More about grass.

[Sir Loin]

More about grass.


Here is an article that may help you better understand what I am trying to say about grass.
As you can see "herd nutrition" is #1 and pasture and range (grass) is #2.

The reason for this is that grass does not necessarily mean "nutrition".

SL

In recent BeefTalk articles, the first priority, herd nutrition, was discussed and the various priorities set by producers were applauded. One red flag was raised when bull nutrition was ranked alongside dry-cow nutrition. Both would represent missed opportunities within a producer's business.

Continuing on down the list, the second priority identified for cow-calf producers and specialists was the category of pasture and range. This probably was not surprising to anyone.

The high ranking for range and pasture is very reflective of the nature of the cattle business, which is a land-based business designed to capture and harvest the natural resources bountiful within land-based enterprises. Through the cow, these resources are converted to harvestable value, which primarily is protein for human consumption, along with myriad other products utilized by consumers.

The 2006 report by the North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management program (http://www.ndfarmmanagement.com) showed the average cost for summer pasture was $80.30 per cow/calf pair when the herds were sorted on net return per cow/calf pair. The low 20 percent spent $85.08, the middle 40 percent to 60 percent spent $89.96 and the 20 percent that had the greatest net return spent $67.60 per cow/calf pair.

In terms of animal unit months (aum), the low 20 percent averaged 6.05 aum, the middle 40 percent to 60 percent averaged 5.88 aum and the high 20 percent averaged 6.05 aum. These are interesting numbers and the need to reflect on them is real.

Certainly, it is good that pasture and range ranked second behind nutrition as priorities for the beef producer. It is important that 73 percent of the cow- calf producers consider pasture and range as a foundation to the business. However, the utilization of pasture and range resources needs to be thought through.

Now is a good time to grab some of that time we all have and ponder on how effective our pasture and range utilization is. This examination should include the short-term and long-term health of grassland resources. More later.

 

[Wewild]

I have tried to find the report. Can you help me as you have been there before? Is that all of it?

 

[Sir Loin]

Here you go We.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.as ... tid=137803

 

[Wewild]

Thanks for the link. Can you determine from the post that the maximum return wasn't just from matching the units to the pasture? That is where I am struggling. How did they supplement the #2 to achieve #1?

 

[novatech]

They have sumed it up very nicely in their last sentence.

This examination should include the short-term and long-term health of grassland resources.

There is no dought that suplemention is necessary for some pasture conditions. But in no way are they indicating that feeding out on a cow calf operation is feasable if that is what you are getting back to from your previous posts.

 

[Sir Loin]

Novatech,
Re:

This examination should include the short-term and long-term health of grassland resources.

I'm not disagreeing with that statement. Only a fool would totally disregard the short and long-term health of his/her grassland resources.

All I am saying is that at some point it can become cost prohibitive depending on the land if all you intend to do is feed on grass.

Let me try it this way.
Grassland consists of two words "grass" and "land".
All grass grows on land, but not all land grows grass.

Now when you lease land, whether it is from yourself or others, the price you pay per acre is based upon the existing grass that the land will sustain. Or you must use the land (or a portion thereof) without grass on it.

You then look into the future to see what you can do to improve the grass yield, keeping in mind the length of the lease being offered. If it is only a 1, 2 or 3 year lease, there is probably very little you can do to increase the grass yield. And the same goes for virgin cleared land (cleared for less then 25 years other then bottom land).
If the land being offered is being offered for 5 or more years then there are things you can do to increase the grass yield and justify the costs.

It is always our intent and practice to leave a property in better shape then when we first leased it.
SL

 

[novatech]

I do not own any pasture. I only lease, and I agree with you in total. I will only lease property on a three year plus lease. The reason for this is that most people that lease overstock trying to squeeze every last penny out of the land. What they do not understand is that by proper stocking rates they can make a profit and still maintain the land. It is up to me to make any improvements inforage production, if I take over the lease. Herbicide, planting,and fertilizeing can take a while to pay out.
Put this together with the increase in land and equipment costs alone it does not paint a very pretty picture for the beef industry.
Until the price of beef goes up or the price of feed comes down I cannot see where feeding (cow/calf) is an economical option.
I am constantly looking for new grasses that survive on less water and will produce with less fert.

 

[Wewild]

There is no dought that suplemention is necessary for some pasture conditions.

Help me understand this more ... outside of drought and over stocked.

 

[Sir Loin]

Novatech,
Re:
[quote The reason for this is that most people that lease overstock trying to squeeze every last penny out of the land.
What they do not understand is that by proper stocking rates they can make a profit and still maintain the land.[/quote]
That's me! I squeeze every last penny out of the land I lease.
But I wouldn't call what I do "overstocking".
How can you say "overstock" when there is no definition for overstock due to all the variables involved in land use?

If you could determine that a proper stocking rate for a particular piece of property was 1 cow per acre and you had only one acre, the minute that cow dropped her calf you would be over stocked because that calf will soon eat some grass. Now think of 100 cows on 100 acres and the same holds true.
And when those 100 calves reach 500 lbs each, your herd size is now the same as 150 cows and you are overstocked by 50 cows.
Now what do you do?
And if you have a drought what do you do?
And what do you do in the winter when the grass doesn't grow?
I do supplemental feeding of hay and feed which maintains and improves the land while at the same time maximizing my profit.
SL

 

[Wewild]

My grandmother new that it was a cow and a calf to an acre and a half. They always seemed to take the calf in account. She's been gone 14 years. Granddad's been gone 15. It still is the same here. They always planned on the winter. 25# per day of hay.

Your story about a cow to an acre and then having more than the land could maintain would be called over stocking. That's is where not long ago you where holding management responsible.

Land cost is in fert, fencing and taxes. Hay costs are in fert, taxes, and cost to harvest. Feed cost are the same as hay. It seems simple to me that your profit per inputed cost goes down as you push your land.

 

[Sir Loin]

We,
Re:

There is no dought that supplementation is necessary for some pasture conditions.
Help me understand this more ... outside of drought and over stocked.

As I said previously, birth of a calf itself increases your herd size.
The rule of thumb is every 1,000 lbs of calf equals 1 more cow.
So if you had 100 calves born and when they reach 500 lbs each you have increased your herd size by 50 cows.

So in theory, if you could determine that a particular piece of land would sustain 100 cows, you must only stock it with around 65 cows to allow for the calves that will soon be born. (you do the math I used SWAG)
Now what if 65 calves won't pay the rent, what do you do?
I creep feed the calves and run the original 100 cows which maintains and improves the land.
SL

 

[Wewild]

We,
Re:

There is no dought that supplementation is necessary for some pasture conditions.
Help me understand this more ... outside of drought and over stocked.

As I said previously, birth of a calf itself increases your herd size.
The rule of thumb is every 1,000 lbs of calf equals 1 more cow.
So if you had 100 calves born and when they reach 500 lbs each you have increased your herd size by 50 cows.

So in theory, if you could determine that a particular piece of land would sustain 100 cows, you must only stock it with around 65 cows to allow for the calves that will soon be born. (you do the math I used SWAG)
Now what if 65 calves won't pay the rent, what do you do?
I creep feed the calves and run the original 100 cows which maintains and improves the land.
SL

What is the additional cost you pay to supplement? Does it really come out in the end? Have you ever check to see how much more your costs are per calf the way you do it? How much per day do those extra calves cost you?

Around here a cow and a calf per acre and a half keeps the bills paid and puts money in the pocket.

Have you been doing this very long?

 

[cfpinz]

It amazes me that there is a theorem and formula out there for every little issue, such as stocking rates in this instance. Yet not one of them deals with a dwindeling commodity, common sense. I would say that 99% of my stocking decisions are based on whether or not it's rained in the past two weeks. Put an algorithm on Mother Nature and I'll be all ears.

cfpinz

 

[Sir Loin]

We:
Re:

Your story about a cow to an acre and then having more than the land could maintain would be called over stocking.

The one cow per acre was a hypothetical example.
Re:

What is the additional cost you pay to supplement? Does it really come out in the end? Have you ever check to see how much more your costs are per calf the way you do it? How much per day do those extra calves cost you?

I tried putting a pencil to it many times but there are too many variables you can't put a dollar value on.
How do you put a value on the ease of working your cattle, or birthing ease or the value of manure dropped by the cows which increases future grass growth?
Or the clearing of wooded areas and overgrown areas in the pasture?
These and many other things simply can not have a dollar value put on them.

Lets try it this way.
IMO, There is no rule of thumb as to cows per acre. Each and every pasture could sustain a different number of cows based on its location, soil type's conditions, topography and climatic conditions for that location.

When I lease a pasture I go look at it.
But before I even walk into the pasture, I already know the climatic conditions. (rain fall-when and how much and hot and cold conditions)
I know when the grass will grow and when it will not, where it will grow and where it will not. I also know where and when the cows will graze and where and when they will not.
When I look at the pasture I try to determine the maximum number of cows I can run on that particular pasture during the prime 6 months of grass growth.
For the 6 non prime growth months I fully expect to have to do some supplemental feeding or reduce the number of cows by moving them to another pasture, which increases the acres I need to lease or simply sell some cows at a loss, which I surely don't want to do.
What all this boils down to is that I put the number of cows on a pasture that will consume the amount of grass growing during the prime growing seasons and supplement them with hay and/or grain in the non prime growing seasons which just happens to be at the same time as winter and when droughts will occur and I would have to feed them anyway.
The amount of supplement given is determined by the condition of the cows not the pasture.
If you let the condition of the pasture dictate your supplemental feeding you will surly go broke.
When the calves are born they have access to free choice creep fed hay and feed, which reduces the demand on the cows while increasing their weight gain allowing for an earlier weaning. Or a late weaning with an even higher weight gain while consuming little grass.

It's a bit of a balancing act to coordinate number of cows, hay and feed with your pasture as pasture condition continually change during the year but it does pay in the end because you can run more cows per acre and produce a better calf at weaning while at the same time you are improving your pasture.
SL

 

[CowpokeJ]

When you creep feed calves, does that increase the amount that calf will suck? Now, imo he has a bigger appetite. Now, I could see where that calf would reach sale weight faster, thus keeping him on the cow less.

 

[Sir Loin]

J,
Re:

When you creep feed calves, does that increase the amount that calf will suck?

No. It decreases the amount they will suck on mamma, as they are not hungry as often and they require less milk to satisfy their appetite when they do suck.
Plus they spend a lot more time away from mamma making weaning easer on both the calf and mamma.
Re:

Now, imo he has a bigger appetite.

True, as he grows his appetite will increase but so will his consumption of feed and grass.


SL