To some producers, it is a matter of pure economics to put on profitable extra weight on spring calves — while to others, creep feeding makes for better autumn-preconditioned calves. Last and not least, there are producers who don’t see the value of creep feeding.

Many of them might have valid reasons. Yet it seems to me that whether one doesn’t want to creep feed or is one of those who haul out their creep feeders by the end of summer, I advocate that one should calculate its present economics, plus its practical advantages in 2025.

A new beef producer I met last year inherited a 250-head cow-calf operation. He asked me to determine the economic value for him of putting out his creep feeders at the end of this July. He doesn’t expect his spring calves (mostly born at the end of February) to eat much creep feed until the middle of September. That’s because his pastures up to now have received a few timely rains and thus have good carrying capacity, and his cows and first-calf dams are milking well.

Once the weather cools off, he expects all calves eat to up to three kg of creep per head per day. With a feed conversion of 6.5 pounds of creep feed (costing 15 cents per lb.) to one lb. of gain, it should be no problem to add 60 lb. extra weight onto calves that would otherwise weigh 700 lb. at weaning time if the creep feeder remained by his machine shed.

With such pertinent information added into the graph shown here, as well as an already pre-established contract price of $4.95 per lb. of weaned calf sold this October, a tidy profit of about $168.50 per 760-lb. calf or a return on investment of 288 per cent will be directly attributed to creep feeding.

TABLE: Creep feeding program, 2025

Here is a general review of the major factors that determined this profit of $168.50 per head:

Established calf price

Some ag news states that grass and feeder calves are selling on historical highs driven by depressed calf crops and feedlot placements in the United States.

Calf price gradients

There is a sliding price discount as calves hit higher weight classes. In my example, I used a price discount of about $10 per hundredweight. As this price gradient narrows between weight classes, creep feeding becomes more profitable.

Feed costs

Creep feeding profits are attractive when calf prices are high relative to low feed costs. In 2025, I see that forage and grain prices are modest, which contribute to substantial 2025 creep profits.

Feed efficiency

The conversion of a well-balanced creep feed into saleable weaning weight is a major driver in the profitability due to creep feeding. It ranges from six to eight lb. per lb. gain for most grain-based creep feeds. For example, every 0.5 lb. improvement in feed efficiency means an extra $4.50 revenue per calf.

Aside from the almost unbelievable economics of 288 per cent return on investment, there are other practical benefits to creep feeding calves. Some other producers have told me that their creep-fed calves are not as dependent on the nursing cow by autumn.

As a result, calves are much easier to wean with less stress. Other producers say that creep-fed calves are bunk-broke, which is a real advantage when put onto background feeding programs.

Despite such positive and practical creep feeding advantages, I spoke with another cow-calf operator who runs about the same size of ranch, and he never considers creep feeding his spring calves. It’s not that he has anything against creep feeding, but he believes his cows milk well throughout the summer due to his heavily managed rotational pastures. Plus, he grows cover crops, and he pastures both cows and calves on their regrowth from August to late November.

As a result, he successfully gets similar performance on his calves’ weaning weights compared to his neighbours’ calves that are creep fed.

In summary, I value what this producer had to say, but I also value the experiences of people that seem to put their creep feeders onto pasture every year. For them and those new cow-calf operators who might consider creep feeding their calves in 2025, it’s a hard-to-beat profitable creep feeding year.

The post Beef calf creep feeding pays good profits in 2025 appeared first on Grainews.

Live bids in southern Alberta were quoted from $297 to $300/cwt.

Break-even pen closeouts for major feedlot operators are in the range of $275-$286/cwt. Margins have been in positive territory since the spring, and this has been a major factor supporting the feeder market.

Yearling steers off grass averaging 1,000 pounds have been trading for $405-410/cwt. in southern Alberta, while 500-lb. steers have been selling in the range of $660-$670/cwt. across the Prairies.

The U.S. cattle herd remains in a contraction phase. Lower feeder cattle supplies will result in a year-over-year decline in feedlot placements, which will cause lower beef production during 2026.

It appears Canadian barley and U.S. corn crops will come in larger than earlier anticipated. This has also contributed to stronger feeder cattle prices. Wholesale beef prices are down from the June highs, but beef demand shows no sign of easing.

U.S. cattle on feed inventories as of July 1 totalled 11.124 million head, down two per cent or 180,000 head from July 1, 2024. While inventories are below year-ago levels, it’s important to realize that U.S. cattle on feed 180 days or more as of July 1 were actually up 34 per cent from 12 months earlier. U.S. dressed weights are running 20 lb. above last year and 40 lb. above 2023. There is no shortage of fed cattle in the short term.

The U.S. weekly slaughter continues to trail last year. This will keep U.S. market-ready fed cattle supplies above year-ago levels throughout the summer and early fall.

In Western Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan on-feed inventories on July 1 were 862,080 head, down one per cent or 9,026 head from July 1, 2024. Feedlots in the two Prairie provinces are more current than their U.S. counterparts. Cattle on feed 180 days or more were marginally lower than last year, while dressed weights were running similar to year-ago levels.

In Canada, the June slaughter was above June 2024, while in the U.S., the June slaughter was down from 12 months earlier.

Wholesale choice beef was trading at US$361/cwt. in early August, down from the June peak of US$392/cwt. Packing margins remain in positive territory despite the softer wholesale market. Larger carcass weights have partially offset the lower slaughter pace.

In Canada, restaurant traffic during the first week of August was running 30 to 35 per cent above year-ago levels. In the U.S., restaurants were taking in 10 to 15 per cent more customers than last year. U.S. consumer spending at restaurants has been running six to seven per cent above last year.

Grocery store sales have been running 1.5 per cent above year-ago levels. Data from Statistics Canada shows that Canadian spending behaviour has mirrored that of consumers south of the border.

The U.S. cattle herd remains in a contraction phase. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s semi-annual cattle inventory report estimated the 2025 calf crop at 33.1 million head, down 429,000 head from the 2024 calf output. Heifers for beef cow replacement on July 1 were down 100,000 head from 12 months earlier; the number of beef cows with calves on July 1 was down 350,000 head from the year-ago level.

U.S. feeder cattle outside finishing feedlots as of July 1 came in at 34 million head. This compares to the July 1, 2023 number of 34.7 million head. (There was no survey in 2024 due to budget cuts.)

This is a modern-day historical low. The U.S. border remains closed to Mexican feeder cattle due to New World screwworm, and there is no signal that this will change anytime soon.

In Western Canada, we’re expecting Statistics Canada data to show a three to four per cent year-over-year decline in feeder cattle supplies outside finishing feedlots. The Canadian semi-annual report comes out in late August, and all eyes will be on this data.

In Western Canada, cow-calf pairs have been trading in the range of $6,500-$7,000 throughout June and July. This price reflects recent cull cow values, which have surged to the range of $3,200-$3,400. Currently, a 500-lb. steer is bringing back around $3,300.

Past history tells us that cow-calf producers make the decision to hold back heifers for herd expansion in the fall. This may tighten the feeder cattle supply beyond normal fundamentals. If there is significant heifer retention, this may cause the feeder market to overextend to the upside.

Feedlot operators usually have to experience one full round of negative margins before there is a serious downward adjustment to the feeder market. Therefore, cow-calf producers can expect the calf market to remain strong throughout the fall and winter.

The post Beef cattle market continues to set records appeared first on Grainews.

Deanne Fulawka, a researcher from the University of Manitoba, presented her team’s findings at the Manitoba Sustainable Protein Research Symposium in Winnipeg July 7.

A main point of the study was to get local projections on how implants could impact emissions on Canadian cow-calf operations.

The study modelled scenarios for 130 calves. Under the simulated exercise, calves would have received hormonal implants at 30 days old. Results were then compared with 130 simulated unimplanted calves.

Local farm conditions across south-central, southwestern and Parkland regions of the province were plugged into the model. Fulawka’s team estimated greenhouse gas emissions for the three regions using Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Holos model.

Ammonia projections were based on simulated manure outputs using Canadian research on beef feed intake, manure practices, body weight and temperature. Regional crop yields, estimated dry matter intake and water needs were taken into account.

The hypothetical revenue producers would get from those cattle was based on prices at local auction marts.

Numbers for birth and weaning weights and average daily gain were based on a 2015 South Dakota State University study, which used Angus and Angus-Limousin cross bull calves. It found that when calves born in March and April received their implants in May, their weaning weight increased by an average of 29 pounds compared to untreated calves. The calves from mature cows gained more than calves from younger cows.

Based on a price of $616 per hundredweight, the Manitoba study estimated that revenue at weaning for its hypothetical calves was $135.80 greater per implanted calf compared to untreated calves.

Total emissions were similar between implanted and non-implanted calves. For example, ammonia emissions for implanted calves were only 0.04 per cent lower.

However, due to the higher weight of implanted calves, the greenhouse gas intensity, measured as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of live weight was 3.72 per cent lower when implants were used.

Implants didn’t change how much land was needed for production of feed (including pasture) or water. Again, however, landuse intensity (hectare per kilogram of live weight) and water use (litre per kilogram of live weight) decreased by 3.92 per cent due to higher live weight when calves were marketed.

“There is an economic benefit to the producer, but we also want to send home that message that there is also environmental impact,” said Fulawka.

Fulawka noted that South Dakota researchers compared calves implanted at 30 days to calves implanted at weaning, which is when many producers would be implanting their calves. They found that later-implanted calves caught up to those implanted at 30 days and finished at similar weights.

She said Canadian beef producers have set a goal to reduce emissions, adding that every best management practice that is added will get the sector closer to that goal.

The Canadian Cattle Association has set a target to reduce primary production greenhouse gas emission intensity by 33 per cent by 2030, according to its website.

It’s estimated that fewer than 30 per cent of producers in the cow-calf sector use implants, which makes this an area of significant opportunity to improve economic and environmental outcomes, Fulawka’s report said.

The post Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins appeared first on Grainews.

A team of researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Canadian universities want to help solve this problem, and they’re looking for a dairy farmer in Alberta to lend a hand.

Audrey Murray, an AAFC research scientist based in Charlottetown, is collaborating with Marico Arlos from the University of Alberta and Anne Laarman from the University of Waterloo in Ontario on a five-year study, which started this spring. The researchers are examining how wastewater from dairy operations can be naturally treated through constructed wetlands to produce water for irrigating cattle feed crops.

To do this, Murray has assembled a series of pilot-scale wetlands at the Harrington research farm in P.E.I. to test different design variables for a dairy wastewater treatment system that can be put into practice on dairy farms.

Murray is currently seeking a volunteer dairy farmer in Alberta to partner with her team so a full-scale version of the system can be set up in that province later on in the project.

“We hope to find one as soon as possible, partly because we want it to be a co-development project. We would also like input from the producer, so they can let us know what they want. We want something that works for farmers, not just something that works technically. If it doesn’t work in a way that is helping them to run their farm, then it doesn’t necessarily meet our goals,” says Murray.

Once the project is completed, it’s hoped progressive early-adopters interested in this technology will have a tried-and-tested model for building such a system on their own dairy farms.

—> READ MORE: Floating islands could help filter cattle feedlot storm ponds

Murray and her team hope to have an Alberta producer-partner recruited by next summer, so they can begin initial work on wastewater lagoon sampling and wetland design.

The researchers hope to hear from producers with 100 to 150 head of cattle and who also irrigate and grow feed crops, and they are getting the word out through farm conferences in Alberta and through Alberta Milk, the province’s dairy producers’ association. Those interested in participating in the study can contact AAFC at 1-855-773-0241 or by email.

Murray’s replicated experiments in P.E.I. are aimed at ironing out design parameters for effective wastewater treatment before a full-scale version of the system is set up in Alberta.

Once that’s up and running, likely by the third year of the project, farmers will be encouraged to check it out and familiarize themselves with this nature-based solution to water shortages.

“We’ve had calls from farmers in different parts of Canada who are thinking about wetlands on their property. Farmers are smart people, and a lot of them read research or are interested in this type of thing already. We’re basically just providing an opportunity,” Murray says.

She adds the goal is to provide dairy producers in Alberta with a clear roadmap for treating wastewater naturally and provide them with an extra irrigation source at a time when it’s most needed.

“This is what farmers are looking for. They need some direction,” Murray says. “One of our deliverables is to produce design guidance for this specific purpose in Alberta (and) find something that works well.”

She notes one reason researchers chose Alberta for the project was because that’s where they saw the greatest need for this kind of water treatment and re-use solution. “It’s important especially in an Alberta agricultural context. It might be a slightly harder sell in P.E.I., I think.

“They have water shortages in Alberta, and at the time we wrote this proposal, they were experiencing severe drought and had been told that they would get half the water allotments they usually get. If you’re a farmer in that position, you have to then find ways to make the best use of the water that you have, and water re-use could be a part of that.”

Murray has conducted other wetland studies in P.E.I., researching how constructed wetlands on potato farms can naturally filter water from field runoff before it enters nearby streams and rivers. As she points out, wetlands also provide natural habitats for many species of plants, animals and insects, and they can even help capture carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Murray views her current wetlands project as one more application of her previous research, which she maintains hasn’t been explored for dairy farms in Canada up to now.

The middle layer

Here’s how the plan is envisioned to work in Alberta. Many dairy farms there have holding lagoons where wastewater from manure, used animal bedding and dairy production practices such as milk-house rinsing is stored. Farmers will often mix the contents of the lagoon in the spring, producing a nutrient-rich slurry that can be applied to crop fields as a natural fertilizer before planting.

Prior to mixing, the wastewater in these holding lagoons separates into layers, with a top layer that is thick and fatty and a bottom layer where much of the solids settle. There’s also a middle layer that contains the cleanest liquid — which is the basis of Murray’s constructed wetlands research. The treatment system starts with extracting this middle layer of liquid from unstirred holding lagoons.

“The ideal scenario is to build a wetland sightly downhill from the holding lagoon. A pipe is placed into the right location of the holding lagoon, connecting it to the wetland, and then gravity does the rest. This engineering solution is very common in municipal wastewater treatment plants,” Murray says.

As the water flows through the wetland, its quality is improved through physical and biological processes. It then enters a final mixing pond, where it is diluted with clean pond water and brought to quality standards required for use as a supplementary source of irrigation water.

“The wastewater is produced on site and the irrigation infrastructure is already there, so it’s just about tapping into that extra water source. It’s very efficient,” Murray says. She adds the end product may contain a bit more nutrients than regular pond water, but stresses it’s not meant to be used for fertigation purposes.

Murray is building her mini-version of this system using wastewater provided by local P.E.I. dairy farmers and mesocosms — that is, controlled outdoor experiments designed to simulate natural ecosystems. Various mesocosms consisting of different wetland soils and plants are being used to determine which are most effective in treating the wastewater.

Researchers are testing the output water quality from each mesocosm, and determining the ideal design concept and projected cost for the entire system, before moving forward with the full-scale design in Alberta.

Murray sees more possibilities for treating waste streams from other agricultural operations such as hog barns or feedlots this way, and she says she’d be interested in continuing her wastewater treatment and re-use research in this area.

“This is beyond the scope of this project, but I can see that there are many potential applications and a lack of clear design guidance for farmers who are interested in these technologies,” Murray says. “Hopefully there’ll be a continued appetite for this kind of research in the future. I think there might be.”

The post Taking dairy wastewater to the irrigation pivot, via wetlands appeared first on Grainews.

“It’s very odd we are not seeing the reflection in the [feed] market,” stated Susanne Leclerc of Market Master Ltd. in Edmonton.

“Canola is having some positive days, and we are seeing that reflected into the canola market. But feed grains have yet to see that priced into the market,” she lamented.

One of the main reasons for stronger prices Leclerc pointed out is the Prairie weather, with a hike in daily temperatures. Highs were forecast to surpass 30 degrees Celsius across much of the region with scatter thunderstorms at best for precipitation.

She explained that grain buyers placed their focus on cheaper corn in the United States and the prospects there for a very good harvest, while suggesting there might soon be change in feed prices.

“It will be interesting to see come another week or two any of those markets ‘appreciate’ the weather,” Leclerc commented.

Leclerc said Market Master is paying five dollars per bushel for old crop feed barley picked up in the yard in the Edmonton area, with new crop prices 10 to 15 cents/bu. higher. In the Red Deer, area she said barley was C$5.20/bu. for old crop and C$5.30 for new crop.

As for feed wheat, she had only an old crop price of C$7.50/bu., noting that buyers are waiting to see how this year’s wheat turns out.

When it comes to corn imported from the United States, Leclerc said the amount had tapered off a fair bit, but more purchases were now being made. She expects volumes to pick up again, but they won’t be as much as when Prairie barley and wheat were scarce.

Moving grain by truck continued to be something an issue in Alberta, Leclerc noted, but business has been lax. Once the busy season starts towards the end of July, she said there will very likely be problems with availability of drivers and trucks.

The post Feed Grains Weekly: Prices remain lower despite upswing in market appeared first on Grainews.

However, due to variability in supply, nutrient composition and quality of these feed ingredients, there can be pitfalls if not properly managed. Below are several key areas on which producers can focus when deciding if alternative feeds are a good fit for their farm.

Match feed composition to beef cattle groups

Two of the main components to know when creating a balanced ration for beef cattle are the nutritional composition of the feedstuffs being used and their suitability for the type or group of cattle being fed. Ration-balancing tools, such as CowBytes, allow producers to input feed analysis results and ingredient costs to calculate appropriate rations that safely use alternative feeds and reduce the risk of digestive upsets.

Screenings from cereals, pulses or canola can be cost-effective sources of protein and energy in the diet for mature cattle. Care must be taken, as inconsistency between loads and the potential for toxins call for feed testing to determine the true nutritional value.

In comparison, soyhulls or beet pulp, which are byproducts of processing, typically contain a consistent amount of energy due to having a high level of digestible fibre. This makes them an excellent feed for most classes of cattle.

Feeds such as straw and oat hulls have a poor nutritional composition but can be used as fibre sources to partially substitute for forage in rations for mature cows in early and mid-gestation.

READ MORE: Balancing low cost with enough nutrition

It is recommended to restrict the use of these feeds in the diets of bred heifers — a group that requires a higher plane of nutrition to meet growth and development needs, along with the rising demands of pregnancy. Feeding high levels of straw also increases the risk of impaction.

Protein supplementation is often needed when feeding low- to medium-quality forage-based diets or grazing crop residues. Byproducts such as canola meal, soybean meal or dried distillers’ grains (DDG) are high-quality protein feeds that can be easily fed in multiple feeding scenarios and to all classes of cattle.

Supplementing cows that reach peak lactation in early spring can provide them with the added energy and protein needed to support milk production before pasture turnout.

There can be an increased risk of toxins with some alternative feeds, due to the concentration of nutrients during processing or the presence of certain conditions at harvest and storage. For example, heated or sprouted grains have an elevated risk of moulds and mycotoxins, while cereal screenings increase the danger of ergot toxicity. These contaminants can lead to reduced production performance, fertility issues and abortions in cattle. It is recommended to avoid feeding to bred heifers, pregnant cows or cow-calf pairs. Feed testing is necessary for any suspect feeds.

Think about handling and storage

Consider storage and feeding requirements before purchasing alternative feeds. Having the proper facilities and feeding infrastructure will make incorporating these feeds easier.

Handling can be a challenge when working with high-moisture feeds such as cull potatoes or fruit and vegetable waste. These types of products can freeze in cold weather, making consumption by cattle difficult.

For example, whole, frozen cull potatoes present a choking hazard when fed. To reduce this risk, the potatoes can be chopped using a tub grinder or crushed with equipment such as tractors. However, it is important to keep in mind that once processed, storage time is greatly reduced.

In addition, high-moisture products tend to ferment rapidly, especially when temperatures warm up. This creates potential spoilage issues, so it is recommended to feed quickly unless ensiled.

Feeds such as chaff, oat hulls or screenings can be bulky to transport and store. Covered commodity sheds can help reduce feed losses when compared to outside storage. The storage facilities used should be functional and well-maintained.

These feeds are also dusty and ideally fed as part of a total mixed ration (TMR) with a wet ingredient or water included in the mix.

When thinking of on-farm ration preparation and feed delivery, consider the mixing characteristics of the novel feed, such as particle size, shape and density. Feeds with a fine particle size should be combined with other ingredients in a TMR to allow for the greatest utilization of the product. In contrast, larger particle feeds can be either fed on their own or mixed with other ingredients as part of a balanced ration.

What about costs — do they add up?

It is key to compare feeds on an equal nutrient basis, not simply on purchase price. This allows for a direct comparison between feeds. Consider the scenarios below (nutrient values expressed on a dry matter (DM) basis):

• Two protein sources are available: Source 1 contains 30 per cent protein and costs $350/tonne, while source 2 costs $375/tonne and contains 38 per cent protein. The cost per unit of protein for source 1 is $1.17/kg. In comparison, the cost per unit of protein is 99 cents/kg for source 2. Therefore, although protein source 1 is purchased at a lower price, it will end up costing more to feed the same amount of protein per head per day when compared to source 2.
• Assume corn grain is priced at $248/tonne and contains 88 per cent total digestible nutrients (TDN). The cost per unit of energy is 28 cents/kg. If grain screening pellets are available as an alternative energy source, and they contain 70 per cent TDN, the breakeven price to pay for these pellets would be $195/tonne. It is important to remember that some screening pellets might be fortified with vitamins and minerals which must be considered when doing comparisons.

The BCRC’s interactive calculator for Evaluating the Economic Value of Feeds can help producers determine the value of feeds they are considering for purchase compared to the value of standard feeds. Keep in mind that it is important to use “dry matter” values rather than “as fed” when running cost comparisons.

Considerations when calculating the cost of transportation should include the distance hauled and the physical nature of the product itself. As an example, culled potatoes, culled onions or other fruit and vegetable wastes can have moisture contents ranging from 70 to 90 per cent. This means that one tonne of these feeds at a dry matter of 25 per cent would contain 750 kg of water.

This greatly increases the transportation costs, especially over long distances. In addition, due to the high-moisture content, bedding costs may increase along with a higher risk of digestive upsets and buildup of manure tags.

Carefully manage inclusion of alternative feeds

Local alternative feeds can be effective and economical additions to beef cattle rations. However, careful management is required to avoid potential problems and to ensure the nutritional requirements of the type of cattle being fed are met.

The post Do your homework on alternative feeds appeared first on Grainews.

Some people have taken advantage that three-month-old replacement dairy heifers have a fully developed rumen and can truly digest lower quality/cost forages.

There is nothing wrong in feeding this way, but these forages must be well balanced with other more nutritious feedstuffs that together meet animals’ essential nutrient requirements. Plus, we need to avoid the common pitfalls, such as digestive upsets, which are associated with some diets — again, by providing the right overall nutrition.

Regardless, I always keep in mind that good dry matter intake (DMI) comes first in setting up any well-balanced heifer replacement feeding program. It’s synonymous with essential energy/protein/mineral/vitamin intake that drives growth, optimum body condition and good health by the time they are ready to be put on the milk-line.

It has been my experience that many promising replacements don’t make their full-performance potentials and are culled, because their dry matter intakes were ignored or challenged.

Such good DMI is controlled by the natural forces of heifers consuming these forage-based diets and its ensuing fermentation in the rumen. At the same time, the rate of feed passage through a heifer’s digestive systems comes into play in a big way, which not only controls good dry matter intake, but almost every digestive process afterward, including cud-chewing.

That’s especially so when we feed them high-fibre, lower-quality diets, such as proposed by South Dakota State University a few years ago.

The SDSU researchers fed high-fibre shredded corn stalks supplemented with wet distillers grains to help meet the energy and protein requirements of a group of growing dairy heifers. The SDSU results showed heifer gains — although lower than conventional diets formulated with corn silage, haylage and alfalfa — were quite acceptable. A significant cost saving of 40 per cent was recorded because corn stalks and wet corn distillers grains were purchased at much lower cost than other routine feedstuffs.

Along the same dietary lines to save on feed costs I routinely balance a bred-heifer replacement diet (15–22 months) for a 150-lactating dairy. This diet is limited by the quantity of good-quality forages such as alfalfa hay and drought-stricken barley silage. Yet this farmer has a decent supply of low-quality barley straw and slough hay. So his current diet is what you see in the table here:

In review of this diet, I believe we are barely meeting these bred heifers’ dietary energy (64 per cent total digestible nutrients and protein (14 per cent) needs for 1.8 pounds gain per day. Plus, this total mixed ration is simply too dry and a couple of kilos of added water would improve its density. The funny thing is that DMI by these replacement heifers during the last few months has been acceptable (2.8 to three per cent of body weight).

Nevertheless, during our last cold spell of –30 C in January, a few heifers showed signs of anorexia, inadequate manure output and abdominal distention — all encompassing signs of impaction.

Any threat of dietary impaction is serious and that is why I am vigilant of it when feeding low-quality forages to replacement dairy heifers. It can be fatal, and stems from:

• High forage-fibre content: the rate of digestion is slow since it takes a long time to ferment and break down lots of cellulose/hemicellulose fibre.
• Inadequate protein: heifer diets often do not supply enough dietary protein-metabolites to the forage-digesting rumen bacteria. It leads to decreases in the overall rate of forage-fibre digestion and feed passage, including DMI.
• Inadequate water: in feed digestion, water is a primary lubricant. For example, a particular dry heifer diet during an impaction incident is possibly more viscous, which impedes its movement throughout the rumen-gastrointestinal tract.

It is my understanding that this producer drenched each impacted dairy heifer with a gallon of mineral oil. Within a couple of days, animals were up to the water trough and feed-bunk. It was a lesson for me, namely that it is important to meet all essential nutrient requirements for growing and healthy dairy heifers. It can be done utilizing a cost-effective lower-quality forage as part of their whole diet, yet there should be a wide margin of adequate nutrition built into each diet.

The post Balancing low cost with enough nutrition appeared first on Grainews.

Meanwhile, lean hog futures continued to slide on a seasonal trend of robust supplies, even as hog slaughter rates showed signs of slowing.

Hog supplies tend to grow each fall, which weighs on the prices and often leads to more volumes of meat pushed into the marketplace, said Don Roose, president of U.S. Commodities in West Des Moines, Iowa.

Most-active December lean hogs ended down 0.825 cent at 77.325 cents/lb. and hit their lowest price since Sept. 24 (all figures US$). Front-month October hogs closed down 0.45 cent at 88.2 cents/lb.

Chinese purchases of U.S. beef, however, are continuing to boom, analysts said. China is the biggest beef market and there is still a lot of demand there.

Most-active December live cattle futures settled up 1.3 cents, at 130.3 cents/lb. February live cattle rose 1.1 cents, to 134.65 cents/lb.

Most-active November feeder cattle contract rose 1.175 cents to 162.15 cents/lb., while the January contract settled up 0.9 cent, to 162.35 cents.

— P.J. Huffstutter reports on agriculture and agribusiness for Reuters from Chicago.

The post U.S. livestock: Chicago cattle firm on export demand appeared first on Grainews.

Both live cattle and lean hog futures also rose amid a rally in the U.S. stock market and forecasts of warming weather in the coming days, which is expected to bolster consumer demand for meat as the grilling season takes off, traders said.

The Chicago Board of Trade’s corn futures surged strongly in morning trade, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported U.S. planting was well behind the average pace for this time of year following repeated rainfall.

But the rally cooled a bit after Reuters reported that Archer Daniels Midland and other grain traders were selling Brazilian corn to Smithfield Foods in the United States, where wet weather has reduced plantings.

One source said Smithfield likely ordered between five and 10 corn shipments from Brazil, which are expected to be loaded onto ships between September and January.

Traders said livestock futures also rose on news that Brazil had temporarily halted beef exports to China following an atypical case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in leading farm state Mato Grosso, and that China plans to boost inspections of Canadian meat and meat product imports as bilateral trade relations deteriorate.

But the market moves on such news — particularly the Brazilian case of BSE, detected in a 17-year-old cow — were more of a “knee jerk reaction than anything dealing with fundamentals,” said Dan Norcini, an independent livestock trader based in Idaho.

“The reality is, China needs the meat,” Norcini said. “There’s only so many places they can get this stuff from.”

Traders cautioned that live cattle prices could soften this week, including one who noted there were some limited cash sales of $113/cwt in Texas, and $114/cwt in Nebraska (all figures US$). But feedlots passed on packer bids of $112/cwt in different Midwest locations, traders said.

August feeder cattle finished Tuesday up 3.95 cents at 137.45 cents/lb. and September feeders settled up 3.75 cents, to 137.875 cents.

June live cattle settled up 0.775 cent, to 107.55 cents/lb., and most actively traded August closed up 1.25 cents at 104.05 cents.

CME June lean hogs closed down 0.45 cent at 81.125 cents/lb. — narrowing the gap between the cash and futures markets — while most actively traded July hogs ended up 1.275 cents at 85.8 cents.

— P.J. Huffstutter reports on agriculture and agribusiness for Reuters from Chicago.

The post U.S. livestock: Warming weather, easing feed costs spur rallies appeared first on Grainews.

Cattle futures also faced headwinds from U.S. Department of Agriculture news on Thursday that U.S. net sales of beef for 2019 were 16,900 tonnes for the week ended May 9, down 30 per cent from the previous week and 22 per cent from the prior four-week average.

But feeder cattle futures were able to end the day slightly higher, thanks in part to technical buying, traders said.

August feeder cattle ended the day up 1.05 cent to 143.325 cents/lb. and September feeder cattle ended up one cent at 144.225 cents (all figures US$).

Live cattle futures also closed modestly higher on Thursday, continuing to narrow their discount to the cash market.

CME June live cattle futures settled up 0.8 cent at 110.475 cents/lb. and August live cattle rose 0.975 cent at 107.95 cents/lb.

Cash cattle traded in Nebraska near $117/cwt on Thursday, one trader said, steady for this week and down about $3 from last week. However, feedlots are now wrestling with whether they may be forced to accept lower bids of $115, given the weakness in the cash market, say traders.

“The feedlots are full and we have big supplies ahead of us,” said Don Roose, president of U.S. Commodities.

Meanwhile, U.S. lean hog futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) rose for a third day on Thursday, supported by ongoing expectations of increased demand for U.S. pork as African swine fever spreads in China’s hog herd and elsewhere, traders said.

China’s sow herd is being closely watched by the global livestock market, as an epidemic of incurable African swine fever kills millions of animals in the world’s top pork producer.

CME June lean hog futures closed up 0.4 cent at 92.225 cents/lb. on Thursday, while July lean hogs rose 0.475 cent to settle at 92.4 cents.

But traders said gains were capped by news that China had canceled 3,247 tonnes of U.S. pork – the biggest cancellation in more than a year, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data released on Thursday.

USDA also reported Thursday that U.S. net sales of pork for 2019 were 10,500 tonnes for the week ended May 9, down 52 per cent from the previous week and 55 per cent from the prior four-week average.

China’s cancellation came during the week ended May 9. Earlier this year, China canceled sales of 53 tonnes in the week ended Feb. 28, sales of 999 tonnes in the week ended March 21, and 214 tonnes in the week ended April 18, according to USDA data.

“The cancellation pressured the trade,” said Dennis Smith, commodity broker with Archer Financial Services.

Meanwhile, hogs in the Iowa and southern Minnesota cash market rose by 70 cents on Thursday afternoon.

— P.J. Huffstutter reports on agriculture and agribusiness for Reuters from Chicago.

The post U.S. livestock: Feeder cattle futures dip to contract lows appeared first on Grainews.