Forage & Grasslands Record-Keeping - Level 2

This Level 2 record-keeping module has been designed to build upon the resources covered in Forage & Grasslands Record-Keeping-Level 1. The record-keeping and benchmarking modules are designed to be used by a wide range of producers and management systems. Each of the levels has been developed to target a level of experience. Level 1 is a good starting point for beginners; Level 2 is for someone beyond beginner but not quite advanced; and Level 3 is the most advanced level.

Stored Feed Management and Benchmarking

Across Canada, beef cattle are fed a significant amount of stored forage during winter. While extending the grazing season with stockpiled grass and annual forage crops can reduce the length of the feeding season on many operations, there is still a lot of baling and chopping done in preparation for the colder months. Harvesting, storing and delivering winter rations can represent the largest variable costs of production. Even small system improvements can lead to significant savings.

The amount and quality of feed required through the feeding period is influenced by several factors, including animal type, production stage, body condition and number of head. For example, cows in thin condition (BCS 2.0 or lower) in the fall may require additional nutrients to regain condition before calving, nursing and rebreeding. Understanding the nutritional need of the herd and the quantity and quality of available forage can help producers plan winter feed supplies and manage costs.

Comparing forage production to national or provincial benchmarks can be challenging because production varies from location to location. Tracking forage production within your own operation is one way to monitor your year-to-year production and to determine whether management decisions are having the desired effect. Establishing a baseline of your typical production can also aid when making decisions during atypical years, such as determining how you can manage in a drought or take advantage of a bumper crop.

Crop Records Overview

When managing stored feed, the implementation of good record-keeping is valuable for maintaining plant productivity, soil fertility and planning crop rotations.

Complete and accurate records help demonstrate how soil, water and other environmental resources are managed on your operation and can be used to evaluate the performance of your farm’s forage production systems.

Table 1: Example Crop Record

Field Identification

Using an accurate description of the location and size of each field will assist with keeping precise production records.

Field Inputs

Fertilization can be an important tool for maintaining or increasing forage production, but the benefit needs to be weighted against the cost of fertilizer and the potential yields. Even when fertilizer is applied at recommended rates, the target yields may not be achieved, making it a risky proposition. Higher yields do not necessarily translate into lower costs of feed per acre. The profitability of fertilizing forage crops is highly variable and depends on timely rains, fertilizer costs and feed prices. As these factors change, so does the economic feasibility of fertilization.

If an assessment of the current forage stand shows that there is enough of the desired plant species present, then fertilization can be an effective tool to rejuvenate and increase forage yields. By applying nutrients that are limiting, as determined by taking a soil test, soil profile and forage production can be improved.

A soil test is essential to determine which nutrients are currently available and which may be deficient. It is also important to understand the nutrient requirements of the crop and how much of each nutrient is needed to support the desired level of production. Without this information, fertilizer application may not address the crop’s actual needs and could results in an unnecessary expense. Knowing what nutrients to apply and in what quantity is an important first step in developing an effective fertility program.

Yields

Examining profit margins per field can be easily calculated when feed yield and price per ton are recorded. Producers need to know yields and market prices to estimate potential profitability – or calculate actual net returns after the feed is marketed. A greater awareness of your yields could direct you to making changes that will bring about greater productivity and profitability from a given field.

Example goals:

• Improve forage yield at the Old Farm by 5% within one year, pending adequate weather conditions

Feed Inventory

After all the effort and expense of producing the forage or feed and storing it properly, ensuring that it is being efficiently utilized by the animals is critical. Developing a feed inventory is the first step to help track feed utilization and improve feed management.

Efficient feed utilization starts with knowing the nutrient profile of available feed through feed testing and matching feed quality to the specific animal group. Producers should also compare the amount of feed offered with actual and expected animal intake to identify opportunities to maximize utilization and minimize waste.

Example goal:

• Create a feed inventory after each year’s harvest and update as it is fed out

Feed Waste

The following section was adapted from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

When producers talk about the amount they are feeding their cattle, they are usually referring to the amount of forage offered and removed from the feed inventory. This will always be larger than what the cows are actually consuming. The difference is due to several factors, including:

• wastage of feed as it is being removed from storage
• feed tramped into the ground
• soiled by manure or urine
• feed which is left uneaten until the next lot of feed is delivered
• crusts, spoiled or frozen feed on bales which may be removed prior to feeding

It’s important to have a good idea of how feed disappearance matches up with the expected intake animals. If the gap is too wide, after adjusting for wastage, there may be some issues with the feeding system that can be corrected in order to save feed and therefore money. If actual feed intake is significantly lower than anticipated, after accounting for wastage, there may be an issue with the quality of the feed. Table 2 has some guidelines for evaluating various levels of feed disappearance.

Table 2: Interpretation of the Difference between Observed Forage Disappearance and Predicted Intake^*

Here’s an example of a feeding scenario:

• 50 cow management group
• Cows average 1500 lbs, in good body condition, dry, mid-third trimester of pregnancy
• Average daily temperature is -5 C°, feeding area is sheltered from the prevailing wind
• Ground conditions are dry
• Being offered 4′ X 4′ dry hay bales which weigh 600 lbs
• Hay was tested and is 84% dry matter (DM) with 54% total digestible nutrients (TDN) (DM basis)

Step 1: What is the expected dry matter feed intake of these cows?

After adjustments, the expected dry matter intake per cow is 34.7 lbs.

Step 2: What is the expected actual as-fed (AF) amount of hay that would be consumed by these cows? We need to convert our estimated DM intake to an AF basis for the hay being offered.

So, we would expect each cow to consume about 41.3 lbs of hay per day. For the feeding group of 50 cows this would be:

Step 3: Converting this to bales of hay

2065 lbs / 600 lbs = 3.44 bales of hay per day

Step 4: The group is being fed an average of 3.5 bales per day, with a very minimal amount left in the feeders. How does this feed disappearance match up with what is expected? Let’s look at it on a per head basis:

Feed disappearance/hd = 4.0 bales X 600 lbs per bale / 50 hd = 48 lbs/hd/day

Step 5: We had estimated the hay disappearance for this group in Step 2 as 41.3 lbs/hd/d. The difference between feed disappearance and estimated intake:

Difference = disappearance – estimated intake
= 48 lbs – 41.3 lbs
= 6.7 lbs

Step 6: On a percentage basis this would be:

Difference / estimated intake X 100%
6.7 lbs / 41.3 lbs X 100% = 16%

This indicates that about 16% of the feed which is being offered is not actually being eaten by the cows, there is likely significant room for improvement. It would be a good idea to closely observe the cows’ feeding behavior and see how much hay is being pulled out of the feeder and lost on the ground, as well as how much forage is being left uneaten in the feeders. Hay wastage when feeding round bales has been measured from 5% to 40%, with the higher range occurring when the bales are rolled out on the ground.

Example goal:

• Reduce feed waste to the 11 to 15% range using methods that reduce trampling in the next 365 days.

Feed Testing

When you don’t know the quality of feed on an operation, maintaining animal health and welfare can become significantly more difficult. Visual assessment of feedstuffs is not accurate enough to assess quality and may lead to cattle being underfed and losing body condition or being overfed and wasting money and nutrients.

Why should I feed test?

• Avoid production problems, such as poor gains or reduced conception rates caused by mineral or nutrient deficiencies or excesses
• Prevent or identify potentially devastating problems due to toxicity from mycotoxins, nitrates, sulfates, or other minerals or nutrients
• Develop balanced rations that meet the nutritional needs of the cattle and their their specific point in production
• Identify nutritional gaps that may require supplementation
• Economize feeding, and possibly make use of opportunities to include alternative feed ingredients
• Accurately price feed for buying or selling purposes.

CowBytes ration-balancing software allows Canadian beef cattle producers to formulate their own feed rations.

Every season is different and some years there is an abundance of high-quality forage. Other years, there is a lack of available feed, or perhaps there is an abundance of low-quality forage, grain or grain by-products. These feeds may look economical but can potentially pose significant risks if a feed analysis has not been performed or interpreted incorrectly. Feed testing should be completed as close as possible to when it will be fed for the most relevant results.

Learn more about the how and why of feed testing and interpreting results.

Example:  

A sample of grass silage was taken from the silage produced from the 100-acre field at the farm mentioned above. The results of the feed test were entered into the Evaluating Feed Test Results Tool on BeefResearch.ca and received the following result:

The results suggest that the feed will not be adequate to feed on its own to lactating mature cows and should be fed with additional feedstuffs such as additional energy, vitamins, minerals and a protein source. The next step is to work with a nutritionist or ration-balancing software program to determine a balanced ration for the lactating cows.

Example goals:

• Work with a nutritionist, veterinarian, local extension specialist or feed representative to mitigate any potential nutritional deficiencies
• Establish a location to keep all feed test results and use to monitor progress year to year, incorporating management practices that you can control to alter feed quality (e.g. time of cutting and proper storage)

Incorporating Alternative Feeds

While hay, pasture, other forages and grains make up the largest component of livestock feed, there are many alternative feeds that can be provided and even improve the diet. Cost-effective procurement of non-conventional feeds can increase profitability across the operation.

Alternative feeds can include crop residues, damaged crops, processing by-products, fruit, vegetable and bakery waste, off grade grains and even weeds. Resourceful producers will consider several factors when sourcing alternative feeds: 

• cost of feed 
• cost of transportation 
• storage of feed including special bins, silos or conditions to reduce spoilage 
• nutritive value of feed including any deficiencies or toxicities that must be corrected  
• consistency and ongoing availability of feed 
• ease of integration into operation, such as special feeding management, grinding or mixing equipment required 
• palatability of feed and acceptance by livestock  

The inclusion of alternative feeds in a ration or feeding program can reduce feed costs and stretch feed supplies, while meeting nutritional requirements. Weather events such as drought, flooding, late spring frosts or hail can impact conventional feed supplies and increase prices. While non-conventional feeds can be a cost-effective choice, producers will need to compare the actual costs of each feed source, along with transportation and storage to determine viability. A calculator for evaluating the relative economic value of feeds based on protein and energy content is available to assist producers when making these decisions.

Cattle require appropriate levels of energy, protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals to allow maintenance, growth, reproduction, gestation, milk production and to support the immune system. When sourcing and adding non-conventional feeds to the ration, consult a livestock nutritionist to obtain the best advice for ration balancing. Conduct feed tests for each feed source and use results to balance nutrient requirements for the specific cattle being fed (considering their sex, age, body condition and stage of production). For example, straw can be a low-cost alternative feed, however, it requires supplementation with additional energy, protein and minerals to provide adequate nutrition for all classes of cattle.

Visit the alternative feeds webpage for more information about using alternative feeds and the risks and benefits of different types of feed sources.

Example:  

Since the feed test on the grass silage was not optimal and the price of barely is higher than you would like, you decide to investigate some options for alternate feeds to feed the group of lactating, mature cows. Using the Tool for Evaluating the Economic Value of Feeds Based on Nutrient Content you enter some options for feeds you are considering purchasing. The results (shown below) indicate that distillers’ grain and corn silage may be good options to supplement the herd, where the legume silage and cull potatoes may not be good options economically.

References

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). (2022). Publication 30: Guide to Forage Production. Government of Ontario.

This content was last reviewed September 2026.