|
March 2009 |
 |
 |
|
Beef Cattle Newsletter
Comments from Jim:
I hope this newsletter finds each of you enjoying a successful calving season. This edition of Over the Wire will summarize my talk on strategies for surviving these tough economic times that was presented at the Prairie Area Beef School in Cottonwood. This letter will deal with the cost side of the equation. The next newsletter will look at maximizing income opportunities. Also, please see the enclosed flyer for the WSU Beef School that will be held in Clarkston on March 23rd. Feel free to call me if you have questions on this program. Good luck with your spring work and hopefully we will have plenty of moisture which will produce abundant grass this summer. Sincerely,
Jim Church
University of Idaho
Extension Educator, Animal Science
Tough Economic Times Call For Tough Ranch Managers
There is no question that it is a tough time to be in the cow-calf business. Record high production costs coupled with a softening calf market creates a situation where even a person like John Wayne would be scratching his head wondering what to do. Tough times are not a new thing in the cattle business. We have had big swings in profits and losses over the years. Currently the cattle industry is in a survival mode with predictions that the next couple of years will result in losses for the cow-calf producer. However, I am an optimist and think that the industry is in for better times if we can get through this difficult stretch. Cowherd Inventory My optimism is based on the economic principle of supply and demand. The US cowherd numbers are the smallest they have been since the early 1960’s. In 2009, the estimated number of beef cows in this country will be 32 million head. That is down from a high in 1982 of over 39 million head. We have lost over 7 million head of beef cows in 25 years and a large number of producers. Total beef production has not dropped significantly due to the increase in carcass weights, but as total numbers decline, there will come a time where the supply will not meet the demand. In turn, prices should increase for producers. When this will occur is anyone’s guess. The cattle industry is made up of very strong individuals who have the ability to adapt. That adaptability will have to be put into practice as we move forward. We will have to be willing to take a close look at our production costs and income opportunities and make the necessary management changes in order to stay in business. Feed Costs If we analyze our operations for efficiency, we have to start with winter feed costs. This is a variable cost that amounts to over 60 percent of the cost of owning a cow each year. So how can this cost be lowered? According to Dr. Jason Ahola, University of Idaho Extension Beef Specialist, producers need to, “Make the cows work for you”. In order to make the cows do the work, Dr. Ahola suggests that the cows need to harvest more of their own feed. Producers need to somehow reduce the amount of iron and fuel it takes to get cattle fed. The grazing period needs to be extended during the late fall and early winter. In the fall of 2008 with high fuel prices, the costs associated with harvesting, hauling and feeding hay were $66 to $99 per ton above the value of standing forage. This cost can be reduced if cows harvest the feed themselves. Of course in most regions of north central Idaho, it is impossible for cows to winter out on range. However, if the grazing period can be extended by any length of time, feed costs will be lowered. Extend the Grazing Season There are some options for producers to look at in regards to extending the grazing period in the fall which will lower winter feed costs. Stockpiling perennial forages for grazing in the fall is an idea that will accomplish that goal. Producers will need to have enough pasture to defer grazing on part of it for fall use, or have a well designed rotational grazing system, that allows for deferred grazing. Graze Crop Aftermath Grazing crop residues or crop aftermath in the fall is another way to extend the grazing period. These forages are usually high in fiber and low in protein, but with proper protein supplementation, crop residues provide adequate nutrition for spring calving cows. Most wheat and barley fields in the region no longer are fenced, but there are many new electric fence options which producers can use to inexpensively fence a field to allow for grazing. Seeding fields with a forage crop for late fall grazing is another option that can work to extend the grazing season if there is sufficient fall moisture or irrigation. Not many producers in this area have the luxury of irrigation, but if there is a sub-irrigated area, or if there is adequate soil moisture in August, seeding a forage crop for later grazing should not be completely ruled out. Analyze Feeding Method The feeding method used can also influence winter feed costs especially in the amount of hay that is wasted. Research conducted at the University of Missouri showed that wasted hay can range from 10 to 45 percent depending on the feeding method. Limit feeding cows in feed bunks is most efficient with the average waste of 10 percent. Spreading the hay on the ground causes the most waste approaching 45 percent. Also, cows will eat 20 to 30 percent more than they need if fed free choice. Most people in this region feed hay in big round bale feeders. Feeding only a one day supply will lower overeating waste by 15 percent. With hay as high as it is, anything that can be done to lower waste will lower the winter feed costs. Feed According to BCS Another feed cost saving management practice is feeding cows based on body condition score. If thin cows can be separated from fat cows, and these two groups fed according to their needs, money can be saved. A fat cow doesn’t need the same nutrition as a thin cow. She can get by on less feed. Targeting a body condition score of 5 should be the goal. This practice may be difficult if there is only one winter feeding area for the cows. Cull Poor Performers Additional costs can be saved by culling poor performers. Everyone in the cow-calf business should develop a culling criteria and follow it closely. The economically important traits that need to be selected and retained in the herd are: reproduction; functionality and production. Under reproduction, heifers should calve at age two and raise a calf to weaning. Cows should rebreed and calve every 365 days and raise a calf to weaning. Any variation from this criteria should result in a free trip to town for the cow. In the functionality area, cows have to be sound in their mouth, eyes, feet, legs and udder. Any unsound cows should be culled to remove potential unnecessary costs. The production criteria should require a cow to wean off a calf that meets a weight goal set by the manager. A good target would be 50 percent of the cow’s body weight. According to research conducted by Bob Loucks, UI Extension Educator emeritus in 1991, high profit herds in the Salmon, Idaho area retained enough replacements to replace 18 to 22 percent of the cowherd. Low profit herds retained just 11 percent. High profit herds follow are strict culling program and get rid of problem cows and replace them with genetically superior replacements. Summary: Cost saving strategies are just one part of the equation that producers need to study in their business plan. The other side of the equation is the income side. In my next column I will address how producers can look for additional income opportunities in their operation. |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 09 March 2009 21:48 |
|
|
North Idaho Grazing Conference |
|
|
|
The Annual North Idaho Grazing Conference is scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2009 at the Conference Center on the campus of Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston. Registration and the Trade Show will start at 8:00 a.m. with the program to follow at 9:00 a.m. Cost for the conference is $20 in advance or $25 at the door. Regionally known speakers will cover information on grazing management, grass specie selection, weed control and much more. Mark your calendar today and plan on attending this worthwhile conference. |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 18:46 |
|
August 2008 |
|
|
|
Comments from Jim:
The summer grazing season is progressing nicely as I write this newsletter. Hay prices are still out of sight and feed grains; especially corn is higher than a kite. What affect this will have on calf prices this fall is yet to be seen.
The last edition of Over the Wire covered cow efficiency in terms of pounds of calf produced versus cow size. This edition of the newsletter will concentrate on the calving season as it relates to efficiency and profitability for cow calf producers. I will try to look at the advantages and disadvantages of calving in the spring; the late spring; and in the fall.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions on this topic or any other cattle related issue.
Sincerely,
Jim Church
University of Idaho
Extension Educator, Livestock
The Pros and Cons of Early Spring, Late Spring or Fall Calving Season
Cattle producers are living through some very interesting times. Production costs are going through the roof, calf prices appear to be holding steady or slightly decreasing and the rate of consolidation is staggering. We are in an election year and the buzz word is “change”. If you want to see change, watch what happens to the cattle business over the next 5 to 10 years. It may make your head spin.
Those producers that are in it for the long haul, are faced with carefully analyzing their business management plans in order to stay competitive. One management practice that has been discussed with more regularity in the last year or two is calving season. High feed costs are driving this discussion. That is why we need to look at the pros and cons of calving in the early spring, versus calving in the late spring, versus calving in the fall.
To begin with, changing the time of year that you calve is a major decision that can have a dramatic affect on your operation. My recommendation is to walk before you run when considering a calving season change. Dr. Kris Ringwall, North Dakota State University Extension Beef Specialist, stated in a publication on calving season changes that the masses of producers will tend to do what makes money over the long haul. In other words, what works best and makes money for producers in a region of the country, is usually the calving season that the majority of producers are using.
Dr. Gerald Stokka, Extension Beef Veterinarian from Kansas State University outlined in a K-State publication on calving season that choosing the time of year to calve should be based on economic, management and health considerations. This recommendation was echoed by the publication written by Dr. Ringwall. I think we need to look at these considerations:
Economic Considerations:
When considering the economic affect of a change in calving season a producer must analyze the change in the value of the calf, the change in the annual cow costs and the change in the cost of
facilities. Let’s look at all of these:
1. Value of the calf – if we change from an early spring calving herd to a late spring calving herd the calves will be lighter at weaning time. This is not a big deal if the calves are backgrounded, however if the calves are sold at weaning the later calves can be as much as 100 pounds lighter than the early spring calves. The price per pound will be more, but the total dollars received could be less if the calves are sold at weaning. Fall born calves sold at weaning in the spring, will weigh similar to early spring calves and will actually have a price advantage over spring born calves due to historic seasonal price differences for calves. So on average, total dollars received for calves sold at weaning will probably be highest for fall born calves, followed by early spring born calves and then calves born in late spring.
percent of the total cow unit revenue. For example, if cow unit revenue is $550 then total feed costs including pasture should be no more than $220.
Late spring calving matches the nutrient requirements of the cows more closely with the forage resource than other calving seasons, therefore annual cow costs would be the lowest.
Dr. Stephen Blezinger, a management consultant from Sulphur Springs, Texas wrote about this topic in an article that appeared in Cattle Today. Dr. Blezinger indicated that a study conducted in Nebraska showed that late spring/summer calving cows were fed 3000 pounds less hay per cow than cows that calved in early to mid spring. Protein costs were the same but the late calving cows were wintered out on crop aftermath and other forages late into the winter feeding period.
Another cost that must be taken into account for fall calving operations is the cost of creep feeding calves during the winter months. To insure adequate growth, fall born calves should be creep fed an energy feed. With grain prices high, this could be a considerable expense.
Cost of facilities – Calving in late winter or early spring requires more calving facilities than other times of the year. Calves need protection from cold temperatures and wet conditions. Late spring and fall calving herds require fewer calving facilities. Therefore, facility costs are highest for winter/early spring calving operations and lowest for fall calving.
2. Annual cow costs – Feed costs make up 60 to 70 percent of the annual cost of owning a cow. Therefore calving season can have a dramatic affect on annual cow costs. We all know that nutrient requirements for cows are greatest 30 days prior to calving up through the first trimester of the subsequent pregnancy. Calving at a time when the pasture and range forage is of high quality, will reduce production costs. Production costs increase when harvested forages have to be fed to meet nutrient requirements during the critical pre-post calving time frame.
Research has shown that in order to sustain profitability cow feed costs should be no more than 40 percent of the total cow unit revenue. For example, if cow unit revenue is $550 then total feed costs including pasture should be no more than $220.
Late spring calving matches the nutrient requirements of the cows more closely with the forage resource than other calving seasons, therefore annual cow costs would be the lowest.
Dr. Stephen Blezinger, a management consultant from Sulphur Springs, Texas wrote about this topic in an article that appeared in Cattle Today. Dr. Blezinger indicated that a study conducted in Nebraska showed that late spring/summer calving cows were fed 3000 pounds less hay per cow than cows that calved in early to mid spring. Protein costs were the same but the late calving cows were wintered out on crop aftermath and other forages late into the winter feeding period.
Another cost that must be taken into account for fall calving operations is the cost of creep feeding calves during the winter months. To insure adequate growth, fall born calves should be creep fed an energy feed. With grain prices high, this could be a considerable expense.
Cost of facilities – Calving in late winter or early spring requires more calving facilities than other times of the year. Calves need protection from cold temperatures and wet conditions. Late spring and fall calving herds require fewer calving facilities. Therefore, facility costs are highest for winter/early spring calving operations and lowest for fall calving.
3. operations. Each producer must analyze what is available in terms of facilities and make decisions accordingly. Keeping facility costs low is critical for long term profitability
Management Considerations:
Calving in late winter or early spring requires more labor. Weather problems require producers to be on hand to get newborn calves in barns out of the weather, or have enough barn space to calve inside out of the elements. This is labor intensive. Late spring and fall calving cows are out on grass and require much less attention. Labor costs are reduced greatly. However, producers calving in late spring or fall need to have pastures with facilities that allow the producer to provide assistance if a cow experiences calving difficulties.
Pasture quality should also be a concern for producers that calve in late spring or fall. If the increased nutrient requirements are being met through pasture grasses, then the pasture must have forage that is of high quality and in quantity to satisfy the needs of the herd. Otherwise, supplements need to be provided.
Health Considerations:
Disease in newborn calves is reduced significantly when cows calve out on pasture in late spring or fall. The cattle are distributed widely throughout the pasture which reduces the buildup of disease organisms. Weather stress from cold, snowy weather is way lower and mud is usually not a problem. Very few if any calves have to be treated for scours. The overall health of the calves is better and death loss due to scours or some other stress related disease in way lower in late spring and fall born calves compared to winter or early spring calves.
Research has proven that under wet, muddy conditions, a calf’s energy requirement increases and the ability of the calf to absorb immunoglobins in the colostrum is reduced which makes the calf more susceptible to scours.
Summary:
So what does this tell me? To begin with, there are a lot of factors that must be considered when selecting a calving season. In North Central Idaho, I would say that the calving season is split about 50-50 between spring and fall calving herds. Which season is the best for this region? I don’t know; each operation is different. However like I indicated earlier, every good businessman should continuously analyze his/her business to determine production efficiency and profitability. Look at annual cow costs, value of the calves at marketing time along with facility costs and make changes only if they will improve the bottom line. Changing a calving season can really upset cash flow which may make the banker extremely nervous.
Good luck with the upcoming marketing season for spring calvers and for the fall calvers, have a great calving season.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 20 October 2008 23:21 |
|
May 2008 |
|
|
|
Comments from Jim:
This has been one of the longest winters on record here in North Central Idaho. The extended cold, snowy weather caused some delays in spring planting of wheat, barley and oat crops. It also caused some major delays in early season grass growth. Hopefully the early summer will be normal and we can have a really good grass and hay year.
This edition of Over The Wire deals with cow efficiency. Much is said and written about reducing feed costs but the efficiency of the cow herd is just as important.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions on this topic or any other cattle related issue.
Sincerely, Jim Church University of Idaho Extension Educator, Livestock Cow EfficiencyLet’s face it, the next few years could be tough for cow-calf producers. According to economic experts calf prices will weaken compared to the prices we have seen over the last five years. This is being caused by extremely high feed costs, increases in fuel costs and a leveling off or reduction in beef consumption due to a slow down in the economy. With these scenarios facing the industry, cow-calf operators will need to use all their management skills to remain profitable and stay in the business. With a reduction in income, a corresponding reduction in expenses is needed to maintain previous profit levels. Therefore all expense items need to be analyzed. The place to begin is winter feed costs. In most operations the cost of feeding cows through the winter makes up 60 percent of the total cost of owning that cow for a year. In past newsletters, I have talked about utilizing lower quality forages and in the last issue of Over The Wire, Dr. Jason Ahola provided some ration examples using such feed stuffs as straw. Extending the fall grazing season using crop aftermath grazing has also been discussed and recommended in previous newsletters and at a number of cattle producer schools over the years. But I don’t think we have discussed cow efficiency enough and how it can impact the amount and quality of winter feed needed to winter cows. 
About fifteen years ago, Doc Hatfield spoke at the Idaho County Cattle Association Annual Meeting. Doc Hatfield is from Brothers, Oregon and he and his wife Connie are the people that started the very successful Oregon Country Beef program to market their beef. Doc started his talk by indicating that he and Connie had really enjoyed their drive over to Grangeville and especially liked driving in the Salmon River Canyon. He said that he noticed cows along the way that appeared to be way too big for the environment they were living in. He said they looked thin and were in need of more feed. He went on to share with us his philosophy of matching the cow size and breeds to the environment. In other words, optimize cow efficiency.
The cattle industry has done a tremendous job of increasing cow size since the 1970’s. We have gotten them big and growthy. In fact, today we have fewer total beef cows in this country than at any time in the last 50 years or more, yet we have record pounds of beef produced. How is this possible? Less calves produced from a smaller cow herd but more pounds of beef! The calves are bigger and heavier, that’s why.
The question we need to ask is how efficient has it been to produce these bigger, heavier calves? Are we really making more money, or are we simply just turning over more dollars to satisfy the appetite of inefficient cows that produce these big calves?
Determining the efficiency of the cow herd starts with knowing how much the cows weigh. This does not require weighing each cow individually. To get an average weight, look back at cull cow sale receipts and look at the weights. If you can go back and look at sale receipts from the last two or three years, it will give you a really good idea what the average weight is of the cows in your herd.
What does knowing the weight of the cows have to do with efficiency?
Cow weights alone mean nothing, but coupled with the average weaning weights of calves produced, now we have something to work with. Calf weights can be determined by looking at sale receipts, if the calves are sold at weaning time.
For years the general rule of thumb for measuring efficiency was to look and see if the cow is weaning off at least 50 percent of her body weight in calf. In other words, if she weighs 1200 pounds, she should wean off a calf that weighs 600 pounds. However, more recent research has shown that a 1600 pound cow wouldn’t have to wean off 50 percent of her body weight to be as efficient as a 1000 pound cow that weans off a calf weighing 500. Below is a chart that shows the calf size required for differing body weights to be considered equally efficient. This chart was published by R.A. Long for the American Angus Association back in 1998.
 Let’s look at an example:
Average weight of cull cows sold off the ranch over the last five years = 1377 pounds
Average weight of calves at weaning time = 605 pounds.
Percentage calf weight weaned compared to mature cow weight = 605/1377 = 43.9 percent.
In this example, the cows are close but are not meeting the 45.9 percent target for a cow weighing approx. 1400, therefore they are not as efficient as we would like.
How About Feed Requirements?
What difference does it make if the cows weigh 1377 or 1200 on average? It makes a great deal of difference when you look at the dry matter, protein and energy requirements of the two cows.
This doesn’t look like a big difference, but if you multiply this out over the length of the winter feeding period, it is huge.
Let’s say we have a 150 day feeding period, the difference in dry matter intake for the 1200 pound cow versus the 1377 is 390 pounds. The 1200 pound cow would need 390 pounds less feed for the feeding period. At $150 per ton, that is a savings of $30. Multiply this by the number of cows in the herd, and it starts to add up. If you are going to have to spend $30 more to feed the bigger cow, she had better return at least this much in additional income from heavier calves in order to break even.
Of course we can make our cows weigh 1200 pounds by starving them, but the point to be made is look at the frame size of the cows. Frame score 6 and 7 cows will weigh over 1300 pounds at a body condition score of 5. Frame score 4 and 5 cows, at the same body condition score will weigh less and require less feed.
Selecting for Efficiency
Now is the time to start selecting for efficiency if you haven’t already started. The selection criteria should include:
1. Select replacement heifers from high performing moderate framed cows. Frame score can be determined if you know the age and hip height of the females. Below is a frame score chart that will help in determining frame size:
2. Select bulls that have superior genetics for efficiency in their daughters. This can be determined by using the Dollar Value Indexes such as the $EN Index that the Angus Breed uses.
For example if bull A has a $EN value of $15 and bull B has a $EN value of $2, on average the daughters out of bull A will have an energy savings per year of $13 over daughters out of bull B. You would want to use Bull A if at all possible, especially if you are going to keep heifers out of him.
3. A strict culling protocol to remove poor performing cows should be followed.
a. Cull those big, hay consuming cows that wean off only 40 percent of their body weight.
b. Cull hard keeping cows. You know, those cows that are always thin even though they are
eating you out of house and home. Make sure they are not thin due to superior milking ability.
Summary
In summary I would like to really encourage you to look at the efficiency of your cowherd. Start by determining mature cow weights and frame score. Next determine the average weight of the calves at weaning. Figure the percent of body weight your cows are weaning off in calf weight.
Then look at the nutritional requirements of wintering your cows in relation to their body size. Is it costing you a fortune to keep your cows at a body condition score of 5, or would it be advantageous to look at reducing cow size?
Finally, seriously consider making changes if needed.
Calving date is another hot topic in regards to input costs. The next issue of this newsletter will look at the advantages and disadvantages of fall, spring and summer calving on costs and returns to the operation. Until then, good luck with the haying and grazing season.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 20 October 2008 23:21 |
|
February 2008 |
|
|
Hi everyone,
I guess you can say that we are getting plenty of snow pack this winter. Spring and early summer water supplies should be excellent. I can deal with the snow but the wind is another story. The snow drifts on my place are several feet deep.
This weather has made calving interesting for those producers that spring calve. Unless you have some barns, the calves have been really stressed. It will get better though, the mud month of March is coming and it should be really wet as this snow goes off.
This edition of Over The Wire has two articles in it that should be of interest to cattle producers. The first article on least cost winter cow rations is written by Dr. Jason Ahola, University of Idaho Extension Beef Specialist stationed in Caldwell. The information contained in the article is very useful and should help you plan for next year’s feeding season. The second article is one I have written on some new $ Value Indexes that you may be interested in. It seems like every time we turn around, there are new EPD’s and $ Indexes that we need to consider when purchasing replacement bulls and heifers.
I hope that this newsletter is useful to you. Feel free to contact me at 208-983-2667 with additional questions on these topics or on any related cattle subject.
Sincerely,
Jim Church
University of Idaho
Rules of Thumb for Winter Cow Rations
Considerations for feeding cows a least-cost ration in a new era of high forage prices
By Jason K. Ahola, Ph.D.
Without question, feed costs across the entire beef industry have increased substantially over the past 18 months. However, the rise in forage prices during 2007 has contributed to a dramatic increase in winter cow feeding costs.
Feed cost is the highest variable cost on most cow/calf operations. There are methods available to evaluate feedstuffs and create a “least-cost ration” for cows. However, less than 10% of cow/calf producers analyze their forages for nutrient content, based on USDA survey data. And, only about one-quarter of those producers actually develop a least-cost ration. As a result, many U.S. beef cows are receiving excess nutrients and/or a ration that is not least-cost.
Free Ration-Balancing SoftwareA free and easy-to-use computer ration balancing program is available for producers from Oklahoma State University – COWculator. The software and directions are available at http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/exten/cowculator/. This Microsoft Excel-based software enables a producer to enter simple information about their cows (pregnancy status, body weight and condition, breed, etc.), along with forage analysis results (protein, energy, etc.). As a bonus, the “feedlist” comes ‘pre-loaded’ with typical feed values for common feedstuffs. The user develops a ration using feeds from the feedlist which are compared to cow requirements. Ultimately, a simple sheet can be printed off and used for daily feeding.
Development and use of a simple ration enables animal requirements to be met while ensuring optimum performance. But, more importantly it can reduce feed costs by avoiding overfeeding (especially protein, which is costly).
Information NeededTwo pieces of information are necessary to create a ration: 1) cow nutrient requirements (examples are in Table 1), and 2) nutrient composition of typical feedstuffs (examples are in Table 2). These tables include estimates for energy via Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) values and protein via Crude Protein (CP) values.
 
Rules of ThumbFor producers who don’t have a computer to use COWculator, there are a few simple rules of thumb for cow feeding. Several rations were developed using COWculator software for a 1,200 lb pregnant cow in late gestation to help provide insight into these “rules” (see Table 3).
A ration consisting only of good alfalfa (Ration 1) for a 1,200 lb pregnant cow should include up to 24 lbs and cost about $1.54/hd/day (if good alfalfa costs $130/Ton). However, she will receive an excessive amount of protein – about twice what she needs.
Cheaper and lower quality alfalfa could be fed instead (Ration 2) if a small amount of corn is added, costing about $1.44/hd/day (assuming fair alfalfa is worth $110/Ton and corn $170/Ton).
Grass hay, instead of alfalfa, can provide adequate energy to this pregnant cow, but protein may be deficient if the grass was mature at harvest. Interestingly, in many parts of the U.S. grass hay is more expensive than alfalfa hay on a ‘per pound’ basis (and much more on a ‘per pound of protein’ basis), but provides much less protein and similar energy. Nonetheless, a ration of only “good” grass hay (24 lbs) can meet the pregnant cow’s needs, while mature grass hay needs to be fed with a small amount of supplemental protein (1-2 lbs).
If low quality forage (e.g. straw or corn stalks) and corn can be added to an alfalfa-based ration, cost can be reduced (Ration 3) to about $1.37/hd/day (if straw is $60/Ton). This savings of $0.07/hd/day equals about $10/cow during a typical winter feeding period.
Ration 4, which consists primarily of corn stalks, can maintain body condition in a pregnant cow if protein supplement (containing about 30% CP) is also provided. If baled corn stalks are $75/Ton, it costs $1.35/hd/day. However, the stalks need to have a decent energy content (e.g. TDN of 54% or higher). Conversely, a straw-based ration (Ration 5) must contain about 4 lbs of corn and 4 lbs of a 30% CP protein supplement to meet a 1,200 lb pregnant cow’s requirements.
Interestingly, if straw is $60/Ton this ration would cost about $1.32/hd/day, which is truly the “least-cost ration” using the above feedstuffs.
The Bottom LineRation cost can be decreased by replacing high-priced feeds (usually alfalfa or good grass hay) with cheaper and lower quality forages (straw or corn stalks) and a small amount of corn and/or protein supplement – resulting in a decrease of about $0.22/hd/day, or more. Once a cow begins lactating, her energy requirement will increase and a new ration will be needed. Similarly, cows that are significantly larger or smaller than 1,200 lbs may need a different ration, as well as cows that should be gaining body weight and condition during late pregnancy. It would be valuable for a cow/calf producer to experiment with a free and user-friendly ration balancing program like COWculator in order to create a least-cost ration. Since forage prices will likely continue to increase in price, as they have done recently, it may be the only way to remain profitable in the future.
Dr. Jason Ahola is an Extension beef specialist with the University of Idaho. Contact him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
or 208-454-7654.
$ Values or Economic Indexes;
New Selection Tools for Cattle Producers
Cattle producers have been using tools to measure performance for many years. We started by weighing cattle and figuring the average daily gain. This led to the use of within herd ratios where we could compare the performance of one animal against another in the herd.
There was a need to evaluate cattle not only in herd but across herds from different states. This brought about the use of Estimated Breeding Values (EBV’s). Next in line were the Expected Progeny Differences (EPD’s) which do a great job of allowing us to compare one animal against other animals in the breed no matter where the animals are located. The most current measurement tool are the $ Values or Economic Indexes. These figures help us to determine the economic impact an animal will have on our herd compared to other animals in the breed. The goal of the index process is to assist commercial cattle producers in evaluating candidates for selection based on their economic merit.
Let’s take a look at some of these new $ Values. Below is a listing and an explanation of the $ Values for several of the major beef breeds:
$ Value Indexes = The $ Value is an estimate of how future progeny from a sire is expected to perform on average compared to progeny of other sires if the sires were randomly mated to cows and if the calves were exposed to the same environment.
Angus $ Values:
Weaned Calf Value ($W) – an index expressed in dollars per head that measures the average difference in future progeny performance during the preweaning period. This would include both revenue and cost adjustments associated with differences in birth weight, weaning direct growth, milk and mature cow size.
Cow Energy Value ($EN) – the difference in cow energy requirements expressed in dollars per cow saved. The higher the number, the more efficient the future daughters will be which relates to more money saved.
Feedlot Value ($F) – an index expressed in dollars per head for post weaning performance.
Grid Value ($G) – an index expressed in dollars per head for carcass grid merit.
Quality Grade ($QG) – represents the quality grade portion of the $G value. Marb EPD and ultrasound fat (%IMF) EPD contribute to the calculation of the $QG. This value would be used if the producer wants to place a high emphasis on quality grade in his selection criteria.
Yield Grade ($YG) – represents the yield grade portion of the $G value. It utilizes the ribeye area, fat thickness and weight for calculating an economic value for red meat yield. Producers needing to improve yield grade would concentrate on this value.
Beef Value ($B) - an index expressed in dollars per head that predicts the average difference in progeny for postweaning and carcass value performance compared to progeny of other sires.
Hereford $ Values:
Baldy Maternal Index (BMI$) – an index expressed in dollars per head that predicts the profit for producers that use Hereford bulls in a rotational crossbreeding program on Angus based cows and heifers.
Certified Hereford Beef Index (CHB$) – an index expressed in dollars per head that predicts carcass performance of crossbred Hereford/British calves when sold on a grid pricing formula in the Certified Hereford Beef program.
Calving Ease Index (CEZ$) – this index identifies the most profitable Hereford bulls when mated to yearling heifers.
Brahman Influence Index (BII$) – this index is similar to the BMI$ with one difference, the Herefords bulls are mated to Brahman cattle and the emphasis is on fertility, age at puberty, traits that are deficient in Brahman cattle.
Charolais $ Values:
Terminal Sire Profitability Index – utilizes economic and management descriptions of your ranching operation, along with EPD’s on available Charolais bulls to assist in identifying the most profitable sires for your unique operation.
Limousin $ Values:
Mainstream Terminal Index ($MTI) – takes both genetics and economics into account to rank animals in terms of expected profit per carcass produced from weaning to market endpoints of Yield Grade 1s and 2s and Select to low Choice quality grades.
Gelbvieh $ Values:
Days to Finish (DtF) – expressed in days to reach a constant fat endpoint, which is commonly used in the feedlot to determine when cattle are finished.
Feedlot Merit (FM) – measures the dollar value associated with the expected gain and feedlot efficiency of progeny when fed in a typical feedlot arrangement. Expressed in dollars per head.
Carcass Value (CV) – expressed in dollar value per head, comparing progeny of one animal to another in dollar differences when progeny are sold on a grid.
Simmental $ Values:
All Purpose Index (API) – evaluates sires being used on entire cowherd to produce both replacement females along with steers and heifers sent to the feedlot and on to the packing house. All traits with the exception of tenderness are taking into consideration in this index. Expressed in dollar value per head.
Terminal Index (TI) – evaluates sires being bred to females where all the offspring will be fed and sold on the grade a yield grid. Maternal traits such as milk, stayability and calving ease are not considered for this index. Expressed in dollar value per head.
In Summary:
These were the indexes I could find from the major breeds. I am sure that all the breeds have these indexes but because of space constraints I haven’t taken the time to research each breed.
As you can see, the amount of information available is staggering. The question becomes, how do I use these indexes to help me select a bull? Also, which indexes do I really need to use? I don’t have room in this newsletter to address these questions, however in the next issue of Over The Wire, I will try to give examples of how to use this data when making your selections.
In the meantime, if you need information on these indexes, access the various breed websites and do a little researching. You will be able to find the information you need. Also, call up the breed association and visit with their performance program director. They can be of great help. Also, feel free to give me a call. I will try to provide some assistance.
Information on the $ Value Indexes was obtained from the websites of the American Angus Association, the American Hereford Association, the North American Limousin Foundation, the American Gelvieh Association, the American-International Charolais Association and the American Simmental Association.
|
|
Last Updated on Monday, 20 October 2008 23:19 |
|
|
Extension Office Home 
