Controlling the cost of producing a weaning calf is an extremely important issue to cow/calf producers. Total cost of production divided by the pounds of calf produced (available for market) is a measure of breakeven. Feed (forage and forage supplements) contribute to total production costs. In general, purchased supplements will consist of protein, minerals, and vitamins. These nutritional supplements can come from various suppliers and be of varying quality, consistency, and value. They can be delivered in various forms, such as cubes, blocks, tubs, meal, liquid, or granular. Nutritional supplements can also vary greatly in nutritional value, required feeding rate, and cost per ton. So, the question becomes, how does one compare the cost of forage supplements?

Comparing Supplement Cost

Several means have and can be used to compare supplement cost:

• Cost per Ton—Purchasing forage supplements on a cost per ton basis ignores quality, nutrient density, feeding rate, service, performance, and return on investment. Using this procedure for comparison of forage supplements could lead to bad decisions.

• Cost per Unit of Protein—This method has been promoted as a means of determining what is being paid for. To determine cost per pound of protein, divide the cost per ton by the pounds of protein in a ton (2000 lb x % protein). This is not a valid means of comparing value of forage supplements. The reason? This comparison requires several assumptions, which are false:

– All protein sources are equal in value.

– Using multiple sources of protein provides no value.

– Mineral content provides no value.

– Energy content provides no value.

– Vitamin content provides no value.

– Cost of delivering the supplement to cattle is equal.

– Utilization of standing forages is equal across protein delivery systems.

– Cattle performance is equal for all supplements.

The previous assumptions are invalid, simply because they are not true.

• Cost per Head per Day—This procedure adjusts for differences in feeding rate. Recommended feeding rate is a function of quality and ingredient concentration. A supplement which cost $100/ton, but requires a 5 lb/hd/day ($0.25/hd/day) feeding rate has a greater daily cost than a 1 lb/hd/day supplement costing $400/ton ($0.20/hd/day). This method of comparing supplements is easy to calculate and easy to understand. This measure is an improvement over the previous two, but still has its limitation because it does not take performance into consideration.

• Cost of Total Ration—The diet of pasture cattle typically consists of a supplement (protein and/or mineral) and forage (standing and/or harvested). The cost of the total diet (supplement + forage + delivery) represents the true diet cost. Harvesting, storage, mileage, wear-and-tear on equipment, and time represent real costs which should be considered when evaluating nutritional programs. In a range environment, this could be difficult to estimate because of the difficulty in obtaining input figures.

• Breakeven—This procedure represents the bottom line and, thus, would be the most valuable means of comparing supplements. It is all inclusive. It goes beyond cost of the supplement and factors in performance advancement (heavier calves, more calves) that may result from use of the supplement. Supplements which yield a positive return on investment (return more than they cost) should not be looked upon as an expense but rather as an investment.

Hidden Costs

When comparing the cost of supplements, don’t overlook hidden costs, such as:

• Storage Requirements—Overhead bins may cost more than flat storage areas. Also, their flexibility in use is limited.

• Intake Control—Self feeding systems are economic, convenient, and labor-saving tools provided the recommended level of consumption can be maintained.

• Equipment Requirements—If special equipment (such as feeders, feed wagon, pickup, etc.) is needed, a prorated share of that equipment should be charged against the supplement.

• Equipment Repair and Maintenance—The cost of maintaining equipment needed as feeding tools should be charged against the supplement cost.

• Time and Labor Requirements—Some supplement systems require multiple trips to the pasture over a set period of time. In other words, feeding frequency. These extra trips (mileage and time) contribute to supplement cost.

• Altering the Grazing Pattern and Grazing Time—Feeding systems which require feed to be hauled to cattle result in cattle becoming dependent upon supplemental feeding. It is only a matter of time until cattle are trained to wait at the feeding location rather than be out grazing and utilizing the lowest cost feed (standing forage) available.

• Potential Loss in Performance—Some supplements serve as a substitute rather than supplement. The negative associated effects of supplementing grain (starch) to a forage diet is well documented. Such a practice will often reduce the total digestible energy available from the forage due to the negative influence on the rumen microbial population.

The Real Cost

Table 1 summarizes a research project conducted by Blasi at Kansas State University comparing the real cost of different supplement delivery systems (cubes versus liquid). MoorMan’s^® brand Mintrate^® Block program was not included in the original study, however, it has been added to the summary using Blasi’s cost assignments for equipment and delivery. This study points out the initial cost/ton of a supplement does not reflect the real or true cost of supplementing cattle on grass. This illustration does not take into account performance differences among various supplements. Labor, time, overhead, and equipment considerations were included in the supplement cost comparison.

Over a $1,000 difference exists in the true supplement cost for this 100 head of yearling heifers. Which supplement truly requires the least cost in terms of feed, delivery, and care? Perhaps, the supplement that provides the lowest true cost is the one that yields the greatest return on investment.