Understanding the Motivations for and Barriers to Feed Testing

Background

Feed testing is considered a fundamental tool to have accurate knowledge on feed quality to develop feeding strategies that are cost-effective to achieve production targets and save on feed costs. There is already a lot of information on feed testing provided through various groups, yet many cattle producers skip this critical management tool. With all this information available, what seems to be holding cow-calf producers back? 

In the 2017 Western Canadian Cow-Calf Survey (WCCCS), producers who did not feed test were asked to select their top reason why. The top reason selected was that cattle appeared to be healthy so there was no reason to test. While cattle may appear healthy, over and under feeding of nutrients does not always present itself with visual signs. However, the impact on costs and productivity will still be present. Other considerations include whether knowing which lab to use and which test to order presents challenges for producers. 

While we have informed guesses as to why producers do not feed test, we do not currently have data directly from producers to test these hypotheses. Nor do we currently have a fully representative picture of feed testing and barriers to adopting these practices. 

Objective

The objective of this project was to collect more detailed farmer management data from a representative sample of cow-calf producers specifically concerning their existing experiences and issues with feed testing on their operations. The survey data collected in this project provides better empirical support to extension efforts to increase feed testing practices by delving into the ins and outs of feed testing in practice.  

What they DID

Two types of data collection were included in this project:   

• Qualitative interviews were conducted with key informants (extension personnel, nutritionists, researchers, and industry associations) on the current state of feed testing.   

• The key interview focus group findings were used to develop a producer survey on feed testing practices.  

After collection of this data, important relationships observed with feed testing strategies were identified. Project collaborators are now working with cow-calf producer network contacts to share information across the industry.  

The key deliverable from this project is a detailed survey dataset that contains information on not just the frequency of feed testing but also data on other important aspects that drive feed testing decisions, along with observations of any alternative strategies currently in use, which may substitute for making use of feed testing within cow-calf operations. This information can be used to advance our collective understanding of feed testing practices and to design targeted producer communication and extension activities based on more precisely identified barriers to using feed testing.  

What They Learned

Survey information was collected from 324 cow-calf producers across Western Canada on their feed testing and nutrition management practices, as well as information on the scope of their operations to provide important context to feed testing choices made.  

One basic finding is that lab-based feed testing is still not universally practiced, with only 59% (n=195) of survey respondents indicating they had used feed testing at least once in the past three years. Further, amongst those that do test their feeds, only 47% indicated this was a long-term practice (n=92), with variation across regions and across the provinces (between 40-50%), which is consistent with prior data on feed testing use in Canada.  

The researchers were able to complement this finding with information on why producers do not feed test. The majority of respondents (66%) that do not feed test (non-testers) indicated they do not test because their animals seem healthy so there is no need for feed testing. Similarly, 15% of non-testers reported being uncertain about steps for feed testing including sample collection, lab submission and interpretation. For respondents that do feed test (feed testers), a large percentage are using feed testing to meet their production goals (27%), followed by using tests to determine the need for commercial supplements (23%) and to develop least cost rations (20%). Furthermore, producers who test their feeds also tend to test for other related issues more often, including testing for toxins (76%) and conducting water tests (53%). Overall feed costs reported by feed testers were 12% lower than feed costs reported by non-testers, suggesting that feed testing enables producers to save money on what is the largest expense cattle producers face.  

Utilization of multiple feed ingredients can enable producers to better manage feed costs. Most feed testers used 4 or more feed ingredients (86%) versus non testers (66%). Similarly, a large percentage of feed testers are using third party support (nutritionists, consultants, extension agents) to help make the most of feed test results, including ration balancing. For feed testers who develop their own rations, CowBytes is the ration balancing program of choice.  

What It Means

The use of lab-based feed testing for cow-calf producers is a recommended practice for the industry, but adoption rates for this practice have not changed substantially in the last decade. This work on relating testing to overall producer management choices and priorities can help provide important context to explain why some producers do not find that feed testing works within their current operations. Overall perceptions of adequate animal health without the need to test feeds guide some producers, versus those that directly test feeds to achieve a particular production target. With this understanding of the variation in producer motivations to feed test, different extension messages can be developed including performing and interpreting a feed test, the value of feed testing and the non-clinical impacts from inadequate nutrition. This may lead to increased use of feed testing through better alignment with producer objectives.