A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130

and the

OSU Extension BEEF Team

BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor

You may subscribe to the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu

Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter

Issue # 765

December 28, 2011

Prepare for Late Gestation Nutrition - Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educator, Athens County and Buckeye Hills EERA

Recently a first cutting hay test crossed my desk that had a crude protein value of 8% and a TDN level of 55%. This is similar to many first cutting hay quality results across the state. This hay will work for a mid-gestation cow under decent environmental conditions. It is certainly not going to meet the nutrient needs of a cow in late gestation. So, as a livestock manager what is your plan to meet the late gestation nutritional needs? Now is the time to prepare for those nutritional requirements.

As I thought about this topic, I went back to the handout of Francis Fluharty's presentation at last winters Ohio beef school that was entitled "Late Gestation and Early Lactation: The Most Important Stages of Production". One of the themes of this presentation was fetal programming. Essentially, late gestation nutrition sets up or programs to some extent how that developing calf will respond to its world after birth. There are long term implications, either to the detriment of the calf or to its advantage.

The majority of fetal growth occurs in the last seven weeks of gestation. That fetal calf needs to gain on average about 0.9 lbs/day during the last trimester. Colostrum production starts at about 6 weeks prior to calving. Nutrition affects the nutrient supply to the fetus and it affects the quality of colostrum. Falling short on the nutritional requirements of the late gestation cow is not a wise strategy if the goal is to produce a healthy calf that will grow well from day one.

In his presentation last winter, Francis Fluharty said; "If the cow, or heifer, is nutritionally deficient during late gestation, it can have long-term impacts on the calf's performance, as the number of skeletal muscle fibers is set at birth, and nutrient restriction during gestation can reduce the body weight of offspring, even out to 30 months of age."

So, what can be done to prepare for late gestation nutritional needs? Those needs are crude protein levels in the 9 to 10% range and TDN in the 57-60% range. That TDN requirement could get bumped up if there are adverse weather conditions. The first thing that should be done is to find out what level of nutrients your hay can provide. Collect a hay sample of your second cutting and later hay and send it in to a lab to get it analyzed. Hopefully it will test high enough to meet late gestation nutritional needs and that will be your plan.

If your hay test results are not favorable and they fall short of 10% CP and 60% TDN or if you don't have enough of this higher quality hay to get all the way through late gestation, then what do you do? Here are some suggestions:

* Remember that although we use percentages as our guide for nutritional needs, the cow eats pounds, not percentages. In other words, the cow needs a certain number of pounds of crude protein and pounds of TDN. Better quality forages allow a cow to increase its intake because the digestibility and passage through the rumen is faster as compared to low quality hay. So, limit feeding better quality hay rather than providing it free choice can help to stretch limited supplies while still meeting cow nutritional needs.

* A similar strategy is to feed smaller amounts of hay more often. This results in less waste and again stretches limited amounts of good quality hay.

* Going back to the presentation by Francis Fluharty last winter, grinding forage should be considered. Grinding forage can increase its digestibility 30 to 35%. This means that a hay that normally would only meet mid gestation needs could meet late gestation needs. This is because the cow can eat more of that forage when it is ground. Since cows need pounds of energy, eating more pounds of a lower energy forage can meet the nutritional pound target. Can you work with an equipment dealer to rent a tub grinder or can you purchase one with several neighbors?

* Another method provided by Francis last winter is the use of a feed additive to aid microbial enzyme production and digestion of forage. There are several of these products on the market.

Don't let late gestation nutritional needs catch you unprepared. Time spent planning and preparing now is time well spent.

The Impact of AI: One On-Farm Example - Dr. Les Anderson, Beef Extension Specialist, University of Kentucky

Commercial beef producers have resisted using estrus synchronization and AI (ES/AI) for years. Recent USDA estimates indicate that fewer than 10% of all beef producers incorporate AI into their breeding programs. One of the main issues limiting the use of ES/AI is that most ranchers don't feel that they are able to recover the additional costs associated with ES/AI. In recent articles, we have compared the cost of pregnancy for natural service and ES/SI and discovered that ES/AI adds $15-25 per pregnancy. However, we have demonstrated that ES/AI can increase weaning weight by about 70 pounds, increase the number of calves born (higher weaning percentage), and thus can increase profits by about $140 in today's market. The question remains whether these principles actually apply to the "real world".

The best example that illustrates the impact of ES/AI in a commercial beef operation comes from Hillwinds Farms in Southwest Virginia. Tim Sutphin, owner and manager of Hillwinds, presented these data at the Applied Reproductive Strategies for Beef Cattle Symposium held in Lexington, KY in 2005. Hillwinds runs approximately 600 females and retains ownership on all cattle through harvest. All females are subjected to ES/AI for one service then are exposed to clean-up bulls for about 60 days. The key to these on-farm data is that Mr. Sutphin keeps excellent records and can accurately document changes in performance. These data are from cattle harvested in 2004.

The cost per pregnancy for natural service and ES/AI are similar at Hillwinds to what we have previously discussed. The year these data were collected the cost per pregnancy for ES/AI was $41 compared to a $27 cost per pregnancy for natural service. Use of ES/AI increased his overall pregnancy rate by 2%, lowers his calf death loss by 2%, decreases the percentage of assisted births by 1.6%, shortens his calving season (87% of the herd calves in the first 30 days of the breeding season), and increases the overall calf-age by 16 days.

The advantage of AI at weaning and harvest can be observed in Table 1. Four groups were examined; AI on AI indicates AI-sired steers from AI-sired dams, AI on non-AI indicates AI-sired steers from a natural service-sired dams, etc. Weaning performance was higher in the AI-sired steers than in the natural service-sired steers. Also, the value of the AI-sired dam as natural service-sired steers from AI-sired dams were nearly 100 pounds heavier at weaning compared to natural service-sired steers from natural service-sired dams.

The advantages of AI carry on through harvest (Tables 2 and 3). Steers with AI in their pedigree weighed more, grew faster, and had more valuable carcasses than those born only of natural service sires. As one would predict, these performance advantages led to an increase in net returns per cow (Table 4). Net returns were highest for steers sired by AI from an AI-sired dam and were nearly $140 greater than returns from steers sired by natural service sires and a natural service dam.

Hillwinds Farms summarized the impact of ES/AI in their operation. Their records indicate that, in 2004, an AI-sired steer from an AI-sired dam was worth $78.18 more at weaning and $145.27 at harvest. An AI-sired steer from a natural service dam was worth $38.54 at weaning and $64.31 at harvest. Natural service-sired steers from AI-sired dams were worth $53.59 at weaning and $69.24 at harvest.

The Hillwind data are quite clear. It costs them $14 more per pregnancy to breed their cows using ES/AI. However, ES/AI increased net returns $40-$145 depending upon how the steers were marketed (weaning versus harvest) and how much AI is in their pedigree. So, does using ES/AI cost or does it pay?

Table 1. Steer Performance at Weaning

Table 2. Steer Performance at Harvest (growth)

Table 3. Steer Performance at Harvest (carcass)

Table 4. Net Return/cow 2004 spring steers

EDITOR's NOTE: Dr. Anderson will dig even deeper into "reproductive efficiencies" during the 2012 Ohio Beef School series beginning on January 26, being hosted at 19 different locations around Ohio.

Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events

BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868

Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources