March 13, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

A Different Age of Managing Ranch Employees

In this video, Jason Gerstberger, yard manager at Pioneer Feedyard in Oakley, Kansas, shares why managers need to better understand employees. Learn more at GrowPeopleFirst.com.

In this video, Jason Gerstberger, yard manager at Pioneer Feedyard in Oakley, Kansas, shares why managers need to better understand employees. Learn more at GrowPeopleFirst.com.

Every employee has a different way of working, thinking and communicating, especially when it comes to different generations. It’s easy to see those differences and challenges, but it’s not as simple to manage.

Rather than just trying to change the team or individuals, it’s important that managers learn how to recognize generational differences and adapt. For Pioneer Feedyard near Oakley, Kansas, this required a different way to manage.

“There’s always challenges with age, race, even males and females in the industry,” said Jason Gerstberger, yard manager at Pioneer Feedyard. “The biggest one was learning to deal with different generational gaps and how to get one generation to understand another generation without causing too many problems or issues. In the older generation, they didn’t ask why, they just went ahead and did the work. But with the younger generation, they want to know why before they go do it.”

Gerstberger understands that to overcome this challenge and get the most out of each employee, managers and supervisors need to take the time to understand each person — and what keeps him or her motivated. It means taking time to understand how to best communicate with people as individuals.

To better learn how to do this, Pioneer Feedyard sent managers through the PeopleFirst™ Supervisory Certificate Program from Zoetis.

“PeopleFirst — we invested in it to get the benefits that we could, to get the most potential out of our employees that we could, not only by work, but by understanding what they’re doing,” Gerstberger said. “And in doing those things, get more out of our people.”

“What it allowed us to do is push our foremen a little bit more,” he continued.

“It helps to tell the older generation, ‘explain to these guys why you’re doing it, and they’ll be able to get it done a lot better and be able to do it with you,’” Gerstberger said. “The foremen are probably more engaged with the individuals they are working with. They can understand how we’re doing it and why we’re doing it. They understand what they’re seeing, what the problems are and help them to fix and increase their profitability on their issues.”

Gerstberger knows that adapting your management style can go a long way.

“Individuals, if they can learn to react a little different to certain situations, they’ll get more respect from the people working under them and, therefore, we’ll get more benefit out of it here at this yard,” Gerstberger said. “You’re going to get more profitability, which they can put back into the cattle.”

In this video, hear more from Gerstberger about what you can do to help your team understand the value of their role to the company’s success. For help identifying ways to invest in and strengthen your employees, contact your local Zoetis representative or visit GrowPeopleFirst.com.

This is part of a series on rancher continuing education articles and provided by Zoetis. To see more rancher education posts, click here.

March 9, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Looking Forward: What Does the Cattle Market Have in Store for 2015?

United States Department of AgricultureBy Brett Crosby, Custom Ag Solutions

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cattle inventory report for January 2015 confirms that beef herd expansion is underway.  The number of beef cows that have calved increased over 600,000 head in 2014 to 29.7 million head.  The increase in beef cow numbers is the largest since 1994 and the second largest increase in over 30 years.  The herd expansion was impressive by any measure, but especially remarkable given the cost of replacement animals and the smaller number of replacement females available compared to 1994, when there were 34.6 million beef cows in the U.S.  While increased herd numbers have been expected by many, the new inventory statistics and rapid growth leave many producers wondering what this means for cattle prices going forward.

While a 600,000 head increase is sizeable, the U.S. beef cow herd is still small by historical measures and has decreased by over 3.9 million since 1996.  Nearly half of that decrease, 1.7 million head, came in 2012 and 2013 alone, when a drought ravaged the Southwest and forced massive herd liquidations.  Even if cattle numbers continue to increase at the 2014 rate, it will take several years just to get the U.S. herd back to the size it was only four years ago.  Clearly, total per capita beef supply in the US will remain at historically low levels for several years while the U.S. population continues to grow, resulting in per capita beef supply and beef prices remaining at or near their current levels.

While the current herd expansion suggests that calf prices likely hit their high water mark in the fall of 2014, prices should remain strong in 2015.  The 2015 calf crop is likely to be 10 to 15 percent higher than 2014, but calf supplies will likely remain tight while producers retain inordinately large numbers of heifers during this expansion phase.  As a result, deferred feeder cattle futures suggest calf prices holding very close to the levels seen last fall.  Of course, there is still a long time between now and the fall, and corn prices and winter wheat conditions this fall will play a large part in determining calf prices late in the year.

Feed cost and forage availability aren’t the only sources of uncertainty for this year’s calf prices.  Exports have been incredibly strong and a strengthening economy has also supported domestic beef demand.  Therefore, a U.S. recession or a global economic slowdown could have a substantial adverse impact on cattle prices.  With the U.S. beef herd expanding and a strong dollar and soft oil prices indicating global economic uncertainty, there is more downside risk for cattle prices than upside potential.

With increased downside market risk, this is a good year to consider carefully managing price risk.  Forward contracts, futures, options, and RMA’s Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance are all worth considering.  If fundamentals hold steady, the calf market is expected to remain strong, so producers should consider a risk management strategy that limits or softens unexpected downside market moves.  Also, because a repeat of 2014’s explosive upside move is unlikely, 2015 is probably a good year to consider early forward contracts at current price levels.

Despite national herd expansion, the next several years should remain profitable for cow/calf producers.  Beef demand domestically and abroad is strong, and heifer retention that is fueling expansion will help offset the effects of larger calf crops in the coming years.  With prices still near historic highs, however, a price risk management strategy should be employed to protect against downside movements triggered by high feed costs or macroeconomic issues.  For 2015, the old adage “Nobody ever went broke locking in a profit” is a good one to remember.

Custom Ag Solutions (CAS) is a USDA/RMA education partner that works to promote risk management tools, including Federal crop insurance programs such as the Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) program.

CAS neither sells nor services crop insurance policies.  For a list of crop insurance agents, please visit www.USDA.RMA.gov/tools/agent.html.  For more information, visit the RMA website at www.USDA.RMA.gov.

March 4, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPD)

megan van emon msu extension beef specialistBy Megan Van Emon, Montana State Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Expected progeny differences (EPDs) estimate the genetic value of one animal over another of the same breed.  EPDs are calculated using statistical equations and models and use known information on that animal that is submitted by the breeder, which can include data from the animal itself, ancestors, relatives (i.e. brothers and sisters), and progeny.  Adjustment factors are used to adjust for data such as age and sex.  Another factor that is considered when calculating EPDs is the environment from which the animal comes.  Most commonly, EPDs are used to compare bulls within the same breed.

For example:

Bull 1 has a weaning weight EPD of 30.  Bull 2 has a weaning weight EPD of 17.  If both bulls were bred to a similar group of cows, we would expect calves from Bull 1 to average 13 pounds (30 – 17 = 13) heavier than Bull 2 at weaning.

Numerous other EPDs are used to compare bulls, such as scrotal size, birth weight, ribeye area, feedlot merit, calving ease, mature daughter’s weight, milk, etc.  Numerous other EPDs are available and can vary by breed.  EPDs are calculated and reported in the same unit of measurement as the trait (i.e. birth weight in pounds; fat depth in inches).

EPDs do NOT predict the actual birth weight, weaning weight, index value, etc of an animal.  They only predict the expected difference between animals.  If you want to know the average performance for a specific trait within a breed, many breed associations have sire summaries.

An accuracy value is also included with each EPD trait.  The accuracy is used to determine the reliability of the EPD and will be reported as a number between 0 and 1.  Accuracy increases towards 1 as more data is reported for a specific animal.  It is also important to note that as the accuracy moves closer to 1, the EPD of the trait for that bull will not change significantly in the future.  Young bulls that do not have any progeny data rely on data from ancestors for accuracy, which is usually from 0.1 to 0.4.

EPDs can be compared across breeds, if the proper adjustment factors are used.  Breed adjustment factors are developed at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska and are updated each year.  The base of the comparison is to Angus EPDs.  Comparing EPDs across breeds is less accurate than comparing within the same breed.

It is important to note that EPDs do NOT guarantee a specific difference on each animal.  EPDs are constantly changing as more data is added for each bull.  As more data is added to the system for a specific bull, extreme values are averaged out.  Extreme values can occur, even in a high accuracy (high reliability) bull.

EPDs should be used as a management tool for your cow herd, but should NOT be the only tool.  Physical appearance, or phenotype, should also be a tool used when selecting bulls.

February 24, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

The Case for Relative Forage Quality When Feeding Cattle Hay

Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist

Feeding represents a large portion of the production and maintenance cost of animals. Some estimate that feeding can represent over 70% of the annual costs of maintaining a livestock herd, with hay representing a significant portion of that cost. Making sure that we are buying quality feedstuffs, and feeding in appropriate amounts, is critical in ensuring that we are being as economical as possible. In recent years, the cost of hay has increased significantly, and so efficient purchasing is critical.

A hay analysis is key in knowing the quality of the hay, how much to feed our animals, as well as being helpful in the buying process. Tools such as Relative Feed Value (RFV), which can be found on a hay analysis, have traditionally been used to compare hay. RFV uses fiber estimates, the acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) portions of a hay analysis, to estimate the quality of the hay. This has been helpful in comparing between two types of similar hays, i.e. comparison of two alfalfa or two grass hays, however, it does not tell us everything about the availability of the fiber or other nutrients in that hay.

Several years ago, University of Wisconsin researchers developed a new method of comparison, called Relative Forage Quality, or RFQ. This value takes into account not only the fiber components of the plant, but the digestibility of those components as well. This tool is extremely helpful in telling us a little more about what may be available to the animal to use from that forage.

The ADF portion of a plant analysis is an estimate of the cellulose and lignin portion of the plants, cellulose being slowly fermented by the rumen or hindgut microbes before it can be converted into energy for the animal. Lignin is indigestible by both mammalian and microbial enzymes, and so is completely unavailable to the animal. Because it includes the parts of the plant that are relatively indigestible, ADF has been found to be negatively correlated to digestibility of plant material. This means that as ADF increases, digestibility of the plant decreases.

The NDF portion of a plant includes both cellulose and lignin, similar to ADF, but also includes hemicellulose, a fiber that is fermented more rapidly than cellulose by microbial enzymes in the hindgut or rumen. NDF has been found to be negatively correlated to intake, so as NDF increases, intake will decrease. This is largely a function of gut fill, so as an animal consumes a more fibrous feed, it will take less to fill up the gastrointestinal tract, thereby decreasing intake.

The problem with RFV is that it does not evaluate the availability of the nutrients. On average, a grass will typically have more fiber than a legume. However, the fibrous portion of grasses are  usually more digestible than the fibrous portion of a legume. Relative forage quality, RFQ, was developed to help account for that, using total digestible nutrients (TDN) in the calculations. This will be a better indicator of what is available to the animals and the microbes within that animal to use, and convert to energy. RFQ is typically going to be higher in grasses than the RFV value, while legumes may slightly decrease.

RFQ and RFV are also a great means of evaluating who got a “better deal”. Typically, if the RFQ ends up being higher than the RFV, then we say that the buyer got a better deal. This is because initially, with RFV, we may have thought that the forage was more indigestible than it actually it, which was shown in the RFQ. If the RFQ is lower than the RFV, we like to say that the seller got the better deal, as the forage was higher in indigestible fiber, so less is going to be available to the animal to use.

It must always be kept in mind that both RFV and RFQ are to be used only as a comparison between hays, its purpose is not to aid in ration balancing, but as an evaluation and buying tool. For any questions, please contact Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist, at 406.994.5688 or [email protected].

February 16, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Free Webinar to Highlight Bull Selection Tools

Bull Selection Tools NCBADENVER – National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has announced the next in its continuing series of educational webinars. The upcoming session, scheduled for Feb. 19, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. MST, focuses on understanding bull selection tools and the use of selection indices. This timely topic is useful to anyone looking to add a bull to their herd this spring utilizing the latest genome-based selection tools.

Panelists for the webinar include Dan Moser, PhD., President of Angus Genetics Inc., and Director of Performance Programs for the American Angus Association; Jack Ward, Chief Operating Officer and Director of Breed Improvement for the American Hereford Association; and Wade Shafer, PhD., CEO of the American Simmental Association.

These three industry-leading breed association experts have a background in the commercial and seedstock cattle industries, as well as a thorough understanding of the latest advancements in the use of genomically-enhanced EPDs and other progeny selection tools.

This free NCBA producer education webinar is open to all, but space is limited. Register today at http://www.beefusa.org/cattlemenswebinarseries.

For additional information, contact Josh White, executive director of Producer Education at: [email protected]

February 11, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

American Heart Association Certifies Extra Lean Ground Beef As Part of a Heart Healthy Diet

DENVER – The Beef Checkoff Program announced this week that Extra Lean Ground Beef (Ground Beef that is at least 96% lean, 4% fat) is now certified by the American Heart Association® to display its recognized and respected Heart-Check mark. Retailers now have the opportunity to help identify eight different extra lean beef items as options for part of an overall healthy diet to their shoppers using one of the most trusted nutrition icons on food packaging today.

The extra lean beef cuts that meet the American Heart Association’s® requirements for heart-healthy foods as part of an overall healthy dietary pattern, and are certified to display the Heart-Check mark, include:

“Beef has many nutritional benefits and having the American Heart Association certify yet another beef cut empowers consumers to feel good about including beef in their diet, not only for its great taste but for its nutritional value,” said Jo Stanko, a cow-calf operator from Steamboat Springs, Colo., and vice chair of the Checkoff’s nutrition and health subcommittee. “Beef farmers and ranchers like myself share a common goal; to help consumers make shopping decisions to fit their needs and lifestyles by educating them about the health benefits of their food. To this end we will continue to support valid science to show consumers how extra lean beef is part of a healthy diet.”

Before putting its Heart-Check mark on any food, the American Heart Association® evaluates it against nutrition requirements based on sound science regarding healthy dietary recommendations, food categories, specific product ingredients and nutrient values.

Multiple retailers with hundreds of stores across the U.S. currently display the Heart-Check mark on certified beef items in the meat case. Retailers and processors can work with the Beef Checkoff Program to receive a discount on the certification fee for the American Heart Association® Food Certification Program.

Resources such as on-pack labels, posters and recipes are available for retailers to use in store and in shopper communications to promote the certified beef cuts.

To learn more about participating in the American Heart Association® Food Certification Program, please visit www.BeefRetail.org.

###
About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (www.MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. In states with qualified beef councils, states retain up to 50 cents of the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.

February 10, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Proper Winter Hay Storage

Emily Glunk Montana State Forage ExtensionBy Dr. Emily Glunk, MSU Extension Forage Specialist

There have been a lot of questions lately concerning how to properly store hay over the winter. The main goal with winter storage is to maintain quality and decrease any dry matter losses that we might incur. Minimizing exposure to the winter elements, especially precipitation which can decrease both hay quantity and quality, is our top priority.

Hay is the most common feeding option during winter, as it is less risky than other options such as stockpiling, and we know how much, or rather how long, our stores will last. However, not only is it important to have enough tonnage to support our herd, but also that we are maintaining the quality of our hay throughout the season.

The ideal storage for hay is inside, out of the elements, in a well-ventilated structure, whether this be a barn, shed, or a pole structure. Unfortunately, in Montana this is often not possible. So next we need to decide what are some other feasible methods of decreasing exposure to the elements. Leaving hay outside completely uncovered increases dry matter losses, ranging anywhere from 5-40% dry matter loss. Quality is also decreased, with some of the water soluble nutrients, like water-soluble carbohydrates, potentially leaching from the hay. This can decrease the overall energy available from the forage. Other components, such as nitrates, can move within the hay stack, and become concentrated in the lower bales, creating a potentially toxic feed for our animals.

Regardless of bale size and shape, it is advised to keep the forage off of the ground. Whether you stack it on pallets, fence posts, or even a well-drained gravel base, this will help to minimize loss. Storing bales on bare ground can cause an estimated 5-20% loss in dry matter, which can add up pretty quickly and account for over half of total dry matter losses. Even if the ground immediately below the hay is not receiving moisture, the surrounding soil is, which will leach into the soils directly underneath the hay stack. It is common to see molding occur on the lower bales due to direct contact with wet soils. The same sort of issues can occur even on concrete floors, as concrete is great at absorbing moisture, so make sure to keep this in mind even if your hay is being stored under a shelter.

Covering the tops of bales with something such as a large tarp or water-resistant canvas will help to divert moisture away from the stack. Make sure that there is some overhang of the tarp over the side of the stack, so that lower bales are not accumulating moisture. If bales are not going to be covered, it is advised to keep stacks small, as water from upper bales will penetrate directly into lower bales, increasing the number of damaged bales.

Ventilation is really important in continuing the drying process after bales become wet. For example, it is best to keep round bales in single layers placed end-to-end, with several feet in between rows to increase air flow and circulation around all bales. Bale density is also really important. The tighter the bale, the better it will be able to withstand winter precipitation and damage. Loosely-packed bales will “pick up” more moisture, and it will penetrate throughout more of a bale than a densely-packed bale.

Wrapping round bales will help to significantly decrease any quality and yield losses from winter storage if the equipment and resources are available. A study found that six layers of plastic wrap is ideal, as it is the optimal trade-off between money spent on wrapping and amount of hay lost to the elements.

Proper storage of your hay is really important in ensuring that your animals will have enough roughage to get through the cold winter months. Decreasing exposure to the elements is the most important factor, and minimizing the number of bales that are exposed to the winter elements will help to minimize total quality and yield losses.

February 9, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Beef Council Contractor Spotlight: Montana Beef Quality Assurance

Montana Beef Council logoBeef Checkoff dollars help fund the Montana Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program that provides critical guidelines for safe and humane beef cattle production. Each year it becomes more important for all stakeholders to learn best management techniques in a continuing effort to build and maintain consumer confidence in our product. BQA is a voluntary commitment from responsible producers because it is the right thing to do!

Montana Beef Quality Assurance BQA Show You Care AdCheckoff dollars help spread the message and tell our story throughout the state of Montana. In 2014 we told the BQA story across the state to rancher-attended seminars and conventions, livestock auction barn audiences, 4-H Clubs, FFA Chapters and Conventions, VoAg Instructor groups, Facebook posts and email news blasts to greatly increase the numbers of Montana stakeholders registering for and completing online BQA certification.

According to Dee Griffin, DVM, MS University of Nebraska, co-founder of the BQA Program, “Beef Quality Assurance is nothing more than thoughtful, responsible cattle management!”   Funding from the Checkoff Program makes it happen. Go to www.bqa.org and register today!

Upcoming events include a Calf Whisperer halter breaking event at Winter Fair on Sunday, February 1, 2015 at the fairgrounds in Lewistown. Everyone is invited and encouraged to watch as we halter break a heifer calf safe and humanely. For more information, to host or participate in a BQA event in-person, contact Bill Pelton at (406) 671-5100 or [email protected].

February 4, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Beef Checkoff Launches Masters of Beef Advocacy (MBA) 2.0

beef checkoff logoThe beef checkoff’s Masters of Beef Advocacy (MBA) program has launched MBA 2.0, an opportunity for beef and dairy producers to step up and be true leaders – ‘Agvocates’, if you will – for the industry and all of agriculture. Building on the success of the original MBA courses, with nearly 6,000 graduates to date, the program hinges on the importance for consumers to hear directly from those growing and delivering their food to them.

“The new MBA 2.0 is the next exciting step towards expanding the advocacy horizons of all those involved in the beef community, from pasture to plate,” said Brandi Buzzard Frobose, MBA Director of Outreach. “Ranchers, industry stakeholders, chefs and retailers alike can benefit from the new lessons and I hope that MBA 2.0 inspires all beef community members to step out of their comfort zone and engage in real conversations with consumers.”

Each new course takes about an hour to complete and follows the beef lifecycle:

  • The Beef Community – all about the people involved in producing beef, from pasture to plate.
  • Raising Cattle on Grass – covering the cow/calf and stocker/backgrounder stages of production.
  • Life in the Feedyard – what goes into ensuring cattle receive proper care and a healthy diet in the finishing phase.
  • From Cattle to Beef – how cattle are humanely slaughtered and processed into beef products.
  • Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner. – consumer information about how to properly store, handle and cook beef to ensure a safe and enjoyable eating experience.

“When I started to get asked questions from consumers and groups about how we farm and feed cattle, I was struggling to find answers that I could back up with hard facts, and it felt like I also needed to learn more about other sectors of the industry with which I had little experience,” says Joan Ruskamp, Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) member from Dodge, Neb.

“When I found out about the MBA program, I jumped at the chance to complete the courses. For me, it turned out to be a great teaching tool to help me become an informed advocate – not just for my own family’s benefit, but for the good of the entire industry.

“Since then, I have had the opportunity to talk about beef and the beef industry to everyone from neighbors and friends to large groups of activists. Remember, though, getting your MBA doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to start booking appearances as a traveling speaker,” says Ruskamp. “It also prepares you well for daily conversations that you have or hear, and it gives you the ability to share hard facts and figures that help increase confidence in our end product and our industry. While our personal stories are important in putting a face on our industry, the ability to build trust in farming and ranching – and beef – is greatly enhanced by facts versus opinions and emotions.”

Those individuals who completed the original MBA courses will remain enrolled in the program and can take the 2.0 classes to update their certificate. MBA grads then have the opportunity to join the private Facebook group where they can have interaction and dialogue about emerging industry issues.

Ruskamp and fellow Cattlemen’s Beef Board member Brenda Black of Missouri have challenged every CBB member to join them in completing MBA 2.0.

“I earned my MBA during the initial run of the program and am working on completion of the updated program with all of you who accept this challenge,” says Black. “From my experience, I can tell you that the courses are truly interesting, engaging and informative, which make the quizzes at the end of each section a breeze. And you come away with a clear and useful understanding of issues that are so important to consumers and, as a result, important for us to share with them.”

The MBA program is funded by the beef checkoff and there is no cost to participate. Sign up to start your MBA 2.0 coursework today!

For more information about your beef checkoff investment, visit MyBeefCheckoff.com.

January 28, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

When and Why to Body Condition Score Cattle

megan van emon msu extension beef specialistBy Dr. Megan Van Emon, MSU Extension Beef Cattle Specialist

Body condition scoring is a management tool that can be used to evaluate the nutritional status of beef cattle. The tool uses a numeric score, 1 to 9, for evaluating the fleshiness, or body energy reserves, of the beef cow and does not require the gathering and working of cows. Body condition score utilizes a score from 1 to 9, with 1 being emaciated and 9 being very obese, with the ideal BCS being 5 to 6. Areas considered when evaluating body condition score include the brisket, back, tail head, hooks, pins, and ribs.

Body condition scoring should be measured throughout the year at strategic time points during the production cycle. Body condition should be evaluated at the beginning of the breeding season, 90 days prior to calving, calving, late summer, weaning, 45 days after weaning, and fall. Maintaining the optimum BCS throughout year is crucial to maintaining reproductive efficiency and cow and calf health.

Evaluating BCS 90 days prior to calving will allow those thin cows to be separated and fed accordingly to improve body condition. Late gestation adds increased stress on the cow due to the rapid growth of the calf. Having adequate body condition at calving reduces the stress on both the cow and calf. Cows at optimum body condition at calving produce healthier calves and are able to maintain peak lactation compared with thin cows.

If cows are thin at calving, the pre-calving nutrition program or weaning dates may need to be changed. It is difficult for thin cows to gain body condition immediately after calving, which requires large amounts of high quality feeds. This may not be an economically viable decision.

Maintaining adequate BCS reduces postpartum interval compared with thin cows and will improve pregnancy rates after a 90 day breeding season. A BCS 5 or 6 improves pregnancy rates drastically compared with a BCS of 4. Therefore, having cows in good body condition during the breeding season improves pregnancy rates.

Measuring BCS between breeding and weaning (late summer) allows for nutritional adjustments to be made. If cows are thin heading into weaning, early weaning can be considered to reduce the stress on the cow. Early weaning of thin cows lets those cows regain condition before heading into the winter months and the increased nutrient demands during late gestation.

Cattle Body Condition Scoring Megan Van Emon MSU Extension

Analyzing BCS at weaning allows for thin cows to be separated and fed apart from the fleshy cows. This will help the thin cows regain body condition before heading into fall. This is also a time to focus on young cows that are weaning their first calf, as they are more likely to be thin compared to the older cows.

Evaluating body condition 45 days after weaning gives you a good idea if cows are regaining condition after weaning. If thin cows are not regaining body condition, then nutritional adjustments can be made before entering the winter months.

Condition scoring cows during the fall allows for the critical evaluation of feed resources. Most years, the fall months include reduced pasture availability and quality, which makes it difficult for cows to regain condition. Those cows that are thin heading into winter can be fed separately with supplemental feeds to improve body condition.