The cattle industry is inherently volatile and subject to the unpredictable forces of weather, market prices, and input costs. To navigate these uncertainties, beef producers must adopt resilient strategies that ensure long-term profitability and sustainability. One key approach is diversifying grazing enterprises to reduce dependence on hay feeding.

At the core of a resilient grazing enterprise is the ability to identify overvalued and undervalued feedstuffs. Feed costs constitute a significant portion of beef cattle production expenses and can make or break profitability. The fundamental principle is that value should be based on the energy and protein content of a feed rather than tradition or convenience.

In my opinion, grass hay is consistently overvalued. While it remains a widely used feedstuff, the cost of production, storage, and feeding often outweighs its nutrient profile, especially in systems where farmers seek to maximize yield at the cost of nutrient quality. In Missouri, mixed grass hay cut in May has a greater total digestible nutrient (TDN) concentration (55% to 57% TDN) versus hay cut in July (50% TDN). This slight difference can have significant implications — May-cut hay meets the energy demands of a late-gestation pregnant cow, while July-cut hay may lead to an energy deficit, potentially affecting fetal development and cow condition.

For many cattle producers, hay production is a tough habit to break. However, analyzing the true costs of hay relative to grazing paints a stark picture. These values are based on the University of Missouri Mixed Grass Hay Planning Budget and my estimate of cash rental rate across a broad swath of fescue pastures in Missouri.

• Cost of haying: Producing 6,000 pounds of hay per acre involves expenses related to fertilizer, fuel, labor, equipment depreciation, and storage. The cost per acre reported is $323.89, which translates to approximately $53.98 per 1,000-pound bale.

• Cost of grazing: On the other hand, cash rental rate of pasture is $75 per acre with an estimated 3 tons of forage production per acre. Under continuous grazing, cattle utilize only 30% of available forage, yielding 1,800 pounds per acre at a cost of $41.67 per 1,000 pounds of grazed forage.

Grazing pays

Proper grazing management significantly enhances forage utilization, reducing reliance on external feed sources. By boosting harvest efficiency from 30% to 50%, the cost per 1,000 pounds of grazed forage drops to $25, making it an even more attractive alternative to hay.

Every month of hay feeding that is replaced by management-intensive grazing saves $28.98 per cow per year under the conditions of this example. Moving from a 90-day hay feeding season to a 365-day grazing operation would save $86.94 per cow per year. Note, this value does not incorporate hay lost due to storage and feeding losses. Thus, it is conceivable that replacing haying with grazing will save more than $86.94 per cow per year.

While cow-calf operations remain the backbone of many beef enterprises, they are vulnerable to environmental and market fluctuations. One of the fundamental challenges is that cows require feed 365 days per year, yet forage production is seasonal. Second, many grazing systems are functional group monocultures, such as tall fescue-clover pastures in Missouri.

Many operations allocate their entire carrying capacity to cow-calf production, leaving them exposed to drought risks. When forage availability declines, producers must either purchase expensive supplemental feed or reduce herd size. This rigid business model limits adaptability and financial stability. No one wants to “sell low and buy high,” but that is often the harsh reality producers face during a drought. Either buy hay, which has gone up in price due to limited availability, or sell cows in a depressed market.

Hedge your bets

It is common to discuss acres per head, which is referred to as stocking rate. I used the term “carrying capacity” in the paragraph above. Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum stocking rate that can be applied over time without deterioration of the grazing land. The crux of sustainable beef production should be to bring forage demands of your livestock enterprise in alignment with the carrying capacity of your land, rather than rigidly applying a single stocking rate to a single enterprise across your land.

A promising strategy to address forage imbalances and enhance drought resilience is to devote a portion of your carrying capacity to flexible grazing units. This approach involves adjusting stocking rates based on seasonal forage availability rather than maintaining a fixed number of cows year-round.

This is how I envision incorporating flexible grazing units on a Missouri farm that has historically been stocked with 100 cows at 3 acres per cow. First, the 100-cow herd would be reduced to 50 cows year-round. The farmer has 150 acres available for a flexible grazing operation. In the spring, the farmer purchases 225 head of 500- to 600-pound stocker cattle to graze from April 1 to July 1 on a portion of the land. The stockers leave the farm after July 1 as forage growth rate of tall fescue slows during the summer months. Therefore, the farm is stocked at 6 acres per cow year-round, and instead of harvesting the excess spring forage as dry hay, another class of livestock harvests high-quality spring growth not used by cows. Fall forage growth is stockpiled, but the stockpile feeds half the cows as before, which should eliminate the need for winter hay feeding.

My lab’s research has consistently demonstrated the ability of stocker cattle in a system described above to produce 350 pounds of beef per acre grazed. If I replace 50 cows producing 500-pound calves with those stockers, I have given up 25,000 pounds of live weight gain. The 225 stockers will produce approximately 175 pounds of gain per head in the system described above, or 39,375 pounds total live weight gain. The stocker system raises farm beef production by 14,375 pounds and reduces hay feeding costs by $86.94 per cow per year. The 50 culled cows would have to wean calves weighing 788 pounds to produce the same amount of live weight gain as the stocker system.

Other options exist

Incorporating flexible grazing units improves drought resilience because an operation can change the number of stockers purchased each year. If the fall and winter have below-average precipitation or long-range forecasts during spring are pessimistic, bring fewer stockers onto the farm. Similarly, if below-average precipitation is received in April and May, consider removing the stockers early to preserve forage for the cow herd. This effectively reduces pasture stocking by 50%, minimizing the need to purchase hay and sell cows during drought conditions.

Bringing stocker cattle into your operation is not the only option for flexible grazing units. Replacement heifers, custom grazing cows for another operation, or even an alternative species such as sheep or goats could be utilized to harvest spring forage grown beyond what is needed by the 50-cow herd in the example above. The broader concept is to have a “set” herd that remains on the operation year-round and a “flex” herd that comes and goes with changes in forage availability.

Building resilience in beef cattle enterprises requires a shift in mindset — away from rigid, hay-dependent systems and toward dynamic stocking rate strategies. Do not allocate 100% of your operation’s carrying capacity to a single enterprise. Optimize grazing efficiency by leveraging flexible grazing units through dynamic stocking approaches.

This article appeared in the April/May 2025 issue of Hay & Forage Grower on page 16-17.

Not a subscriber?Click to get the print magazine.