Integrated Nutritional Systems

Nicolas DiLorenzoUF-NFRECMay 5, 2017

Horseback riding in USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lt7Pcr0THw

Redneck Argentine equivalent of that

Outline

• The 2 variables that impact everything in this talk

• Florida’s diverse ag industries are a blessing• Cow/calf: needs for supplementation

• Hay intake?

• Backgrounding• Heifer development• Finishing cattle in FL? – The FL bull test as a case

study

?

The other critical variable that we cannot control…

And it got worst in the last week…

Predicting the future…

Florida’s blessings in terms of cattle feeding opportunities

• Citrus (166 million boxes/yr)

• Cotton (191,200 bales/yr)

• Peanuts (380 million lbs/yr)

• Sugar cane (28 million tons/yr)

• Vegetables

• Brassica carinata?

Supplementation in the cow/calf sector

Feeding SystemsStockpiling

Hay intake

• More than ever supplementation strategies need to be cost effective

Photo credit: Tessa Schulmeister, NFREC

• How can I design a cost effective supplementation without an idea of the hay/forage intake?

Cow hay intake study56 d fed T85 BG hay (10.5% CP, 67% TDN)

How much hay does a cow eat?T85 hay fed over 56 d at the NFREC-FEF

21.218.1

5.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Suckled Weaned

DM

I, lb

/d

Calf DMI

Cow DMI

Suckled vs. weaned Cow DMI, P < 0.01

Reduction in pair DMI by weaning = 32%Reduction in cow DMI by weaning = 15%

1.7% of BW

1.4% of BW

Change in body weight in lactating vs. weaned cows

Over 56 d hay feeding

1272 12631188

1261

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Suckled Weaned

Bo

dy

we

igh

t, lb

Day 0

Day 56

Day 0, suckled vs. weaned, P = 0.86Day 56, suckled vs. weaned, P < 0.01

Loss of BW in suckled = 84 lbNo change in BW for weaned

Take home message # 1(Cow/calf)

Backgrounding opportunities in FL

Backgrounding opportunities(Garcia-Ascolani et al., 2015)

• 81 steers in study (54 included here)• Initial BW = 416 lb• Final BW = 528 lb• 56 DOF• DMI = 14.0 lb/d• ADG = 1.96 lb• FTG = 7.14• Diet cost = $183/ton DM• FCOG = $0.65/lb

Diet: 41% peanut/cotton byproduct pellet (AFG Feeds)35% Soybean hulls17% Corn gluten feed5% Supplement2% Soybean meal

13.8% CP0.36 Mcal NEg/lb(~60% TDN)

F. M. Ciriaco, D. D. Henry*, D. Demeterco, R. S. Walker, G. Scaglia, G. C. Lamb, and N. DiLorenzo

Impact of breed and forage conservation method on apparent total tract nutrient

digestibility in beef calves during the backgrounding period

2/8/16ASAS Southern Section

Objective

To evaluate the effect of ryegrass conservation method (hay or baleage) on

total tract nutrient digestibility in backgrounding steers of Angus or Brangus

origin

Materials and Methods

• 30 beef steers• Angus n=16 (564 lbs BW)• Brangus n=14 (512 lbs BW)

• Steers were stratified by BW and breed, and randomly assigned to either hay or baleage• Ryegrass hay or baleage was provided ad libitum

• 14 d adaptation followed by 64 d of individual feed intake data collection• 4 d of feed and fecal collection staggered in 2

periods

Materials and Methods

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Baleage Hay

TT

Dig

est

ibili

ty, %

ResultsEffect of forage on OM digestibility in the total tract

Forage conservation method, P < 0.01

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Baleage Hay

DM

inta

ke, l

b/d

ResultsEffect of forage on DMI

Forage conservation method, P < 0.01

0.60

0.99

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Baleage Hay

AD

G, l

bResults

Effect of forage on ADG

Forage conservation method, P < 0.01

Summary

• Angus steers consumed 2.2 lb of OM more than Brangus

• Angus or Brangus steers had similar digestibility of nutrients regardless of ryegrass conservation type

• Total tract apparent digestibility of DM and OM was 19% greater for ryegrass baleage vs. hay

• Total tract apparent digestibility of NDF and ADF was 21 and 28% greater, respectively, for ryegrass baleage vs. hay

• Does that pay the wrapping costs?

Take home message # 2(Backgrounding)

Backgrounding with BCM pellets“Upcycling”

38-40% CP

Bermudagrass hay with B. carinata meal2-year study, 64 hd total (18 pens) 70 d each yr

0.318

0.916

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

Control (Bermudagrass hay only) 0.3% of BCM

AD

G, l

b

Difference = 0.598 lbs, P < 0.01

Economics of supplementationExample: B. carinata meal supplementation

• A difference of 0.598 lbs over 70 d means:

– 42 extra lb of beef to sell

– Today beef prices = $1.20/lb

– Thus, an extra $50.4 for only 70-d feeding

• 1.8 lb/d x 70 d = 126 lbs of BCM

• Assuming a $280/ton (canola meal pelleted 38% CP)

– $0.14/lb x 126 = $17.6 in feed costs

– Net return = $32.8/head over 70 days feeding

Heifer development in FL(Waters et al. 2015; PAS)

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224

BW

, lb

Days of treatment

CON

CSBM

PPH

Supplementation phase

CON = T85 bermudagrass hay only

CSBM = CON + 2.7 lb/d of 80:20 corn:soybean meal mix

PPH = CON + 6 lb/d of perennial peanut hay

Hay intake = 1.42 % of BW

Take home message # 3(heifer development)

When it comes to heifer development…

Winter in North FL

Feeding SystemsDry lotsWinter in Minnesota

What if it does not work as planned?

Finishing cattle in FL

The FL Bull Test

Summary of last 3 FL Bull Tests at NFREC

Item 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 AVG

No of bulls 102 134 129 122

In wt, lb 885 879 907 890

DMI, lb/d 20.9 20.1 22.6 21.2

ADG, lb 3.15 3.15 3.18 3.16

Feed:Gain 6.63 6.38 7.11 6.71

112-d test ADG 3.38 3.13 3.32 3.28

With a diet cost of $225/ton of DM (AVG), FCOG = $0.75/lb

Believing in market analysts…

Conclusions

• Florida’s diverse Ag industries provide opportunities for cost effective feedstuffs

• No better time than this to look at feed as an investment and not just as a cost

• Watch out for hay DMI: may be lower than we think

• Hay vs. Haylage: potential opportunities

Economic analysis needs to be made on ROI

• Plenty opportunities for cost effective backgrounding programs (and finishing)

Thanks!