“The RX2 is our latest series,” Hustler’s country manager for North America, Lance Paskewitz, says. “The actual concept itself has been around for over 30 years in multiple countries.

“Most of the new stuff is upgrades here and there that the market has been asking for, different innovations we’ve added into it, like the width of the machine to increase its capability with multiple-sized bales; also, the visibility with the redesign of the front fence, so you can see all the way through the machine. The access ladder has been improved so you can get in and out of the machine.”

READ MORE: Understanding farmers’ equipment needs

Overall, there are design changes throughout the machines, including new chain guides on the cross floor that improve tracking and reduce the risk of derailing. The pusher blade has been redesigned for simplicity, reduced weight and increased strength, among other improvements.

There are two models in the Combi RX2 line. Both use a pusher design to move product forward and across onto the discharge elevator. The company says this eliminates the need for gearboxes and the kinds of adjustments typical of other feed wagons. It also reduces maintenance requirements.

“In the North American market we’ve launched both the RX178, which is a tandem axle, and the tridem axle one is the RX218,” Paskewitz says.

“Both are very similar in how they operate. Any type of bale, round or square, wet or dry, big or small. It can feed any type of bale. You can also feed loose material in there as well.”

The wider cross floor gives the Combi Multi-Feeders the ability to handle larger bales. The 178 gets a 38,865-pound (14,000-kilogram) load capacity, while the 218 can handle up to a 37,478-lb. (17,000-kg) load.

“We have some people who load the whole front end with hay and in the back they’ll put their loose product,” Paskewitz adds. “They’ll just string out hay and spin back around and top dress with whatever supplemental feed they’re feeding as well.”

The all-hydraulic drive system can be controlled from a single joystick, so the machines can handle varying feed rates with just a single control input from the operator in the tractor cab.

READ MORE: Gentle hay handling does make a difference

“That cross floor actually has load-sensing capabilities so you can actually determine how much load is against the elevator,” Paskewitz says. “It can start and stop to adjust the flow of feed to get a good, consistent feed rate. You can adjust the tilt of the elevator and speed of the chains. So there’s a lot of variables in there.

“But it’s all been brought down to just a simple thumbstick control. So it’s all run with a joystick to make it simple but quite versatile and adjustable.”

Both machines can be equipped with the company’s app-based FeedLink scale system, which wirelessly connects to a smartphone or iPad, eliminating the need to have a fixed scale head mounted in the tractor cab.

The FeedLink system also has a geolocating function, which provides not only the amount fed but its exact location as well.

“The RX178 has been our most popular model,” Paskewitz says. “We see a lot of those going on a 140- or 150-horsepower tractor.”

The Combi RX2 Multi-feeder wagons are available from dealers now and come with a five-year front-to-back warranty.

Paskewitz says the base MSRP for the RX178 will be about C$100,000; the larger RX218 retails for about C$120,000.

The post Hustler updates its Combi Multi-feeder wagons appeared first on Grainews.

Karsin is one of the principals of Karsin Farms Simmentals at Newton, about 20 km southeast of Portage la Prairie, Man. He says they have been able to save at least one large round bale per head over the winter. The farm runs about 40 head of purebred red and black Simmentals.

“And when hay is in that $100 to $150 per bale range, that can add up,” says Jonathan, who farms with his parents David and Pauline.

The Karsins, who have been farming for about 15 years, first used round bale feeders. “The cattle would pull a lot of hay out of the feeder, then they would lay on it, and with manure on top a lot of it would be wasted,” says Karsin. 

“We liked the features of Hustler bale unroller and switched to it a few years ago. It is a much more efficient way to feed hay and is also very versatile.” They’ve used the bale processor to spread straw and for feeding corn silage.

Their Hustler LX105 single bale unroller mounts on the front of their Kubota track loader. It’s powered by hydraulics, so a high-horsepower tractor isn’t needed to operate it.

New Zealand imports

The chainless bale processor was first developed at Hustler Equipment headquarters in New Zealand about 30 years ago, says Lance Paskewitz, business development manager for Hustler North American operations, based in Minnesota. “But it began to trickle into North America about a dozen years ago.” 

He says the machines now have wide distribution across Canada and the U.S. as well as other parts of the world.

With a wide range of models and capacity — from single to double bale feeders and large-capacity units that can carry six to eight bales at once — Paskewitz says there are models that work well from the smallest to the largest feeding operation.

He says the relatively gentle handling of forage one of the key design features that appeals to many producers. 

“Producers work all summer to produce good-quality hay. Many are paying attention to proper timing and dew point levels to ensure that hay as much leafy green material as possible. And then if that hay is put through a flail-type bale processor, all that management effort may be lost as the chains knock the leaves off the stem.”

Paskewitz says the processor may be as close as possible to unrolling or “to using a pitch fork,” as its rollers pull the bale apart. 

“Once the bale is loaded into the machine, it rests up against two variable-speed rollers. For every turn the bottom roller makes, the top roller goes around three times. That top roller sort of fluffs the hay as it is dropped on the ground in a narrow windrow or into a feed bunk.”

That was the feature that really appealed to Karsin Farms — the bale is pulled apart and dropped in a narrow windrow. “With that narrow feed row the cattle are less likely to use it for bedding,” says Karsin. “And with more leaves on the hay they are getting greater feed value.”

Benefits

Karsin says he’s found several benefits: 

• They went from feeding more than eight bales per animal per year to about 7-7.1, an appreciable 12 per cent savings or more. 
• The cattle don’t trample or lay in the hay, as the windrow is not large enough to be appealing. 
• All the animals have easy access to the feed.
• The soil is not compacted, as you can choose to feed in a new place every day. 
• Manure is spread over alarge area.
• The fluffed hay is more palatable and easier to eat for the young calves and the older animals you’ve decided not to cull yet . 

“We all work off farm, but we are also all involved with the cattle and farming when we are home,” says Karsin. “One of the other nice features of the Hustler bale processor is that it is easy to use. My mom often has to look after the feeding if dad and I are both away at the same time. She is not necessarily a mechanical person, but it is very easy to load the hay and attach the processor to the track loader on her own.” 

Karsin says they have found the processor requires very little maintenance other than keeping it greased. 

Less waste

The value of more gentle handling of hay to protect feed value is supported by a University of Alberta research project conducted several years ago. It compared the winter feed waste of cows fed forage on snow using a three-point bale unroller versus a flail-type bale processor (these use knives or flails to crush and chop the hay). The results showed that waste was significantly higher with the flail-type bale processor (12.9 per cent versus 19.2 per cent with the flail-type processor). 

Also, 21.5 per cent of the total protein was found in the wasted feed delivered by the flail-type bale processor. To replace the lost protein, an additional 2.55 kg/5.61 lb of DM or 3.04 kg/6.69 lb of hay as fed per head per day is required, which increases feed costs by $0.60/h/d based on a hay cost of $0.09/lb. (Hay prices have been updated to reflect the current 2023 estimate).

In total, the use of a flail-type bale processor increased winter feeding costs by $4.05 per head for a 175-day feeding period compared to a bale unroller when including wastage, nutrient replacement and additional equipment costs (including feed delivery costs, time of travel to and from the feeding area, processing time and total equipment time to feed the animals). 

For instance, the study found that the total cost to operate the tractor and bale shredder machinery for 175 days was $15,973.24 or $91.27 per day or $0.91/h/d. The investment cost for flail-type bale processors is also more expensive than investing in an unroller or a processor such as the Hustler Chainless bale feeder. For more information on the Hustler Equipment line and their Canadian dealers, visit their website at: hustlerequipment.com/ca.

The post Gentle hay handling does make a difference appeared first on Grainews.

As a dairy nutritionist, I like to draw from a palette of different feedstuffs to first meet the total dietary protein requirement of the high-producing milk cows. This includes forage proteins such as alfalfa haylage/hay and concentrate-proteins such as soybean meal, canola meal and corn distillers’ grains. Sometimes I look at other proteins such as corn gluten meal, but these proteins are easily available on most dairy farms and commercial feed mills.

Until about a year ago, I used a lot of soybean meal in several of my lactating feed programs. Then the $800/mt price of soybean meal forced me to reconsider a greater proportion of $600/mt canola meal in order to restrain some feed costs, yet maintain milk production on several dairies. Fortunately, I can formulate canola meal and/or soybean meal almost interchangeably in my lactating dairy diets, both as primary sources of crude protein (CP) and somewhat secondary source of rumen undegradable or ‘bypass’ protein’ (RUP).

That’s because canola meal has a crude protein content of about 35 per cent and a bypass protein of 30-35 per cent (UIP per cent, CP), which in turn has a 75 per cent degradability in the lower gut. These nutrient specs are comparable to soybean meal with a consistent protein content of 46 per cent and a bypass protein level of 35.0 per cent (UIP per cent, CP), and is nearly all digested (94 per cent) in the lower gut. Finally, both of ingredients have a measured dietary energy (Nel) value of 1.80-1.90 Mcal/kg, which is slightly less than corn and barley.

Some researchers and fellow nutritionists often argue that the book values of RUP for canola are too low. They say that its soluble protein fraction is not equal to rumen degradable protein. Rather, they say a portion of this soluble protein should be added to its bypass protein, thereby increasing its RUP value to 44 per cent, which is higher than soybean meal’s. Furthermore, these people say that older software models wrongfully compute the indigestible lignin of canola meal, which only underestimates canola meal’s dietary energy.

Research supports canola

As supporting evidence, the University of Saskatchewan (2017) reported a literature review of 49 studies in which canola meal replaced a group of commonly used protein sources and soybean meal in lactating dairy diets, added up to 20 per cent (dm basis). As a result, cows fed canola meal as a major dietary protein replacement increased milk production — 0.7 kg per day (soybean meal) and 1.4 kg (other protein sources).

South Dakota University (2009) also formulated canola meal as a total and a partial protein substitute of corn dried distiller’s grains with solubles (30 per cent CP, 62 per cent RUP) in a common diet for 12 early/multi-lactation dairy cows. The data demonstrated that milk production and its components to be similar for all such treatments. The researchers concluded that canola meal was a good replacement for DDGS in most lactation dairy diets.

To put an economic face to such dairy nutrition, I often calculate the cost of canola meal protein as well as its bypass protein (RUP) and compare them to those of soybean meal and DDGS:

• Canola ml protein = $500 mt/.35 = $1,428/mt vs Soybean ml = $650/.46 = $1.413/mt. *Recent autumn commodity prices.
• *Canola ml RUP = $500 mt/.35/.44 = $ 3.247/mt vs soybean ml RUP (35 per cent of CP, as fed) = $650/.46/.35 = $ 4,037/mt. *New canola meal RUP value.
• Canola ml RUP = $500 mt/.35/.44 = $ 3,247/mt vs DDGS RUP (60 per cent of CP, as fed) = $410/.28/.60 = $ 2,440/mt. *New canola meal RUP value.

These are straightforward feed costs to review when formulating canola meal as a nutritious yet economical ingredient in lactating dairy diets. In a recent dairy feeding program that I was revising; I substituted one kilogram of soybean meal ($0.65) for 1.2 kg of canola meal ($0.60) in the lactating dairy diet and saved about $0.08 per lactating cow per day. For this 200-milking cow dairy, this cost-saving was a draw, yet milk production and milkfat was maintained.

– Peter Vitti is an independent livestock nutritionist and consultant based in Winnipeg. To reach him call 204-254-7497 or by email at vitti@mymts.net.

The post Canola meal makes milk on Canadian dairy farms appeared first on Grainews.

I believe that bred early-gestating cows should be put on a well-balanced nutritious feeding program from early autumn until the first snows. It will reward us with good beef cow performance and healthy newborn calves in the early months of next year.

It’s coined as “fetal programming” — the theory that the lifetime performance of new calves can be positively or negatively affected by the soundness of cow nutrition received during all trimesters of gestation (from conception to calving). Although bovine physiology demonstrates that most fetal growth is during the last trimester, early- and mid-term nutrition of the gestating cow (and her fetus) are just as important, because this is where maximum growth and vascularization of the placenta take place, which regulates fetal growth. In addition, major fetal organs such as its liver, lungs, brain and kidneys become significantly developed compared to fetal growth of muscle and fat tissue, which occurs later.

We obviously cannot see that the fetus is developing properly inside the cow but we can look at the current cow herd body condition, which reflects their present early-gestation nutrition.

Pasture assessment

It happens that I recently drove through a pasture with the owner of 400 red Angus/Simmental-cross cows with their spring calves to be weaned in about a month.

My afternoon assessment was that this pasture with a lot of good prairie grass and mineral-salt licks had properly supported their optimum body condition score of five to six (one being emaciated and nine obese). Therefore, I was quite confident that most of them would continue into the winter with a good healthy fetus.

The producer also updated me that his cows would be moved onto adjoining pastures of equal carrying capacity, supplemented by 20 per cent molasses lick tubs, by the end of the weaning season until Christmas. Afterwards they will be feed a dry lot TMR ration made up of barley silage, mixed alfalfa hay and a ¼ lb./hd/day premix until the end of the calving season in late April. No significant amount of grain will be fed, unless the weather drops below -20 C.

The accompanying table below shows an inventory of his overwintering diet, fed to about 400 cows for 120 days until the first cow calves.

Like this producer, most others usually have a good general idea of how much overwinter forage and other feeds they will need by fall. Yet I often recommend a midwinter inventory is also taken accordingly. That’s because I would regret any surprises that would put a cow-calf operation into a dire position of running out of better-quality forage, particularly during late winter when late-gestation cow requirements are at their highest before calving.

For example, I remember a 200-cow beef producer that noticed a significant amount of “tough bales” of nearly pure second-cut alfalfa that went mouldy and could not be fed. Fortunately, his neighbour was overstocked with an equal amount of good quality mixed-grass bales that he carried over to his herd for the rest of the winter.

Much like other experienced producers, the one I visited usually assessed the body condition of his cow herd shortly after the weaning season. By then he had a good idea of his forage and feed inventory for overwintering his herd. I understood at the time of our visit that he would extend his pastures as autumn permitted. Then he’d move them home and feed a TMR diet all the while improving their nutrition toward calving. In this way, rather than saving money on their initial lowest nutrient needs, he invested in a progressive feeding program for a successful calving season and beyond.

The post Start planning a proper winter ration now for your cattle appeared first on Grainews.

It becomes a matter of assessing the body condition and milking ability of the cow herd and predicting pasture quality throughout the season. Then we can estimate the profits of putting that few extra pounds of saleable weaning weight by autumn and beyond.

Of those who decide to creep their calves, many put out creep feeders during midsummer when decreasing milk production can meet only 50 per cent of a growing calf’s nutrient requirements and pastures are also not as nutritious.

Creep feeding calves is a good way to bridge this nutritional gap. The funny thing this year is that early pasture conditions across some parts of Western Canada look good. Plus, most cow herds have come through the winter in good body condition, which contributes to good milk production for their calves.

The combination of good milkers and high-quality pasture (re: often extends throughout most of the summer) may not justify creep feeding. Yet I believe that if we have a normal Prairie summer which is neither particularly wet nor dry; healthy calves will come up and use the feeders. They will start to nose around and pick up about a kilo of creep feed per day. Then during the waning days of summer, creep consumption should take off until weaning with consumption ranging from two to three kilo per head per day (kg/hd/d).

Scenario shows a profit

I have calculated the economics of creep feeding calves for 2023, which targets 60 lbs. of extra weaning weight gain in a 100-day creep-feeding program, compared to calves that are not supplied creep feed. As the accompanying spreadsheet illustrates, there is about a $74 per head profit or about a 100 per cent return on investment (ROI) over feed costs.

Here are some of the major factors that determined a profit of $74 per head:

1. Predicted calf price. Cash and future calf prices estimate that calf prices should top out at about $3.50/lb. Some market reports state that grass and feeder calves are selling at historical highs driven by depressed feedlot placements in the United States.

2. 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 cwt. As this price gradient narrows between weight classes, creep feeding becomes more profitable.

3. Feed costs. Tradition says creep feeding is attractive when calf prices are high relative to low feed costs. In 2023, I see that forage and grain prices are both high, but can still yield creep profits when calculated as per my spreadsheet.

4. 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 6-8 lb/lb gain for most grain-based creep feeds. For example, for every 0.5 lb FE improvement means an extra $ 5.40 revenue per calf.

Other benefits

Aside from the positive economics of about a 100 per cent return on investment, there are other practical benefits to creep feeding calves. Some producers have told me that their creep-fed calves are not as dependent on the 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 subsequent background feeding programs.

However, I spoke with one producer that runs about a 130 cow-calf operation and 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 in which he pastures both cows and calves on its regrowth from August to late November. As a result, he successfully gets similar performance on his calves’ weaning weights compared to others that are crept fed.

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 other cow-calf operators that might consider creep feeding their calves in 2023, the numbers indicate it should be a profitable creep feeding year.

The post Creep feeding shows a profit in 2023 appeared first on Grainews.

I also look at the nutrient specs of the lactating cows’ feeding program. It should contain at least 28 per cent NDF (75 per cent from forages) and no more than 37 per cent NFC (non-fibre carbohydrates). Lactating cows tend to sort their diet when one of these nutritional parameters is out of balance.

In the same TMR, I also look for other contributing factors that might lead to diet sorting, but they are not always visible, especially when examining my 1/2-kilo sample. That is why I like to consult with a few dairy producers to get more information.

For example, one producer that milks 150 cows told me they sort their lactation diet when he mixes significant amounts of low-quality forages, despite having a final TMR with a correct dietary moisture level and enough effective forage fibre for good cow rumination.

It’s something that he recently noticed on one particular morning’s higher-than-expected feed refusal (three to four per cent), caused by adding high-fibre grass hay that also contained unpalatable canola stubble to the previous day’s TMR. He figured that the canola stubble hurt their gums. This is something that he never wants to repeat.

Another thing not often apparent in my sample bag is when things actually go according to plan in the lactation barn. This is when there is not a whole lot of sorting, daily feed intake is consistent and feed refusal is at a minimum. For this testimonial, I can use a 350-cow dairy that follows a well-thought-out protocol every day. As a result, this producer delivers an adequately mixed and nutritious TMR to his lactation cows and makes sure it is pushed up several times a day.

A feeding protocol

It goes something like this. At noon every day, in his self-propelled mixer wagon, he mixes up one mix of feed for three to six minutes and dumps it in the feed bunk. Then he makes a second batch, but only dumps about half of that. Together, this feeds all the lactating cows for one day. The next day he dumps the remaining half-mix load from the previous day, then makes up a complete batch and dumps that to completely feed the herd for the second day.

His automatic robot feed-pusher is programmed to move along the feed bunk, where it then augers newly dumped feed, remixes it and pushes it up every 2 ½ hours.

So this producer has very few issues with TMR sorting in his lactation barn. He sees that by pushing up the feed and making it more available to the cows at all times, the cows tend to exhibit less-selective feed behaviour. They get a bellyful of effective forage fibre that promotes good rumination.

The funny thing is that I have been in several dairy barns where the feed isn’t pushed up as often and there are definite “sorting holes” every few feet along the feed bunk. I would expect that these cows are unfortunately consuming an unbalanced portion of their TMR: namely, a lot of easily digested starches. Without enough effective forage fibre to buffer them, the resulting acids from such rapid NFC breakdown cause frequent digestive upsets or subclinical acidosis (SARA) in lactating dairy cows.

In these diet-sorting SARA situations, I make it a point to watch the cows resting in their stalls and watch them chewing their cud. It’s because cows with SARA and other digestive upsets have little rumination activity. So when many of these milk producers are rhythmically belching and chewing without a care in the world, I am confident that sorting of their dairy diet is not occurring to a large extent.

Some behavioural studies suggest that dairy cows are just natural feed-selectors, regardless of how their TMR is put together. Yet I believe we should literally push back on nature to prevent their diet-sorting. Namely, follow some of the above practical suggestions, when mixing up a daily lactation TMR, which needs to be eaten in its entirety by all healthy and productive dairy cows.

The post Dairy cattle can be picky eaters appeared first on Grainews.

In order to do so, beef producers often collect and review several commercial feed labels. Most list the guaranteed analysis of macro-, micro- and fat-soluble vitamins found in each product. Regardless of many choices, it’s a good idea to buy a good “min-vit” feeding program that helps gets your cow herd bred and into calf.

In the last few weeks of this calving season, I have walked along the fence of several drylots and holding pastures to assess the general body condition of beef cows. Although dietary energy and protein have a lot to due with maintaining or achieving such good condition and general good health, meeting essential mineral and vitamin requirements is equally important.

My first wish is that all beef cows calve out in a body condition (BCS) of five to six, which should be carried to the end of the upcoming breeding season. Adequate BCS has been research-proven to return a higher proportion of fertile beef cows compared to thin cows (BCS < 4.0) to a strong estrus 80-90 days post-partum, which ends in high conception rates.

Here’s my strategy

After each assessment, I am ready to put together a good mineral-vitamin feeding program that will match most cows’ macro- and trace-mineral and vitamin requirements. In doing so, I follow a three-point goal-oriented strategy:

• Complement the cows’ forages for calcium and phosphorus. A feed test may be very useful, but if I don’t have one, I find out the kind of hay, silage or later, the pasture, on which post-calving cows are fed. For example, I know a 120-cow beef producer that corn-grazes his cow herd until they calve. Then he feeds them corn silage-based diet until pastures are well established. Since corn-based forages are very low in calcium, a 21:7 or 3:1 calcium-to-phosphorus ratio is my recommendation. Likewise, when producers are feeding bales of calcium-enriched alfalfa/mixed grass hay to their cattle, a 10:10 ratio makes a better fit.
• Assess regional soil/forage and water mineral levels. Western Canada’s forages and pasture are notorious for deficient levels of essential trace minerals, or contain antagonistic elements that bind essential trace minerals and render them biologically unavailable to cattle. For example, a beef cow requires about 100 mg of copper per day, and her forages contain this adequate amount. Yet a high molybdenum level in this forage or high sulphates in well water can bind dietary copper and render it unavailable to the cow. In these cases, I often increase the dietary concentration of copper in the mineral feeding program, or switch to a cattle mineral formulated with “chelated” copper (a more bioavailable form).
• Review the mineral directions for use. Many producers will compare a min-vit feed label’s guaranteed analysis that illustrates its concentration of minerals and vitamins, but fail to note its feeding level. The feeding rate of loose mineral or mixed into the beef cows’ diet is between 100 and 300 grams per head daily. Such variance dictates the absolute amount of each mineral and vitamin that the cow eats, and its overall cost of feeding.

For example, Mineral A costs $52 per 25-kg bag, its feeding rate is 100 grams per head, and contains 3000 ppm of copper. Put that against a bag of cattle Mineral B that costs $62 per 25-kg bag, but its feeding rate is 50 grams per head, plus contains 6000 ppm. As a result, mineral A and B supply about the same amount of copper , but the cost to feed mineral A is 20.8 cents per head/day compared to 12.4 cents per head/day, respectively. Keep in mind tha feeding mineral B might be cheaper, but there might be other extenuating features of each mineral that determines its final value.

It’s fortunate that most people recognize the importance of a good mineral-vitamin program for their fresh cow herd leading up to the breeding season. Many use a similar strategy that I use to buy one that works for them. In this way, spending about $20 for vit-min per post-partum cow (80 -90 days) that contributes to a saleable fall-calf that brings about $1,400 in today’s market is a good investment.

The post A balanced mineral-vitamin program is a good investment appeared first on Grainews.

It’s no secret that a good calving/breeding season depends upon these beef cows meeting their basic energy requirements at all times. They increase by at least 50 per cent from early gestation to the day of calving. It’s estimated that a 1,300-pound mature brood cow requires about 52 to 55 per cent TDN during her last trimester of pregnancy. Protein, mineral and vitamin requirements also increase, but by no more than 15 to 25 per cent.

We also must provide beef cows with a supply of extra dietary energy to guard against the cold. University research has come up with this cold weather rule of thumb: for every 1 C drop below 0 C, a beef cow’s TDN energy maintenance requirements increase by about two per cent. Although this is only an estimate and is based on effective air temperatures, producers can also utilize windchill temperatures without adjustments if their cow herd has limited shelter. This means that if our early-morning windchill temperature is -25 C, there is an increase of about 50 per cent in the cow’s energy needs.

[RELATED] Canadian Cattlemen: Picking replacement heifers

The only way we are really going to know that overwintering beef cows are getting enough energy from their feed is if they can maintain a fall body condition score (BCS) of 5 to 6 until calving time and right after. (Note: first calf-heifers should calve out a BCS of 6.0.) In the end, all cows with this optimum body condition will have fewer calving problems and better colostrum/milk production. Then later on it should also mean those animals should have fewer days to active estrus, and higher conception rates.

Feed consumption increases

Fortunately, during a typical Canadian winter, the cow herd also acclimatizes to cold weather. For example, a friend who operates a 200-cow-calf operation notices that when temperatures dip down to -25 C, his cows eat at least one-third more feed, only limited by the size of their bellies. It’s their scientific way of telling us that heat production of the cow (at the cellular level) becomes a metabolic priority to help keep them warm.

As a beef nutritionist, it’s now my job to provide the best overwintering diets. I primarily focus on their energy aspects, but I don’t forget to feed sufficient dietary protein, especially in the diets that contain low-protein straw (six per cent protein). That’s because I want to also meet the protein requirements of the cow’s rumen microbes that drive forage and grain fermentation that unlocks dietary energy for late-gestating cows. I also put together a winter mineral, which is fed at about 100 grams per day with elevated levels of trace minerals, especially copper and vitamins A and E.

[RELATED] Canadian Cattlemen: Feeding the pregnant beef cow

The table below shows some of my suggested dry lot diets that demonstrate the increase in the overall winter plane of nutrition fed to 1,200-lb. mature cows and 1,100-lb. replacement heifers for the next few months before calving.

This is only a sample of diets that are actually fed to overwinter beef cows in a dry lot. Yet the same philosophy holds true, whether producers are overwintering their cows in a standing cornfield, swath-grazing pasture or a different feeding program. That means the main purpose of any good winter-feeding strategy is to increase the cow herd’s plane of dietary energy to maintain vitality and optimum body condition and to help them cope with frigid weather. The payoff is to be ready for a successful calving and breeding season.

The post Increase in open cows blamed on poor diet appeared first on Grainews.

Much of this attention upon dietary zinc is because it has been studied so extensively over the last 100 years. In 1922 it was first discovered to play a vital role in the growth of mice. Since then, zinc has been scientifically proven to be part of over 300 mammalian enzyme systems (specialized proteins that trigger biochemical reactions in the body) involved in cellular energy metabolism, protein synthesis and the reproductive process, as well as genetics and immune function in cattle.

A bit of trial and error

The National Research Council (NRC) says dairy cattle require about 40 mg/kg zinc in their diet to adequately perform these functions. Being a dairy nutritionist, I have balanced several lactating, dry and young stock dairy diets with these NRC amounts and even more fortified levels, and from many different zinc sources. Here are some of the “hit or miss” dairy examples that come from my experience:

• Hit. About 10 years ago, I developed the dry cow and lactation diets for a southern Manitoba 100-cow dairy herd. The herd had a high incidence of foot rot and white-line sole separation. I suggested we feed zinc-methionine (a specific chelated-zinc) at four grams per head daily. After six months, most of these hoof issues were almost non-existent. The hoof trimmer even commented that the cow herd’s hoof horn became much harder during trimmings.
• Miss. In a similar way, I instructed a 300-cow dairy to add four grams per head per day of zinc methionine to his lactation dairy premix, which in turn was added to his daily milking TMR. At the time, he had a string of cows that became lame due to hairy warts. I thought extra dietary chelated-zinc would help reduce its incidence. After two weeks, my suggestion was sidelined in favour of running cows biweekly through a clean acidified copper or acidified footbath, and more strict use of medicated footwraps.
• Hit. Zinc methionine has been proven to stimulate cellular keratin production in cows’ teat ends, tissue that forms a protective covering over the teat opening and helps prevent mastitis. So at the producer’s request, about five years ago I added zinc methionine at five grams per head daily to a lactation TMR diet fed to a 150-cow dairy. His herd SCC dropped from 260,000/ml to about 190,000/ml in about three weeks. About a week later, he culled a few cows with SCC of over 1.5 million/ml, which dropped herd SCC even further.
• Miss. Elevated zinc levels have been used as a growth promotant in baby pigs. I elevated the zinc level by formulating more zinc oxide in a dairy calf starter from 40 ppm to 60 ppm. Neither growth rate, feed efficiency or health were noticeably improved in pre-weaned calves raised in dairies that fed my zinc-fortified calf starter.

Enzymatic functions

Much of my “hit” experience on zinc for dairy cattle is most likely due to heightened enzymatic functions. In contrast, there is a growing body of studies that are examining the more physical/direct non-enzymatic and antibacterial activities of dietary zinc in dairy cattle.

For example, zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NP) have been recently developed, with a microscopic particle size of one to 100 nm. At this ultra-small size, researchers in India (2020) demonstrated 650 and 850 ug/ml ZnO-NP significantly lowered the level of mastitis organisms and in contaminated milk samples collected from a local lactation dairy herd. Similar laboratory in-vitro studies of ZnO-NP improved the growth rate of rumen micro-organisms by improving their rumen fermentation of added dietary nutrients as well as improved rumen microbial proteins synthesis.

While there has been plenty of research, study of zinc technology is still in its infancy. More research is necessary before nano-zinc like common-grade zinc oxide can be added to practical dairy diets. Regardless of this current timeline, it still shows that dietary zinc has a timeless vitality in dairy nutrition and has a promising future as a vital essential nutrient for dairy cattle.

The post Don’t overlook zinc in a well-balanced dairy cattle diet appeared first on Grainews.