tubs

Discuss grasses and how to grow and harvest them.
farmguy
Trail Boss
Trail Boss
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: tubs

Postby farmguy » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:28 am

I thought I posted this but it got lost. Ebenezer I agree that tubs are expensive protein and feed. But here in Minnesota when the snow is two feet deep and the drifts around buildings much higher they have there place. Cattle will make trails to bale feeding and winter grazing. A snowmobile can drag tubs where needed. Cubes dumped on the snow will be a waste, farmguy
1 x

callmefence
GURU
GURU
Posts: 4816
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:36 pm
Location: Fencemans place...central Texas

Re: tubs

Postby callmefence » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:42 am

Ebenezer wrote:
Brute 23 wrote:
callmefence wrote:
The part about tubs being the most expensive feed is incorrect. In some cases tubs can be the cheapest feed you can by.


:nod: They are only expensive if you don't count time, labor, equipment, and other infrastructure to feed other feeds.
It only takes any of us a #2 pencil and the back of an envelope to know what works.


As long as you include all the numbers.
1 x
If it ain't tight , It ain't right.




You can all go to he// . I'll go to Texas.
David Crockett

User avatar
Brute 23
GURU
GURU
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: South Texas Gulf Coast

Re: tubs

Postby Brute 23 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:46 am

I'm not saying tubs are a silver bullet by an means. We run in to a lot of times when we have plenty of grass but the protein is pretty low most likely due to high temps and/ or lack of rain. Tubs can fill a gap and put off all out hay or grain feeding until (hopefully) the next rains come.

Some of our operations are quite spread out. Just making it by every place once a week is cost and labor intensive. We would not be able to operate going every other day. Its not an option.
1 x
Brimmer Pimpin Ain't Easy

"Don't let schooling interfere with your education" - Mark Twain

User avatar
TexasBred
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 29656
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: tubs

Postby TexasBred » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:21 pm

Ebenezer wrote:Urea in tubs sounds good for high protein but cattle can only utilize a maximum % like 7 or 11. Other is for sales talk of high protein and passes through the cow for no use. Tubs are as expensive feed as you can buy. Bulk feed or other choices can be fed every other day for good results. Feather meal is largely a waste. Also used in dog food.

Cattle can utilize up to 25% of the crude protein in a feed from Non Protein Nitrogen sources (urea). Protein from any source can pass through the cow if she's feed excessive amounts of protein. Tubs are expensive from the viewpoint of initial cost but if you value your time and the convenience of having a protein source available for the cattle at all times it takes some of the sticker shock away. Most good cooked tubs use high quality protein sources (soybean meal or cottonseed meal) while some will use feather meal in an effort to make a high protein tub while also advertising it as "all natural protein". Feather Meal is 80% crude protein but not highly digestible, stinks to high heaven and is usually disclosed as "animal protein by-products". It's simply feathers from chickens or turkeys that have been processed, dehydrated and sold. Just another use of what would otherwise be wasted. There may be some dog foods that use it but I'm not aware of any.

There is only so much you can do with a molasses tub. I checked the Rio Tub at their website. They advertise a lot of bells and whistles (and they are there) but you also will see that they do not use the premium quality of these additives but go with the lower cost brands. As for intake control, just cook it until it sets up hard as a brick. That thin 1" layer on the top of the tub will soften each day due to humidity and that is what that cattle will and can eat.
1 x
A dung beetle walks into a bar, looks around and says "Is this stool taken"????

elkwc
GURU
GURU
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: tubs

Postby elkwc » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:28 pm

Our experience last fall and early winter was the tubs were close to the same cost as feeding cake on a regular basis. Especially when you consider you don't have to go check pastures but twice a week when using the tubs. We go every other day feeding cake unless it is cold and have to go everyday to break ice and check everything. When that happens it is cheaper during that time to feed cake only. This year I plan on using both. A feeding trip for us is 40-60 miles depending on what pastures we are using. So every trip we eliminate saves money in fuel.
2 x

Texasmark
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:56 pm
Location: N. Texas

Re: tubs

Postby Texasmark » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:56 pm

farmguy wrote:How do you know if there are feathers? Labeled as such or another way? How is protein source listed? thanks farmguy


Contents labeled.
0 x

fasttommy
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: MN

Re: tubs

Postby fasttommy » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:25 pm

So I have fed cystalyx tubs in winter when feeding poor quality hay. Specifically, BGF-30 tubs (30% CP, with max 12%NPN). These are very expensive tubs...I believe around $110 for a 250lbs tub. The second ingredient is hydrolyzed feather meal. Is this an inferior product? Many of the crystalyx products list hydrolyzed feather meal as the main protein source, especially the higher CP products. Others list processed grain byproducts as the main protein source.

Are the BGF30 tubs a poor quality tub due to the feather meal? Would a person be better off purchasing a lower protein tub with a different protein source?
0 x

User avatar
BFE
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:24 pm
Location: Southeast Illinois

Re: tubs

Postby BFE » Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:15 am

I bought some Ragland tubs on clearance from Rural King for $15.00 apiece this spring, and decided to save them to supplement late summer, poorer quality fescue. I've had them out for a month at two small pastures, one with 10 cows and a bull and seven big calves that are ready to wean, another with 13 cows and a bull and they've each went through approx. a tub each (I set two out at each place). They also have high quality loose mineral at all times which I think keeps consumption of tubs down. I've used tubs alone in the past and they ate me out of house and home.
0 x

ddd75
GURU
GURU
Posts: 2124
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:47 am
Location: KY

Re: tubs

Postby ddd75 » Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:59 am

my last farm i think i had to pick up over 200 of those green tubs that the previous people just set out and never collected.
0 x

User avatar
TexasBred
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 29656
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: tubs

Postby TexasBred » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:45 am

fasttommy wrote:So I have fed cystalyx tubs in winter when feeding poor quality hay. Specifically, BGF-30 tubs (30% CP, with max 12%NPN). These are very expensive tubs...I believe around $110 for a 250lbs tub. The second ingredient is hydrolyzed feather meal. Is this an inferior product? Many of the crystalyx products list hydrolyzed feather meal as the main protein source, especially the higher CP products. Others list processed grain byproducts as the main protein source.

Are the BGF30 tubs a poor quality tub due to the feather meal? Would a person be better off purchasing a lower protein tub with a different protein source?

Not necessarily a "poor quality tub" but you can definitely buy higher quality ones....The price you quoted for a tub using feather meal AND urea seems to be a bit high though as both ingredients are used to lower cost.
0 x
A dung beetle walks into a bar, looks around and says "Is this stool taken"????

Ebenezer
GURU
GURU
Posts: 1112
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:46 pm

Re: tubs

Postby Ebenezer » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:14 am

"Interestingly, when NPN constituted 40 percent or less of the ruminally degradable protein in the supplement (i.e. not more than about 10-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in a 38-percent crude protein, cottonseed meal-based supplement), replacing ruminally degradable true protein had little effect on body condition change. These findings demonstrate that more costly protein sources can be replaced without affecting body condition, as long as NPN supplies less than 40 percent of the ruminally degradable protein when the supplement is fed daily to gestating cows. Research from Kansas has indicated that when supplements fed to gestating beef cows contained as much as 60 percent of the ruminally degradable protein as urea (i.e., 14-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in a 30-percent crude protein supplement), there was very limited influence on subsequent calf performance. When supplementing prepartum cows, a conservative target NPN level is 25 percent of the ruminally degradable protein, which would be approximately 33 pounds of urea per ton in a 28-percent crude protein cottonseed meal-based supplement or 43 pounds of urea per ton in a 38-percent crude protein, cottonseed mealbased supplement. The example (table 1) shows that a relative savings in supplement cost of 8 to 12 percent may be achieved when urea replaces 25 percent of the ruminally degradable protein in 28- and 38-percent crude protein supplements formulated using cottonseed meal, wheat middlings, soybean hulls, molasses and urea. It is important to note that limited research is available specifically evaluating NPN inclusion in supplements to beef cows after calving or during the breeding season, so caution should be exercised when formulating NPN-containing supplements for lactating cows. Nevertheless, a conservative target level of NPN in protein supplements to postpartum cows grazing lowquality forage is 15 percent of the ruminally degradable protein. In the example (table 1), this NPN level is achieved by including urea at 20 and 25 pounds per ton in 28- and 38-percent protein supplements, respectively, to yield cost savings of 5 to 7 percent. This would be about 2.9- and 3.6-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in the 28- and 38-percent protein supplements, respectively."

"Level of urea fed. Low levels of urea are utilized more efficiently and with less problems than high levels."
0 x

farmguy
Trail Boss
Trail Boss
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: tubs

Postby farmguy » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:53 am

Ebenezer any thoughts on this tub by a local dealer? thanks farmguy

PURINA® RANGELAND® 38 HI-E TUB
0 x

User avatar
TexasBred
Mentor
Mentor
Posts: 29656
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: tubs

Postby TexasBred » Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:11 pm

Ebenezer wrote:"Interestingly, when NPN constituted 40 percent or less of the ruminally degradable protein in the supplement (i.e. not more than about 10-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in a 38-percent crude protein, cottonseed meal-based supplement), replacing ruminally degradable true protein had little effect on body condition change. These findings demonstrate that more costly protein sources can be replaced without affecting body condition, as long as NPN supplies less than 40 percent of the ruminally degradable protein when the supplement is fed daily to gestating cows. Research from Kansas has indicated that when supplements fed to gestating beef cows contained as much as 60 percent of the ruminally degradable protein as urea (i.e., 14-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in a 30-percent crude protein supplement), there was very limited influence on subsequent calf performance. When supplementing prepartum cows, a conservative target NPN level is 25 percent of the ruminally degradable protein, which would be approximately 33 pounds of urea per ton in a 28-percent crude protein cottonseed meal-based supplement or 43 pounds of urea per ton in a 38-percent crude protein, cottonseed mealbased supplement. The example (table 1) shows that a relative savings in supplement cost of 8 to 12 percent may be achieved when urea replaces 25 percent of the ruminally degradable protein in 28- and 38-percent crude protein supplements formulated using cottonseed meal, wheat middlings, soybean hulls, molasses and urea. It is important to note that limited research is available specifically evaluating NPN inclusion in supplements to beef cows after calving or during the breeding season, so caution should be exercised when formulating NPN-containing supplements for lactating cows. Nevertheless, a conservative target level of NPN in protein supplements to postpartum cows grazing lowquality forage is 15 percent of the ruminally degradable protein. In the example (table 1), this NPN level is achieved by including urea at 20 and 25 pounds per ton in 28- and 38-percent protein supplements, respectively, to yield cost savings of 5 to 7 percent. This would be about 2.9- and 3.6-percent equivalent crude protein from NPN in the 28- and 38-percent protein supplements, respectively."

"Level of urea fed. Low levels of urea are utilized more efficiently and with less problems than high levels."

Nice cut and paste but is true only in a low energy, high forage diet. Urea efficiency is increased significantly in a high TDN, high starch diet.
0 x
A dung beetle walks into a bar, looks around and says "Is this stool taken"????


Return to “Grasses, Pastures and Hay”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests