Objective and Introduction

Optimizing livestock nutrition is essential for maximizing productivity and ensuring the sustainability of farming practices. A critical component of this optimization involves analyzing feed and forage samples to understand their nutritional composition, potential deficiencies, and any contaminants that may affect animal performance and health. PCBFA facilitates feed testing of samples sent in by producers, interpretation of the laboratory results and assisting producers of the Peace Country region to formulate rations for different categories of beef cattle. By examining the results from feed tests, we aim to provide valuable insights into the nutritional quality of the feedstuffs being used on farms. The analysis covers a range of parameters, including protein content, fibre levels, mineral concentrations, and the presence of harmful substances notably nitrates. Understanding these factors is crucial for producers and nutritionists to make informed decisions about diet formulation and feed management.

This article summarizes the analysis results conducted on the 2023 feed and forage samples submitted by producers to a laboratory through PCBFA. It also highlights the origin of samples, key findings and trends observed in the chemical composition of the various feed types. Additionally, the article gives some implications, recommendations and the benefits of regular feed analysis as part of a proactive approach to beef cattle nutrition. Ultimately, these insights aim to empower our Peace Region producers with the knowledge needed to enhance animal performance, improve farm profitability, and contribute to the sustainability of agricultural operations. Please remember that PCBFA has been continuously updating its inventory of client feed test reports since 2007.

Methods

From spring to fall of 2023, a total of 181 feed samples from producers were analyzed for feed quality at the Central Testing Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba using standard laboratory procedures for wet chemistry and/or near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS). For this report, the feed types have been organized into 42 feed types as submitted by producers (Table 1). The results are presented and discussed in relation to feed types meeting the minimum daily requirements for crude protein (CP), total digestible nutrients (TDN/energy), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K) and micro minerals (Cu - copper; Mn - manganese; Fe - iron; Zn - zinc) of dry, mid-gestation beef cows (low nutrient requirement) and finishing beef calves (high nutrient requirement) as recommended by National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM, 2016). In addition, the data for each feed type was analyzed and where possible, sums, means, percentages/frequencies and modal values were calculated.

Results

Category of feed types, origin and packages requested - The bulk of the samples (92/181 = 51%) consisted of various hays [unspecified hays (35), grass hays (22), Alfalfa grass hays (20), Alfalfa hay (11) and other specific hays (4)] - see Table 1 and Figure 1. Silages ranked second, making up 18% of the analyzed samples. Straws of various kinds made up 10% of all the feed samples sent in for analysis. Also important are Greenfeed (9%) samples while Cocktails (4.4%), Haylage (3.3%), Grains (2.2%) came in fifth, sixth and seventh positions respectively. Camelina Meal and standing Corn are examples of less common feed types, with only one sample of each, that producers wanted to assess for nutritional quality.

The contribution of the various counties and municipalities to the 181 samples received is shown in Figure 2. More than a fifth of the samples were received from Big Lakes County, while Fairview and Greenview municipalities contributed to about a third of the feed samples received for analysis. One sample was received from the Peace Region of British Columbia. 

Protein - A wide range (4.5% - 32.2%) was noted in CP content for feed and forages with legume hays, legume silages and grass legume hays having on average the highest CP contents. Straws (Brome, Fescue and Wheat) had some of the lowest CP contents. Silages especially the legume and mixed silages had appreciable (>10.0% CP) contents while the cereal silages for the most part had <10.0% CP contents. Protein serves as the building blocks of nature and, according to the Beef Cow Rule of Thumb, the protein requirements for an average mature beef cattle are 7%, 9% and 11% CP in mid-pregnancy, late pregnancy, and during lactation, respectively. For proper rumen function, a cow's diet must contain at least 7% crude protein (CP); otherwise, a significant amount of undigested fibre will be excreted in the manure. The Feeder Calf Rule of Thumb suggests that the feeder calves, weighing between 550 and 800 lbs, require a ration of 14% CP; those weighing between 800 and 1050 lbs need 12%; and those weighing 1050 lbs to finishing need 10% CP. Based on these two rules and the data in Tables 1 and 2, we observe that most feed types (except for some straws) will meet the nutrient needs of dry, mid-gestating beef cows. However, most feed types (except for alfalfa hay) will not meet the high protein requirements (12% - 14%) needed for growing and finishing calves.

Energy - The total digestible nutrients (TDN) commonly referred to as energy, are important for beef cow rations that are primarily forages. It serves as a good indicator of the amount of energy provided by a feed. The rule of thumb for energy is 55-60-65. The interpretation of this is that a mature beef cow needs a TDN value of 55% in mid-pregnancy, 60% in late pregnancy, and 65% after calving (nursing beef cows) to maintain a body condition score (BCS) throughout winter. The energy content of the feed ranged from 41.3 - 84.4 % (Table 1) with  100% of straws and almost 60% of hays not meeting the energy requirements of mid-gestating cows. For high energy requiring growing calves, all feed types but grains and silage cocktails, fall short of meeting the energy requirements of this type of beef cattle stock.

Minerals - The mineral contents of the feed types are shown in Table 1. Calcium ranged from 0.07 - 1.5%, P from 0.06 - 0.32%, Mg from 0.10 - 0.33%, K from 0.47 - 3.09%. Micro minerals analyses were requested for only 4 (0.05% of the total) samples with Cu levels ranging from 2.1 - 5.1 ppm, Iron (82 - 216 ppm), Mn (53 -138 ppm), Mo (0.54 - 0.64 ppm), and Zn (30 - 48 ppm). In terms of meeting the nutrient requirements for animals, most of the feed types, except the mixed grains, met the Ca requirements for dry mid-gestating cows while only the Alfalfa Grass Hay, Alfalfa Hay, Mixed Hays and Mixed Silages completely met the Ca requirements for a growing calf. For P, only Greenfeed, mixed Grain and some Silages met the requirements for dry mid-gestating cows while any of the feed types hardly met the requirements for growing calf. Levels of K were high in all feed types and would meet the nutritional requirements of all beef cattle stock while Mg levels in only Fescue straw, Grass Hay and Hay were seen to be lower than the minimum requirements (0.11%) for both mid-gestating cows and growing calves (data not shown). For the micro minerals, levels of Cu in all feed types were below the 10 ppm recommended as the minimum requirement for beef cattle stock. Nitrates were analyzed only from 6 samples and levels ranged from 0.03% - 1.24% with only 2 samples [Greenfeed (1.24%) and Pea Forage (0.59%)] having above the 0.5% cut-off level considered detrimental to cattle performance and health.

Implications and Recommendations

• A wide variation in nutrient content was observed between feed types and also within feed types. The variation between feed types can be attributed to the different broad categories (such as legumes, cereals, cereal silages, hay, straws, grains, etc.) from which these forages were sourced. These broad categories have different cell contents and cell wall components, which influence their forage quality. Of practical importance, and within the producer's control, is the variation within each feed type. This can be explained by differences in varieties, soil types, crop staging differences at the time of harvest or different crop cultural practices. This wide variation underscores the importance of proper staging at the time of harvest and also routine forage quality analysis when in doubt to determine the nutritional value of feed.

• The variation seen here with some feed types not meeting maintenance or production requirements implies that supplementation has to be applied to make up for the shortfall. To alleviate the deficiency in protein requirements, forages should be baled or grazed at early stages of growth when quality is higher, legumes could be brought in to alleviate deficient protein diets. More energy dense feeds such as Rye grasses or warm season forages like Sorghum Sudan grass, Corn or Proso Millet or energy dense herbs such as Chicory can be included in diets as energy supplements or grazed at an early stage of growth when nutrient levels are highest. Mineral block supplementation will be necessary for mineral deficiencies that were observed here, especially for phosphorus and copper.

• Micromineral analysis was not a common request by producers. Producers are encouraged to request this analysis in the feeds and forages they send to the lab. They are unequivocally essential for animal metabolism and deficiencies and also excesses can have serious effects on animal production and health.

• This year, there was an increase in the number of cocktail samples (8 out of 181) compared to last year (1 out of 158), highlighting the growing importance of this feed type among producers. In addition to improving forage dry matter (DM) and quality, cocktails also contribute to various ecosystem functions.