Stocker Management. Ted McCollum III, PhD, PAS-ACAN Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Amarillo

Transcription

1 Stocker Management Ted McCollum III, PhD, PAS-ACAN Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Amarillo

2 Margin Influencers and Leverage Points Margin Influencer Value of weight gain Margin Influencer Morbidity & Mortality Margin Influencer Rate of gain/total gain Leverage Points First cost Final value Leverage Points The Buy Receiving program Leverage Points Forage availability Supplemental nutrition Additives and implants

3 lb Purchase $/cwt Value of Weight Gain lb Market, $/cwt $ 1.15 $ 1.40 $ 1.65 $ $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 1.50 $ $ 0.85 $ 1.10 $ 1.35 $ $ 0.70 $ 0.95 $ 1.20 $ $ 0.55 $ 0.80 $ 1.05 $ 1.30

4 Value of Added Weight Market structure 700, with $8/cwt slide Sale wt $/cwt $/hd Change Value of Added Weight from 700 to 750 lbs? ($ )/50 lb = $0.81/lb or $81/cwt What would it cost to put on 5the Additional 50 lbs of added weight?

5 Margin Influencers Morbidity and Mortality SUNK COSTS

6 Margin Influencers Morbidity and mortality Health is first management challenge for stocker programs M&M rates vary, many factors background of calves procurement, transportation process conditions, labor and management after arrival

7 Margin Influencers $Cost of Morbidity Sensitivity analysis (Projected Fall 2016) 1% increase in mortality = $6.75/hd reduced profit 1% increase in morbidity = $1.02/hd reduced profit

8 Margin Influencers $Cost of Morbidity Sensitivity analysis Breakdown the $ loss for morbidity 52.1% attributed to calf mortality 24.3% attributed to treatment costs 23.6% attributed to reduced performance

9

10 Leverage Points Dealing with BRD in cattle boils down to three things the weather, the people and the cattle. Ninety percent of death loss with respiratory disease in feeder cattle is associated with those three things. M. Apley, 2008

11 Psychological Stress Fear Co-mingling or social mixing New environment Loud or unusual noises Restraint Physiological Stress Interruption to normal metabolism Protein and energy deficits or imbalances Mineral deficits and imbalances Vitamin deficits Physical Stress Usually environmental Heat or cold Wet or rainy conditions Wind or dust Hunger, thirst and fatigue Disease and injury

12 Factors contributing to health challenges with newly received calves Weaning (stress) Exposure to viral and bacterial pathogens Compromised or naïve immune system Marketing (sale barn) Transportation Adaptation to new environment Co-mingling Handling and handling practices Inadequate nutrient intake (feed/water) Environmental conditions temperature fluctuation, precipitation, dust, mud Cattle flow, crowding, time The Buy The Receiving Program

13 Vaccinations Viral Bacterial Arrival Processing Which antigens? Vaccine type? Administer all at initial processing or delay? Parasite control Dehorning Castration Branding All at initial processing, or delay some? Metaphylaxis (mass medication)?

14 The Three R s Rest Delay processing hours Rehydrate Provide fresh, clean water Realiment Manage feed quantity and quality Feed should replenish energy and provide roughage to "refill" cattle

15 Nutrition Challenge: Enhance ability to overcome disease challenge and/or respond to therapy Reduce stress level Stimulate intake Minimize potential for digestive upset Provide critical nutrients and additives

16 Metaphylaxis Reduces morbidity and death loss about 50% (Schumann et al, 1990; Gallo et al, 1995; Guthrie et al, 2004; Wileman et al, 2009) Increases performance about 0.24 lb/d (Wileman et al, 2009) May not reduce chronics (Guthrie et al, 2004) Allows cattle to adjust to stresses of transport, commingling, processing, etc. Not a cure all Spire, 2013, KSU Stocker Cattle Field Day Proceedings

17 Metaphylaxis economics changing Cost of Morbidity and Mortality Recent Projected Past +/-% Mortality $6.75/% $12/% Morbidity $1.02/% $1.43/% Reduces death loss about 50% MM ABX, $/hd Death loss threshold 8 1.2% (2.4) 0.7% (1.4) % (3.6) 1.0% (2.0) % (4.8) 1.3% (2.6) % (6.0) 1.7% (3.4)

18 Metaphylaxis economics changing Cost of Morbidity and Mortality Recent Projected Past +/-% Mortality $6.75/% $12/% Morbidity $1.02/% $1.43/% Reduces morbidity about 50% MM ABX, $/hd Morbidity threshold 8 7.8% (15.6) 5.6% (11.2) %(23.6) 8.4% (16.8) %(31.4) 11.2%(22.4) %(39.2) 13.9%(28.0)

19 $Cost of Morbidity Leverage Points 1. Manage the purchase and manage the calves to reduce incidence of morbidity 2. Manage to reduce the severity of morbidity and reduce case fatality rate Labor and time to identify and treat calves Adequate, palatable feed and water Reduce stress on calves people, place, process Prudent use of metaphylaxis

20 Health is a combination of the hand you are dealt and how you play it. Be smart about who's dealing, then add solid programs for vaccination, environmental management, therapy and nutrition to sway the odds in your favor. M. Apley, 2008

21 Margin Influencers Rate of Gain/Total Gain

22 $/head Cumulative cost and Cumulative Value of Gain Cumulative Cost Cumulative VOG Days

23 Compensatory gain > Compensatory gain is difficult to predict - averages about 40-50% And therefore difficult to manage predictably > Compensation % varies with - length of restriction less with longer restriction what is long or short? degree of restriction less with higher degree what is high or low?

24 Initial weight and forage nutritive value Gain potential on a forage varies among different weight classes of calves - maintenance energy and protein - forage intake capacity May need to adjust gain projections for different weights of calves

25 Initial weight and forage nutritive value Relative requirements decrease as body weight increases So what? 1. Maintenance has priority over production 2. Forage intake capacity as a function of body weight

26 Forage intake / MBW Forage intake / BW NEm, mcal/100 BW Body weight, lb

27 Performance of light and heavy calves grazing Old World Bluestem pasture Light Heavy Initial wt, lb Daily gain, lb Total gain, lb Adapted from Ackerman et al., 1999 Averaged across two summer grazing seasons

28 Filling the time gap From time calves are straight until forage is ready for turnout, How should we manage the calves? Hold or push? Two considerations: Cost dilution 35 to 45% of cost inputs occur in first days of ownership Compensatory gain what is the net end result of stepped up gain prior to wheat

29 Filling the time gap Cost dilution 35 to 45% of cost inputs occur in first days of ownership Pushing for more gain prior to wheat grazing dilutes the initial costs incurred gain on wheat has to cover less of initial costs insurance gain if wheat grazing is limited, the cattle have already put on some gain

30 Leverage Points Forage availability

31 Managing Forage Availability Forage is the nutrient source Forage intake is the performance driver Forage availability dictates forage intake Managing forage availability is first key to managing calf performance

32 Leverage Points

33 Gain/head, lbs/hd Wheat Pasture stocker cattle gains, TAMU Bush Farm, Bushland, Dec-Mar, and No P 2000 P 2000 No P 2001 P For each for each 50 lb increase ADG declined 0.25 lb/d For each for each 50 lb increase ADG declined 0.30 lb/d Stocking Pressure, lbs/ac

34 Gain per Head (lb) Gain per acre (lb) Forage allocation Margin Influencers Stocking Rate (A/steer) 20

35 Leverage Points Supplemental Nutrition

36 Supplemental feeding Margin Influencers Marginal cost of gain = supplement efficiency X cost of delivered supplement Supplement efficiency = lbs supplement/lb added wt

37 Mineral Nutrition Do not assume - 1. calves do not need mineral supplements 2. mineral supplements will not pay Mineral supplements : the easiest means of delivering ionophores increase gain to same extent as organic supplements

38 Stocker performance response to mineral 3 studies, Gain/d supplements No suppl 1 Mineral Suppl 1 Mineral Suppl w/ Rumensin Horn 1.56 a 1.80 b 2.03 c Reuter (rye) 2.12 a 2.31 a,b 2.50 b Gunter 1.52 a 2.05 a - Ave change vs no suppl vs min suppl No supplements of any type, including white salt 1 Mineral supplement did not include medications

39 Margin Influencers Mineral for wheat stockers Supplement+RUM lb/day gain Supplement intake 0.30 lb/d (high) Suppl efficiency 0.30 min/0.43 added gain = 0.70 lb gain/lb suppl If value of added gain = $0.85/lb then breakeven delivered supplement cost = $0.85 / 0.70 = $1.22/lb suppl or $2429/ton suppl

40 Supplementation Decision Protein and Energy Supplement conversion efficiency Conversion efficiency varies <2.0:1 6.0:1 10:1 Infinity As conversion efficiency increases, the economic feasibility declines

41 Improving energy status with limited supplement (Situation 1)

42 Improving energy status with limited supplement (Situation 1) Supplement efficiency = 2-3:1 If Value of Added Gain = $0.85/lb Breakeven cost of supplement =$ /lb or $ /ton Protein or Energy supplement (depends on forage value) less than 0.4%BW/d

43 Predicted liveweight response by cattle fed cottonseed meal with low quality forage (Hennessy, 1996) Max lbs 50% Diff Min lbs

44 Summer protein supplements for stocker cattle on rangeland Tallgrass prairie, 10 yr /lb/day, conversion 2-3:1 Shortgrass prairie, western Kansas 4 years: +.35 lb/day, conversion 3:1 Shortgrass prairie, northeast New Mexico +.47 lb/day, conversion 1.74:1 Mixed grass prairie, Oklahoma, 3 yrs +0.3 lb/day, conversion 3:1

45 Stocker cattle response to supplemental protein on bermudagrass No Suppl. Suppl. Arkansas, 1.35 lb/d 1.50 lb/d 1.1 lb 39%CP, 607 lb steers, June - Sept Oklahoma,.95 lb/d 1.25 lb/d 1 lb SBM, 440 lb steers, Aug 16 - Oct 16 Mississippi, 1.48 lb/d 1.70 lb/d.25% BW SBM, 545 lb steers, July 20 - Oct 24

46 Improving energy status with supplement (Situation 2)

47 Improving energy status with supplement (Situation 2) Supplement efficiency = 4-6:1 If Value of Added Gain = $0.85/lb Breakeven cost of supplement =$ /lb or $ /ton Energy supplement (15-25%CP) less than %BW/d

48 Effect of Green Gold on Daily Gains (lb) of Steers (120 days) Treatment No supp Monensin / Energy Supplement Response Gain (4 yrs) Suppl intake/ d /.49 = 4.1 Research conducted by G.W. Horn et al., Oklahoma State Univ.

49 Maintaining energy status and reducing forage intake with supplement (Situation 3)

50 Maintaining energy status and reducing forage intake with supplement (Situation 3) Supplement efficiency 8:1 to??? If Value of Added Gain = $0.85/lb Breakeven cost of supplement =??? 0.11/lb or??? 220/ton Energy supplement (<20% CP) more than 0.75 %BW/d

51 Corn-based supplements for stocker cattle on small grains pasture (rye/ryegrass) (Rouquette, 1995) Supplement rate, lb/day Added gain, lb/day Conversion Cost of added 4.25 $/bu corn :1 $0.144/lb :1 $0.144/lb :1 $0.409/lb :1 $0.683/lb

52 ADG, lbs Projected vs Actual gain (adapted from Rouquette, 1995) Assume 15 lbs forage DM intake with no depression, 67% Forage TDN Lbs Corn Proj ADG Actual

53 ADG, lbs Estimated forage intake depression to reconcile projected and actual gain. Assumes 15 lb base forage DM intake and 67% forage TDN Proj ADG Actual Substitution Lbs Corn Numerical values in the chart are estimated forage dry matter intake required to support the observed weight gain

54 Leverage Points Feed Additives and Implants

55 Feed Additives Ionophores - Rumensin, Bovatec Increase weight gains lbs/day 25 to 35 lbs additional fall and winter gain Delivered in mineral supplements or hand-fed supplements Added benefits from bloat prevention Improve supplemental feed economics

56 Implants Increase daily gains by lbs/day Additional 15 to 40 lbs during the fall and winter Most cost-effective tool available but still used by less than 50% of producers WHY?

57 Implant gain response, lb/d Implant response to plane of nutrition Gain by nonimplanted stockers, lb/d

58 Ted McCollum, PhD, PAS-ACAN Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Amarillo office cell