PSIV-26 Extent of use of supplemental feeding in beef cattle operations across the Southeast: A report of the regional survey

Abstract With input costs on the rise, researchers and producers, alike, are seeking alternative management strategies for profitable and sustainable beef production. Studies suggest that supplemental feed provided to grazing cattle may be used to offset some of the cost. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the extent of supplemental feeding programs in the southeastern US and which feeds may be used in these programs. Thus, the objective of this study was to better understand supplemental feeding practices and choices among beef producers in the southeastern US. To address this objective, a 24-question survey was distributed through Extension and commodity organizations to beef producers across the Southeast. This survey received 118 complete responses. The majority of respondents operated cow-calf production systems (65.6%) on either tall fescue or bermudagrass pastures (32.7 and 28.0%, respectively). Approximately 88% of these producers employed some type of supplemental feeding strategy, but there is no clear decision on whether commodity or byproduct feedstuffs were preferred. The leading commodity used was corn (61.4%), while common byproducts included whole cottonseed, corn gluten feed, and soybean hulls (17.1, 16.6, and 14.4%, respectively). At the end of the survey, the participants were asked to submit a sample of their byproduct supplements to have a nutritive analysis completed to better understand what nutritional components the products they are feeding contain and how they may vary from place to place. Some of the products that were sent in include whole cottonseed, cotton byproduct, corn gluten meal, distillers grain, chicken litter, and others. The nutritional test being run on these samples included crude protein and fiber analysis. The crude protein of the samples received ranged from 13.3% to 30.3% with an average of 21.5%. The fiber profile received ranged from 45.5% to 76.3% with an average of 59.9%. With the information recorded from these tests, recommendations can be provided on different feeding methods in both commercial settings as well as research settings.