TABLE 2. ESTIMATED MONTHLY DRY MATTER REQUIREMENTS BY QUALITY FOR SELECTED
CATTLE ACTIVITIES
|
Activity |
Item |
Unit |
Jan. |
Feb. |
Mar. |
Apr. |
May |
June |
Jul . |
Aug. |
Sept. |
Oct. |
Nov. |
Dec. |
|
Fail Cow-Calf Pasture DM 2.2 |
Pasture DM 2.2 |
Cwt. |
7.26 |
6.74 |
8.71 |
9.53 |
Dry Matter 10.22 10.24 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
7.00 |
6.63 |
8.23 | |
|
Pasture DM 1.8 |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.72 |
5.79 |
5.68 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 | |
|
Hay 2.2 |
Ton |
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.04 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 | |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.52 |
0.50 |
0.57 |
0.58 |
0.65 |
0.64 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.50 | |
|
Hay 2.2 |
Pasture DM 2.2 |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.77 |
10.22 |
10.24 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.50 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Pasture DM 1.8 |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.72 |
5.79 |
5.68 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 | |
|
Hay 2.2 |
Ton |
0.44 |
0.43 |
0.50 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
0.35 |
0.43 | |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.52 |
0.50 |
0.57 |
0.58 |
0.65 |
0.64 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.50 | |
|
Hay 1.8 |
Pasture DM 2.2 |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.77 |
10.22 |
10.24 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.50 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Protein |
Pasture DM 1.8 |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.72 |
5.79 |
5.68 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Supplement |
Hay 1.8 |
Ton |
0.40 |
0.39 |
0.45 |
0.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
0.33 |
0.39 |
|
41-45% Pro Supa |
Cwt. |
1.27 |
1.24 |
1.42 |
0.71 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.38 |
0.75 |
1.24 | |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.52 |
0.50 |
0.57 |
0.58 |
0.65 |
0.64 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.50 | |
|
Stocker Steers Oct.-Feb. |
Pasture DM 2.6 |
Cwt. |
3.85 |
3.75 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.12 |
3.53 |
|
Pasture DM 2.6 |
Hay 1.8 |
Ton |
0.04 |
0.04 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
41-45% Pro Supa |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
0.00 | |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.17 |
0.29 |
0.32 | |
|
Oct.-May |
Pasture DM 2.6 |
Cwt. |
3.85 |
3.75 |
4.73 |
4.90 |
5.39 |
2.77 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.12 |
3.53 |
|
Pasture DM 2.6 |
Hay 1.8 |
Ton |
0.04 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
41-45% Pro Supa |
Cwt. |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
0.00 | |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.46 |
0.47 |
0.52 |
0.27 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.17 |
0.28 |
0.31 | |
|
Oct.-May |
Pasture DM 2.2 |
Cwt. |
3.27 |
3.06 |
4.25 |
4.19 |
4.65 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2.42 |
2.94 |
3.15 |
|
Pasture DM 2.2 |
Hay 1.8 |
Ton |
0.03 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
DP Required |
Cwt. |
0.24 |
0.23 |
0.35 |
0.36 |
0.39 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.22 |
0.22 |
0.24 | |
aUnits in this row are cwt. of cotton seed cake or soybean cake as fed rather than dry matter.
forage or need for a way to produce a higher quality
forage. All hay 2.2 produced was utilized by the fall
cow-calf activity.
MODEL EVALUATION
The organization obtained shows a distinct
complementarity between cow-calf and stocker steers
based on their different forage quality requirements.
Use of the AUM concept in traditional LP models in
the same farming area has favored stockers, usually to
the exclusion of cow-calf activities in the solution.
Thus, attention to forage quality made an important
difference in the solution.
The forage mix in Table 4 was clearly designed to
meet forage quality needs across the year. The
mixture includes warm and cool season forages. The
quality of hay harvested was important. Low quality
hay was in excess and high quality hay was com-
pletely utilized. Previous LP studies in the same area
using only the AUM measure tended to suggest fewer
forages, mostly bermuda fertilized at low levels and
wheat pasture. The quality measure was effective in
changing the organization to include higher quality
sources of forage.
The model can analyze a wide range of livestock
farm questions. Effects of changes in fertilizer or
other prices from year to year can be evaluated.
Sensitivity of pasture and livestock programs to
forage production or animal rates or gain can be
studied. Accounting equations can be used to develop
detailed plans for feeding different classes of cattle.
Most importantly, animal nutrient needs can be
closely matched to forage production, and vice versa,
by using the DM quality concept. At the same time, a
readily available and easily understood measure of
livestock forage requirements and forage production
by quality is used.
126