SEARCH

Rotational grazing is one of the best ways to maximize forage utilization by managing stocking rate and pasture size.  The reality is pasture ground is hard to find and quite valuable.  In some area, I see planters working fields that had been pasture for the last 50 years.  With rotational grazing the concept is to divide the grazing area into paddocks that a group of animals can consume within 7 to 10 days.  

Rotational grazing allows you to run more cows per acre while matching grass growth rates to stocking rate.  Table 1.  Shows how improving percent pasture utilization from 60% to 90% will increase the capacity from 0.67 to 1.0  cows/year.  In rotation grazing systems, we often see pasture yield increase.  This can be explained by the benefits of better weed control, more even manure distribution and maintaining the grass in a vegetative state longer during the growing season. In the example below increasing pasture yield from 5000 to 7000 DM pounds allowed the stocking rate to increase by nearly 0.3 to 0.4 cows per year.

Table 1.  Carrying Capacity and Forage Available at Various Utilization Rates

The best advice for using rotational grazing is to learn the basics and then apply those principals to your specific operation.  Major considerations are water access, animal numbers, how many paddocks to utilize, time constraints and fencing options.  Mother Nature is in control and seasonal grass growth rates and moisture availability will impact the length and frequency of grazing each paddock.

Considerations for a rotational grazing system are water, animal units, matching stocking rate to grass growth and how each of those factors impact paddock size and layout.

Water

Where is it and how will water location impact paddock size and shape?  Often a drover lane can be utilized for access to multiple paddocks.  Visit with local extension agents or NRCS offices about possible cost share funding for fencing and water systems.

Animal Units

Most of the reference material for grazing will use the terminology of animal unit.  They will have information about stocking rates expressed in acres per animal unit for various grass types that are modified for growing season.  Generally an animal unit is defined as equivalent to 1000 pounds of animal.  There are some adjustments made for stage of production.   A 1300 pound dry cow would be 1.3 animal units but a lactation cow in the first 4 months would be 1.6 animal units. 

Considerations For Yield Variation

Fast spring growth of grass will often allow for some paddocks to be skipped in the grazing rotation and saved for hay production.  Typically acres needed per animal unit will be 0.3 to 0.5 units lower in the spring due to increased productivity compared to the drier summer months.  For example, an orchard grass pasture can be grazed at 0.7 acres/animal unit in the spring, but in August 1.25 acres/animal unit is needed.  This variation can be managed by changing animal numbers or changing paddock size.  In a system where there are 4 similar sized paddocks, one paddock is saved for hay and the other 3 grazed.  In the drier months when grass growth declines, two lots at once would be grazed at the same time.

Timing and Fencing

Pasture in the Midwest with cool season grasses will have about 300 pounds of forage per inch of growth and length of the grazing period will vary by animal number and growth rate.  Common rest periods or time between grazing is 14-21 days during the spring and 40-60 days in warmer months.  Internal temporary fencing is a great tool for managing animal access to the different paddocks.  A practice in some areas is to have a front and back fence that are each moved on a 10-14 day schedule.  

The economic value of getting maximum utilization of the pasture has significant impact on profitability.  The forage that the cow herd harvests by grazing is the most economical feed you have.  With pasture value increasing and pasture availability being a concern, you may want to consider rotation grazing.  Grass type and carrying capacity will vary around the country.  Suppliers of fencing equipment pasture walks and grazing days are great sources of information.  Visit with your local extension specialist and NRCS representative to see what is available and working in your part of the country.  

Your largest feed expense is stored forage.  Your hay and silage is worth more than ever before.  Efforts to improve your management of forage storage will result in a good return on your investment. 

What is the New Normal for forage cost?  The average hay price has increased for all hay types.  Fair quality grass hay is $120 - $150 per ton and premium quality alfalfa hay is $200 - $300 per ton.  Current corn price dictates that corn silage should be valued at $60 to $70 per ton.  There are several reasons for increased forage cost listed below. 

*2012 was the smallest hay crop in 22 years

*the conversion of hay and pasture to row crops

*increased demand for hay in the southwest and southeast

*high corn price equates to high corn silage cost

*increasing harvest cost due to high fuel cost

USDA estimates that forage DM loss can be as high as 50% under the poorest conditions.  From what I observe on many farms and ranches, we commonly accept 15% to 20% DM loss as acceptable and normal.  We are at a New Normal with all aspects of livestock production, and at current forage costs, we need a New Normal in what we accept for DM loss.  Evaluate these 3 areas in your forage program to reduce DM loss in your hay and silage.

1. In-Field Loss
2. Harvest and Storage Loss
3. Feed out losses

Decreasing the amount of dry matter loss associated with hay and silage can greatly improve your income potential.  Where can DM loss occur and what is the benefit of using a preservative?

Not all forage treatment products are created equal.  Preservatives are generally considered to be chemical products and often used on dry hay.  Their main mode of action is changing the environment in the hay bale or silage.  The most common preservatives are organic acids such as propionic, acetic and citric acids.  They are applied at 5-15 lbs. per ton depending on hay moisture.  The mode of action is lowering pH to inhibit spoilage organisms.  Preservative such as BulletProof® uses oxygen scavenging technology to inhibit spoilage organisms.  It is applied at 2-3 lbs. per ton depending on hay moisture.  You need to consider application rate and total cost per treated ton of hay when making comparisons. 

The highest feed expenditure you have is your stored forage.  Using a preservative to reduce DM and nutrient loss will have a significant positive impact on your income over feed cost.  You will have more forage available and forage quality should be improved.

We have come through a very mild winter and are off to an early spring with record setting high temperatures. A negative affect is an early emergence of flies. This will be a year where an integrated fly control program will be needed for effective fly control. The tools for fly control include sanitation, feed through products, sprays, dust, rubs, fly tags and various fly traps. Determine which fly is the problem because control measures will vary by species. The early warm temperatures may allow the fly population to get an earlier than normal start. Below is a description of the common flies that impact cattle performance.

Horn Fly Face Fly   House Fly Stable Fly

First, determine which fly species you are fighting by looking at the size of the fly and where are they breeding and laying eggs. The most economically significant pasture fly is the Horn Fly. The Horn Fly spends the majority of time on the animal and lays eggs in fresh manure. It is the smallest of the common flies, but cause significant stress and discomfort to the animal. The Face Fly is much larger and also breeds in manure, but can spend a significant amount of time off the animal. The House Fly and Stable Fly are attracted to the animal, but spend most of their time in surrounding areas such as barns and decomposing feed. The House and Stable Fly will breed in manure, wet areas and any composted material. 

Second, determine where the flies are feeding and nesting. The Horn Fly is a blood feeder and will be on the back and withers of the animal and move to the lower flank and underside during the times of full sun. They take a blood meal 30 to 40 times per day and spend the majority of their adult life on the animal. The Horn Fly’s mouth part is a slicing and suction type which causes multiple painful lacerations in a single bite. The blood loss can be significant. 

The female Face Fly feeds on the mucus secretions around the nose, eyes and mouth. Face Flies are often a vector in a breakout of pink eye. The male Face Fly stays in the vegetation and feeds on plant nectars and fecal material. The female spends the night on vegetation. The Face Fly is not a blood feeder, but they do lay their eggs in manure. 

The House Fly is an annoyance fly. They have a sponging mouth part and do not bite. They feed on multiple items with a preference for carbohydrate-rich feeds. They lay their eggs in decaying and composted material such as manure laden bedding backs. 

The Stable Fly is a biting and blood feeding fly. They feed on any warm blooded animal. They have a piercing mouth part which resembles a hypodermic needle. The Stable Fly tends to prefer the underside and legs of the animal. Stomping and jumping are often associated with Stable Fly bites. They lay their eggs in decaying and composted material such as manure laden bedding backs, wasted hay or silages.

Control Measures

Sanitation and Weed Control

Removal of decaying and composted material is needed to eliminate the breeding area of the House and Stable Fly. Frequent mowing and weed control around buildings can help control the Face Fly breeding and nesting areas.

Knock Down and Residual Sprays

Existing adult populations will need to be eliminated by using repeated knock down sprays. The time for eggs to hatch will vary from 10 to 14 days. Sprays may be needed for the first few weeks of the fly season. This will allow time for other measures such as feed through products and pour on products to control the developing fly population.

Topical Fly Control

Rubs, oilers and dusters can be used in areas where the animal has frequent access to the devices. Fly tags and pour on products can provide additional protection for various lengths depending on product type.

Fly Traps and Bait

Traps and bait are affective for only the Stable and House Fly. These flies will be in buildings and seek out nesting sites. The Horn Fly and Face Fly typically are not attracted to these control measures since they are nesting in other areas. 

Feed Through Products  

Rabon^® Oral Larvicide is a feed through product that kills the larva stage of the Horn, Face, Stable and House Fly that lay their eggs in manure. Altosid® IGR is a (S)-methopene feed through product that prevents the Horn Fly larva from developing into adult flies. Altosid^® IGR does not control Face, Stable or House Flies. These products can be safely fed to beef cattle and dairy cattle in various feeds and supplements. The active ingredient is consumed by the animal and passes through in manure where it prevents the development of larva into adult flies. CRYSTALYX^® Brand Supplements offer a protein and mineral formula which contains either Rabon^® or Altosid^® IGR. Learn more information about Rolyx^® Pro and Rolyx^® Max products that contain Rabon^® or IGR Pro™ and IGR Max™ which contains Altosid^®.

Rabon^® is a registered trademark of Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, Shawnee Mission, KS.

Altosid^® IGR is a registered trademark of Wellmark International, Schaumburg, IL.

Hay quality will vary due to forage type, stage of maturity at harvest and harvest conditions. In addition to hay, feeding harvested crop residue such as corn stalk bales is common. Often a combination of different quality hays are fed at the same time using past experience and some nutritional “cow sense” helping to determine the correct blend. Cow body condition and cow contentment are used as rough indicators of meeting the dry matter intake and energy needs of the cows. Evaluating the manure is a tool that can help indicate when changes in the forage mix or supplement strategy is needed. We need to be aware that the nutritional needs of the cow will change depending on production cycle.

Hay supplies are tight due to fewer hay acres and increased demand for hay in the southwest due to drought. Supply and demand dynamics have driven hay prices higher across the country. Hay quality varied greatly due to weather challenges during growing and harvest. Forage analysis is the best way to know the quality of your hay. Using average values from forage testing labs can be misleading. Dairy nutritionists will sample forages on a weekly or monthly basis. The number of dairy quality hay samples will skew the average to the high side. A recent survey of hay destined for beef cattle was conducted in northern Missouri, southeastern Iowa and northwestern Illinois. This was not a large survey but does give an indication of the wide variation in hay protein content and relative feed value (RFV).  

For 17 samples the average crude protein content was 10.32% and the available crude protein was 9.41%. The available crude protein takes into account heat damaged and bound protein that is not available for digestion.

The relative feed value ranged from 61 to 106 points for an average of 81. This is an indication that many of the samples were from quite mature forage with increased fiber content. RFV will decline as fiber content increases and the more readily digestible sugars decrease.

Manure evaluation can be used to evaluate the extent of digestion. This gives an indication of forage quality and can help determine if a change in supplement strategy is needed. The ideal cow pie would have an even consistency and be uniform in size and color. The height of the cow pie should be 2-3 inches. Manure from diet containing only low protein and low RFV forage will have larger fiber particles. This is due to poor digestion in the rumen due to a lack of readily available protein and carbohydrates. Manure can be washed through a screen to show the extent of fiber digestion. However, it is more common to flatten the cow pie under your boot for further observation. For example, hay number 8 is around 6% CP and RFV of 60 points. The cow pies from cows consuming hay number 8 would be large, very firm and stack higher than desired. Nutritionally this indicates that the low protein and high fiber content is limiting digestion. A supplement strategy that brings addition protein and carbohydrate sources is needed.

Stage of production must be considered. Relying on manure scoring alone is not advisable. Hay number 1 is around 11% CP and has a RFV of 84 points. The manure may look acceptable most of the time, but during times of higher nutrient demand, such as late pregnancy and early in lactation, the change in body condition would be greater than desired. If body condition declines excessively then breed back will be delayed.

Forage sampling, manure scoring, body condition scoring, supplement strategy and “cow sense” are tools for determining the best combination of feedstuff to meet the nutrient needs of the cow herd. Optimizing the forage blend is the most economical approach and Crystalyx® Brand Supplements offers a variety of formula options to deliver additional nutrition when needed.

Cash Flow Considerations THEN and NOW

As I travel in cow calf regions and visit with cattlemen, I have noticed a distinct shift in their plans for retaining heifers. Last year at weaning, a heifer calf was more valuable as a feeder than a breeding animal. On many farms and ranches cash was tight due to increasing input cost.  Generating some cash and paying bills by selling the heifer calf had very little risk. If a cow in the herd needed to be replaced a young cow could be purchased for about the same or less money.

This year the economic considerations for retaining heifers for replacements have shifted. Input costs have increased, most notably forage cost, but we are seeing record prices for feeder calves and replacement heifers. Projections are the nation’s cow herd will be smaller due to the prolonged drought in the southwest.

Another difference between this year and today is related to the value of ground for row crops versus pasture. People that had to decide between planting more acres verses keeping cows and pasture made their choice last fall. Those cows are not on the market today. These and other factors have pushed the value of breeding animals to the point where cash flow is not the only consideration in deciding to keep heifers for breeding stock. We now have more questions to discuss at meetings, coffee shops and sales barns.

1. What will replacement heifers and cows cost in the future?
2. Will raising your own replacements be less expensive?
3. Is there more income potential in selling replacement heifer?

Below is a summary of some recent bred heifer sales.* 

  *Sales results should not be considered “official” and were taken from posted sales data and radio market reports

The reduced cow herd and strong demand for fewer calves creates an optimistic outlook for the cow calf producer for the next several years.  This is if you have both forage and cows.  The drought in the Southwest is making it tough to maintain cow numbers in that region.  One would assume the Southeast and Midwest would grow their cow numbers.  However, the lack of affordable pasture is making that decision difficult.  Using a dry lot feeding program for part of the year is a viable option; however, making the assumption that expensive feeding equipment is necessary can greatly reduce the income potential.  The investment of tractors, feeder wagons and feed bins has to be paid for by pounds of beef sold.   

An advantage of a pasture-based system is the ability to produce marketable beef without a large investment in tractors, fuel and specialized feeding equipment.  In areas where pasture has been converted to row crops some producers are making a modified dry lot feeding program work.  Some of those farms are feeding free choice hay with some silage and self-fed supplements while others are feeding total mixed rations.  Depreciation is often the largest expense for a beef cow-calf operation.  The equipment depreciation, fuel cost and labor cost must be accounted for in a dry lot feeding program.    Most economic evaluations of cow-calf ranches are for a pasture based system.  Stan Bevers of Texas AgriLive Extension Service has published benchmark expenses for pasture based ranches.  The top expense items are listed in Table 1.   These benchmarks can be used as a point of reference for decision making related to dry lot feeding.   With the potential for sustained high calf prices and increased value of breeding stock over the next 3-4 year period, dry lot feeding may be feasible if the investment in equipment and fuel can be controlled.  This system could offer an opportunity for entry into or expansion of the beef cow herd in the Midwest and Southeast.

Table 1:  Operating Expenses of the Cow calf Ranch – adapted from Bevers, 2007

In a dry lot program, rent and lease cost could be reduced while keeping depreciation, labor and fuel cost from increasing significantly.  Items to consider for a successful dry lot program include:

1.     Be conservative with equipment investment.

2.     Minimize additional labor and fuel cost.

3.     Minimize shrink associated with storage and feeding of forages.

4.     Utilizing grazing of crop residue.

Let’s look at of these items more closely.  Assumptions for cost will be per cow calf pair. 

1.     Can the cost of an additional tractor and mixer wagon be supported?  You must first determine what percent of the equipment will be charged to the cows.  A conservative estimate of $100,000 investment and depreciated over 7 years has depreciation cost listed below.  The percentage is how much of the equipment is charged to the cow herd

a.     100% = $142

b.      50%=$71

c.      25%=$35.

This analysis would suggest a system where free choice feeding of hay/forage that minimizes equipment cost would be most economical.   

2.     Labor cost accounted for 15% and fuel accounted for 4.5% of total cost in the Texas data.  A dry lot system will need more labor and fuel than a pasture system.  The time and fuel needed for daily mixing and delivery must be considered if a total mixed ration program is planned.  Each additional hour per day can add up to $36.50 per cow-calf pair, depending on wage and fuel cost. 

3.     Forage costs have increased and if hay cost $200/ ton, each 1% shrink (waste and dry matter loss at harvest) will add an additional $2.00 per ton.  We need to consider both shrink at harvest and at feeding.  Extension service estimates of shrink for hay can be as high as 50% under poor conditions and poor management.  Efforts that reduce shrink will result in better returns and less total feed needed. 

4.     Grazing crop residue such as corn stocks can be an excellent means of providing economical forage that can reduce dry lot feeding days.  This will have the benefit of lowering stored forage needs, labor and fuel cost.

If the cow herd is to stabilize and eventually expand, I believe that dry lot feeding of the cow herd in conjunction with limited pasture and grazing of crop residue will be implemented successfully in some areas of the country.  Attention to and controlling total feed cost will be necessary if this is to be a viable and profitable option to a traditional pasture based system.  Total feed cost is the combination of the investment in feed, feeding equipment, fuel and labor cost associated with delivering the diet to the animals.  Crystal Clear Economyx® available on the Crystalyx.com website is a spreadsheet which allows you to evaluate various feeding situations.  Current and future calf prices offer an excellent opportunity to expand your herd or enter the cow calf business.  If pasture availability is an obstacle then a dry lot program may be an option.   Crystalyx® offers a full line of self-fed supplements that have proven to be convenient, time saving and cost effective in many different feeding programs.  Look at your all of your resources available to see if a beef-cow calf operation makes sense for you.

If you need to change the body condition of your cows so they will be in the best condition possible for breeding season, now is the time to act.  An important activity to do before we get busy with fall harvest is to give your cow a close look.  I am not talking about a passing glance, but take the time to critically evaluate each animal; better yet, utilize a trusted advisor such as your feed supplier to body condition score your cows.  They have not seen them as often as you nor do they have the “family history” that may bias your scoring.  The recent USDA-APHIS survey of Cow Calf Operations indicated that less than 15% of producers use Body Condition Scoring (BCS) as a management tool.

Source:  APHIS Small-scale US Cow-calf Operations, April 2011

Body Condition Scoring consists of assigning a BCS from 1 to 10, with 1 being an emaciated animal and a 10 being obese.  Research data and personal experience has shown that animals with a BCS of 5 to 6 will have greatly improved pregnancy rates compared to BSC 3 and 4.  In addition, thin cows will not milk as well and may wean a lighter calf.  In short, the body condition of your cows going into the winter feeding season will impact the next 2 calf crops.

Source:  Selk et al. 1988

BCS 2 cows will have the ribs and shorts ribs very pronounced.  BCS 3 cows will have visible ribs, some cover over the short rib, yet the hip bones and tail head are very pronounced.  BCS 4 cows will begin to have some cover over the tail head and hip bones, but they are not smooth.  BCS 5 cows will good cover over the tail head and hip bones with a very smooth appearance.  BCS 6 cows with have additional cover over the ribs and shoulders.  BCS 7 cows will have excess fat deposited around the tail head and some fat appearing in the brisket.  The picture below depicts cows at various condition scores.

It is much easier and economical to add condition to cows this time of year.  Late Fall and Winter the maintenance cost of the cow is much higher due to cooler weather and increased fetal growth.  If you are fortunate enough to be outside of the drought area, you may have late summer pasture where supplementing the forage with a protein block such as Crystalyx^® HE-20 or BGF 30^® will improve forage utilization and allow the cows to get more energy out of the grass and add body condition. Other management decisions that can impact body condition are earlier weaning, changes in stocking rate, hay feeding or grain feeding.  With the current economics of gain feeding, labor and fuel cost to deliver the grain and the potential for hay prices to be higher, using a Crystalyx^® self-feed supplements and getting more utilization of the pasture are even a better value.  As we prepare for fall harvest, be sure to take a break and look at your cows.  There may be some management changes that will impact your herd’s future performance and profitability. 

The 4th of July Cookout: An American Tradition

As we celebrate the 4^th of July Independence Day and our FREEDOM this week, we should all be mindful that we live in a great country where we still have choices and opportunity.  That is very true for how we choose to produce and market our beef products to the consumer.  We need to have the consumer engaged in making a buying decision based on how they value one type or brand of beef over another.  However, we do not want to confuse the consumer about the safety of one product verses another.  From an industry prospective, cattle producers, feeders, packers and the feed industry need to be engaged in educating our politicians and the consumer about the possible benefit of each option while maintaining the FREEDOM to market these value-added products. If we create confusion, we create fear which could lead to less FREEDOM due to undue regulation.

I believe, the growth in "All Natural" products will continue.  The political wind and the consumer’s lack of interest in researching the true benefit of growth promoting technology have created a fast moving current that is difficult to change.  Many consumers are willing, able and happy to pay for this type of product.    

The organic market will grow, but I believe it will be a very small percentage of the total beef sold.  I base that opinion on simple economics.  The beef industry is seeing grain prices and cost of gain at record highs.  Food cost inflation is the elephant in the room.  The premium that organic products must generate are not feasible for the vast majority of consumers that are seeing the family budget stressed by increased fuel, clothing and food cost.

Traditionally raised beef, using advances in nutrition technology, genetics and animal husbandry needs to be the primary area where the United States of America cattle industry continues to provide the highest quality beef to a growing world population.  We produce more beef with fewer animals and it will be necessary to continually improve our efficiency to provide an economical product to the consumer.  

The 4^th of July holiday is about FREEDOM.  In the cattle industry, we currently have the freedom to position our cattle and beef products in multiple ways that can add value and improve our profit potential.  CRYSTALYX^® Brand Supplements offer a variety of self-fed supplements that allow for increased gains on forage, improve reproductive performance and improved animal health.  Several products will work in most "All Natural" programs.    

The beef cow herd is at the lowest level since 1963, and the heifers are going to the feed yard at a rate that does not support herd expansion.  Several factors around the country are contributing to the further decline in the cow herd.  The rate of decline may have slowed due to lower culling activity on a national basis, but drought conditions in some parts of the country are sending cows to the sale barn.  In the Midwest and Southeast producers are dealing with reduced pasture availability due to competition for crop ground.  In addition, some heifers that were held back for replacement may have been sold due to tight cash flow as the result of a slow start to the grazing season which resulted in unplanned hay purchases.  What will be the determining factor for when the herd begins to expand?  Cash flow and forage availability will be short term factors to consider.  However, the decision to retain heifers as replacements needs to consider the long term demand for breeding stock and feeder cattle.  If the feeder cattle market stays strong and the cow herd continues to decline, those who decide to retain heifers this year should be very well rewarded for the decision.

Areas that have available grass have a distinct advantage in the cost to raise replacement heifers.  Raising heifers on pasture and a low cost per head per day supplement such as Iono-Lyx^® B300 is a proven system.  In areas of reduced pasture availability, some producers are taking a new look at rotational grazing and various low moisture block supplement strategies to maximize pasture utilization.   Efforts to extend the grazing season by 2 to 3 weeks will have a significant economical impact. 

In areas where pasture availability is a concern, some operations are considering a dry lot feeding program for all or part of the replacements.  This option will be more expensive due to increased use of stored forage, but can be a viable option if total cost is controlled.  The cost can be minimized if consideration is given to ways to reduce the total labor and equipment cost associated with dry lot feeding.  A common assumption is a tractor and feed wagon will be utilized every day.  Using the Crystal Clear Economyx^® tool, I entered a conservative tractor value of $100,000 and feeder wagon cost at $30,000 and contributed 25% of that expense to the heifer feeding program.  Fuel and operating cost of the tractor was estimated at $0.40 per hour.  Feeding every day with 1 hours of tractor time resulted in estimated yearly cost for the wagon of $50 per head and tractor/fuel cost of $164 per head.   Nutritionally we don’t need to feed replacement heifers like feed lot steers, and mechanically we don’t need to feed replacement heifers like steers.   A dry lot feeding program for replacement can be profitable if the equipment and fuel cost can be minimized.

What factors are you considering in your decision to retain or not retain heifers?

The key factor that drives the profitability of the cattle industry is POUNDS sold.  Due to the higher cost and volatility of the corn market, there is an industry shift to put more POUNDS on calves before they enter the feed yard.  This shift has created an excellent opportunity for the cow calf operation. 

It is spring time, and I see equipment being prepared for the work ahead.  Conversations at meetings and local coffee shops have centered on planting intentions.  It is evident some parts of the country will have less pasture available.  As you evaluate at your cattle operation and management plan for opportunities to add more pounds to your calves, the next question should be how to get more gains on forage.

The goal of this blog is to share ideas, management tips and challenge conventional practices with the goal of improved forage utilization and animal performance.  The utilization of forage has gone beyond just turning the cows out to pasture.  Innovations in grass varieties, cover crop options and grazing crop residue can greatly expand the forage seasons.  Matching the forage available and various supplement options to the biological need of your cows and calves is the goal of an integrated forage and cow calf management plan.  This approach will encompass weaning larger calves that are born earlier in your defined calving season; modifying the calving season to match cow’s nutrient demand to the quality and quantity of forage available; extending grazing by adopting new technologies in grazing management; maximizing calf weights by back grounding to capture some additional low cost gains.

CRYSTALYX^® brand supplements provide needed nutrients and can be a valuable management tool to help accomplish most of these strategies to get more gains on grass.  Self-fed CRYSTALYX^® brand supplements formulas can positively impact;

• Reproductive performance of cows and bulls
• Utilization of pasture thought improved fiber digestibility
• Utilization of pasture thought modifying grazing patterns
• Fly control allowing for un-interrupted grazing and reduced animal stress