Cow-Calf Corner | June 27, 2022
Smaller Feedlot Numbers Ahead
Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist
The latest USDA Cattle on Feed report showed June feedlot inventories of 11.846 million head, 101.2 percent of one year ago. This is a record level of June feedlot cattle since the data series began in 1996. Among the leading cattle feeding states, number one Texas is up three percent year over year with number two Nebraska up four percent year over year. Number three Kansas is down one percent from last year while number four Colorado is up one percent year over year. These four states represent 76.4 percent of total feedlot inventories. Feedlot numbers are declining seasonally with the June 1 level down for the fourth consecutive month from the February all-time record feedlot inventory of 12.199 million head.
Feedlot marketings in May were 1.914 million head, 102.4 percent of last year. May 2022 included one additional business day compared to 2021 and, as a result, daily average marketings were lower than one year ago. May marketings were slightly below average pre-report estimates at the low end of the range.
May placements were 1.869 million head, 97.9 percent of last year. This was lower than expected and less than the lowest pre-report estimates. May placements also included more lightweight cattle with feedlot placements weighing less than 700 pounds up 4.9 percent year over year while placements over 700 pounds were down 5.5 percent from last year. Smaller than expected placements may be beginning to bring feedlot inventories down from record levels.
It is reasonable to ponder why feedlots have maintained record inventories in 2022 despite the decline in overall cattle numbers since 2019. The largest calf crop of this cattle cycle was in 2018 and has decreased from a peak annual production of 36.3 million head in 2018 to 35.1 million head in 2021. In general, it would be expected that feeder supplies would have peaked in 2019 and feedlot production in 2020. Delays due to the pandemic in 2020 pushed some feedlot production into 2021.
Several other factors are also contributing to the continuing delays in peak feedlot and beef production. The decline in heifer retention associated with cyclical peak inventories followed by liquidation means that more heifer calves are directed into feedlots. The inventory of beef replacement heifers peaked in 2017 at 6.36 million head and dropped to 5.61 million head in 2022. Cyclical herd liquidation has been exacerbated by widespread drought in 2021 and 2022. Heifer slaughter increased from a low of 7.35 million head in 2015 (at the beginning of herd expansion) to 9.82 million head in 2019; dropped back to 9.45 million head in 2020 (partly the result of the pandemic); and increased again to 9.83 million head in 2021. So far in 2022, heifer slaughter is running 3.3 percent above 2021 levels as more heifers continue to come through feedlots. Drought has likely been a significant factor in increased heifer slaughter last year and this year.
Finally, feedlots have placed more lightweight cattle which increases days on feed and allows feedlot inventories to remain elevated for a while. It was noted above that May placements included more lightweight cattle. In the last six months, overall feedlot placements have increased 1.7 percent year over year with placements under 700 pounds up 3.5 percent and placements over 700 pounds up just 0.5 percent. Slowing down the turnover rate makes fewer cattle last longer in the feedlot.
It will take much of the remainder of the year for feedlots to work through the current inventory and we can’t be sure what additional impacts the drought may have in the coming months. We may continue to see feedlot placements pulled ahead and more heifers shifted into feedlots for a period, but it is inevitable that cattle supplies will tighten significantly in the coming months and feedlot inventories will fall. The longer it takes to see that process begin, the more sudden and dramatic it will be. The timing is always tricky although the latest placement data may indicate that it has begun.
Good Enough to Drink?
Rosslyn Biggs, DVM, OSU Beef Extension Veterinarian
Brianne Taylor, DVM, Assistant Professor Department of Veterinary Pathobiology
Providing access to water can be challenging especially for operations enduring drought conditions. Water related toxicities and fatalities may be seen with greater frequency under hot and dry time periods. Warnings of toxicity often develop rapidly, and animal death may be the first clinical sign. Common water related toxicities include water deprivation, sulfates, blue-green algae, and nitrates.
Water Deprivation
The common history of water deprivation is an automatic water stops functioning or the pump at the well quits working unbeknownst to the rancher. With good intentions, the cattle are given immediate and full access to water. Unfortunately, this approach often leads to rapid imbalances in electrolytes and salt toxicosis. It is important to note that salt toxicosis in this instance is not the over consumption of salt.
Animals that have been without water have elevated sodium levels in their tissues, including the brain. When animals are given free or rapid access to water, the fluid rushes to the high levels of sodium and essentially floods the brain. Cattle rapidly show neurologic signs including incoordination, weakness, seizures, and death.
If animals have been deprived, rewatering should be done gradually over time. Just a few inches of water should be placed in a tank or trough. Depending on the conditions rewatering may need to be done over a period of several hours. Consultation with a veterinarian is the best approach.
Sulfates
Cattle experiencing sulfur toxicity also show neurological signs. Commonly we would call this condition polioencephalomalacia or polio. Cattle initially become depressed, decrease feed intake, and exhibit lethargy. As the condition progresses, they become ataxic, stagger, and may die.
It is advisable to test water sources for sulfate levels and retesting may need to be done over time as levels can change. Additionally, sulfate levels are additive so both feed and water should be assessed to determine acceptable levels.
Blue-Green Algae
The classic history of blue-green algae (BGA), also known as cyanobacteria, is several dead animals surrounding a pond. Not all species of cyanobacteria are toxic. There are three main types seen in Oklahoma and they produce a toxin that leads to neurologic signs and rapid death usually within a few hours. Liver damage which may be noticed as photosensitivity or bloody diarrhea can also be seen.
In these cases, water should always be tested for a BGA bloom. Fertilizer and manure runoff can increase chances of BGA. Ponds should be monitored closely for signs of bloom and dead wildlife. If BGA is suspected, all remaining animals in that pasture should be moved to a location with a different water source.
Nitrates
Nitrate toxicity is often part of the discussion when evaluating forages especially Johnson grass. However, a common history for nitrate toxicity includes hauling of water in containers previously used for fertilizer. Due to the concentration of fertilizers or other chemicals, it is nearly impossible to remove residue to a safe level. Nitrates may also reach dangerous levels in ponds or other water sources that collect drainage from manure, highly fertilized fields, or industrial waste.
Neurologic signs and death are also seen with nitrates as have been previously described with other toxicities. The blood in nitrate toxicity is chocolate brown though. Just as with sulfates, the effects of nitrate levels of forage, feed and water are additive. So, both feed and water must be considered when evaluating a nitrate problem.
Deep wells are usually safe sources of water. No safety standards have been set for livestock water, but it has been suggested that up to 100 ppm of nitrate nitrogen in water should be safe if cattle are consuming an adequate ration that is free of nitrates. This is ten times the safe level set for humans.
Oklahoma State University has laboratories that can assist producers in testing. Information on the Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory can be found at vetmed.okstate.edu/oaddl. Information on the Soil, Water & Forage Analytic Laboratory can be found at soiltesting.okstate.edu.
Validating Mineral Supplements for Grazing Cattle
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Specialist
Grazing cattle generally benefit from a vitamin and mineral supplementation program. Achieving “balance” between animal requirements and vitamin or mineral supply can be a challenge because both components are dynamic. That is to say that forage mineral and vitamin precursor concentration changes throughout the seasons and animal requirements change with stage of production or growth rate. Furthermore, day-to-day and animal-to-animal mineral consumption is quite variable. For example, in one study, average consumption of a salt, mineral mix for individual grazing steers ranged from 1.7 ounces to 10.5 ounces per day. While precise balance is just about impossible to achieve, over time, the supplement formulation combined with average consumption should: a) deliver an adequate supply of vitamins and (or) minerals lacking in the forage, b) deliver targeted amount of additional additives, and c) avoid creation of imbalances or toxicities.
A mineral balance exercise involves developing a simple, consistent record keeping system to track forage mineral composition and your cow herds’ average or “normal” mineral consumption pattern during the same time of year. With this information, you can use a nutrition evaluation program to project deficiencies and/or excesses. You will need an idea of forage mineral concentration, an estimate of forage intake, a current estimate of average daily mineral supplement consumption, and the mineral product’s composition from the label. Most beef cattle nutrition evaluation programs provide an estimate of forage intake and an estimate of daily mineral requirements based on the animals’ weight and stage of production.
Several commercial nutrition companies provide services to conduct these balance exercises and follow up by recommending or manufacturing mineral formulations customized to your operation’s needs.
In recent years, commercial livestock nutrition laboratories have incorporated mineral composition analytical services. For example, our lab here at OSU charges $12 per sample to get macro and micro minerals. Depending on your level of concern or interest, one might get started by conducting a winter feeding and summer grazing balance. A more ambitious approach might be to collect “hand-plucked” samples from one or more pastures each month. The idea of the hand-plucking method is to select only plants and parts of plants that you believe to represent what your cattle are currently grazing.
We will explore validation of mineral supplementation programs in more detail during the Rancher’s Thursday Webinar Series session scheduled for June 30 with Dr. Jason Banta, Texas A&M University and Dr David Lalman of OSU. Webinar Registration