We know that hay quality across much of Ohio is poor this year. Out of 180 samples submitted as part of an Ohio State University eBarns program from 29 counties, only one of those samples met the energy or total digestible nutrient requirements for a 1200-pound, lactating beef cow.
For sheep and goats, that means that the forage is poorer yet. As we head towards winter, having a plan in place to maintain animals on pasture will be key.
I have these types of discussions with producers fairly often, and usually (not always), supplementing additional energy into the diet seems to aid in rectifying the situation.
As managers, we must remember that livestock utilize nutrients in a waste-not-want-not hierarchy. Think of an order of operations where Maintenance > Development > Growth > Lactation > Reproduction > Fattening.
Therefore, an animal that is not maintaining body condition is less likely to reproduce. That first calf heifer that is thin at weaning still has a requirement for growth and development before we ever think about getting her to a point where she will breed back in a timely fashion.
How do we address this lack of energy in a pasture-based system? Supplementation in some form or fashion is the most likely response, but I have many supplement strategies that vary greatly in effectiveness and cost.
Additional forage, aka hay
This strategy can work depending on the class of animal and the quality of the hay. A high-quality, second or third cutting, well-kept round bale of hay can often meet the needs of mature animals of the herd. In the case of the thin, first calf heifer, unless the hay is of exceptional quality, it might keep her belly full but is unlikely to get her to a desired body condition.
Don’t guess. Forage test!
Hay quality varies tremendously from farm to farm. Consider dry matter losses when buying hay. That year-old bale that has sat uncovered in a fence row somewhere, no matter the cost, is still overpriced when you consider dry matter lost.
Tubs
Too often in these instances, I’ve seen tubs relied on as a cure-all. Look at the analysis of a tub and the ingredients, and then compare the cost. Tubs may have a place in stocker situations, providing weaned calves with some protein, but considering the cost and energy provided, they are likely not cost-effective in providing supplemental energy to grazing livestock. Also, not all tubs are created equal. To a degree, you get what you pay for.
Grain
Pound for pound, supplementing grain — typically whole shelled corn — is a cost-effective and efficient way to supplement energy in a grazing operation. Once we know the energy requirement of our livestock, we can calculate pounds of corn per head per day. In most instances, it doesn’t take much corn to supplement the needed balance of energy.
Research conducted here at Ohio State, looking at the supplemental energy requirements of third-trimester bred heifers in muddy conditions versus those in dry conditions, demonstrated that only 2.5 pounds of corn was needed to maintain body conditions. At $7/bushel, corn that costs 25 cents per head per day is still very cost-effective when compared to longer breeding intervals and open cows.
Bottom line
Supplemental energy is often needed to maintain grazing livestock through a typical Ohio winter. Consider the cost and energy density of feedstuffs when making the decision to supplement animals on pasture.
