Farmers Guardian - 19 January 2012

 

Beef finishers are being urged to keep a close look out for signs of acidosis in cattle this winter as the consequence could be reduced growth rates and increased feed costs.

 

According to NWF Agriculture technical specialist Rachel Lander, acidosis is often overlooked in beef cattle but is more widespread than it is thought.

 

“Acidosis is very common in intensive beef systems and has a big impact on production,” she says. “It occurs when rumen pH falls below 5.5 for a prolonged period of time which leads to reduced rumen function. The rumen becomes atonic and leads to depressed appetite and reduced growth rates.

 

“The reduced pH also changes the composition of rumen microflora with an increase in acid producing bacteria making the situation worse.”

 

Acidosis is associated with high concentrate-based diets or excessive consumption of fermentable carbohydrates and is frequently found in cattle on high-grain diets.

 

Cattle suffering from acidosis will have reduced feed intakes and reduced growth rates. Dung consistency will be variable with a proportion of loose, bubbly muck.

 

“Research suggests when beef cattle suffer from acidosis it is common for feed intakes to be reduced by 6 per cent with an 8 per cent fall in feed utilisation. Combined, these result in liveweight gain reductions of up to 12 per cent, which will affect days to slaughter and margins,” says Ms Lander.

 

A number of factors have contributed to an increased probability of acidosis this winter, according to NWF feed specialist Andy Essex, who works with beef producers in the South West.

 

“Many farmers kept older cattle out longer to take grass down and conserve silage stocks. The problem is cattle came in in poorer condition and the rumen was disrupted switching from wet, stemmy grass to silage.

 

Low fibre

 

“In addition, many silages are more acidic with low fibre and reasonably high protein, an ideal mix for promoting acidotic conditions. On top of that I have seen farmers feeding a high proportion of home-grown cereals in the diet to try and save on feed costs.

 

“This increases starch levels in the diet and in many cases has reduced fibre levels as the cereals have displaced fibre energy sources, such as beet pulp and soya hulls. This has predisposed more cattle to acidosis.”

 

Mr Essex recommends taking steps to change the diet in such a way it promotes better rumen health if acidosis is suspected.

 

He advises adding straw to the diet to promote rumination and natural buffering of the rumen acid load. He recommends feeding a minimum of 0.2kg straw per 100kg of liveweight.

 

Ingredients

 

To help reduce the rate of rumen fermentation and acid production, he advises using high digestible fibre ingredients, such as soya hulls or beet pulp, or replacing some of the cereals with products higher in levels of by-pass starch.

 

Finally he suggests adding a rumen buffer and a live yeast to help restore rumen pH to a more acceptable level.

 

“Live yeasts use up all the oxygen in the rumen. This is beneficial as oxygen is toxic to the anaerobic microbes and so its removal helps to promote bacterial growth, leading to better feed use and fibre digestion,” says Mr Essex.

 

“With beef prices currently high, there are good opportunities to increase returns. But if cattle develop acidosis the extra margin will soon disappear in reduced growth rates, increased feed use and extended days to slaughter.

 

“A small investment to ensure a healthy rumen will be more than paid back in better margins this winter.”

 

 

MANAGING body condition score in the pre- and post-calving period will help ensure better reproductive performance this winter.

That is according to NWF Agriculture technical specialist Rachel Lander, who says the variable quality and quantity of forages seen on many farms means fertility will be a big drain on dairy cow profits this winter.

 

“Fertility is a multi-factorial problem, but the immediate pre- and post-calving period is particularly important, especially the management of cow condition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 23, 2011 | By Jennifer MacKenzie

 

THE importance of heifer nutrition from birth to three months of age was addressed at a recent farm meeting held at Broathill Farm, Lockerbie, and organised by NWF Agriculture. Jennifer MacKenzie reports.

 

WITH the average dairy cow taking 1.3 lactations to recover her rearing costs attention to detail is vital during the rearing process.

 

This was according to NWF’s James Slater who said while 6 per cent of the four million dairy calves born in the UK each year die there were significantly greater financial losses caused by debilitating diseases.

 

While he said these did not always kill the animal they would affect performance later on in their lifetime.

 

This was backed up with figures showing 14 per cent of heifer calves do not make their first lactation and a further 15 per cent do not make their second.

 

Mr Slater said: “It’s crucial they get that first feed of colostrum followed by good quality milk powder which is expensive, but necessary, and aim for intakes of around 800g a day of milk powder dry matter.”

 

He said after about 60 days the calves should be weaned when eating around 1kg a head a day of early weaning concentrate for three consecutive days. Weaning should not be before five weeks as calves tend to be less resistant to disease.

 

Rumen development

 

Norman Downey, of animal nutrition specialists Provimi, said it was important to help the rumen develop by promoting dry matter intake to 80 per cent of its capacity by 12 weeks old.

 

John Twigge, technical and marketing manager with Frank Wright Trouw Nutrition, said the cost of rearing a heifer was £1,300 and the target was to inseminate heifers at 13-14 months old at a weight of 400kg to calve at 600kg to ensure animals generated more profit.

 

“To me, it’s common sense and I hope producers can give heifer rearing as much attention as they have given to lactating cows in the last few years which has made the UK as good as anywhere in the world in applying the principles of dairy farming.

 

“If heifers are calved later it has severe financial consequences for the business. Calving at 30 months old rather than at 24 months means you have to have 25 per cent more heifers - that’s 25 per cent more mouths to feed, just one area where the money starts to drain away from the business,” he added.

 

He said it was important to keep on top of growth rates in heifers in the first four to 12 months as this was when the mammary cells increase in size and number.

 

“Those who house heifers all the time do not find it difficult to control but the big problem is when they are out at grass - you don’t know how much they are eating or the nutritional value - and it’s then when you lose control and the heifers become little butterballs.

 

“Keep on top of growth rates by controlling stocking rates, either by using an electric fence or smaller paddocks,” he said, emphasising the target should be a daily liveweight gain of 0.8kg.

 

 

Weight for age

 

Three months - 115kg

Four months - 145kg

Five months - 169kg

Six months - 190kg

Nine months - 260kg

12 months - 340kg

14 months - 400kg

15 months - 425kg

18 months - 475kg

23 months - 600-605kg

Total gain = 490kg over 20 months (610 days) which is equivalent to 0.8kg/day

For producers finishing cattle on silage-based systems, a forage analysis could make a huge difference to feed costs and margins this winter, says NWF Agriculture beef specialist, Andy Essex.

For producers finishing cattle on silage-based systems, a forage analysis could make a huge difference to feed costs and margins this winter, says NWF Agriculture beef specialist, Andy Essex.

“Although cattle prices have been increasing, much of this benefit could be eroded due to higher feed costs. Feed is the biggest single cost of beef production, so it is important to control feed costs if margins are to reflect higher cattle prices,” says Mr Essex.

He suggests the starting point this season should be to look closely at forage.

Yield over quality

“Few beef farmers focus on silage-making to the same degree as their dairy counterparts.

“The objective often seems to be to let the crop bulk up to maximise yield, rather than making a quality feed.

“Few beef farmers have silage analysed and tailor supplementary feed to get the most from the forage, but all the evidence shows making and utilising good quality silage can have a big impact on financial performance.”

Mr Essex says making better quality forage can deliver two main benefits. The first is cattle will be prepared to eat more. If grass silage is too wet (less than 20 per cent DM), intakes can be reduced by around 5 per cent.

Equally, if grass is poorly fermented, it can lead to an intake depression of more than 10 per cent. Reduced forage intakes result in either more days to slaughter or increased supplementary feed rates to achieve target liveweight gains.

The other main benefit is that better made silage will provide more of the animals’ energy requirements and allow a reduction in concentrate feed rates.

Finishing beef cattle typically have a dry matter intake equivalent to 2.5 per cent of bodyweight and require a diet with an energy density of more than 11MJ/kgDM to provide sufficient energy for maintenance plus 1kg daily liveweight gain.

The lower the energy content of the silage, the harder it is to achieve the target energy density without high levels of supplementary feed.

“In simple terms,” says Mr Essex, “every 1MJ increase in silage energy content would allow a saving of 0.3kg concentrate per day.

“Over a 150 day finishing period, this adds up to a saving of 45kg/head, worth £10 per animal or £1,500 per year to a 150 head finishing unit.

“It will pay all farmers finishing beef animals to do all they can to make the best quality silage possible.

“Don’t be tempted to let the crop go over, as all this does is reduce digestibility, palatability and feed value. It will become belly fill, which needs higher levels of supplementation.

“Once you have made better quality silage, take all steps to maximise intakes. Manage the clamp face or bale stack carefully to reduce spoilage and clean troughs out regularly to reduce rejection.

“But most important of all, get the silage analysed as this is the only way you can assess the feed value of your forage to allow accurate and cost-effective supplementation to ensure you produce the type of animal your customer wants.”

Adding treated linseed to the diet of intensively finished lambs will produce meat with the same flavour as lambs finished naturally on grass. That's the theory behind a new approach to indoor lamb rationing following its first on-farm trial in Lancashire.

 

An unexpected bonus from the trial revealed lambs achieved faster growth rates than those fed conventional lamb finisher pellets. Although the reasons for improved performance are still being evaluated, joint trial organisers Dunbia and NWF Agriculture were primarily interested in examining the effect on meat flavour when the diet of indoor hopper-fed lambs is bolstered with Omega-3 fatty acids.

 

Jonathan Birnie, Dunbia research and development manager, said the flavour of lamb was an important consideration of consumers.

 

"And it's something that will become increasingly so as lamb becomes a higher value product. Producing lamb with the preferred consistent flavour of grass-finished animals will be an important marketing advantage to sheep farmers," Mr Birnie told visitors to an open day at the Stott family's Laund Farm, Chipping, Preston.

 

Dunbia said research over the last four years revealed the UK consumer prefers the taste of lambs finished off grass.

 

"But grass-fed lambs not only taste better, they are also a healthier source of red meat because they contain a higher percentage of polyunsaturated fat.

 

"Lamb has the potential to be a very healthy component of people's eating habits and that's something the industry needs to promote. But when lambs are finished inside on concentrates the flavour of the meat is degraded," said Mr Birnie.

 

Laund Farm is a traditional upland beef and sheep unit but also milks a flock of 450 British Friesland ewes. Indoor-finished wether lambs from the milking flock, which are supplied to Dunbia at 12 weeks old weighing about 44kg, provided lambs for the trial.

 

The formulation of the ration aimed to "mimic" the feed value of grass by increasing the content of Omega-3 fatty acids via a treated linseed supplement.

 

"Grass contains about 30g of oil a kg dry matter - and 60% of that oil exists as Omega-3 fatty acid," said Tom Hough, NWF technical manager.

 

"Lambs hydrogenate 60% of that Omega-3 and break it down. On a grass-based system lambs receive about 6g a day of Omega-3 fatty acid and that's what we've been aiming to achieve in the formulation of this ration," said Mr Hough.

 

Linseed - 23% protein and 34% oil - has half its oil content as Omega-3, but if pure linseed is introduced into a lamb's rumen it is degraded.

 

"To avoid that happening we've had to protect the oil and the protein during the compounding process to create a ration that provides the 6g of Omega-3 fatty acid that would normally be consumed by lambs being finished at grass."

 

Data collected from the trial showed lambs ate 25% more of the treated linseed feed - compared with lambs in the same shed fed a conventional NWF lamb finisher pellet - and growth rates increased by 35%.

 

Although taste improvement was the key driver in developing the treated linseed diet, Jonathan Birnie said there had been some "serious" improvements in carcass quality of lambs on the trial.

 

"We'd hoped that feeding the treated linseed diet would be a cost-neutral exercise for lamb finishers - in other words the higher price of the feed would be balanced by the higher value of the lambs. But in effect the diet has shown a distinct benefit in lamb value.

 

"In the first trial, 80% of lambs on the treated linseed diet achieved a U3L carcass compared with about 10% U3L carcass lambs from those fed an untreated ration. There are some weird and wonderful things that have emerged from this trial and we're still evaluating the full range of benefits," said Mr Birnie.

 

On average lambs on the new diet were worth £6 a head more than lambs on a traditional ration but intakes were higher and the new diet cost £70/t more which lifted feed costs by £4.50 a lamb.

 

Father and son team John and Simon Stott finish up to 800 lambs a year from their milking flock." Lambs on the treated linseed diet were weighed fortnightly and showed an average gain of 2.5kg more a head than those on a conventional ration and reached their target weight 2.8 weeks faster," said Simon.

 

"If this diet can produce indoor finished lambs with the flavour of those finished on grass it's bound to help supply a consistent product to the market. It's obviously palatable too because we've never had lambs come straight off the milk machine and take to dry feed as quickly as these did," he added.

 

Added Jonathan Birnie: "We've now got to wait for the final analysis of the taste panels and if they confirm the improvement in flavour we anticipate there's certainly a role for treated linseed to help sheep producers achieve a consistency in the flavour of lambs finished intensively - and that will become increasingly important to help maintain year-round lamb sales and consumption."

THE solution to high feed prices could lie in increasing the proportion of the diet that is fed on an individual cow basis, says Mike Phillips, sales development manager with NWF Agriculture.



He says the one downside of a move to feeding on a herd basis down the feed trough, is a loss of precision, and increasing precision is the best way to maximise the return from expensive inputs.

 

“There is no doubt developments in TMR systems have helped underpin improvements in the way cows are fed, raising intakes, improving rumen health and so helping drive up yields,” says Mr Phillips. “The downside is that all cows are treated the same and – quite simply – they aren’t.

 

“Feeding for the average cow is appropriate for the majority of the cows. The problems rest with the extremes – the high and low yielders.”

 

Mr Phillips says in many TMR systems high yielders are underfed, leading to excess condition score loss and resulting in problems getting cows back in calf. Conversely, late lactation cows can get over-fat, which increases the incidence of problems around calving.

 

“On every farm now the main conversation surrounds how to reduce feed costs per litre, and this usually leads to discussions about how to reduce feed use, cutting prices or both,” he says. “But in many cases the best option is not to look at what you feed and instead focus on who you feed, even if this means increasing the amount of dairy compounds used.”

 

Mr Phillips says farmers need to ask if it will pay to reduce the level of the TMR or outside ration and feed more to the cows warrant it, either through the parlour or out-of-parlour feeders.

 

Herd impact

He asked farmers to consider the impact on a herd of 100 cows and the level of saving that might be achieved.

 

“In this example, the value of the outside ration is reduced by five litres per day and the top cows receive dairy compound over and above the TMR,” he says.

 

“Even though dairy compound is 20 per cent more expensive than the blend, the new regime reduces feed costs by over £800 per month. The calculation would apply equally to cows at grass.”

 

In addition to the potential feed cost savings, Mr Phillips says this approach has other benefits too, due to better management of body condition score across the lactation. He says preventing fresh calvers losing weight will have a big impact on conception rates, while avoiding fat cows in late lactation will reduce complications at calving.

 

He also claims waste levels with compounds are lower than with blends.

 

“It is not unusual to see wastage levels approaching 5 per cent with blends, due to sub-standard storage conditions, vermin losses and inaccuracies with feeding,” he says. “These are an invisible but real cost.

 

“The wastage rates with compounds are far lower. Any dairy farmer who still has in-parlour or out-of-parlour feeders, will be well advised to work out the possible saving from making better use on the ability to feed cows as individuals.

  “For others, now may be the time to assess the benefits of installing feeders again.”

 

 

WITH grass reseeds costing close to £495 per hectare (£200 per acre), it is well worth investing a little extra in soil analysis to ensure good plant establishment, says Leigh Berrisford of NWF.

Phosphate and potash are particularly important for establishment of both grasses and clovers, and Mr Berrisford says unless routine fertiliser practices have maintained soil levels, the status of both P and K will have been depleted by previous crops, potentially reducing the success of a reseed. “It is not unusual for fields used primarily for silage to have low P and K status,” he says, explaining new leys ideally require a soil index of 2 for both phosphate and potash.

Updated analysis

“If a field is at soil index 2 it will require 50kg per hectare of both phosphate and potash in the seedbed. A field at soil index 1, however, requires 80kg of each nutrient. Without an updated analysis, how do you know what to apply? “If the field is an index 1 and you only apply 50kg then initial germination will be reduced and plants will grow less vigorously, being more prone to moisture shortages due to inadequate root development. “Conversely if the field was at index 2 and 60kg per nutrient were applied, this would equate to 10kg per hectare of excess P and K, which is a cost which could be avoided.”

Advice

Mr Berrisford also advices soil analysis as a way to check on the pH status of the soil. Reseeds are particularly susceptible to pH and lime should be applied if the soil pH is less than 6.4. A failure to correct pH will result in poor nutrient uptake by the plant and reduced bacterial and earthworm activity in the soil. It will also lead to increased problems with weed grasses. “At £11 a sample, the cost of soil analysis is minimal compared to the potential benefits of accurate fertiliser applications, both in terms of better establishment and the return on investment in reseeding,” Mr Berrisford says.“While taking the samples, it is also an ideal time to assess the soil for signs of compaction which can also affect establishment success.”