Tool for drought mitigation, income diversification
By Karla Wilke
Incorporating yearling cattle into a cow-calf operation can be a drought mitigation tool or a way to provide income diversification for cow-calf producers. While some producers have integrated farming and ranching operations, or are in close proximity to those who do, other producers’ resources may be limited to pasture grass, what hay the operation can produce and a limited budget for supplemental protein.
An operation may find purchasing and transporting crop residues or hay, silage and other commodities to maintain a cowherd with limited perennial grass is cost prohibitive. This makes income diversification difficult and can force the cow-calf herd into liquidation during severe drought.
Cow depreciation is the second largest expense for a cowherd after feed costs. When young cows have to be liquidated, it is very costly to the operation. Although cow depreciation can be more complex than this, cow depreciation is defined as purchase or development cost minus cull price divided by the number of productive years.
Therefore, if a cow was purchased or developed for $2,000 and sold as a cull cow for $800 after only three calves, her depreciation cost to the ranch is $400. ((2000-800)/3). Cow depreciation is often overlooked as it is not an expense the producer writes a check for, but it is a real cost to the operation all the same.
Cow depreciation exists with or without a drought situation, but with drought cull prices are often depressed as many producers are selling cows, which increases supply, and cows are often thin due to lack of grass, reducing their value further.
Diversifying the operation with yearling cattle allows producers to liquidate cattle that were going to be sold in the fall sooner if necessary, without liquidating cows from the core herd to save grass resources. If the yearling averages 850 pounds (0.85 AUM) (AUM being animal unit month) and the cow-calf pair averages 1,700 pounds (1.7 AUM), then two yearlings can replace one cow-calf pair (Forero et al., 1989). Reducing the number of pairs and replacing them with yearlings can give producers income diversification as well as drought mitigation flexibility.
Stocker cattle options When producers consider incorporating a yearling operation into a cow-calf operation, they should consider the forage, labor, facilities and equipment resources, the cattle genetics of the ranch, as well as marketing options when making a decision.
Steers Retaining steer calves may be a viable option for some ranching operations. Steers ready for feedlot entry after summer grazing can be profitable and management decisions will depend largely on marketing times and options (Folmer et al., 2005; Merical et al., 2021).
Heifers Retaining heifers can provide the operation with additional marketing flexibility. Heifers selected for maternal traits could be marketed as bred heifers in the fall after summer grazing while their open counterparts could be marketed for feedlot entry along with heifers who did not meet breeding criteria earlier in the summer. Developing a plan for supplementation and grazing of the weaned heifer is an important step in the success of breeding heifers the following summer.
Providing an adequate plane of nutrition and meeting metabolizable protein needs of the weaned heifer prior to summer grazing have been shown to increase pregnancy rate and overall longevity in the cowherd (Beck et al., 2005; Mulliniks et al. 2013; Speer at al. 2021). In these studies, daily gain of the wintering heifers was averaging around 1.0 lb/d. Freetly et al. (2001) observed that winter management of replacement heifers could be variable as long as heifers are growing and meet minimal BW requirements before mating.
Custom grazing yearlings Producers may find that leasing out the grass to someone else who owns yearlings is a good fit for their operation. Negotiated price should take into consideration which party provides care, salt, mineral or supplementation for the cattle, maintenance of the pastures and wells, as well as an acceptable death loss. A written agreement should be signed by each party, which includes start and end dates for grazing, as well as a clause that allows the land owner to terminate grazing early due to drought, fire, or other natural disasters.
Supplementation Options Winter supplementation The decision to supplement grazing cattle is often dependent upon price and availability of supplement, forage quality, desired target weight of the calves and length of ownership. Winter supplementation of calves is usually necessary for adequate growth when the base forage is low quality such as dormant native range or cornstalk residue.
Many producers will supplement to target a low rate of gain (≤ 1.0 lb/d) during the winter planning to take advantage of compensatory gain on growing summer grass. However, depending on the severity and length of restriction, calves may not fully compensate.
Calves supplemented at a higher winter backgrounding rate have been shown to be heavier at the end of summer grazing, requiring fewer days on feed in the feedlot or resulting in more carcass weight to sell at slaughter (Drouillard et al., 1991; Jordan et al., 2000; Jenkins et al. 2009; Gillespie-Lewis et al., 2015).
Jenkins et al. (2009) supplemented dried distillers grains (DDGS) at 0%, 0.25%, 0.50% or 0.75% BW to calves (450 lb) grazing dormant winter range for 56 days. Calves then grazed wheat pasture without supplementation for 76 days. The calves exhibited a linear response (P < 0.001) to increasing level of supplementation on native range (Table 1).
Treatment, % BW DDGS
Initial BW, lb
Supplement, lb/d
Daily gainab, lb/d
Total BW gainab, lb
Final BWac, lb
Table 1. Initial BW, amount of supplement, ADG, and total BW gain of steers grazing dormant range supplemented with dried distillers grains (Jenkins et al., 2009).
a Linear Contrast (P < 0.001), bc Linear Contrast (P = 0.16, 06, respectively)
Calves not supplemented on range exhibited compensatory gain once on wheat pasture, resulting in the same body weight as the calves supplemented DDGS at 0.25% BW, negating any benefit to supplementing that low level. Final body weight after wheat pasture grazing was greatest for the calves supplemented 0.50% and 0.75% BW (Table 2).
Initial BWa, lb
Daily gainb, lb/d
Total BW gainb, lb
Final BWc, lb
Compensation of nonsupplemented control, %
Table 2. Wheat pasture performance of growing steers previously supplemented with dried distillers grains (DDGS) while grazing native range (Jenkins et al., 2009)
a Linear Contrast (P < 0.001), bc Linear Contrast (P = 0.13, 08, respectively)
Economic analyses of the supplementation strategies at various prices of DDGS and value of added gain suggested that producers selling calves after grazing dormant range made the most money by supplementing at 0.75% BW. Those selling after wheat pasture grazing were more likely to profit from feeding at 0.50% BW on native range.
These data suggest supplementing DDGS at 0.25% BW on winter range and selling calves after grazing range, was not the most profitable strategy even when DDGS was high and the value of gain was low. For producers selling after grazing wheat pasture, the 0.25% BW supplementation level resulted in a loss because of compensatory gain.
In a meta-analysis of six studies, Gillespie-Lewis et al. (2015) evaluated past research wintering cattle targeted to gain approximately 0.5 lb/d on the low gain treatments and 1.5 lb/d on the high gain treatments. In all six studies, cattle were in a three phase system where they were wintered on poor quality forage with supplementation, then grazed summer grass with no supplementation followed by a finishing phase.
Profitability was evaluated using high and low prices for distillers grains. Cattle supplemented for low gain in the winter only compensated 37% during the summer (Table 3). Those authors reported that while the cattle supplemented for low gain in the winter compensated with a higher average daily gain than the cattle supplemented for high gain, they did not weigh more at the end of the summer. The cattle supplemented for high gain in the winter then tended (P < 0.06) to have greater finishing gain and did have a greater final body weight (P < 0.01).
This improved performance resulted in overall profitability being greater for the cattle supplemented for high winter gain than those supplemented for low winter gain regardless of distillers price being high (110% of corn priced at $7.00/bu or relatively low (80% of corn priced at $3.00/bu).
These data suggest that while compensatory summer gain does exist, the advantage of the winter weight gain from the higher level of supplementation is likely going to be maintained through the summer and subsequent finishing period.
Summer supplementation for developing feeder calves Supplementing cattle grazing summer grass is not a popular practice among stocker operations. There may be several reasons for this including labor, logistics and commodity availability. However, some producers may not supplement on summer grass because they assume the cattle will not consume the supplement or the supplement would not result in additional gain.
Extensive research has shown cattle will consume supplement on high quality pasture and that it does result in increased gain. Martinez-Perez et al. (2013) fed increasing levels of DDGS on native summer range in New Mexico effectively increasing body weight gain and replacing some forage intake.
Buttrey et al. (2012) supplemented growing steers on wheat pasture (23.7% crude protein; 19.3% acid detergent fiber) and found that not only was daily gain increased due to supplementation, but that stocking rate could be increased by 10-12.5% due to forage replacement. However, when the steers were subsequently retained through the finishing phase, the pasture supplementation advantage was not maintained.
P-value
Average Daily Gain, lb/d
Days on Feed, winter grazing
Ending BW, lb
Summer grazing phase
Days on Feed, summer grazing
Compensation, %
Finishing phase
Days on Feed
Total Dry matter intake
Feed:gain or efficiency
Final BW, lb
Table 3. Backgrounding and finishing average performance across six systems studies comparing winter supplementation level (Gillespie-Lewis et al., 2015)
1 cattle supplemented for low (0.5 lb/d) or high (1.5 lb/d) rate of gain during the winter
Griffin et al. (2012) supplemented steers grazing cool season meadow grasses through the summer and also observed a positive gain response to supplementation. That study reported that in one experiment the weight gain was maintained through the finishing period and in the other experiment it was not.
Watson et al. (2015) reported increased gain and ending body weight for steers supplemented DDGS while grazing smooth bromegrass, but inconsistent results on whether the cattle maintained that advantage through the finishing period.
Greenwell et al. (2018) reported an increase in gain for growing calves supplemented a blend of dry rolled corn, solubles and urea or field peas over the gain of calves not supplemented while grazing crested wheatgrass in the summer. In that study, pasture gain was greatest for the corn blend, intermediate for the field peas, and least for the non-supplemented calves.
Net profit for the grazing period was greatest for the corn blend. Supplementing with field peas was the most expensive because a human consumption market value was assessed on the field peas. In that study, the control cattle exhibited compensatory gain during the finishing phase and subsequently there was no performance difference due to grazing treatments after finishing, making the net profit greatest for the non-supplemented cattle.
Troyer et al. (2020) compared supplementing DDGS to field peas to determine a salvage value for the field peas and determined that field peas, when considering relative performance and transportation costs, should be discounted about 10% the cost of delivered DDGS when used for cattle feed as opposed to human consumption. These studies suggest summer supplementation is most likely to be profitable if calves are sold prior to feedlot entry, and if supplement cost is minimized.
One way to save money on supplement is to reduce waste. Musgrave et al. (2012) compared feeding loose DDGS on the ground or in a bunk and found a significant average daily gain advantage to feeding in a bunk (1.19 vs 0.92 lb/d; P <0.001). Pesta et al. (2012) compared feeding loose DDGS on the ground, DDGS made into a cube with field peas as a binder and fed on the ground, or loose DDGS in a bunk. They reported average daily gain of 1.34, 1.56 and 1.54 lb/d gain respectively. The gain for the bunk and cube were not different but were greater than the loose DDGS fed on the ground.
These two studies estimated the loss of supplement fed on the ground to be 38.5% and 25.6%, respectively. When supplement cost is high, waste is a significant expense.
Recent research has indicated another way to reduce supplement cost is to only feed supplement the last half of the grazing season. In a study reported by Watson et al. (2015) steers grazing smooth bromegrass were fed DDGS at 0.5% BW either throughout the grazing season or the last half and compared to a non-supplemented control.
In that study, the supplemented steers outweighed the non-supplemented controls. Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between the daily gain and ending body weight of the two supplemented groups and the cattle in the deferred supplementation group consumed 20% less supplement (Table 4). This weight gain advantage was maintained through the finishing phase.
Treatment1
ADG, lb
Feedlot final BW, lb
HCW, lb
Marbling score2
LM area in.2
12th –rib fat, in.
Table 4. Growing and finishing performance of steers grazing smooth bromegrass and supplemented with dried distillers grains plus solubles (Watson et al., 2015)
abMeans within a row with unlike superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
1NOS = no supplement, SP = supplement daily, DSP= deferred supplement until after 56 days grazing, DDGS, supplement fed at 0.5% BW 2400=slight0, 450=slight50, 500 = small0
An unpublished study conducted at the High Plains Ag Lab near Sidney, NE was recently completed. This study used steers (750 lb) in year 1, heifers (579 lb) in year 2, and steers (766 lb) in year 3 to compare feeding supplement the entire grazing season (110 days) or only the last half to a non-supplemented control. Cattle were supplemented 3 lb/hd/d on a dry matter basis regardless of body weight.
Supplemented calves gained more than non-supplemented calves, but the two supplemented groups were not statistically different (Table 5). The group supplemented the last half of the grazing season consumed 50% less supplement but had similar ending body weight. These cattle were sold prior to the finishing phase.
Interim BW, lb
Overall ADG
Last half ADG
Table 5. Performance of growing calves grazing crested wheatgrass and supplemented with dried distillers gains (Wilke et al., unpublished data)
1CON=control (no supplement), FULL = 3lb DDGS (DM basis) May to September, HALF = 3 lb DDGS (DM basis) last hay of grazing season (July to September)
Summary Maintaining yearling cattle in addition to the cow-calf herd can provide producers with some income diversification as well as a drought mitigation tool. Winter supplementation for a target of at least 1.0 lb/d gain has been shown to be maintained through the finishing period.
When supplementing for a target gain of less than 1.0 lb/d, compensatory gain on summer grass will result in a negative net return from the supplementation input. Supplementing on summer pasture when logistically feasible, can result in a positive net return when cattle are sold prior to finishing in most cases. Research suggests that supplementing the last half of the summer can result in the same gain as supplementing all summer with less input costs.
References can be found in The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXVII Proceedings.
Wilke is a cow-calf, stocker management specialist with the University of Nebraska, based out of the Panhandle Research and Extension Center in Scottsbluff, Nebraska.