FEED COSTS FROM A NUTRITIONIST PERSPECTIVE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FEED COSTS FROM A NUTRITIONIST PERSPECTIVE"

Transcription

1 Introduction FEED COSTS FROM A NUTRITIONIST PERSPECTIVE Greg Bethard, Ph.D. G&R Dairy Consulting, Inc. Wytheville, VA Feed costs are the largest portion of the total costs of rearing dairy heifers. For the dairy producer, reducing feed costs without hindering performance reduces replacement costs. For the heifer grower, reducing feed costs without hindering performance yet delivering the quality of animal that their customer expects, improves profit. For either the dairy producer or heifer grower, controlling feed costs is crucial to success. Feed costs are impacted by more than the ration heifers consume, and controlling feed costs is crucial to financial success for heifer growers. Areas that heifers growers can look to in an effort to control feed costs include: 1. Minimize shrinkage and waste 2. Avoid overfeeding protein, minerals and vitamins 3. Procure forages that are economical in heifer rations 4. Purchase ingredients that result in the cheapest ration while providing needed nutrients. 5. Minimize heifer maintenance costs 6. Avoid weigh back or wasted feed in the bunks 7. Consider limit feeding where appropriate Environment and Maintenance Requirements Dollars spent on feed for heifers can be thought of in two ways. First, feed is needed to maintain the animal, typically referred to as maintenance requirements or maintenance cost. The animal s maintenance requirements come first, before any needs for growth or pregnancy. Second, feed is needed for productive purposes, such as growth, reproduction, and immune function. Maintenance requirements can be highly variable in heifers, and greatly impact growth and performance. This is why heifers must be regularly monitored to track gains and body condition, and rations need to be adjusted accordingly. The CPM-Dairy Dairy Cattle Ration Analyzer estimates maintenance requirements based on temperature, mud depth, mud coverage on hair coats, and wind speed. Table 1 illustrates the impact environment can have on maintenance requirements.

2 Table 1. Predicted energy requirements for a 1000 lb pregnant heifer under low-stress or high-stress conditions (CPM Dairy Software). Low-Stress Environment High-Stress Environment Environmental Conditions Current Temperature (F) Min. Night Temperature (F) Relative Humidity Wind Speed (mph) 0 19 Storm Exposure None Yes Mud Depth (inches) 0 6 inches Hair Coat No mud Heavy mud Metab. Energy Requirements Pregnancy 5.3 Mcal 5.3 Mcal Growth 5.0 Mcal 5.0 Mcal Maintenance 14.9 Mcal 20.9 Mcal Total 25.3 Mcal 31.3 Mcal The predicted requirements suggest that heifers under high-stress conditions need another 6 Mcal/d of metabolizable energy daily to meet maintenance requirements. If the low stress heifers consumed 22 lbs of dry matter, their ration should contain 1.15 Mcal/lb to meet predicted energy requirements. The high stress heifers would need to consume another 5.2 dry matter lbs of the same ration to meet energy requirements, or they would need a ration containing 1.42 Mcal/lb if their dry matter intake was 22 lbs. Assuming the ration was 7 cents per lb of dry matter and if the high stress heifers could consume the additional dry matter required, the additional ration cost would be 36 cents per day. If the ration was altered by adding corn ($180/ton) to increase energy density to 1.42 Mcal/lb to meet energy needs, additional ration costs could approach 60 cents per day. Clearly the animal s environment has a great impact on feed costs. Paper exercises similar to Table 1 leave little doubt that a stressful environment is costly. Practical experience strongly supports the theoretical costs. Mud and wet hair coats greatly limit the insulation a long hair coat provides, and significant calories are used to keep animals warm. Dry and clean heifers seem to do well even in very cold environments. Wise Purchasing of Feeds. For most producers, the basis of an inexpensive ration is inexpensive forages, as forages typically but not always comprise the bulk of heifer diets. To be considered inexpensive, a forage must be economical from a nutrient standpoint, stored and handled to minimize shrink, and be consumed by the animals. Excessive shrink in storage or handling, or excessive waste at the feed bunk can offset the advantages of a good buy.

3 Part of controlling feed costs is procuring inexpensive feed ingredients. Often the cost/unit of a particular nutrient is calculated to determine which feed is a best buy. This often leads to erroneous conclusions, as it ignores the replacement value of other feeds and the value of other nutrients in the feed. This method only works well when highly similar ingredients are compared. As an example, suppose soybean meal ($350/ton, 48% CP on an as-fed basis, 960 lbs of protein/ton) and distiller s grains ($205/ton, 26% CP on an as-fed basis, 520 lbs protein/ton) are options for a protein source. Cost per lb of protein is calculated to determine the most economical protein source. Using this approach, soybean meal ($350/960=$.0.365/lb crude protein) is a better buy than distillers ($205/520=$.0.394/lb crude protein). Soybean meal is more concentrated in protein and will occupy fewer dry matter slots in the ration compared to distillers. Thus, cost of other feeds that fill those dry matter slots needs to be considered. Table 2 illustrates this point. Despite a cheaper cost per lb of protein, the soybean meal ration is more expensive (5 cents more per heifer per day), due to the cost of replacement feeds. The only accurate method to compare costs is to compare rations, not feeds. It is important that rations are as similar as possible and formulated for similar dry matter intake for comparisons to be valid. Table 2. Comparison of rations using soybean meal (SBM) or distillers grains (DDG). SBM ration DDG ration Cost/ton DM lbs DM lbs Triticale Silage Wheat Hay Sorghum Silage Alfalfa Hay, 130 RFV DDG SBM Cotton burrs Mineral Total Cost, $/day $1.36 $1.31 CP, % DM ME, Mcal/lb NDF, % DM NFC, % DM Limit Feeding Limit-feeding strategies have been researched at Penn State (Zanton and Heinrichs, 2007) and the University of Wisconsin (Hoffman et al., 2007). These trials demonstrate potential benefits: heifers perform similarly on less dry matter, resulting in improved feed efficiency. Economics of limit feeding is dependent on feed costs. The practicality is dependent on facilities, management and available feeds. Tables 3 and 4 are an attempt to evaluate the impact of varying feed costs on costs of experimental diets from

4 Hoffman et al. It is clear when examining Tables 3 and 4 that the control diet (higher forage and ad-lib intake) was generally the cheapest. This assumes that the resulting heifers were similar from all 3 treatments. This conclusion could obviously change with different feed costs. Table 3. Daily heifer feed costs with high or low forage and concentrate costs using experimental diets from restricted feeding study of Hoffman et al., 2007 Forage cost High High Low Low Conc. Cost High Low Low High DMI, lb/d $/ton $/ton $/ton $/ton Oat Silage Corn Silage Corn Grain Soybean Meal Urea Heifer Mineral $/day $/day $/day $/day C R R C-100 is control treatment 2 R-90 is restricted intake treatment, 90% of control 3 R-80 is restricted intake treatment, 80% of control Table 4. Daily heifer feed costs with high or low energy, protein, and forage costs using experimental diets from restricted feeding study of Hoffman et al., 2007 Low Forage Costs High Forage Costs Protein cost High High Low Low Energy Cost High Low Low High DMI, lb/d $/ton $/ton $/ton $/ton Oat Silage Corn Silage Corn Grain Soybean Meal Urea Heifer Mineral $/day $/day $/day $/day C R R C-100 is the control treatment 2 R-90 is restricted intake treatment, 90% of control 3 R-80 is restricted intake treatment, 80% of control

5 Several potential issues must be considered before adopting limit feeding strategies for heifer feeding. First, it requires more precision in feeding. Pen counts must be accurate on a daily basis and the feeder must adjust bunks regularly to meet targeted intakes as heifers grow. Also, heifers must have sufficient feed bunk space for all heifers to eat at one time as they likely will consume the ration well before the next feeding. Over-crowding is not an option, as smaller heifers may not get enough feed. Personal experience in Europe suggests that rumen size and capacity may be compromised with limit-fed heifers. There is no known research to support this, but the message is to be sure adequate effective fiber is in the ration. Summary Feed costs are higher than they have been in anyone s memory. Successful heifer feeding programs must control feed costs by purchasing feeds wisely, minimizing maintenance requirements, limiting shrinkage and waste, and managing to promote efficient gains. Hoffman, P.C., C.R. Simson, and W. Wattiaux Limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers: Effects on growth, manure nutrient excretion, and subsequent lactation performance. J. Dairy Sci. 90:946. Zanton, G.I., and A.J. Heinrichs The effects of controlled feeding a high forage or high concentrate ration on heifer growth and first lactation milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3388.