Mississippi beef cattle producers have an abundance of productive, high-quality forage systems available. Yet achieving a year-round supply of adequate forage yields with acceptable nutrient composition is challenging. Commodity feeds serve as a nutritional option for beef cattle operations to supplement grazing and stored forage.
A wide variety of commodity-derived feedstuffs are used in ruminant animal production systems. Whole cottonseed, cottonseed hulls, cottonseed meal, soybean meal, soybean hulls, corn gluten feed, hominy feed, dried distillers grains, and rice mill feed are examples of commodity feedstuffs common in Mississippi. Decisions about which feedstuffs to incorporate into a nutritional program and their appropriate dietary inclusion levels should be based on several key considerations.
Evaluating Feedstuffs
Supply
Practical and cost-effective availability of specific commodity feeds varies throughout Mississippi. Consider whether or not a reliable supply of a certain feedstuff is available. Feeding program modifications will be necessary if stored supplies of desired feedstuffs are depleted and cannot be replenished as needed. Developing working relationships with reliable suppliers is invaluable when relying on commodity feeds in beef cattle nutritional programs. Seasonality of feedstuff supplies impacts both availability and price. It is not uncommon for trucks to wait for extended periods (often half a day or more) in line to be loaded with commodity feeds during periods of tight supplies relative to demand.
Physical Characteristics
Handling capabilities and producer preferences for feedstuff handling may determine whether a particular feedstuff is a viable option for a particular beef cattle operation. Ability to flow through an auger is one important physical characteristic that affects the usefulness of a feedstuff. Fuzzy, whole cottonseed is a classic example of a feedstuff that does not flow readily through a typical feed auger. Coating cottonseed with cornstarch, however, can alleviate this problem.
Flow characteristics determine the type of truck necessary for hauling a specific feedstuff and the type of storage facilities needed. Some feedstuffs are conducive to storage in upright bins, whereas other feedstuffs require storage areas such as commodity shed bays. The bulkiness and associated storage space required for a given volume of feedstuff varies greatly among these products. Particle size and other mixing characteristics affect the flexibility of including a specific feedstuff as part of a mixed feed. On-farm feed delivery systems also determine the viability of using various feedstuffs. For example, if feedstuffs are likely to cake in self-feeders, then alternative feedstuffs must be selected or alternative feeding methods implemented. Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2570 Feedstuff Handling, Storage, and Feeding Systems for Livestock provides additional detail on this topic.
Storage life is another important consideration in feedstuff selection. Wet distillers grain is an example of a feedstuff with a relatively short effective storage life. The humid and often warm Mississippi environment is not conducive to lengthy storage of feeds that rapidly mold or spoil. Be aware of physical characteristics of feedstuffs, such as high moisture content, that increase risk of or accelerate the onset of quality losses, deterioration, or spoilage.
Value
The value of individual feedstuffs is best expressed in terms of price per quantity of nutrients delivered. Nutrients of interest in beef cattle nutritional programs include total digestible nutrients (TDN) or alternative energy values (net energy system, NE), crude protein (CP), fat (which ideally should not exceed 6 percent of the total diet in mature cattle or 4 percent in growing cattle), fiber (crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber), and mineral levels (e.g., ratio of calcium to phosphorus, excessive levels of sulfur, etc.). Knowing the moisture content of a feedstuff and whether the nutrient levels are specified on an as-fed (as-received, moisture content included) or dry matter (DM) basis is critical in assessing the feedstuff’s value.
Although certain by-products may be cheap in terms of dollars, they may not necessarily be a good value. The nutritional makeup of feeds and what they contribute to beef cattle performance determine their true value (Table 1). Feedstuffs are generally classified as energy, protein, or roughage feeds based on nutrient content and intended use. Some feedstuffs, such as whole cottonseed, arguably fit well within multiple classifications.
1The nutrient values presented are intended as a general guide to nutrient qualities of feedstuffs. Significant variation in nutrient values exists among different feed sources. Laboratory analysis of a representative sample of a feedstuff is recommended to determine nutritive value.
Comparing feedstuffs on nutrient makeup in terms of dollar value is accomplished using economic replacement values. The basic idea behind this concept is that the nutritional makeup of a feedstuff and what it contributes to beef cattle performance determines the feedstuff’s true value. The relative value of feeds is compared in terms of dollar value for TDN and crude protein content as compared to base feeds. Corn is often used as the base energy feedstuff and soybean meal as the base protein feedstuff for comparison purposes. This method does not account for roughage levels needed in the diet or other feeding considerations, but it is useful in quick, overall comparisons of feed prices and nutrient replacement values.
Economic replacement value calculators are available to assist in comparing feedstuffs for nutrient content and price. When ranking the value of individual feedstuffs in a nutritional program, consider the nutrient composition of each feedstuff. For instance, an inexpensive, high-fiber feedstuff with low TDN and CP levels may rank above other feedstuffs for economic replacement value calculated based on TDN and CP levels per unit price, but may not contain adequate concentrations of TDN or CP for the class of cattle to be fed at expected intake levels. Compare energy supplements to energy supplements and protein supplements to protein supplements.
Table 1. Nutrient content of selected beef cattle feedstuffs on a dry matter basis.1
Feedstuff | Dry matter % | Total digestible nutrients % | Crude protein % | Crude fiber % | Crude fat % | Calcium % | Phosphorus % |
Energy feeds | | | | | | | |
Whole shelled corn | 90 | 90 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 0.03 | 0.32 |
Hominy feed | 90 | 91 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 0.06 | 0.58 |
Soybean hulls | 91 | 77 | 12.1 | 40.1 | 2.1 | 0.49 | 0.21 |
Oats | 89 | 75 | 13 | 12 | 5 | 0.05 | 0.35 |
Wheat middlings | 89 | 69 | 18.4 | 8.2 | 4.9 | 0.13 | 0.99 |
Rice bran | 90 | 70 | 16 | 12 | 15 | 0.10 | 1.73 |
Cane molasses | 75 | 72 | 5.8 | 0 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.11 |
Grain screenings | 88-90 | 70-91 | 14.2 | 9-13 | 5 | 0.48 | 0.43 |
Citrus pulp | 90 | 80 | 6.5 | 13 | 4 | 1.90 | 0.13 |
Peanut skins | 94 | 65 | 17.4 | 12.6 | 25.5 | 0.19 | 0.20 |
Beet pulp | 91 | 78 | 9.7 | 19.8 | 0.6 | 0.69 | 0.10 |
Protein feeds | | | | | | | |
Corn gluten feed | 90 | 80 | 22 | 9 | 3.2 | 0.10 | 0.82 |
Whole cottonseed | 92 | 96 | 23 | 24 | 20 | 0.21 | 0.64 |
Cottonseed meal | 92 | 76 | 41 | 13 | 3 | 0.18 | 1.21 |
Soybean meal | 90 | 84 | 49 | 7 | 1.5 | 0.30 | 0.68 |
Peanut meal | 92 | 77 | 52.3 | 10.8 | 1.4 | 0.29 | 0.68 |
Dried distillers grains | 92 | 86 | 27 | 12 | 10 | 0.26 | 0.83 |
Brewers grains | 21 | 66 | 25.4 | 14.9 | 6.5 | 0.30 | 0.55 |
Roughages | | | | | | | |
Cottonseed hulls | 91 | 45 | 4.1 | 47.8 | 1.7 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
Cotton gin trash | 90 | 44 | 7.4 | 36.7 | 1.7 | 0.65 | 0.12 |
Peanut hulls | 91 | 22 | 8 | 63 | 1.5 | 0.20 | 0.07 |
Corn stalks | 85 | 50 | 6.6 | 34 | 2 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
Soybean stubble | 88 | 40 | 5 | 44 | 2 | 1.00 | 0.06 |
Wheat straw | 89 | 44 | 3.6 | 41.6 | 1.8 | 0.18 | 0.50 |
Table 2 shows prices at which selected co-product feedstuffs are relatively equivalent to corn and soybean meal at the given prices. Being able to purchase feedstuffs for less than these relative values would be a good deal compared to feeding corn and soybean meal base diets at the given prices. Calculators are available from the Mississippi State University Extension Service to calculate economic replacement values.
Table 2. Relative value ($/ton) of by-product feeds with selected corn and soybean meal prices.1,2
Corn price, $/ton |
Feed | 175 | 200 | 225 | 250 | 275 | 300 |
Whole cottonseed | 207 220 233 | 225 238 251 | 243 256 269 | 261 274 288 | 280 293 306 | 298 311 324 |
Cottonseed hulls | 82 83 83 | 94 94 94 | 105 106 106 | 117 117 117 | 128 129 129 | 140 140 140 |
Soybean hulls | 149 153 157 | 167 171 175 | 185 189 193 | 203 207 211 | 221 225 229 | 239 243 247 |
Corn gluten feed | 182 197 211 | 196 210 225 | 210 224 239 | 224 238 252 | 238 252 266 | 251 266 280 |
Hominy feed | 166 167 169 | 188 189 191 | 210 212 213 | 232 234 235 | 254 256 258 | 276 278 280 |
Dried distillers grains | 209 227 245 | 223 241 259 | 237 255 273 | 251 269 288 | 265 283 302 | 279 298 316 |
Wheat middlings | 172 182 191 | 189 198 208 | 205 215 224 | 222 231 241 | 238 248 257 | 255 264 274 |
Rice bran | 142 149 155 | 156 163 170 | 170 177 184 | 185 192 198 | 199 206 213 | 213 220 227 |
Cane molasses | 104 103 102 | 120 119 117 | 136 134 133 | 152 150 149 | 168 166 165 | 184 182 181 |
1Top, middle, and bottom values are estimated based on soybean meal costing $450/ton, $500/ton, and $550/ton, respectively.
2These comparisons consider only feedstuff moisture, total digestible nutrients, and crude protein concentrations and do not account for differences in fat, fiber, minerals, etc.
Click here to see more...