive the cost down. I have had experience and success with putting cattle on rations that have them losing weight very slowly (like the examples) temporarily if it saves enough $.

In my experience of feed testing all feeds and making rations for multiple classes of cattle both for myself and my employer I've never found a ration that was made cheaper or balanced when it couldn't be another way using licks or liquid protein that's just the truth and my 10 cents. To each his own, I don't stand to gain anything by anyone else saving money.

 

[TexasBred]

Don't take this wrong but please go read cjmc's post again. As for the comment "I'm sure your program doesn't .....,,,.,,.......... ) no program takes that into consideration.

 

[anewcomer]

Gentlemen, there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that has been provided to this thread. Rydero supplied valuable information based on the information he was given by the OP. This information was not sufficient to resolve the problem, because there was no forage analysis of the base forage, which would comprise the vast majority of the nutrition base. The question of whether a protein supplement would help the OP, at what level and at what cost, cannot be resolved unless we have a good assessment of the base forage. I tried to ask about the as fed level of protein provided to the cattle in the liquid supplement. I do not believe that cattle consuming 2 and 1/2 pounds advertised as 32% protein are receiving .8 pounds of protein. I suggest that, with a likely 50% moisture content, it is more like .4 pounds, insufficient to make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Brute 23]

The thing everyone everytime forgets to pencil in with liquid feed and tubs vs grain is labor.

That's my whole deal... the labor. Like elkwc were are spread out. I logistically cant haul enough hay to get every where. By the time I finished... I would be a day late starting back over. LoL

Cubes are great but pricey compared to wcs. I dont mind the shoveling with the wcs for the cost and benefits. I can take off with a pickup, a trailer and a shovel and cover lots of ground pretty cheap. Plus it's good exercise.

I like the lick wheels and wcs also because the calves take to it real young, better than cubes. When I weaned heifers this year they went right to the wcs straight off the trailer because they had been eating it with mom already.

 

[cjmc]

You seem to be making some valid points but it's very difficult to quantify anything with so many assumptions and generalizations. It matters a lot where his protein level is at because you're contending they're at a point where they'll consume less dm but we don't know that's true and you don't say by what percent consumption will drop off. You also make a statement my program doesn't account for that but do you actually know?

I wasn't given any actual numbers to work with - it was mentioned this stockpile may have been growing as late as last week so I bumped the protein and TDN a little higher than I'd expect to see in dried old grass. If you're right and the TDN is way lower the cattle are already losing weight mostly due to lack of energy which the liquid won't address because they don't consume enough of it. In that case feed that contains energy and protein (grain) fed in amounts to supply the needed energy would be a better investment than basically supplying only protein.

You may know more about feeding cattle nutrient deficient diets - we generally use the software and feed tests to balance our rations so sub optimal protein levels aren't a problem. We balance the ration then play with it to drive the cost down. I have had experience and success with putting cattle on rations that have them losing weight very slowly (like the examples) temporarily if it saves enough $.

In my experience of feed testing all feeds and making rations for multiple classes of cattle both for myself and my employer I've never found a ration that was made cheaper or balanced when it couldn't be another way using licks or liquid protein that's just the truth and my 10 cents. To each his own, I don't stand to gain anything by anyone else saving money.

All beef cattle ration balancing programs are based off the NRC's predictive equations. The intake predictive part of the equation is based off body weight. It assumes no factors limit intake.

Its been a long time since I read the KSU paper where they measured this in steers consuming dormant native tallgrass range. Couldn't remember the numbers so I pulled it back out. They consumed 5% CP hay & intake was 65% of the cattle fed a protein supplement. NDF digestion dropped from 49 to 42%

I'm not disagreeing with the rations you made. If the basal diet was actually that they would work fine & save money. I was just disagreeing with what the basal diet was valued at & pointing out what would happen if it was poor quality.

As far as liquid goes. That really depends. Liquid is the #1 supplement in feedyards. You can shove a lot of urea into it which typically (especially now) drops ration costs. Pellets & meals cannot carry as much urea.

In range diets with companies like Loomix doing some of the work for you they have historically been a really expensive option & you are right in saying it's been the most expensive way to feed cows. But the cost of natural proteins have really skyrocketed the last 90 days making them more competitive. I saw the price on a 100% CP biuret protein/mineral product week- it cost the same as feeding distillers & a mineral which really shocked me.

For those reading this & wanting to play with ration formulation software Oklahoma state puts out a free excel program that does this. You can learn a lot from playing with these programs.

 

[Brute 23]

I agree but I don't. The liquid just doesn't do enough. I'd probably do neither based on the results. 287 days vs 213 days to lose 1/2 BCS. The cattle aren't even likely to be in that feeding situation for 200 days in your climate are they?

My cattle gain and lose a little weight throughout the year, it's not a big deal if it occurs at the right times. If it was me I'd be conspiring to have the cattle dry when on the stockpile (if that's possible there - I don't presume to know how to run cattle there though) it would make a way bigger difference.

I'll shut up now. I've found arguing about tubs/liquid is a zero sum game, a bit like talking religion. I just haven't seen the light, I don't see the evidence, it doesn't compute based on my understanding of nutrition so I don't believe and the protein preacher has his hand in my pocket so I don't trust him.

I think you have brought a good perspective to the table.

I'm with you on not having calves during the stockpiled time bit the market disagrees. The verdict is still out on if the market pays enough.

We can get away with 60-90 day winters, even less some years. On the other side our July-Sept can give you the same low protein forage as winter if it turns dry. Seems like it goes from one extreme to the other. It can be an oasis one month and hot, dry, hell, hole the next.

I do agree with some of the others that the liquid feed makes them go after some grasses they would maybe not usually favor. Quite a few people use it to get cattle to eat the salt grass time stuff than van grow here on the coast. It's bad about not to being to palatable with a little age. You either have to burn it pretty regular to keep cattle working on it or feed liquid feed.

 

[Brute 23]

The one where the liquid feed is at is a sandy type place, youpon, oaks, etc. Its considered kind of coastal prairie... lots of blue stems type grasses.

 

[Brute 23]

So is the #5/hd of cottonseed twice a week adding much to the diet or just a waste of time?

 

[Rydero]

All beef cattle ration balancing programs are based off the NRC's predictive equations. The intake predictive part of the equation is based off body weight. It assumes no factors limit intake.

Its been a long time since I read the KSU paper where they measured this in steers consuming dormant native tallgrass range. Couldn't remember the numbers so I pulled it back out. They consumed 5% CP hay & intake was 65% of the cattle fed a protein supplement. NDF digestion dropped from 49 to 42%

I'm not disagreeing with the rations you made. If the basal diet was actually that they would work fine & save money. I was just disagreeing with what the basal diet was valued at & pointing out what would happen if it was poor quality.

As far as liquid goes. That really depends. Liquid is the #1 supplement in feedyards. You can shove a lot of urea into it which typically (especially now) drops ration costs. Pellets & meals cannot carry as much urea.

In range diets with companies like Loomix doing some of the work for you they have historically been a really expensive option & you are right in saying it's been the most expensive way to feed cows. But the cost of natural proteins have really skyrocketed the last 90 days making them more competitive. I saw the price on a 100% CP biuret protein/mineral product week- it cost the same as feeding distillers & a mineral which really shocked me.

For those reading this & wanting to play with ration formulation software Oklahoma state puts out a free excel program that does this. You can learn a lot from playing with these programs.

Thanks for some good information and pulling out that paper. I'm definitely learning and happy to be educated. As I said we don't really feed protein deficient diets so haven't had issues with inability to consume enough forage. Interesting to see the extent it's limited, I'll have to give that paper a read. I absolutely agree with you that there's a lot to be learned from ration software. Here's looking at you Brute - no cottonseed in my Canadian feed tables maybe you'll have luck with Oklahoma.

 

[elkwc]

Lol. I'm not saying it's been arguing but that's where it'll go so I thought I'd stop before it did. I don't think I'll change anyone's mind. Too late I guess - oh well.

Yes I've looked beyond my keyboard. 2 open out of 89 last year. I keep expanding, buying land and cattle. I make a full time living off of cattle between my own and working on another larger farm. I'm good.

We run around a 100 cows and have had 2-4 that didn't wean a calf the last few years. A good mineral program is a good part of that. Our cows have maintained the desired BC on the liquid feed. We used it last summer in the drought with good results. Like I stated earlier when we factor in the coat of fuel, maintenance and labor it is currently our best option cost wise. If we had all our pastures close to the house it may not be. Just because it may not be your best option doesn't mean it isn't ours. One of our vets says our herd health is great. I know some cery successful cattle men who feed liquid feed. Like cubes it is an option and we each need to evaluate each option to see which one is best for us. Our cows utilize marginal grasses better on liquid feed than they do on any other option I've tried.

 

[TexasBred]

Gentlemen, there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that has been provided to this thread. Rydero supplied valuable information based on the information he was given by the OP. This information was not sufficient to resolve the problem, because there was no forage analysis of the base forage, which would comprise the vast majority of the nutrition base. The question of whether a protein supplement would help the OP, at what level and at what cost, cannot be resolved unless we have a good assessment of the base forage. I tried to ask about the as fed level of protein provided to the cattle in the liquid supplement. I do not believe that cattle consuming 2 and 1/2 pounds advertised as 32% protein are receiving .8 pounds of protein. I suggest that, with a likely 50% moisture content, it is more like .4 pounds, insufficient to make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That 32% crude protein disclosure is "as fed". Take it or leave it.

 

[callmefence]

Gentlemen, there is a tremendous amount of knowledge that has been provided to this thread. Rydero supplied valuable information based on the information he was given by the OP. This information was not sufficient to resolve the problem, because there was no forage analysis of the base forage, which would comprise the vast majority of the nutrition base. The question of whether a protein supplement would help the OP, at what level and at what cost, cannot be resolved unless we have a good assessment of the base forage. I tried to ask about the as fed level of protein provided to the cattle in the liquid supplement. I do not believe that cattle consuming 2 and 1/2 pounds advertised as 32% protein are receiving .8 pounds of protein. I suggest that, with a likely 50% moisture content, it is more like .4 pounds, insufficient to make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Your question was answered several times.