In central Alberta, Simmental based steers weighing 900 pounds on barley and silage diet with full processing data were valued at $405/cwt fob farm. In east central Alberta, black wide frame Limousin based steers averaging 825 pounds supposedly sold for $460/cwt.

The Killarney market report in Manitoba had red heifers weighing just under 900 pounds selling for $391/cwt. At the Ste Rose sale, a smaller package of red heifers with a mean weight of 795 pounds were marked at $425/cwt.

The Ponoka market report had a handful of red mixed steers evaluated at 709 pounds on hay and silage diet with full preconditioning data moving through the ring at $500/cwt. At the same sale, tan heifers scaled at 700 pounds on a diet of silage and pellets with full processing data dropped the gavel at $486/cwt.

At the Westlock sale, a smaller package of Angus Simmental cross 650 pound heifers on hay and barley diet with full processing records sold for $467/cwt. At the Ste Rose sale, the market report had black heifers averaging 616 pounds trading for $512/cwt.  In the Calgary region, a smaller package of Charolais weaned steers weighing just over 600 pounds were quoted at $573/cwt.

The Ste Rose Auction market report had Charolais steers averaging 555 pounds moving through the ring at $610/cwt. A buyer in central Alberta reported that Angus cross weaned heifers on the card at 560 pounds sold for $530.

The USDA estimated U.S. fourth quarter beef production at 6.650 billion pounds, down from the 2024 final quarter output of 6.882 billion pounds. If the U.S. border stays closed to Mexican feeders for an extended period, U.S. fourth quarter beef production forecasts would likely drop to 6.400 billion pounds. This would drive the December live cattle futures higher and support the yearling market during July and August.

The post Klassen: Feeding margin uncertainty weighs on feeder cattle market appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Many feedlots continue to work through U.S. corn contracted earlier in the marketing year, but the downtrend in corn futures should keep them looking to extend that coverage. Corn futures at the Chicago Board of Trade hit fresh contract lows on Feb. 22, with prices at their softest levels in over three years.

Meanwhile, barley bids have also trended lower, with average prices also at their lowest levels since December 2020. While bids over C$6.00 per bushel can still be found in southern Alberta, that’s down by about 50 cents over the past month. Meanwhile, average prices are closer to the C$5.00 per bushel or lower in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

However, an example of pricing opportunities above the average would be some select Olymel facilities in Saskatchewan that recently upped their contracts for Feb-April delivery to C$5.25 to C$5.50 per bushel – well above what the local line companies are offering.

Looking ahead, while the nearby trend remains pointed lower, seasonal price patterns are typically supportive for barley heading into the spring as uncertainty over new crop production brings in some risk premiums. Early indications point to acreage declines in both Canadian barley and U.S. corn, with the ongoing dryness concerns across much of Western Canada another possible supportive influence.

The post Feed barley under pressure, but opportunities available appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Given crop production costs, feed inputs and time invested in nutritional inputs and ration formulation, producers want to maximize returns wherever possible.

“You don’t want to throw out all that hard work by mismanaging the feed bunk,” said Megan Van Schaik, beef cattle specialist with the Ontario agriculture ministry.

“We’re talking about the timing of feeding, frequency of feeding … about paying attention to dry matter intake, looking at that feed disappearance … and consistency.”

A recent study by the provincial agriculture department and the Ontario Corn-Fed beef program showed bunk management can increase feed and gain efficiencies.

Van Schaik and Brent Cavell of the Ontario Cattle Feeders Association discussed easy-to-implement bunk management strategies during a field day at an Elmira, Ont. area farm in September.

Using a six-point scoring method created at South Dakota State University, Van Schaik said producers can measure dry matter intake without the need for sophisticated equipment.

Measurements are based on the original feed delivery and vary from zero for an empty bunk, 0.5 for scattered feed remaining, one for a uniform corn-kernel deep level of feed to four, where the feed is virtually untouched and the crown is still noticeable.

The process requires several days of scoring and assessment of cattle behaviour and environment. For example, unseasonably hot or cold weather can influence how much and when cattle feed.

Van Shaik said the same person must deliver the feed and record bunk scores so a consistent data set is provided, given that feed assessment can be subjective. Trail cameras also provide unbiased estimates of how often cattle come to the feed bunk.

In 2020, the Ontario agriculture department partnered with the Ontario Corn-Fed beef program to study the relationships between bunk management and cattle feeding behaviour and discovered, on average, that bunks remain empty for 5.5 hours over 24 hours. Van Shaik said 13 hours was the longest period recorded but two to three hours would be the ideal.

The study explored gain differences between cattle that were provided constant free feed access compared to consistent but controlled access.

Cavell shared a study of two groups of 120-day feedlot of cattle using controlled and free access feed. The feed-to-gain ratio difference was 5.38 pounds of dry matter per day among those in controlled feeding, versus 9.4 lb. per day in cattle with free access.

The controlled group showed a gain of 3.76 pounds per day on 20.2 lb. of total feed intake daily, while the group with all-day food access gained 2.07 lb. per day on 19.6 lb. of daily intake.

The study report says consistency in feed delivery, feed mix order and mix time assisted in stabilizing ruminal fermentation and pH, which improved feed efficiency.

Feeding less, but more often, reduces bunk aggression and although cattle may consume less at each visit, it encourages increased bunk visits for a more consistent feed intake, which contributes to good rumen health.

“Bunk management is a real critical criterion,” said Cavell. “The pH level in the rumen has to stay within a certain range, and if you deviate from that, you’re going to see problems.”

Monitoring feeding behaviour and bunk scores can indicate whether a producer needs to increase, reduce or maintain feed deliveries. Any change should be done gradually without exceeding a three to five per cent change in dry matter delivery. Anything higher can disrupt intake and cause digestive upsets.

Additionally, Cavell said cattle feeders should monitor outside factors such as cattle behaviour and health, manure consistency and weather when assessing and using bunk data.

– Diana Martin is a reporter for Farmtario.

The post Research shows controlled bunk feeding improves feed-to-gain ratio appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But despite the hype, slipping a little seaweed into cattle feed is unproven science that needs more study, says one of the leading experts on the issue.

“The jury is still out,” said Karen Beauchemin, who’s been investigating the science of busting cow burps ever since it became an idea. “There needs to be a more comprehensive body of work to really establish what the safety risks are.”

The ruminant expert, who recently retired from AgCanada’s Lethbridge research station, is particularly concerned about a tropical red algae (Asparagopsis taxiformis) commonly known as red sea plume. Although studies have shown it can reduce methane in the cattle rumen by 90 per cent, there are health concerns about its active component, bromoform.

It is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a probable human carcinogen. Although studies have determined that it doesn’t carry into human-consumed meat or milk when served in small amounts (probably less than one per cent of a cow’s diet), Beauchemin remains skeptical.

“You have to make sure it doesn’t have any carcinogenic effects to the animal but more importantly that there’s no residue in meat and milk,” she said.

Then there’s the fact that artificially growing seaweed comes with its own carbon footprint. Because harvesting seaweed from tropical waters would be staggeringly expensive, a number of startups have opted to grow it in land-based tanks. There’s a greenhouse gas tradeoff in that process, said Beauchemin.

“There are GHGs associated with the growing, the manufacturing, the harvesting and then the extracting and shipping. So you have to offset some of the decrease in methane emission with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the process.”

But it’s effective

However, the effectiveness of the seaweed may make the tradeoff worthwhile.

“(Red sea plume) has been shown in several studies — especially in beef animals — to be very, very effective so it could create 15 all the way up to 90 per cent reduction in methane,” she said.

“If we get that kind of methane reduction, even if it means some CO2 increase, it’s still going to mean more reduction in methane than the CO2 produced. But you do have to take that into consideration.”

Another question is whether seaweed grown in tanks would be affordable.

“It’s very expensive to grow artificially,” said Beauchemin.

More research is also needed on the long-term effects on the animals themselves.

“At this point in time there are very few larger-scale studies to say what happens to animal production when you reduce methane emissions by 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent,” she said. “What happens to animal production? Do they continue to eat normally and produce normally?

“It’s very much still experimental.”

Still, there’s hope beyond red seaweed.

Though retired, Beauchemin still works for Agriculture Canada in an emeritus position, and has launched a research program to look at the efficacy of seaweeds extracted from coastal Canadian waters.

“We don’t (naturally) grow red sea plume but we do have kinds of red and brown and green seaweeds. We’re scanning those different species to see if any of our seaweed has any kind of methane mitigating effect.

“What we’ve found so far is that some of them could have a small effect — we’re looking at maybe 10 or 20 per cent production mitigation. There may be some opportunities for other seaweeds that have bioactive components other than bromoform.”

Seaweed suddenly hot

In any event, the search for seaweed-powered, methane-reducing additives has become big business, so much so that even Bill Gates is in the game, investing millions in the Australian startup Rumin8.

That company recently started safety and efficacy trials of its feed supplements in New Zealand, with one study looking at beef cattle and the other at dairy cows. Rather than harvesting seaweed from oceans, the company reproduces these naturally occurring, anti-methanogenic compounds on land.

Closer to home, Tamara Loiselle is counting on the methane-inhibiting ability of a range of seaweeds to power a supplement she says will reduce cattle greenhouse gases by more than 90 per cent.

“There are multiple bioactive compounds that are naturally occurring in seaweeds that when fed to cattle inhibit methane production,” said Loiselle, a longtime environmental consultant and CEO of a Calgary startup called Synergraze.

And they can’t come to market a moment too soon, she said.

“The amount of carbon dioxide equivalent that comes from cattle is about the same as the entire global transportation sector,” claims Loiselle, whose company motto is “You can eat your beef and help the environment too.”’

In some ways, Alberta is ground zero for methane emissions.

“(There are) 4.9 million head of cattle in Alberta and they produce 8.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from enteric methane,” Loiselle said.

Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent isn’t a measure most people can relate to, but cows as climate villains is a recurring theme these days.

The numbers vary but livestock, cattle in particular, are widely viewed as a major source of methane emissions. A 2021 “methane assessment” by the UN Environment Program and an international coalition of government agencies and academic bodies estimated livestock accounts for 32 per cent of global methane emissions — both from manure and “enteric fermentation” (that is, methane produced in the gut and then belched out).

And while methane doesn’t persist as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it’s more potent, trapping about 25 times more heat, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Attracting investment

That has fuelled criticism of the cattle sector and also boosted interest in additives that reduce methane emissions.

Rumin8 has attracted about $23 million in funding, including money from an investment firm set up by Gates, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and others to promote innovative environmental tech.

The Australian company, which says its latest round of funding was “oversubscribed,” is in the process of building a pilot production plant and conducting trials Down Under and in the U.S. and Brazil.

Meanwhile, Loiselle’s startup has attracted considerable government money, including $5 million two years ago from Emissions Reduction Alberta, which helped fund a trial on the additive with an Alberta feedlot management company.

Loiselle did not respond to a post-interview request for information on results of the trial. It’s also not clear what type of seaweed Synergraze intends to use, although she recently told a news outlet on Vancouver Island that it will be “seaweeds/algae found naturally in the region.”

The company has partnered with the T’Sou-ke First Nation in southern Vancouver Island on a pilot production facility, producing seaweed and algae in tanks in a former greenhouse.

Last month, the company also received $1.3 million from a federal agency called Sustainable Development Technology Canada “to develop, demonstrate and commercialize” an additive from multiple strains of seaweed.

Don’t forget feed efficiency

As hopeful as Loiselle and other seaweed entrepreneurs may be, regulatory approval in North America may be a long and winding road, at least based on Beauchemin’s experience.

She pointed to 3-nitrooxypropanol (or 3-NOP), a Dutch-created methane-inhibiting compound, as an example of an extensively studied and peer-reviewed additive that is still facing years of regulatory consideration in North America.

She predicts that some seaweed products will face the same fate, particularly if they contain red sea plume.

“In Canada there’s a big long list of all the seaweed families that are approved for feeding. Asparagopsis taxiformis isn’t part of those families, so it would have to go through some kind of special regulatory approval.”

However, the cattle industry needs these solutions now in order to meet growing public demand for greenhouse gas reduction, said Beauchemin.

“I think it’s interesting to say that there’s all these things coming down the pipeline, but can we as an industry afford to wait for those approvals? No we can’t. So we need to look at what we already know will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

A simple example, she said, is feed conversion efficiency.

“If you reduce the amount of feed it takes to get a pound of meat or a pound of milk, then you need to grow less feed, the cow eats less and produces less manure so it produces less enteric methane emissions.”

– With staff files

The post Seaweed saviour? Marine algae touted as fix for cattle burps appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“There’s a lot of flexibility to it,” said Nathan Penner, commercialization manager at FP Genetics. “The thing I like about it is there’s options to use it in multiple different ways within a cropping system.

“I don’t think it’s a silver bullet for every farm, but I do think it’s a great contender within a whole system.”

Hybrid rye has been around since the late 1980s, when the first varieties were introduced in Europe, but it wasn’t until 2014 that ones were commercialized for the Canadian market. Since then, hybrid rye has been gaining traction among Alberta cattle feeders as a high-quality source of forage, grain, silage and greenfeed.

“It’s an excellent source of energy and nutrients,” Penner said during the webinar put on by Grey Wooded Forage Association. “When we’re comparing it to other crops, it would have the same energy value as barley, approximately 90 per cent of corn, and 88 per cent of wheat.

But beyond being a highly digestible, high-protein feed source, the crop also offers hybrid vigour, which increases its yield potential.

“The vigour results in improved yields, aggressive rooting, and tillering,” said Penner. “A lot of that hybrid vigour comes out in the establishment — how well it establishes and gets started, which builds on the yield possibility that these varieties have.”

That extensive rooting system also improves the plants’ ability to absorb water and nutrients — and with last year’s drought conditions and the current high price of inputs, “this is where hybrid rye can shine,” said Penner.

“This is a plant that can really make use of whatever you provide for it,” he said. “It’s able to scavenge the ground quite efficiently. If you compare hybrid rye with, say, wheat, it’s about 20 per cent more efficient to produce a bushel of rye compared to wheat. So if you’re short of water or nutrients, the rye is going to put out more bushels than a wheat would.”

And because of when it’s generally seeded — from mid-August to mid-September (depending on the region) — the crop is able to use fall moisture to establish itself before the snows come.

“We typically get some decent fall rains, and this is a way to get ground cover — get a living root in the ground in the fall and make good use of that moisture,” said Penner, adding ground cover also reduces erosion and nutrient leaching.

A winter crop also provides another advantage.

“Because of the timing when hybrid rye is heading, fusarium head blight is a small issue. It’s out of that window when infection typically occurs with other cereals. That’s a real advantage to growing the rye.”

As a result, hybrid rye is a good rotational crop.

“If we can grow something that works well in a rotation and gives us some help on the environmental management side, that’s just another benefit,” said Penner.

He also said hybrid rye, like its conventional cousin, is very hardy.

“There was a bit of a perception when it first came to Canada that it wasn’t as winter hardy, but we’ve seen over the years growing it here on the Prairies that the winter hardiness is really good on these varieties. Sometimes I see a conventional rye do a little bit better, but we’re right up close to where an open-pollinated rye would be for winter hardiness. I would suggest that we’re even a little bit better than where winter wheat typically is.”

Growing the crop

But establishment is critical for a winter crop.

“We’re asking these rye plants to survive Canadian weather for 11 months,” said Penner. “That’s a long time for those plants to be in the ground, so we want to start them in the best possible way to give them the best chance of success.”

A well-drained field is key as hybrid rye doesn’t like “wet feet.”

“It doesn’t like sitting in water in the spring. That’s typically when we get the injury or winterkill.”

When seeding, earlier is better — both for root establishment and tillering. Penner recommends a target of 15 to 18 plants per square foot and not seeding too deep.

“We recommend three-quarters of an inch deep to get that really uniform quick pop out of the ground and get that crop started well,” he said. “It will grow if you push it down deeper, but it’s going to come out much more uneven, which impacts how well they’ll produce the following year.”

Nutrients should be applied as early as possible, as the crop uses between 80 to 90 per cent of the available nitrogen before stem elongation, which occurs very early in the growing season (before May long weekend).

And while hybrid rye is “very efficient” at using the available nutrients, a fertilization program similar to wheat will result in higher yields.

“We often use a formula of 1.2 pounds of nitrogen per bushel, so if you’re targeting 100 bushels an acre, you would be looking for 120 pounds of nitrogen to get the maximum amount.”

Hybrid rye starts growing once the temperatures climb above zero, so an early-spring assessment will help set expectations for yield potential as the growing season progresses, he added.

“It’s one of the early crops to get going in the spring, so we recommend getting out there early and making sure you’ve got a good stand.”

Seed availability shouldn’t be an issue for most varieties this year, so producers who are considering hybrid rye as a feeding option this year should start their research now.

“I would encourage you to talk to your agronomist and see what the best management strategy is on your farm,” said Penner.

“You’ve got to think about what your operation looks like, what needs you have, and how this can fit within the system you have to manage some risk on the farm.”

The post Hybrid rye brings flexibility and vigour for cattle feeders appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Beef producers might know they should supplement their herds with mineral, but trying to wade through all the choices at the livestock supply store can be overwhelming.

Commercial suppliers seem to make claims and offer something different, but with tubs and bags of every colour and price available, how do you know which one is right for your herd? What mineral does your cattle actually need and how is it best delivered?

In general, beef cattle producers should be supplementing mineral to their herds whether they are grazing or being fed a winter ration, said Megan Van Schaik, a beef cattle specialist with Ontario’s Ag Ministry.

A host of variables can impact mineral nutrition and deficiencies in beef herds.

“They present in many different ways and alarm bells usually go off when we see reproductive issues,” she said, adding mineral status can be linked to general health problems and even calf abnormalities.

Mineral deficiencies can also cause less obvious production losses that can be easily avoided with proper supplementation. A study that tracked trace mineral status of Prairie herds identified some key gaps, noting that up to 43 per cent of cows sampled were deficient in copper.

Why do cattle need mineral supplementation?

Beef cattle rely on at least 17 minerals which are categorized as macrominerals and microminerals (also known as trace minerals).

Macrominerals include calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sodium (Na), chlorine (Cl) and sulphur (S). They are needed in relatively large quantities of more than 100 parts per million (ppm). Macromineral requirements are usually expressed on a per cent dry matter (% DM) basis in an animal’s ration.

Beef cattle also need 10 microminerals, also referred to as trace minerals, including chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), iodine (I), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn). These are needed in small quantities, and as such are often expressed on labels as ppm (parts per million), or mg/kg.

Minerals are required for several functions including skeletal development, immunity, production, nervous system maintenance and overall metabolism. Perhaps even more importantly, minerals interact with other minerals, vitamins and water or feed sources. This can limit absorption or availability.

The concentration of minerals in forages and feeds varies depending on soil, plant and management factors. While spring pasture growth looks lush, the reality is that few pastures — regardless of plant species — fully meet the mineral requirements of a lactating cow.

Both macrominerals, such as calcium, phosphorus and magnesium, and trace minerals, such as copper and zinc, are in short supply in tame and native pastures and therefore require supplementation.

Also, as a cow goes through gestation, calving and then attempts to breed back, her mineral requirements fluctuate. Supplementation is necessary to keep her on track.

Drought conditions and water quality can complicate mineral nutrition, and different anti-quality factors will impact certain minerals and their absorption.

“The only real way to find if you have mineral deficiencies and antagonistic factors is to test feeds and water,” said Van Schaik.

Include mineral analysis of forages and feed ingredients as part of regular feed testing. Testing for calcium and phosphorus will show the ratio present in the feed. The ratio of calcium to phosphorus in a diet should be between 2:1 and 6:1. Analyzing magnesium, potassium and calcium in feeds is important to ensure the ratio of potassium relative to calcium and magnesium combined is below 2.2, which will prevent tetany.

Feed testing is particularly important when producers may be feeding alternative feeds such as drought-stressed crops or canola forage, or when cattle may be drinking stock water that is high in total dissolved solids (TDS). For example, copper deficiency is a standard concern for many areas of Canada but in a drought situation, elevated sulphate levels in stock water can make a bad problem worse by tying up available copper. This can lead to a reproductive wreck which could be prevented with mineral supplementation containing appropriate levels of copper.

The post Choosing the right mineral supplements can be daunting appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“We’re seeing buyers fill up” on barley, said Susanne Leclerc of Market Master in Edmonton.

Bids were dropping on a daily basis from those still in the market as they anticipate new crop deliveries, she said.

Feed barley into the key Lethbridge cattle feeding area was trading at $240 per tonne on July 28, but dropped to roughly $218 per tonne by Thursday “if you can even find the space,” said Leclerc.

She said feed wheat bids were also down, but not to the same extent as the market is still waiting to see the quality of this year’s wheat crop.

While a seasonal drop in feed grain prices is typical at this time of year, Leclerc said the latest drop was quicker than expected as buyers were better covered heading into the harvest than they were a year ago.

Weakness in the U.S. corn market is also keeping some pressure on Canadian grain prices, although Leclerc said there still wasn’t much coming across the border due to the ample availability of local grain.

While some pockets of Alberta were rained out and dealing with poor crop conditions, the general outlook was for large crops overall.

— Phil Franz-Warkentin reports for MarketsFarm from Winnipeg.

The post Feed weekly outlook: Barley bids drop ahead of harvest appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Both Cargill and JBS Canada have cancelled second shifts at their Alberta locations after some workers tested positive for COVID-19.

And that means a big drop in the number of cattle being processed, said Rich Smith, executive director of Alberta Beef Producers.

“Cargill is probably 35 per cent of the beef production in Canada — 50 per cent of 35, that’s a significant reduction,” Smith said April 16.

Those sorts of production cutbacks quickly affect producers and they will need federal assistance for a set-aside program, said Janice Tranberg, president and CEO of the National Cattle Feeders’ Association.

“Producers are already being impacted,” she said. “Without a set aside program, there is going to be some difficulties.

“The fed cattle sector can manage for the next couple weeks, but much past that it’s going to be quite a bit of crisis.”

The set aside program would help cover the costs of feeding cattle that would normally have gone to slaughter. The program, developed during the BSE crisis, sees cattle put on a maintenance diet (one higher in forage) with a committee of industry and government officials determining how many cattle are placed in the program.

“Farmers and ranchers in the supply chain would be able to identify if they had a group of cattle that they would feed this maintenance diet to,” said Canadian Cattlemen’s Association official Fawn Jackson. “We would be able to slow down the supply chain.”

The program would apply to fed and feeder cows and culled calves.

“This is a fluid situation,” said Jackson. “It does cost money to extend the feeding period of the animal. We need government assistance at this time. We are requesting urgent action on this.”

The cattle sector is also asking provincial governments if they could be able to provide matching funding, said Tranberg.

International demand for beef is still strong, and so is national demand for ground beef, said the executive vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

“It’s more about managing inventories now so we can match it and get price stability back to the industry,” said Dennis Laycraft.

“There’s not even an offer on cattle right now. Once they (the beef packers) get through the inventory that they have in the plant currently, then they’ll start to work into the market.”

Overall, processing plants in Canada and the U.S. have reduced production by five to seven per cent, said Brian Perillat, manager and senior analyst at CANFAX.

The post Cattle feeders need ‘urgent’ help, say industry officials appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Luckily, feed testing can help you manage both.

“The nutrition program is almost always the culprit when things just aren’t quite right,” said Karin Schmid, research and production manager for Alberta Beef.

“Maybe your average daily gains aren’t as high as you think they should be. Maybe your open rates are a little higher than they should be.

“But the first place you should look is at your nutrition program for those types of things.”

Testing feed is the critical first step, Schmid said during a recent Beef Cattle Research Council webinar. Aside from determining quality, feed test results can help producers identify nutritional deficiencies, develop supplementation programs, and reduce feed costs.

But despite all those benefits, feed testing is something most producers don’t do.

The 2017 Western Canadian Cow-Calf Survey found only 38 per cent of producers test their feed annually (down from 47 per cent in 2014). Of those who don’t regularly test, 61 per cent said they based their decision on their cattle appearing to be healthy, while 16 per cent relied on indicators such as body condition. A further nine per cent said they relied on results from their feed supplier, while eight per cent cited the cost of tests and six per cent said they weren’t sure how to collect a sample.

But feed testing can be a vital investment in your herd — particularly heading into a winter like this one, where pasture ratings are generally poor across the province and feed could be in short supply in some spots.

“Between 70 and 75 per cent of annual feed costs are from winter feeding, and every dollar reduction in feed costs is almost $2.50 profitability improvement,” said Schmid.

“If we’re really balancing our rations properly, we can save anywhere from $50 to $150 in feed costs per cow per winter. That’s a big, big deal when margins are tight.”

Testing your feed can also help you avoid some “sneaky” — and costly — production problems, she added.

Say, for instance, your nutrition program has left you with 10 open cows at a salvage value of $11,000. And because you have 10 fewer calves, you’ve lost $12,000 in revenue. Finding 10 new replacement heifers and developing those heifers into bred cows will cost around $20,000. So overall, there’s a net loss of about $21,000 on those 10 cows.

“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” said Schmid. “If we can refine our nutrition program enough that we’re really reducing those open rates, it can have a big impact on your bottom line.”

Taking samples

That starts with getting the right samples of your feed.

“A major source of error in analysis is due to sampling error,” said Megan Van Schaik, beef cattle specialist for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.

“So to get the most bang for your buck and the most accurate results for your feed tests, it’s really critical to take representative samples.”

That means taking sub-samples from separate lots of feed and mixing those sub-samples into a composite sample to send away for testing.

“The key thing to remember throughout your sampling is to embrace the concept of sampling by lot,” said Van Schaik. “There can be quite a bit of variability across cuts, fields, and storage methods, so we want to reduce that variability by sending away separate samples from different cuts, fields, farms, and storage methods.”

When taking sub-samples, the right tool for the job depends on what you’re sampling. For baled forage, you should take a core sample from around 20 bales using a sharp forage probe, while grain or processed feed samples should be taken with a grain probe.

Pasture sub-samples should come from handfuls of forage clipped at grazing height from around 20 different sites where the cattle graze. Ditto for silage — take 10 to 20 grab samples from different locations in the pile. When sampling swaths, though, select three to five representative plants from the windrow in 20 locations across the field.

Those whole plants will be sent to the lab for analysis, but for the other samples, collect them in a clean pail and mix them thoroughly.

It’s also important to maintain sample integrity after they’ve been collected, Van Schaik added.

“After you take that composite sample, we want to make sure that it’s stored properly. Improper storage can lead to spoilage and respiration, and that can ultimately skew your results from your feed test.”

Using the test results

Samples should also be taken as close to feeding as possible, Schmid added.

“The quality will change over time, so it’s important to realize that just because you’ve sampled a certain field in the past, the quality isn’t going to be the same year over year,” she said. “Environmental conditions have a huge effect on what your quality ends up looking like.”

Then it’s a matter of actually using the information.

“It’s not enough just to get a feed test and stick it in the drawer,” she said. “We want to use the results we get from these feed tests to balance the ration to make sure we’re meeting all the nutritional requirements.”

The Alberta Beef, Forage, and Grazing Centre has a tool that uses feed test results to pinpoint potential nutritional problems and compare the economic value of different feeds based on their quality.

The tool looks at things such as the class of the cattle, the stage of their production, and the dry matter feed test results to evaluate the ability of a single feed to meet basic nutritional requirements.

“We’ve basically created a report card for feed test results,” said Schmid.

“It will not balance a ration. It will not formulate a least-cost ration. This is really just a quick and easy look at whether or not a single feed is going to be appropriate for cattle in terms of meeting their nutritional requirements.”

To use this and other tools to optimize your feeding program, visit ‘Decision Making Tools’ at beefresearch.ca.

The post Feed testing is a luxury you can’t afford to miss out on this winter appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Although the series covered timely topics for producers dealing with feed issues, its timing (it started airing in the summer and concluded earlier this month) coincided with harvest and the fall calf run.

Each episode, put on by Alberta Agriculture and applied research and forage associations, is about an hour long and covers an aspect of feeding strategy in depth. Among the topics covered are alternative feeds, feed testing, effective culling, and the economics of depopulation.

To find the archived webinars, go to the Alberta Agriculture YouTube channel and search for ‘cows and chaos.’

The post Now’s your time to catch up on cattle feeding tips appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.