Posts

This article was originally published in The Ohio Farmer followed by a post on the Ohio Beef Cattle Letter which can be found here.

– John F. Grimes, OSU Extension Beef Coordinator

There is no doubt that in nearly every aspect of life, change is inevitable. You don’t have to look too hard to find examples of this in everyday life. Changes such as automated steering in farm equipment, self-driving cars, the home delivery of meal kits, “smart” phones, DNA tests in humans and animals to identify genetic traits and defects, Facebook, and YouTube are a few of the changes that have impacted countless lives since the turn of the century. These changes remind me of the phrase that goes “Not all change is progress but progress is certainly change!”

The cow-calf sector of the beef industry is currently undergoing significant change. In a period of less than five years, the herd will grow from a historic low of 29 million cows in 2014 to an expected 32 million cows by the beginning of 2018. It appears that the bulk of herd expansion has already occurred and numbers will stabilize somewhat for the short to intermediate term. However, the fact remains that the nation’s larger cowherd is going to produce a larger calf crop. We are seeing the time-tested laws of supply and demand kick in as prices of all classes of cattle have moderated from the record highs of 2014 and 2015.

What can the cow-calf producer do to combat the reality of downward price trends that we will likely experience? Are you going to be willing to change your business model or will you continue to do things the way you always have and hope for a positive result? What can the producer do to maintain and potentially expand their access to markets in the future?

Producers need to be willing to implement practices that can add value to their calf crop. The market is currently sending a clear message that buyers are demanding more for their purchasing dollars. Significant discounts are occurring in the market place for feeder calves that are not weaned 45-60 days, castrated & healed, dehorned, and given 2 rounds of a modified live vaccine for the shipping fever complex. In 2019, a major restaurant chain is going to start requiring their suppliers to be Beef Quality Assurance certified. This will in turn be pushed down to the producer level. Exports to China and other countries are going to require age and source verification. These are growing realities for cow-calf producers if they want access to as many markets as possible.

One of the most highly debated subjects in the industry relates to weaning management of calves. Do you sell your calves straight off the cow or do you implement some type of weaning and preconditioning program? The common excuses given for not weaning prior to sale include a lack of facilities, a lack of time, or the belief that the seller does not get paid for the extra expense of weaning and preconditioning programs. While these reasons may have had some validity in the past, buyers today are less willing to take the risk of buying higher stress cattle with little or no health and management history. They may be willing to buy a “bawling” calf at the weekly auction but it will be at a discounted price.

Consider utilizing one of the VAC-45 type programs where calves are weaned for at least 45 days, bunk broke, and follow a recommended vaccination program. These calves should be identified with a traceable ear tag for source and age verification programs. Also don’t overlook the basic management practices of castration, dehorning, and parasite control. The producer that is willing to implement these various management strategies will be on their way to becoming a source of “reputation” feeder cattle.

Even purebred beef cattle associations are taking measures to help add value or identify quality differences in feeder cattle. Several major breeds are promoting a variety of programs targeted at identifying value differences amongst feeder cattle and providing source verification information for producers who purchase bulls from their respective breeds. This information will hopefully add value to the bull customer’s calves in the eyes of feeder calf purchasers.

If you have a smaller number of calves, marketing can be very challenging. Large feedlots in the Midwest like to purchase similar color, weight and sex in semi-load lots of approximately 48,000 lbs. They won’t be buying 5-10 head at a time if at all possible. If you aren’t already, I suggest that you visit with your local livestock marketing agent to provide them with all the information and history on your calves. Work with any other local producers with similar genetics and management to market larger groups of calves. Seek out any feedlots in your area to try any direct marketing options.

If I haven’t convinced you that there are significant changes coming in feeder calf marketing, please ponder the following hypothetical situation. If you (the commercial cow-calf operator) suddenly became a feedlot operator, would you expose your enterprise to greater financial risk by purchasing feeder calves that were not weaned, not vaccinated, and with no other genetic or management history? Feeder calves selling for $750 – $1,000 per head become very expensive when they find their way to a sick pen or become death loss.

Cow-calf producers are facing new economic realities in the immediate future. The producers that will be successful in the long-term must be willing to change their management practices as dictated by the current economy. Those unwilling to do so face an uphill battle to stay viable in the beef industry.

The Challenge of Cow Size

– Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist, NDSU Extension Service

Size has been the common denominator in revenue generation for cow-calf, backgrounding and feedlot operators.

The process of raising cattle has been quite steady, with a general acknowledgment that growth is key to success.

That is a true statement because calf weight, the product of the cow-calf producer, and carcass weight, the product of the feedlot, drive total dollars. What also is true is that bigger cows producer bigger calves, but the discussion becomes clouded when factoring mature cow size into the discussion.

Often, cow size discussions open debate rather than offer further understanding of the issue. Dollars generated as take-home pay depend on net return above expenses, labor and management and, ultimately, offer a return on assets, which are not totally driven by the physical growth of the calf. The challenge is realizing that this issue has three distinct players: the cow, the bull and the calf, which have grown in physical size.

The impact on the maternal and paternal animals and progeny is simply larger cattle. Calf growth, at least among those harvested, is a function of time. Bulls are selected to produce progeny that fit market specifications, so mission accomplished. The same is true for the cows, except herds have more cows and they must be maintained year-around.

The cow is the progenitor and the caregiver for the progeny, which means she carries the bulk of the expenses. As a result, cost control and production efficiency must come from the cow. Heifers (future cows) are a byproduct of a very fine-tuned steer production system. Thus the dilemma: How are the cows replaced and appropriately sized if they are simply the counterpart of fast-growing steers?

Producers need to be cognizant as expenses creep upward while trying to maintain an ever-increasing size of the maternal unit, the cow. The solution is finding moderately sized cows that produce steers that meet current market desires and specifications.

Simply put, cattle are not near their maximum capacity for growth and mature size. Cattle simply will keep getting bigger. Somewhere, producers must implement breeding systems that will develop cattle that moderate maternal growth.

Let’s focus on 300 pounds of cow rather than the actual size of the cow. So regardless of the size of a cow, the issue for the day is 300 pounds of cow weight.

What does that mean, and how does 300 pounds of additional cow weight impact beef production? The Dickinson Research Extension Center has focused on two cow herds that differ in mature weight by 300 pounds. The numbers are not exact, but the principle is there. Let’s just say, as a beef producer, one can decide to add or subtract 300 pounds to the mature weight of the cow herd.

What’s the impact? For the past three years, the center has been feeding heifers individually to get a handle on the difference between the calves from large-framed cows and smaller-framed cows. The heifers’ daily diets have been the same.

Essentially, the heifers have been eating approximately 2.2 percent of their body weight, so let’s assume these heifers will continue to eat 2.2 percent of their body weight for their productive lives. Feed consumption will change through time, but again, let’s not get lost in the decimal places; the point is 300 pounds of mature weight.

So the extra 300 pounds times 2.2 percent is 6.6 pounds of feed per day. In a year, 6.6 pounds times 365 days means 2,409 pounds of feed may be consumed to sustain the extra 300 pounds of mature cow weight.

Let’s review the two cow sizes at the center. Based on total cow weight, a 1,400-pound cow would consume 30.8 pounds a day, or 11,242 pounds per year. In four years, the cow would have consumed 44,968 pounds of feed.

The 1,100-pound cow would have consumed 24.2 pounds per day, or 8,833 pounds per year. In four years, the cow would have consumed 35,332 pounds of feed, or 9,636 pounds less than the 1,400-pound cow.

That 9,636 pounds of feed directly relates to the 9,636 pounds of extra feed needed to add 300 pounds of mature weight to a cow. In simple terms, reducing cow size 300 pounds saves enough feed to support one additional cow for four years.

Let me repeat: If the center has 44,968 pounds of feed, the producer could feed four 1,400-pound cows or five 1,100-pound cows. By lowering cow size 300 pounds, a producer can support an extra cow with roughly the same amount of feed every four years.

Yes, cattle growth is important, but controlling expenses is as well. The actual size of cow is not as critical as the concept of simply lowering cow weight to lower expenses. At the same time, those 20 percent more cows will offer 20 percent more calves, the real benefit of trying to lower cow size within a herd.

What is the right cow size? The answer will vary, but think about it. The impact is real.

May you find all your ear tags.