Cotton County OSU Cooperative Extension Service

06/01/2026

Bull Selection, Growth, Feed Efficiency, and Carcass Outcomes
Paul Beck, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Nutrition Specialist

Bull selection is one of the most important long-term decisions in a cow-calf operation. Sires influence not only the next calf crop, but also the genetics of replacement females retained in the herd. For that reason, selection pressure should match the ranch’s forage resources, cowherd goals, and marketing endpoint.

Research funded by the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Grant 2022-67016-36201 at Oklahoma State University evaluated steer calves sired by Angus bulls selected for either high or moderate yearling weight EPD to produce calves with divergent post-weaning growth potential. Steers were raised in OSU spring- and fall-calving cowherds, weaned, preconditioned for 60 days, and then finished at the Willard Sparks Beef Research Center.

Weaning weights were not affected by the sire genetics, indicating that the extensive range environment was insufficient for full expression of the genetic potential for pre-weaning growth. As expected, calves from high-growth sires gained faster after weaning and were heavier at harvest, with fewer days on feed. This shows that when nutritional limitations are removed the high-growth steers could really show their true potential. The High-growth steers averaged 1,500 pounds at harvest compared with 1,428 for moderate-growth steers. Hot carcass weight averaged 911 pounds for high-growth steers compared with 884 pounds for moderate-growth steers.

With the increased performance came greater feed intake. High-growth steers consumed more feed per day, averaging 31.5 pounds DM/day compared with 27.5 pounds DM/day for moderate-growth steers, resulting in reduced feed efficiency for high-growth steers. Residual feed intake, an efficiency metric that measures the amount of feed consumed above or below expectations based on the level of performance, favored the moderate-growth steers, indicating they consumed less feed than expected for their body weight and gain. In contrast, residual average daily gain, an efficiency metric that measures the amount of gain above or below expectations based on the amount of feed intake, tended to favor high-growth steers. This illustrates that different feed efficiency measurements describe different biological outcomes. More growth does not always mean better efficiency, but it depends on how you measure it.

Carcass quality also differed. Even though backfat thickness and yield grade were similar, moderate-growth steers had greater percentages of carcasses grading Prime and High Choice. This may reflect differences in maturity pattern and nutrient partitioning, with moderate-growth cattle having more opportunity to deposit intramuscular fat when finished to a similar fat endpoint.

High-growth genetics can increase body weight, carcass weight, and reduce days on feed. But they may also increase feed intake and may not improve all measures of efficiency. Growth EPDs should be considered alongside mature size, feed intake, carcass merit, maternal traits, health, and marketing goals. Increased performance is valuable only when it fits the production system’s environment.

05/31/2026

Cattle Facilities and Safety
Mark Z. Johnson, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Breeding Specialist

Profitability in the cow-calf sector over the past several years creates the potential to upgrade cattle working facilities. Good design and layout of pens, chutes and alleyways can lead to improved profit potential in cow-calf operations but requires intentionality and proper planning. Objectives of good cattle working facilities include reducing stress on the animals, increasing the efficiency of labor, and the safety of both cattle and humans alike. Proper facility design and good stockmanship skills are critically important to handling cattle as safely and efficiently as possible. A good working facility, understanding animal behavior and good animal husbandry skills all work in synergy with regard the safe handling of cattle. Consider the following when planning facility upgrades and layout:

- animal behavior
- site selection
- lighting
- drainage
- surface (dirt, rock, concrete)
- number of animals to be worked
- size of animals to be worked
- frequency of use

Effective stockmanship is typically the result of understanding the following aspects of cattle behavior:
- cattle want to see you
- cattle do not like to be alone, they will go to other cattle
- cattle typically have one thought at a time, they are motivated by fear and have a “fight or flight” mentality
- cattle want to remove pressure
- cattle have a flight zone
- cattle have a point of balance

The Human Element
For those of us who work in production agriculture, physical risks are inherent on a daily basis. Agricultural occupations are consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous. An OSU study done by researchers in the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering showed that over 50% of injuries sustained while working cattle were the result of human error. Equipment and facilities were perceived as the cause about 25% of the time. In most cases, a better understanding of how an animal may respond to human interaction and its immediate surroundings will help keep someone from becoming an injury victim. Human errors in judgement are due to a variety of reasons, but are more likely to occur when people are tired, hurried, upset, preoccupied or careless. Remember, the human factor greatly influences the occurrence of life-threatening accidents. Using this information in combination with good facilities and proper cattle handling techniques will reduce the risk of injury.

Chapter 40 of the eighth edition of the OSU Beef Manual is an excellent source of information for producers interested in more information on cattle handling facilities.

How understanding animal behavior, animal vision, flight zone, corral systems and working equipment can make it safe when handling cattle.

05/30/2026

Cattle and Beef Markets from All Directions
Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

The ten days leading up to Memorial Day were very busy and touched on many aspects of cattle and beef markets – with lots of driving.

Days 1-3 The adventure began with travel from Oklahoma to New Mexico. Pasture conditions were very dry, punctuated by numerous wildfires across the Texas Panhandle and in New Mexico. New Mexico is currently reporting 60 percent of pasture and range in poor to very poor condition. The Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) meeting in Las Cruces included, among others, a presentation on cattle and sheep predation losses due to Mexican wolves.

Day 4 The following day, the LMIC group toured the (very quiet) cattle border crossing facility at Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The border has been mostly closed since November 2024. The group included numerous university and agency folks who had not been to the border before. It’s an impressive facility that accounts for roughly 50 percent of Mexican cattle entering the U.S. when it is operational. Presentations on the history and operation of the facility were augmented by comments from the current president of the Union Ganadera Regional de Chihuahua on the impact of the border closure in Mexico and ongoing developments.

Days 5-6 Next was a return to Oklahoma City for the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Spring conference. I was part of a very dynamic panel discussion on U.S. and international cattle and beef markets. Take-home messages in this discussion included the importance of rebuilding the market in China and the vital need to maintain the U.S. – Mexico – Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA) in the upcoming review.

Day 7 This was the one day in the office at OSU to catch up on email. Featured that day was the release of the May Cattle on Feed report showing the first year over year increase in feedlot inventories in 18 months. April placements were up 5.5 percent over last year and marketings were down 10.0 percent year over year. The numbers do not suggest any significant change in feedlot supply fundamentals but some changes in timing with feedlots slightly more front-loaded in the next few months. The day included five media interviews about the COF report and other topics.

Day 8 The day was filled with driving north from Oklahoma, across Kansas to I-80 in Nebraska and turning west. Passing Grand Island brought to mind the JBS plant there and the challenges packers are having due to reduced cattle volume. A few miles west and we passed Lexington, Nebraska – home of the first casualty of prolonged reductions in cattle inventory with the closure earlier this year of the Tyson plant there. Farther west yet was North Platte, home to the new Sustainable Beef packing facility. Nebraska is home to the most commercial cattle slaughter of any state. Approaching Scottsbluff, the dry conditions were evident. Nebraska is currently reporting 83 percent of pasture and range in poor to very poor condition.

Day 9 Pushing west out of Nebraska, we passed through Torrington, Wyoming where the livestock auction has reported unusually large volume sales in recent weeks due to drought liquidation in the region. Wyoming pasture and range conditions are currently reported at 65 percent poor to very poor. Ranges were slightly greener in northern Wyoming compared to most of the eastern part of the state.

Day 10 Memorial Day in Montana. The kickoff to summer grilling – with boxed beef prices this week at $392.65/cwt., up 9.3 percent compared to the same time last year. The boxed beef cutout has averaged 14.8 percent higher year over year every week thus far in 2026. Beef demand continues to be very robust and resilient, which combines with the multi-decade low in cattle inventories to support unprecedented cattle and beef markets.

I have driven about 3100 miles the last ten days with a wide range of cattle industry sights and conditions from the Mexican border almost to the Canadian border. I’m headed to the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) meeting in Boise, Idaho next week before returning to Oklahoma.

05/28/2026

Legume Seed Inoculants
Mike Trammell
Southeast Area Agronomy Specialist

The air we breathe contains more than 78 percent nitrogen in the form of nitrogen gas (N2). Legumes have the unique ability to form a symbiotic relationship with rhizobia (Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium) bacteria to convert atmospheric nitrogen gas (N2) to ammonia nitrogen, a form usable by plants. This relationship occurs when Rhizobium bacteria invade plant root hairs and multiply in the outer root tissue forming nodules. Some legumes, such as alfalfa, can produce enough ammonia to supply all of the plants’ nitrogen (N) needs and provide N needs for surrounding plants, like grasses thus reducing or eliminating N fertilization. In return, the plant supplies energy to the bacteria from photosynthesis.
What is Inoculation
Legume inoculation is the process of introducing commercially prepared sources of rhizobia bacteria to promote N fixation. This usually is done by applying inoculum directly to the seed prior to planting, or by placing the inoculum into the seed furrow during planting. If the legume crop was grown in the field previously, there is a good chance that the soil already contains the correct rhizobia species for nodulation. However, native rhizobia populations found in soil often are less effective in N fixation potential. Commercial inoculants are composed of rhizobia strains selected for maximum fixation potential.
Selecting the Correct Inoculant
Each legume species requires a specific species and strain of rhizobia. For example, the rhizobia species that nodulates white clover will not nodulate cowpea or soybean. When selecting inoculum, consult your supplier and read the package label to be sure you select the correct inoculum for the crop. Some legume seeds come preincoculated. However, it is important not to confuse seed inoculation with seed treatment. Most seed disinfectants, fungicides, and fertilizers can be toxic to rhizobia bacteria. Do not apply inoculum to seeds that are treated with a bactericide. Although some rhizobia species are slightly tolerant to certain chemical compounds, inoculating chemically treated legume seed requires special precautions. Check with the inoculum manufacturer regarding combining products.
Proper Storage of Inoculum
Inoculum contains living bacteria that survive on an organic carrier such as peat. The bacterial population declines over time, even under proper storage conditions. Most inoculum manufacturers put an expiration date on the package. Do not purchase outdated inoculum. Optimum storage conditions for peat-base inoculum are under refrigeration. Do not freeze peat-based inoculant. If it does freeze, do not leave it frozen any longer than necessary. Do not leave inoculants in direct sunlight. Ultraviolet rays and heat will kill the bacteria. Producers should only purchase the amount of inoculum or preinoculated seed needed for one planting season. When treating seed on farm, avoid treating more seed than can be planted in one day. Inoculant packages provide information regarding the amount of seed that can be treated with a measured amount of inoculum.
Procedure for Inoculation of 25 Pounds of Legume Seed
1. Mix 2 ounces of syrup or molasses with 8 ounces of water or mix 1 cup of sugar with 2 cups of water or just use milk. Do not use cola drinks or other carbonated beverages. The pH of such beverages is near 2.0 and harmful to rhizobia.
2. Add about 1/3 bag of fresh inoculant (about 2 ounces) to about 1 cup of the sticking agents. Mix to form a black slurry.
3. Place 25 pounds of seed in a tub or similar container.
4. Add the slurry (6 to 7 ounces) to the seed in the tub and thoroughly mix. Be sure to coat every seed. Add the remainder of the bag of dry inoculant to coat and dry the seeds. This inoculant rate may be several times the manufacturer’s recommended rate of inoculum.
5. Allow seeds to dry in the shade. To speed the drying process, add more inoculant or a small amount of finely ground (passing 200 mesh sieve) limestone. Do not use burnt, hydrated, slake, or builder’s lime.
6. Plant inoculated seed as soon as possible or keep in cool, shaded conditions for no longer than one to three days. Do not mix inoculated seed with fertilizer. The salts and acids in the fertilizer will kill the rhizobia.

Inoculants for Common Forage Legumes
Alfalfa Group (Rhizobium meliloti)
Alfalfa, Black medic, Burr clover (medic), Button clover (medic), Sweet clovers (yellow and white)

Cowpea Group (Bradyrhizobium japonicim)
Alyce clover, Cowpea, Peanut, Lespedeza

Pea and Vetch Group (Rhizobium leguminosarum)
Common vetch, Hairy vetch, Winter peas

Trefoil (Rhizobium loti)
Birdsfoot trefoil
Clover Group (Rhizobium trifolii)
Clover I: Berseem clover, crimson clover, Lappa clover, Persian clover, and Rose clover.
Clover II: Rose clover and Subterranean clover
Clover III: Alsike clover, Ball clover, Hop clover, Ladino clover, Red and White clover.
Clover IV: Arrowleaf clover
Bean (Rhizobium japonicum)
Soybean

A description of the forage legume varieties adapted and used in Oklahoma along with their growing specifications.

05/25/2026

Our office will be closed today as we remember and honor our nation’s heroes. We will reopen Tuesday.

05/22/2026

In observance of Memorial Day, our office will be closed Monday, May 25. Wishing everyone a safe holiday weekend as we remember those who served and sacrificed for our freedom. We will resume normal business hours on Tuesday, May 26.

05/19/2026

Evolving Thoughts on Summer Mineral Intake
Dana Zook, NW OK Area Livestock Specialist

I would say, “Summer’s here!” but as I write this article on May 6th, morning temps were barely 50 degrees. I’m in my flannel shirt this morning but pushing back on the unseasonably cold temperatures to write about a summer topic dealing with mineral intake. Mineral supplementation seems to be an obvious, over-addressed topic however recent research out of Mississippi brings to light surprising results on mineral intake in mature beef cows. It’s a study that every cattle producer should ponder as minerals are offered this summer.

To begin with, minerals are most commonly offered to cattle either by hand-feeding a mineral containing ration or providing a mineral supplement free-choice. Incorporating minerals in a diet that is hand-fed provides the most accurate mineral intake. On the other hand, providing minerals free choice is convenient for producers who have cattle on pasture, and may not necessarily be feeding every day. Mineral intakes within these two systems can be starkly different and Mississippi State researchers revealed the challenges that can come with inconsistent intakes.

In this study, Dr. Isaac Jumper and others evaluated consumption of chlortetracycline (CTC)-medicated mineral to gestating Angus-Charolais cross commercial cows on pasture in Mississippi. To give some clarity, it is common to use free-choice mineral supplements as a vehicle to deliver a variety of medications to cattle on pasture (McDowell. 1996, Arthington and Ranches. 2021, and Tait and Fisher. 1996). In this study CTC was the medication utilized within the mineral to minimize the symptoms of Anaplasmosis. Cows ranged in age from 3-17 years but averaged 6 years of age. While on the study, cows grazed a blend on standing forages containing fescue, dallis grass, and common bermuda. These cows were split into three groups and first fed a corn distillers + salt mixture for 27 days to adapt the animals to the Smart Feeder. After this adaptation period, the DDG mixture within the Smart Feeder was instead filled with CTC medicated commercial mineral and fed for 46 days. Radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on each animal were used to track mineral consumption using a Smart Feeder.

The combination of the RFID tags with the Smart Feeder revealed interesting results. During the 27-day adaption period (DDG+Salt), 76.3% of cattle visited the mineral feeder daily. In contrast, during the 46-day mineral feeding portion of the trial, only 27% of cows visited the feeder daily. I wasn’t surprised to read that cattle also consumed more of the DDG blend on each visit than the CTC mineral. In fact, during the 46-day CTC mineral period, the average consumption was only 0.09 pounds which is well below the typically recommended consumption rate of 0.25 pounds (or 4oz.). Because of this poor consumption level, CTC was consumed well below the labeled rate.

Target consumption for minerals was to provide 1.1 mg CTC/kg bodyweight per day, and cattle only consumed the labeled rate of CTC on average 6.4 days out of the 46 days in the trial period. This brings to question the efficacy of this level of CTC and the compliance with the label. The reality is that free choice feeding rarely leads to accurate consumption – think hay consumption and grain feeding in a self-feeder. Mineral is the same way, but convenience is important to an industry with an ever-growing to-do list. Is there a solution here? I’m not sure but I know that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! I challenge producers to look at your mineral label and track mineral consumption this summer. Extension has a handy mineral rack card that allows producers to easily track each time mineral is fed. Tracking mineral can help you evaluate mineral consumption but also help ensure cattle are accurately consuming those very important additives for Anaplasmosis and Fly control. Reach out to your county educator for help evaluating mineral consumption. We are here to help!

05/18/2026

Please note that our May OHCE class has been cancelled, but we look forward to welcoming you back in June! 🌟

05/17/2026

Samonella in Backyard Poultry 2026
Barry Whitworth, DVM, MPH, Senior Extension Specialist Department of Animal & Food Sciences at the Freguson College of Agriculture Oklahoma State University

This is the time of year when many backyard poultry enthusiasts are excited to welcome new chicks to their flocks. Some producers hatch their own chicks, while others purchase chicks from local farm and garden centers during their annual “chick days.” Some producers’ chicks arrive by mail from hatcheries across the United States. This is always an exciting time. Unfortunately, another problem seems to coincide with the arrival of new chickens: Salmonella outbreaks in humans.

On April 23, 2026, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the multistate investigation of Salmonella infections linked to backyard poultry. At the time of the writing of this article, 34 individuals have been diagnosed with Salmonella Saintpaul in 13 states. It should be kept in mind that the CDC believes that for every 1 Salmonella case reported 29 cases go unreported. Of the 34 reported cases, 13 of the individuals have required hospitalization. No deaths have been reported. The age range of those infected range between less than 1 to 79 years of age. Currently, Oklahoma has not reported a case.
Chickens, ducks, and other poultry can carry the Salmonella organism. The bacteria do not normally make birds sick, but when people accidentally ingest the organism, severe illness may occur. The bacteria are found in poultry droppings and can also be present on the birds’ bodies. Salmonella can contaminate cages, coops, feed and water dishes, and the areas where birds roam. People may become infected when handling poultry, entering poultry areas, handling equipment associated with poultry, or gathering eggs.

Salmonella infections in humans affect the digestive tract. Typical clinical signs include diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and abdominal cramps. If the infection goes from the intestinal tract to the bloodstream, the disease usually becomes more severe. Most people with severe infections will require hospitalization.

According to the CDC, children tend to be overrepresented in Salmonella infections associated with backyard poultry. From 1990 to 2014, Salmonella infections linked to backyard poultry in children less than 5 years of age accounted for 31% of cases and 42% of cases occurred in children less than 10 years of age. During the current outbreak, 41% percent of those infected are less than 5 years old.
Although there are many sources of Salmonella contamination, animal-contact Salmonella infections result in more young people being hospitalized than food borne infections. This indicates that children need to be carefully monitored when around poultry. Other groups that should be cautious around poultry include people over the age of 65, women pregnant, and people with a compromised immune system.
There are two main reasons children may be at higher risk for developing Salmonella infections from backyard poultry. One reason is that children’s immune systems are not fully developed. The other is children typically have poor hand hygiene practices. One practice that might expose young children to Salmonella organisms is keeping chickens inside the home. During the 2015 outbreak associated with backyard poultry, the CDC reported that 41% of those questioned indicated that they kept baby poultry indoors. Basler’s analysis reported that 61% (227/373) of all people reported getting Salmonella from backyard poultry had touched baby birds. Additionally, 49% (196/400) reported snuggling baby birds while 13% (53/400) admitted to kissing baby birds. Children should be discouraged from engaging in these practices.
Parents and leaders overseeing 4H or FFA poultry projects must ensure that children and young people wash their hands after contact with poultry. The following are some suggestions to reduce the risk of Salmonella infections:
• Wash hands with soap and water after having any contact with poultry or any area where poultry is located. If soap is unavailable, use a hand sanitizer.
• Do not allow poultry to enter areas where food and drinks are prepared, served, and stored.
• Do not eat or drink where poultry is located.
• Cook eggs thoroughly.
• Clean poultry-related equipment outdoors.
Having chickens in the backyard or exhibiting poultry at the county fair can be extremely rewarding experiences. However, poultry owners should be aware of the potential for Salmonella infection and always practice good hygiene. For more information on backyard poultry, contact your local Oklahoma State University Extension Educator. For more information on Salmonella in poultry, visit the CDC Salmonella at https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks/saintpaul-04-26/index.html.

References
Basler, C., Nguyen, T. A., Anderson, T. C., Hancock, T., & Behravesh, C. B. (2016). Outbreaks of human Salmonella infections associated with live poultry, United States, 1990–2014. Emerging infectious diseases, 22(10), 1705.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Four Multistate Outbreaks of Salmonella Infections Linked to Contact with Live Poultry in Backyard Flocks. Atlanta, GA: Us Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-07-15/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). 2019: Outbreaks of Salmonella Infections linked to Backyard Poultry. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/backyardpoultry-05-19/
Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M. A., Roy, S. L., ... & Griffin, P. M. (2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerging infectious diseases, 17(1), 7.

Information about multistate Salmonella outbreak linked to backyard poultry.

05/16/2026

Selecting the Right Calving Season for Your Ranch
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Nutrition Specialist

One of the most important management decisions in a cow/calf operation is determining when cows should calve. Yet, there is no single “best” calving season for every ranch. The ideal system depends on forage resources, labor availability, weather patterns, marketing plans, and overall management goals. Regardless of whether producers choose spring calving, fall calving, or even a combination of both, having a defined and controlled calving season is one of the most effective ways to improve efficiency and profitability.

Research and standardized performance analysis (SPA) data collected from nearly 400 herds in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico demonstrated that longer breeding seasons increased cost of production. In fact, each additional day in the breeding season increased cost per hundredweight of calf weaned. Herds that reduced breeding seasons from year-round exposure to approximately 75 days substantially lowered production costs while also improving calf uniformity. Uniform groups of calves are generally worth more at sale time because buyers prefer cattle that are similar in age, size, and management background.

Controlled breeding and calving seasons also simplify management. Vaccination schedules, nutritional management, pregnancy diagnosis, weaning, and marketing can all be streamlined when cows calve within a relatively short window. In contrast, year-round calving often creates nutritional and labor challenges because cows are in different stages of production simultaneously.

Spring calving remains the most common system in Oklahoma and much of the Southern Plains. One advantage of spring calving is that cows are typically dry (not producing milk) and pregnant during winter feeding. The dry, gestating period represents lower nutritional requirements compared to post-calving when cows are producing milk. Thus, wintering costs are generally lower for spring-calving cows. Calving too early (January and February) in Oklahoma offsets some of this advantage.

Spring-calving systems are not without challenges. Severe late-winter and early-spring storms can result in newborn calf losses. Another disadvantage is that cows can slip in body condition during early spring forage green up. They tend to burn a lot of energy “chasing” bits of tender green forage and ignore available low-quality standing forage or hay provided, resulting in inadequate forage intake and weight loss. This challenge is exacerbated when the early green up period coincides with peak lactation. Finally, delaying the calving season too long exposes females and herd sires to extreme late-summer heat stress during the breeding season.

Fall-calving systems offer a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Fall-calving cows are usually in excellent body condition at calving because they have recovered body reserves during summer grazing. Calves are also generally older and heavier at weaning. However, on most ranch operations in Oklahoma, winter supplementation costs are greater in fall-calving cows. Increased nutrient requirements for lactation in combination with lower quality winter forage or hay results in a dramatic gap in nutrient supply. Without proper adjustments in the nutritional program, cows can experience rapid weight and body conditions loss during the breeding season. In addition, if calving starts too early, extreme heat during late summer can lead to weak or even stillborn calves.

Heat stress deserves increasing attention in Southern beef systems. Breeding cattle during periods of high heat and humidity can reduce conception rates, lengthen the postpartum interval, and negatively impact bull fertility. In some regions, pregnancy rates may decline substantially when cows are bred during late July through early September. Adjusting breeding and calving seasons to avoid predictable periods of extreme heat may improve reproductive performance.

Regardless of calving season, body condition management remains critical. Mature cows should generally calve in a body condition score (BCS) of approximately 5, while first-calf heifers should be closer to a BCS 6. Long-term data consistently show that pregnancy rates decline dramatically in thin cows. Producers should evaluate whether their calving season aligns with forage availability and allows cows to maintain adequate body condition economically. Adoption of synchronization and artificial insemination (AI) is gradually increasing in the commercial beef cattle operations. Recent research indicates that pregnancy rates to AI are improved when cows are slightly gaining weight and condition during the breeding season. This is most economically achieved through timing of the calving season and selection for cattle that are a good match to the forage system.

There are also tradeoffs between operating one calving season versus two. A single calving season simplifies management and creates larger, more uniform groups of calves to market. Multiple calving seasons may spread marketing risk and increase bull utilization, but they also complicate labor, nutrition, and herd health programs.

Ultimately, the “best” calving season is the one that best matches the ranch environment and available resources. Producers should design systems that minimize purchased feed, maintain reproductive efficiency, and fit local forage resources.

Dr. David Lalman discusses calving Season & Cow Efficiency at the 2019 OSU Cow/Calf Bootcamp in Ada, OK on April 15-17, 2019 at

Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Specialist Dave Lalman discusses Calving Season & Cow Efficiency at the 2019 OSU Cow/Calf Bootcamp in Ada, OK on Apr...