In Beef Cattle Maximum Monetary Returns Per Acre Occur at Low Stocking Levels

Stocking Rate: The Key to Successful Livestock Production

By Daren D. Redfearn, Terrence One thousand. Bidwell

Jump To:
• Some Working Definitions
• Calculations
• Differences in Stocking of Introduced and Rangeland Forages
• Stocking Rates on Introduced Forages
• Stocking Rates on Rangeland
• Ecological Sites and Soils
• Fodder Production and Standing Ingather
• Stocking Rates and Harvest Efficiency
• Forage Utilization
• Stocking Rate Furnishings on Livestock
• Summary

In that location are many important ingredients in a successful livestock production system. 1 of the about important tasks is to go along detailed records on livestock stocking charge per unit, livestock functioning, and forage product. Forage product and stocking rate records are critical in making timely direction decisions. No other unmarried direction practice affects profitability of livestock more than than stocking rate. This publication discusses how to determine the proper stocking rate for your country.

Some Working Definitions

In order to discuss stocking rate and its effect on brute operation, information technology is necessary to constitute some definitions. Stocking rate is divers equally the number of animals on a given amount of country over a certain menstruum of fourth dimension. Stocking rate is by and large expressed every bit animal units per unit of measurement of land area. Carrying capacity is the stocking rate that is sustainable over time per unit of land area. A disquisitional gene to evaluate is how well the stocking charge per unit agrees with the carrying capacity of the land. A term that is used to aid understand and estimate forage requirements is the brute unit (AU) concept (Tabular array 1).

Table i. Carrying chapters in terms of the fauna unit (AU) concept.

Concept	Abridgement	Definition
Animal Unit	AU	1,000 lb. cow with calf
Animal Unit Day	AUD	26 lbs. of dry forage
Creature Unit Month	AUM	780 lbs. of dry out forage
Animal Unit Year	AUY	9,360 lbs. of dry out forage

Calculations

A livestock producer has 50 head of 1,000-lb cows on 200 acres for 12 months. The stocking rate of this functioning would be calculated as follows:

Instance ane: Calculation of stocking rate:

Total Country Area ÷ [(#AUs) 10 (Grazing Flavour)]

200 acres ÷ [(50AUs) x (12 months)] = 0.33 acres per AU

month (AUM) or 4 acres per AU yr (AUY)

Considering cattle and other grazing animals are not the same size, information technology is often necessary to convert to animal unit equivalents. The term creature unit equivalent (AUE) is useful for estimating the potential forage demand for different kinds of animals or for cattle that counterbalance more or less than i,000 lbs. Creature unit of measurement equivalent is based upon a percentage (plus or minus) of the standard AU and takes into account physiological differences.

Once once again, bold a forage dry matter demand of 26 lbs. per 24-hour interval, the i,000 lb. moo-cow is used every bit the base animal unit to which other livestock are compared. The AUE for cattle of 900 lbs. or less, is calculated equally:

AUE = (Trunk WEIGHT + 100) ÷ 1,000

or, for animals of i,100 lbs. or more,

AUE = (BODY WEIGHT-100) ÷ 1,000

Table 2 illustrates several unlike kinds and classes of animals, their diverse AUEs, and estimated daily provender demand.

Another adding can be used to demonstrate the usefulness of the information contained in Table 2. Suppose a producer has 100 head of stocker calves that weigh approximately 500 lbs., the size of the pasture is 100 acres, and the grazing season is 6 months long. The stocking charge per unit would be calculated as before with the exception that the full number of AUs must first be calculated using the AUE information from Table 2.

Tabular array ii. Animate being unit of measurement equivalent (AUE) and estimated daily fodder dry matter (DM) demand for diverse kinds and classes of animals.

	Animal Type	AUE	DM demand (lbs. per twenty-four hours)
	Cattle
	Calves
	300 lbs.	0.4	9
	400 lbs.	0.5	12
	500 lbs.	0.6	15
	600 lbs.	0.vii	xviii
	Cows	ane.0	26
	Bulls	ane.25	32
	Horses	1.25	32
	Sheep	0.2	5
	Goats	0.17	4
	White-Tailed Deer	0.17	four

Example 2: Adding of stocking charge per unit using AUEs:

First, estimate the total number of AUs based on AUEs:

(# Head) x (AUE) = Total AUs

100 head x 0.6 = sixty AUs

Then, calculate the stocking rate as before.

Total Land Area ÷ [(# AUs) x (grazing season)] = Stocking Rate

100 ÷ (lx ten 6) = 0.27 acres per AUM or 1.seven acres for the flavor.

Calculating stocking charge per unit is relatively simple in one case the concept and terminology are understood. The ability to calculate stocking rate and make timely direction decisions is vital to maximizing cyberspace returns from the livestock functioning.

Differences in Stocking of Introduced and Rangeland Forages

Although the concepts of stocking charge per unit determination are similar for introduced and rangeland forages, there is 1 major difference in estimating stocking rate: allowable use (percent utilization of available forage) is lower for rangeland forage. This tin not exist emphasized enough; introduced forages can be utilized to a higher degree than rangeland forages if adequate wet and fertility are bachelor. Working through some examples for both types of systems should aid articulate up any misunderstanding. Utilization does not equal consumption by the creature for any kind of forage. Utilization includes decomposition, waste material, and consumption past insects and other herbivores.

Stocking Rates on Introduced Forages

Introduced forages are generally not-native species that have been selected for rapid growth and grazing tolerance. Introduced forage grasses common to Oklahoma include bermudagrass, tall fescue, Old Globe bluestem, weeping lovegrass, diverse cereal grains, and ryegrass. Oklahoma producers likewise apply several introduced legumes, including alfalfa, hairy vetch, and numerous clover species (red, white, arrowleaf, rose, berseem). Most introduced forages will tolerate a heavier caste of grazing force per unit area than rangeland forages because of their rapid regrowth capabilities. Although many introduced forages are tolerant of close grazing, non all the forage produced tin can be removed. Some rest must be left for the found to carry out bones metabolic functions.

Tabular array 3 contains suggested residue levels for some forages normally used in Oklahoma. This information volition help prevent overgrazing of pastures.

Using the data in Tables 2 and 3, producers can quickly approximate the animate being fodder demand and the stocking charge per unit for their livestock production system. For fine tuning of stocking rates on specific ranches; withal, forage product information from long-term record keeping will exist necessary because long-term information takes into account fluctuations in precipitation. Moisture is generally the near limiting gene relative to fodder product.

Table 3. Suggested residual height of selected introduced forages for optimum animate being operation and stand up
persistence.

Species	Residual Height (inches)	Utilization Maximum (%)
Alfalfa	iv-6"	50
Annual Ryegrass	3-4"	75
Arrowleaf Clover	3-4"	50
Bermudagrass	1.v-3"	751
Intermediate wheatgrass	iv-vi"	50
Oat	4-vi"	75
Erstwhile World Bluestem	3-4"	65
Pubescent wheatgrass	four-6"	l
Red Clover	4-6"	50
Rye	iv-6"	75
Tall Fescue	iv-five"	70
Alpine Wheatgrass	half-dozen-8"	50
Wheat	4-six"	75
White Clover	ii-3"	75

¹ Can be college given adequate precipitation and N.

This concept is all-time illustrated using another example. Assume a livestock performance that has 100 acres of bermudagrass and long-term production records indicate the pasture is capable of producing five,000 lbs. of forage DM per acre over the growing season. In this detail example, a producer may wish to know how many head of 500 lb. stocker calves they may expect to stock in the pasture. Beginning, guess the full corporeality of available provender DM based on historical records and the percentage utilization factor from Table 3.

Example 3: Adding of bachelor fodder for grazing:

(Average DM in lbs. per acre) x (# Acres) x (% Utilization Cistron)

5,000 x 100 x 0.65 = 325,000 lbs. of Forage DM

Next, estimate the number of brute units that could be stocked on the pasture given the to a higher place forage production potential. In other words, calculate the stocking rate in AUs.

Example 4: Adding of stocking charge per unit (# head) based on bachelor forage:

(Total Forage DM) ÷ [(# Grazing Days) ten (Daily Forage Demand for ane AU or AUE of the animal in question)] = # of Head

325,000 ÷ [(120 days) x (xv lbs. DM per solar day)] = Stocking Rate

325,000 ÷ 1800 = 181 Caput

In this example, a bermudagrass pasture was causeless to be capable of producing five,000 lbs. of provender DM per acre and information technology was estimated that a stocking charge per unit of 181 head of 500-lb. stocker calves could be used for a typical 120-day growing flavour. To express this production scenario equally a stocking rate, you would return to the equation used in Case 2.

Example 5: Adding of AUs from AUEs:

# Head ten AUE = Total AUs

181 Head x 0.6 = 109 AUs

Now only utilize the equation adult in Case one to calculate the stocking rate.

(Total Land Area) ÷ (# AUs)= Stocking Charge per unit

100 ÷ 109 = 0.92 acres per AU

Stocking Rates on Rangeland

Rangeland is the almost abundant type of land in Oklahoma and contributes heavily to the beefiness cattle and recreational leasing industry. Rangeland is the primary source of wildlife habitat throughout the state. Lands that are dominated by native grasses, forbs, shrubs, or scattered trees are considered rangelands. In order for rangeland to exist sustainable for beefiness cattle production, the number of animals and their forage demand must be balanced with forage production. Provender production varies from yr to year because of changes in atmospheric precipitation (Fig. 1-ii). Stocking rate should be based on boilerplate long-term end-of-season standing crop values (Fig. 2) for an performance to remain productive and sustainable. The procedure for computing stocking rates can be used on either forests or rangelands.

Figure 1. Atmospheric precipitation at the Oklahoma State University Research Rangeland, Stillwater, OK.

Figure 2. Finish-of-flavor standing ingather on an ungrazed Loamy Prairie rangeland site in Payne County, OK.

Ecological Sites and Soils

An ecological site, previously known as a rangeland site, is an area of land with a combination of soil, climatic, topographic, and natural vegetation features that set it apart significantly from adjacent areas. Ecological sites are expressed in terms of soil depth, topography, slope, establish production, and species composition. Vegetation on a detail site volition vary in composition and product from ane region of the country to another and from year-to-year considering of changes in precipitation.

Forage Production and Standing Ingather

Stocking rates are based on the corporeality of forage that is standing at the end of the growing season in an ungrazed condition. Stop-of-flavor continuing crop is not total production because much of the production has been lost to decomposition and insects. Actual forage product is oftentimes twice as big equally the stop-of-season standing crop. Forage production information is useful but is very time consuming to obtain. That is why end-of-season standing crop is used for estimating stocking rate.

Standing crop should be measured by clipping within grazing exclosures in key areas. The exclosure should be moved each yr during the winter. The more years of standing ingather information that can be assembled, the meliorate the stocking rate decisions volition be. Otherwise, producers must rely on guesses or information from Standard Soil Surveys, which tend to underestimate standing crop.

Stocking Rates and Harvest Efficiency

The recommended stocking rates for rangelands are based on moderate utilization (economic long-term optimum) of the annual forage continuing crop and presume uniform grazing distribution. It is also causeless that 50% of the annual peak standing crop can exist removed from the ecological site without negatively affecting the constitute community relative to species abundance or for beef cattle production. This is the origin of the "accept half and get out half" rule-of-pollex that is oftentimes used. This is too the source of divergence in stocking charge per unit direction between rangeland and introduced forages.

Of the 50% of rangeland fodder (grasses or forbs) that is causeless to be removed, the assumption is also made that one-half (25% of the total) is actually consumed past livestock and the other one-half (25% of the total) is trampled, laid on, consumed past insects or other animals, or disappears because of decomposition. These assumptions pb to a harvest efficiency of 25%. Another manner to look at this is to assume that 25% of the total provender is really consumed past the grazing fauna. Establish requirements regarding remaining residue and waste matter by grazing animals set these limits. Harvest efficiency, still, tin be increased past using rotational stocking (Table 4). This calculation should be adjusted for the presence of bulls, replacement heifers, or other grazing animals.

Presume 100 caput of cows that average approximately ane,000 lbs. with calves on a 1,000-acre rangeland pasture. The goal for this cow herd is continuous stocking for 12 months. The stocking charge per unit would be calculated using information contained in Table 1.

Example six: Calculation of stocking rate:

For a 1,000 lb. cow, AUE = 1.0 (Table 2)

(100 head) ten (ane.0 AUE) = 100 AUs

(Full Land Expanse) ÷ [(# AUs) ten (grazing season)]

one,000 acres ÷ [(100 AUs) 10 (12 months)] = 0.83 acres per AUM or 10 acres per AUY

Table 4. Instance of impact of harvest efficiency on stocking charge per unit.

	Continuous	Rotation
Rangeland provender standing crop	vi,360 lbs. per acre	6,360 lbs. per acre
Available for utilize	fifty%	l%
Amount bachelor for apply	three,180 lbs. per acre	3,180 lbs. per acre
Use efficiency, % of 6,360	25%	35%
Provender supply	1,590 lbs. per acre	two,226 lbs. per acre
Stocking Rate	2.04 AUM per acre	2.85 AUM per acre
Stocking Charge per unit	v.88 acres per AUY	iv.21 acres per AUY
Cows per 1,000 acres per year	170 cows	238 cows

Next, use forage standing crop to calculate how many stocker cattle this one,000 acres of rangeland can carry. From clipping data, information technology was determined over the by 10 years the average peak provender standing crop was half dozen,360 lbs. per acre from the monitoring program (Fig. 2).

Using these fodder continuing crop values, ane can gauge how many cows could be stocked on this ranch. Using a 25% harvest efficiency for rangeland forages, the stocking rate is estimated as follows:

Example seven: Adding of available forage for grazing:

(Average Standing Crop) ten (% Utilization Cistron) x (Total Acres) = Available Fodder

(6,360 lbs.) x (25%) x (1,000 acres) = 1,590,000 lbs. Available Fodder

Example 8: Adding of AUs based on available forage:

Available Forage ÷ [(# Days in Grazing Flavour) 10 (Daily Provender Need)] = # AUs

one,590,000 lbs. ÷ [(365 days) x (26 lbs. per 24-hour interval)] =

168 AUs (cows) for 1 yr

one,000 acres ÷ 168 AUs = 6 acres per AUY

A slight twist on the adding would be to presume livestock smaller than the standard AU. Let us assume calves with an AUE of 0.six (500-lb. calves) that are to be grazed all twelvemonth.

one,590,000 lbs. ÷ [(365 days) x (26 lbs. per twenty-four hour period)] = 168 AUs

168 AUs ÷ 0.6 AUE = 280

Therefore, 280 calves that weigh 500 pounds could exist stocked on this aforementioned amount of forage.

Case 9: Adding of AUs from AUEs:

(# Head) x (AUE) = Total AUs

170 head x ane.0 = 170 AUs or for livestock smaller than 1AU

170 head Ten 0.6 = 102 AUs

Note: Cows should usually be assigned the AUE of about 1.4 because of the presence of bulls and replacements.

Forage Utilization

Forage utilization of key found species must be known in order to effectively adjust the stocking rate of rangeland forages. Therefore, you must be able to identify the key institute species of each ecological site. Forage utilization tin be monitored throughout the year using a utilization grade ranking system of 1 through five (Table five). Utilization is measured by rating the standing crop of native grass inside and outside the grazing enclosure. A utilization score of three should be the annual goal. In order to get an accurate picture of provender utilization on rangeland, a systematic filigree should be established (Fig. three).

The grid is observed at several different times during the grazing season and a utilization grade ranking (Tabular array five) is assigned to each surface area. A grazing utilization pattern can then exist developed to assess the harvest efficiency. Producers will often find that the same areas are either under-utilized or over-utilized each yr (Fig. four). If utilization scores are above or below 3, so cosmetic mensurate should be taken such as developing new water sources, moving mineral feeders, developing new fencing patterns, and the application of prescribed burn down.

Another method of judging grazing utilization is measuring the height of cardinal grazing species throughout the pasture (Tabular array 6). This method requires a measuring device and a systematic grid similar to the previously described method. Utilization heights are unlike for different ecological sites and different regions of atmospheric precipitation. In forests or savannas, utilise the height for tallgrass prairie.

Once a grazing pattern is axiomatic, you must then determine whether improvements such as building cross fences, spraying herbicides, developing new h2o sources, or changing stocking rates volition meliorate the profitability of the operation. Using the previous examples, producers with expert forage production records tin can determine the proper stocking charge per unit for their country.

Figure iii. Grid points are evenly spaced approximately 260 feet apart. Transects are 240 anxiety apart (120 feet from fences).

Figure four. Grid points are evenly spaced approximately 260 anxiety apart. Transects are 240 feet autonomously (120 anxiety from fences). A grazing utilization pattern volition assist to appraise the harvest efficiency.

Table 5. Guidelines for estimating forage utilization on native rangeland.

Utilization Grade	Primal Species Degree of Utilize	Plant Description
ane	0-20%	Little or no use of the key grazing species. Grazing use is non apparent from a distance. With shut inspection, a few plants of the key species prove evidence of light employ. Grazed patches are modest or non present, grazed heights 8 to 10 inches.
2	21-41%	A few of the key grazing species have short stubble heights, but this is non evident as seen from a altitude. Otherwise, fundamental species announced unused. Grazed patches 2 to iii feet in bore, grazed from 4 to 8 inches.
3	41-60%	Stubble heights of central grazing species are non-uniform because of varying degrees of grazing between individual plants. Some use of less preferred species. Grazed patches greater than three feet in diameter, grazed from two to 6 inches. Most plants will bear witness some grazing utilize.
four	61-80%	Stubble heights of key grazing species are adequately uniform and quite brusk. Less preferred species have received some utilize. No ungrazed patches. Some trampling impairment and bare basis.
5	81-100%	Stubble heights of key grazing species are uniformly brusk. Heavy employ of less preferred species. Trampling effects from concentrated beast use are evident.

Table six. Height of key forage species by institute community type.

Establish Community Blazon
Level of Employ	Tallgrass Prairie	Midgrass Prairie	Shortgrass Prairie
Light or None	>10 inches	>6 inches	>four inches
Moderate	half dozen-10 inches	4-five inches	2-three inches
Heavy	iv-5 inches	ii-three inches	<2 inches
Astringent	<4 inches	<2 inches	<1 inch

Stocking Rate Effects on Livestock

Production Systems

Overstocking of rangeland, or overstocking introduced forages coupled with a poor fertility program, typically leads to a reduction in desirable forage species and an invasion of weeds and undesirable grasses such as broomsedge and threeawn. Every bit the incidence of undesirable species increases at the expense of the more than desirable forage species, animal functioning declines and the carrying capacity of the grazing management unit of measurement is reduced. This situation is characterized equally an overgrazed situation because of a change in provender species. The results are decreased profitability both from a livestock production standpoint and the possible need for expensive herbicide applications.

Conversely, understocking results in patch (or spot) grazing. Patch grazing occurs where animals repeatedly graze the aforementioned area as soon as regrowth is available. Animals continue to utilize previously grazed areas because the young regrowth is more palatable and of higher nutritive value. Ungrazed areas in the pasture continue to increment in maturity, decline in nutritive value, and become increasingly less palatable. The decline in forage utilization (harvest efficiency) results in wasted forage and decreased profit potential from the livestock operation. In either case, proper stocking rate and some form of rotational stocking could improve the net profitability of the livestock product system.

Stocking rate has a major impact on animal performance and overall profitability of the livestock production arrangement. Figure v indicates that maximum private animal performance occurs at light stocking rates because there is fiddling contest for the best provender plants in the pasture. Every bit stocking charge per unit is increased, the level of animal performance is reduced due to increased competition. The opportunity for diet option afforded by low stocking rates ensures that individual fauna functioning is maximized. Figure 5 also indicates that as stocking rate increases, the amount of weight gain produced per acre is increased up to a threshold and then declines.

A famous football double-decker once commented that three possibilities exist when you throw a forrad pass, and 2 of the three were bad. The same situation exists for stocking charge per unit; three possibilities exist (correct stocking, over-stocking, under-stocking) and two of them are unacceptable in a production system. The virtually important aspect of Figure 5, however, illustrates the stocking rate at which maximum net return occurs. This generally takes place at a moderate stocking rate, or a compromise bespeak between forage resource conservation and animal operation.

Moderate stocking rate will vary co-ordinate to those forage species used in the specific production organisation. Producers who continually use heavy stocking rates in an endeavour to better cyberspace profitability, however, should realize that they have already passed the point at which maximum net return may be realized.

Figure 5. Influence of stocking charge per unit on private animal performance, gain per acre, and net return per acre.

Summary

Stocking rate is the cardinal element to successful livestock production. The use of improper stocking rates can reduce both the vigor of desirable provender species and creature performance. This results in decreased profitability and sustainability of the product organization.

Introduced forages generally have higher production potentials than native institute communities, but the increase comes at a cost for inputs associated with maintenance of soil fertility. There is some misunderstanding regarding potential profitability of introduced forage and native rangeland livestock product systems. Some people believe that because some introduced forages can generally be grazed more heavily than native rangeland, the profit is proportionally more. Introduced forages, however, if non managed wisely, can increase input costs, just the producer may realize little, if any, increased production or profitability when compared to native rangeland systems.

Different management techniques are required for introduced forages relative to native rangeland. Native rangeland can not be utilized to the same degree as introduced forages except under specialized conditions. It is critical that producers empathise the forage resource nether their control and stock livestock accordingly. For more than information, contact your local county Cooperative Extension Agriculture Agent or obtain one of the post-obit OSU Extension Publications.

PSS-2567 Grazing Systems for Pastures

PSS-2584 Forage-Budgeting Guidelines

PSS-2864 Grazing Forest-Rangeland in Eastern Oklahoma

NREM-5032 Lease Hunting Opportunities for Oklahoma Landowners

E-926  Grazing Management on Rangeland for Beef Production

Eastward-927  Using Prescribed Burn in Oklahoma

Daren D. Redfearn

State Extension Forage Specialist

Terrence G. Bidwell

Professor and Country Extension Specialist

Rangeland Ecology and Direction

Was this data helpful?

YESNO

sheltoncheirt1935.blogspot.com

Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/stocking-rate-the-key-to-successful-livestock-production.html

Bagikan Artikel ini