The spot selected is in the middle of a native grass pasture. Who knows the age of that native grass, but certainly the plants were there long before any of us. This mixture of grass plants and interesting earth cover certainly would bemoan its upcoming fate.

Not long after the fence was opened, the Eucs arrived — massive machines extremely efficient at moving dirt. In preparation for the next onslaught, colleague Lee Manske and I went to the ranch to take one more look at the site.

Our feelings were mixed. Perhaps there was a bit of dismay and a bit of disgust, but we both knew there was no stopping the process. We went to say goodbye to something we know will not be back in our lifetime. The ground we stood on would be green again, but the soil we stood on would need time — a long time — to re-establish the working ecosystem developed through the centuries.

We already had agreed to the process and understand the many issues involved between surface and subsurface property. But the land was about to be disturbed, which is something even the glaciers could not do.

This land had become a seemingly perpetual ecosystem of life. Grass is not simply a plant that is potted and admired. No, grass is the essence of life and the source of the prairie ecosystem. I asked Lee, who is the centre’s range scientist, just how old the plants were. He said the source of some of the plants could go back 100 years or more. Longevity of grass plants in grassland ecosystems is dependent on the development of tillers through the vegetative production from axillary buds.

• More from the Alberta Farmer Express: Grassland preservation group takes message of rural stewardship to urbanites

Although studies obviously do not go back hundreds of years, we do know grass plant longevity of major northern species managed with traditional grazing practices can approach 50 years. Grass plant longevity would be expected to be long. As the plant community expands, this process of passing on genes through vegetative growth determines the survivability of the grasslands.

This constantly developing ecosystem, which slowly evolves through the interaction of grazing animals and the need for plants to be grazed, is critical. Grazing stimulates vegetative tiller production, which assures the growth and development of native grasslands. This earthly cover, the prairie grasslands, when present, is home to a much more powerful life-giving system, which is the prairie ecosystem.

If for no other reason, Lee and I stood there to acknowledge that point. What is an ecosystem? Without one, it would be like having a house with no electricity, heat, cooling, furniture, beds or even a kitchen. Without an ecosystem, the world simply becomes a shell, a non-functioning, non-life-supporting empty place. We might survive, but with the passing of time, that survival becomes doubtful because all inputs have to be obtained from somewhere else.

Lee went on to explain this ecosystem process and how, under our feet, living systems are driving biological, chemical and atmospheric pathways that actively are transferring essential elements into our ecosystem.

Ideally, the ecosystem is obtaining more than is being used, so there is a positive contribution to a growing and healthy world. The key to the system is not so much the above-ground grass, but the soil micro-organisms that are supported by the below-ground grass roots and other living things.

Lee pointed out that, once disturbed, these organisms die and only can be replenished from an existing living ecosystem. The functional replenishment and growth of the soil biosphere takes years because living communities only expand outward at a rate of a few inches a year. That is why we knew that what we were standing on would not be back in our lifetime.

The Earth does take care of itself. So we paid our respect to something we know is marvellous and said goodbye to a piece that soon no longer will exist.

The post What lies beneath your feet is a marvel of nature appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Good supplementation programs will help meet these needs. However, as the summer slowly shifts to fall, finding adequate protein is more of a challenge. In general, as cattle graze, there is an expectation that producers match the season of the year with the nutritional requirements cattle need.

At the Dickinson Research Extension Center, Songul Senturklu, visiting scholar from Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University in Turkey, measured the seasonal changes of protein by taking seasonal bimonthly forage samples. Senturklu found cool-season crested wheat grass went from 18 per cent crude protein in early May to 8.5 per cent in early June.

The native grasses had 13 per cent crude protein in early June but decreased to a low of seven per cent in early August. No wonder cows with calves like to graze cool-season grass in the spring and then switch to native grass in early summer.

The cool-season grass has ample protein to meet the protein requirements for cows in late pregnancy or early lactation. Native grass has excellent summer protein as well and will meet the requirements of most beef cows nursing calves into mid-July. High milk-producing cows struggle to meet their daily nutrient needs before those cows that do not milk as well.

Cow-calf operations depend on the nutrients that plants produce to meet the late-calving and early-lactation nutritional requirements for their cows in late spring and early summer. The same is true for other cattle types such as replacement heifers and grass calves.

Medium- to large-frame grass yearlings may have slightly less crude protein requirements than the beef cow nursing a calf, so the early grass pastures meet those requirements as well. Of course, those requirements are reflective of the gain desired.

In recent years, the centre has been running grass yearlings, and two pounds per day seems to be a reachable goal in terms of body weight gain. If a producer was to desire greater gains, the protein requirement will go up, but so will the energy requirement.

Full, but nutrient short

The challenge in beef systems comes once plants start to mature and prepare for fall. These plants dry down as fall arrives and no longer have enough measurable crude protein to sustain early-summer gains. Thus, the search for protein. Cattle operations readily supplement in the winter by feeding hay or, if grazing, putting out a winter grazing supplement. The cows would go hungry very quickly without a supplement. Even an uninformed rancher should get the message that the cows are hungry.

However, fall is different because the cattle tend to fill up to satisfy their hunger but still not meet all their daily nutrient requirements, particularly protein. The centre has been looking at various forages that may provide more protein than the traditional fall grasses through the incorporation of annual crops into the pasture rotations.

There are many forages that have yet to be evaluated thoroughly, but Senturklu measured the seasonal change in crude protein for a field pea and barley mixture, as well as corn. In these samples, Senturklu found the field pea and barley mixture to have 27 per cent crude protein in mid-July, followed by 15.8 per cent in mid-August and then decreasing to 13.5 per cent in early September. By adding four to six weeks of a field pea and barley crop mixture to the pasture rotation, available crude protein increases.

In addition, unharvested corn also was evaluated. The corn had 18 per cent crude protein in mid-August that gradually decreased to 10 per cent in mid-September and was down to seven per cent by early October.

By grazing annual agronomic crops, livestock producers can find some windows of increased available crude protein to feed cattle. The cow and calf will appreciate the increase in available nutrients, and the grass yearling certainly will benefit from the added crude protein.

The key is making the economics work. The perpetual question is: “Why not just harvest the grain?” Good question and more on that in another column.

The post In search of late-season protein for beef cattle appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

If that is true, why is the industry not expanding? Good question and certainly a relevant one.

We can speculate on the many reasons why the cattle numbers are what they are. In anticipation of this spring’s summaries of agricultural enterprises provided by the North Dakota Farm Management Program (NDFM) at www.ndfarmmanagement.com, I have been reviewing previous numbers. Data also are available on the FINBIN website at www.finbin.umn.edu and come from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota.

With the increasing competition for land and competing crops, the big question is: Why run cattle? Returns from crop enterprises are good, and many will say they enjoy the more structured time crop operations offer, especially the time off that is not always available for those who engage in livestock operations.

If one reviews net returns per cow, and without going too far back in time, cattle producers certainly have had positive net returns. From 2006 through 2011, cattle producers who were enrolled in the NDFM program generally have had positive net returns over direct and overhead expenses.

The actual net return values were (all figures U.S.) $182 in 2011, $111 in 2010, minus $13 in 2009, $12 in 2008, $98 in 2007 and $105 in 2006. It will be interesting to see where these numbers are for 2012, but one would speculate that the industry had positive net returns over direct and overhead expenses.

Not everyone in the black

Are these numbers high enough to keep producers in business? Yes, but let’s look at those producers who were at the lower end of net returns, which are those producers who were in the lower 40 per cent bracket.

This group was in the black in 2011 and 2006, but lost money in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007. The actual net returns over direct and overhead expenses were a positive $76 per cow in 2011, minus $3 in 2010, minus $120 in 2009, minus $91 in 2008, minus $6 in 2007 and a positive $18 in 2006.

The long and short of it is that this group of cattle producers has had to find some other enterprise to pay for an average of $21 per year, per cow for direct and overhead expenses because the cow could not pay her costs. That may not seem like much, but also what was lost was the opportunity to do something that may have made more money on the same land.

Why do producers who have negative returns through six years remain in the cow business? Speculation is just speculation. The bottom line for the bottom 40 per cent of this sample of producers is that the cows are not paying their way.

Why expand or even stay in the cow business? For the cattle operations that are in the lower 40 per cent for net returns per cow, the average gross margin from 2011 back to 2006 was $500. Total direct and overhead expenses averaged $521 for the same period for an average loss of $21 per cow.

Flags are waving

As noted earlier, times are good in the cattle business. However, some serious flags are waving. High income and low expenses are good partners, but high expenses do not partner well with anything. Any lowering of revenue for high-cost operations will take out the option of staying in the cattle business.

Cattle expansion is not a given. Unfortunately, there is a very serious play for land that can be used for more profitable agricultural enterprises. There is very little incentive for those operators who are struggling to stay afloat to keep the cow operation.

Let me repeat myself. In the current world, the competition from the energy- and food-producing sectors of agriculture is real. This competition will drive costs up and, given Mother Nature’s hesitation to provide moisture, the competition gets tougher. Cost control is the driver for sustaining beef operations and is achieved by the continual evaluation of the planning process.

For now, the point remains: What would you say if someone told you 40 per cent of the cow-calf producers are struggling to justify being in the beef business? The cost of production is a simple fact, so learn well as the 2013 year engages.

Survival comes before expansion.

The post Survival comes before expansion in the beef cattle business appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Calving has started on many ranches, and the complicated production scenarios already are constantly churning for producers. Unfortunately, the dollars associated with many production scenarios often are in place well before adequate financial evaluations are done. The critical point is that the dollars are coming in well, but the dollars going out also are growing.

The cattle business costs money.

In visiting with Jerry Tuhy, farm business management instructor at the Dickinson Research Extension Center in North Dakota, he noted that free markets will tend to price commodities at or near a break-even point for the bulk of producers. In other words, high-cost producers will be the first producers to lose money in good or bad markets. No market will remain positive enough that all producers will survive the financial tests through time. Cost control remains critical at all times in the cattle business.

In the current world, competition from the energy- and food-producing sectors of agriculture is real. The competition between land uses, such as crops grown for human consumption, crops for energy and crops for livestock feed, is very real. Given Mother Nature’s hesitation to provide moisture, the competition only gets tougher.

Grass is becoming even more of a premium. Despite agriculture’s tremendous effort at keeping energy costs low and feeding people, the price is high as these inputs return to farms and ranches as needed supplies.

Cost control is the driver for sustaining beef operations and is achieved by the continual evaluation of the planning process.

We need to return to the North Dakota Farm Management Program, along with the FINBIN database from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota. These programs allow our discussion to focus on the dollars and ‘sense’ involved in the beef enterprise.

Gross margin

A good place to start is gross margin. According to Tuhy, gross margin accounts for the purchase and sale of all calves, cull cows and bulls, plus animals transferred in and any overall changes in cattle inventory. The bottom line: Gross margins reflect the amount of money cattle producers have to work with.

In the bigger picture, if gross margins are very small, a producer needs to ask why he or she is involved in the beef business because the money in and the money out are a wash.

Well, that is not true in the beef business because those producers who have at least 50 cows and were involved in the 2011 North Dakota Farm Management program had $729 in gross margins.

Without going too far back in time, these cattle producers have had stable to increasing gross margins to work with. From 2006 through 2010, cattle producers who were enrolled in the North Dakota Farm Management program had gross margins of $578 in 2010, $451 in 2009, $464 in 2008, $543 in 2007 and $529 in 2006.

In 2011, the total direct and overhead expense was $546 per cow. Although the 2010 gross margin was above 2011 expenses, 2009 through 2006 gross margins were all below the current 2011 expenses.

In other words, if cattle prices returned to the prices offered from 2006 through 2009, cattle producers would be operating in the red, which is not a pleasant thought. The total direct and overhead expenses per cow from 2011 back to 2006 were $546 in 2011, $466 in 2010, $464 in 2009, $452 in 2008, $445 in 2007 and $424 in 2006.

A quick review of the numbers points out that, even though average gross margins have been good, if recent expense numbers are any indication of future expense numbers, expenses are accelerating.

From 2010 to 2011, expenses jumped more than 17 per cent, while gross margins jumped more than 26 per cent — thus the increase in net returns for the cattle producer. However, the red flag still is there, so it will be interesting when the 2012 numbers come out as to where production costs are going.

For now, the point remains: The cost of production is a large, sustainable block in the survival of beef operations. A simple fact is that producers need to plan well while on the high-speed road leading to cattle profits as the 2013 year engages.

The post Cow-calf survival is still about production costs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The comparisons can be numerous, but the urge is always there to pick the best. Unfortunately, the question often is wrong or the answer already is assumed before the question is asked. Students compete with each other as they compare predetermined or ingrained concepts of what is best.

In class the other day, two Angus herd sires were presented. The herd sires were taken by chance from two websites of two different Angus breeders. Each student was asked to compare the bulls.

Cutting to the chase, one bull (A) had an expected progeny difference (EPD) for a weaning weight of plus 74. The other bull (B) had an EPD weaning weight of plus 18. An ingrained response was evident because all nods went to bull A. This means that bigger and better would be the motto. Bull A is in the upper one per cent of the breed for pre-weaning growth, while bull B is at the lower end.

Checking the Angus Association website, the weaning index EPD for bull A was plus 40.77 (upper two per cent of the breed). For bull B, it was plus 29.11 (upper 35 per cent of the breed). The weaning index did not change opinions.

Checking the Angus Association website again, we looked for the cow energy value ($EN). Bull A’s $EN was minus 20.07, while bull B’s $EN was plus 33.63. In terms of breed ranking, the bulls had completely reversed. Bull B was in the top two per cent in the Angus breed, while bull A was at the lower end.

The class was silent, at least momentarily. A real challenge was presented with these two bulls. Bull A led the way for growth, but is sacrificing maternal issues, while bull B led the way to impacting the maternal side of the breed but is sacrificing growth.

Genetic balance

In fairness to the students, the discussion did acknowledge the dilemma. As the years pass, experienced cattle producers understand the need to genetically balance the cow herd. Likewise, in earlier years, various breeds of cattle evolved with more focus on selected traits.

The early split was between maternal breeds and paternal (or terminal) breeds. It was fairly well understood that one breed would have difficulty in meeting the needs of the complete package.

In today’s beef world, producers tend to be more single-breed orientated because they are looking for the complete package within that one breed.

What is interesting, as was noted with the genetics students, is the presence of variation. The point being, if a producer seeks the right information and obtains the right data, correct decisions can be made to steer the cow herd.

Perhaps the overriding factor in today’s drought-driven, expensive feed scenarios is that increased attention needs to be directed to the cow herd. The pounds of feed delivered and utilized by the cow herd affect the bottom line.

Therefore, at least for today, the students could ponder that bigger is not always better. When one compares bull A, a trait leader for weaning growth, versus bull B, a trait leader for cow energy values, astute producers will search the Angus database for a better balance between the two traits.

Growth versus efficiency

The next day’s assignment for the class was to find a bull that would achieve the desired outcome of growth but not at the expense of cow efficiency. The next class period brought home some good bulls that did balance growth and cow efficiency.

The bottom line for the students is to know the needs of the herd and then ask the right questions to find the right bull. The bull business is competitive and, unfortunately, that means one bull producer against another.

Sometimes lost in the discussion is the bull buyer. Thanks to the many breed associations, bull buyers of today do not need to get lost in the flurry of information and fluff of the sale. Breed association websites contain well-compiled information on almost all the bulls within the breed.

There is no need to find out by paying excessive feed bills that the base cow herd is inefficient. In a matter of minutes, one can type in the registration number of the bulls used on the appropriate breed association website to gain a good understanding of the genes that have been selected and placed in the herd. The only one responsible is the producer.

Buying the right bulls will position one to be better prepared for the next drought. Bigger is not always better.

choose     two angus bulls

Which would you pick?

Bull A Bull B

Weaning weight EDP +74 +18

$ weaning index +40.77 +29.11

$ cow energy value –20.07 +33.63

The post Two Angus bulls — which would you pick? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Not only the absolute size, but the shape of the body mass also is very variable. Bone, muscle and fat wrapped in hide make up the container that holds all the other assorted organs and essentials.

Remarkably, all living things need to be in biological balance within themselves, so one does not see a huge variance in how cattle are put together. In other words, large, medium and small types tend to have the same working parts and, for all practical considerations, in the same proportion as all members of the herd. That being said, the obvious constraints of larger or smaller cattle rest more with the management of the producer’s system than the actual size of the cattle.

However, rest assured that those managerial systems differ widely and those differences are very real and impact the bottom line of any cattle operation.

Recently, the Dickinson Research Extension Center started harvesting the 2010-born steers. The data sheets beg the question whether appropriate cattle size is determined by those who harvest or those who produce. It is a given that those in the middle will accommodate those who harvest and those who produce, if the cattle are healthy and convert feed efficiently.

If one reflects on several decades of experience and recommendations on cattle size, one will find very authoritative statements on what is appropriate. In one decade, large carcasses are strongly discouraged and, in the next decade, strongly encouraged. This pattern of changing authoritative opinions always is present when biology and money interact.

The bottom line is that beef supplies and the associated demand really drive product need. If the product is short, then larger carcasses are welcomed. The situation right now means the center is marketing larger cattle.

Comparing carcasses

Last September, the center harvested steers at 1,230 pounds live weight. These steers hung on the rail at 747 pounds dressed. A second set of random, similar steers stayed at the ranch all summer and was shipped in the fall. These calves averaged 1,373 pounds live weight and averaged 851 pounds dressed on the rail.

The two sets of steers were the same type and all born in the spring of 2010. The heaviest carcass in the September group was 890 pounds, while the heaviest carcass in the early January group was 948 pounds. From a producer point of view, the same set of conventional-type cows, bred to typical industry bulls, can produce calves that have an acceptable size at harvest solely determined by managerial protocols.

That flexibility is good because producers have considerable leeway in adopting a management package that fits the ranch. What is important is to take note of this neutral zone or, better stated, the range in carcass weights that those who harvest are willing to accept without applying a discount.

Market discounts are a money thing and do not reward or penalize various cattle types for biological reasons. Rather, market discounts and premiums reflect short-term (in some cases long-term) anticipated market desires, thus steering producers to produce for an anticipated marketable product.

For these two sets of calves, that neutral zone in terms of cattle size was from 550 to 999 pounds hot carcass weight. The industry needs a large spread in harvested acceptable carcass weights to allow for the implementation of regional and local managerial options for raising cattle.

From a cattle producer’s perspective, the challenge is in contrast to those who harvest because cattle size is more than money on the rail. There are real biological and managerial impacts to cow size. Please note that cow size is not cattle size. Production efficiency rests within the cow herd and is land based, not pen based.

Therefore, as those who harvest may send signals that larger hot carcass weights are acceptable, those who produce must be careful not to chase the wrong end of the stick. The cow must meet her environment and, as noted earlier, the package is one of bone, muscle and fat that is held together with a good hide. All four must be maintained, as reflected in cow condition, regardless of the feed source.

Easier-fleshing cows will weather the decades of product demand well, but always, even at the producer level, one must be alert to that neutral zone of acceptable hot carcass weight on the rail.

If ever, in the days of short supply, the concept of increasing acceptable carcass weights gains momentum by those who harvest, those who produce should beware.

Makes one think of the good terminal breeding systems where “cows that fit the producer are bred to the bulls that fit the market.”

The same set of conventional type cows, bred to typical industry bulls can produce calves thathave an acceptable size at harvest solely determined by managerial protocols.

drec March-April Born Calves

Set one – Backgrounded, Spring Feedlot

September harvest,

1230 pounds live weight,

747 pounds dressed.

Set two – Backgrounded, Summer Grass,

Fall Feedlot – January harvest,

1373 pounds live weight,

851 pounds dressed.

The post BeefTalk: Cattle size is different than cow size appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Several enterprises, such as grass and feedlot, are well known. One could add bull and heifer development, as well as the seed-stock business.

As a producer stands at a Y in the road and evaluates a future direction, the challenge is choosing from a list of well-established enterprises and those added to the list that part ways with a grass-and grain-based industry. These so-called new, but not entirely new, enterprises are grass based only.

Therefore, the choice or Y in the road is where many producers find themselves in the cowcalf business. Do we stick with the status quo and remain grain based? Do we try to figure out a middle-of-the-road approach involving grass and grain or jump ship and build on grass-based enterprises?

To make the challenge more difficult, grain-based enterprises have oodles of economic, financial and cash data that help guide a producer’s thoughts. Meanwhile, grass-based enterprises have very little data.

As I have noted before, the future of beef starts with beef systems that generate a gross margin of $600 per cow. The system needs to hold direct costs to less than $400 per cow and overhead to less than $100. For those aspiring entrepreneurs, the challenge is to grow the gross margin and lower all costs.

For most, the catch in shifting a beef enterprise is holding on to the gross margin while managing and reducing costs. A quick way to go out of the beef business is to lower the gross margin, essentially reducing revenue, and simultaneously maintaining the current cost structure. Even to non-cow-calf producers, that makes no sense.

The ballpark goals for gross margin and direct and overhead costs are derived from data available from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota.

The grass and grain discussion has and will continue to be a difficult topic.

Regardless, the shifting dynamics of available feed for cattle is real. These dynamics are driven by price. If one is selling, the value received is key to net return. When one is buying, the cost is key. To maintain sanity, it is best to focus on one change at a time.

When to wean?

The Dickinson Research Extension Center has shifted calving back 60 days. The thought for today is “when do we wean the calves?” If the centre weans at the same time, which is early November, it needs to make up $150 per cow as we switch to grass beef production and later calving.

The reason is simple. Calving 60 days later with calves that continue to gain 2.5 pounds per day takes 150 pounds of calf out of the existing business plan if the calves are valued at $1 per pound. The answer will be found in a different enterprise and may take cow-calf producers into uncharted territory.

Producers involved with backgrounding for the last 10 years through FINBIN averaged more than $115 of gross margin per calf by keeping the calf an extra 115 days following weaning. The centre needs $150.

Thinking through the above pieces of data is useful as long as a person keeps in mind that, as an operation shifts to later calving, several things change. Some changes are known and some are not.

Nevertheless, there still are enough data points to provide some sufficient pondering. The centre can wean the calves at the traditional time (Nov. 1) and give the 60 days of lost momma time to the backgrounding enterprise. Given that, those 60 days really are 180 days because the calves need to be backgrounded for six months from Nov. 1 until grass turnout on May 1.

This assumes that the calves are heading to grass and are sold or retained on one’s own pasture. Extrapolating the available gross margin and assuming that calf growth will result in more gross margin due to increased value, 115 days of backgrounding can generate $115 worth of gross margin. If that is true, then 180 days of backgrounding might generate $180 worth of gross margin. Again, if that is true, we made the right choice.

More thoughts later, but at least the ending is a positive thought.

KrisRingwallwritesaweekly“Beeftalk”columnarchivedat www.BeefTalk.com

———

Thesystemneedsto holddirectcoststoless than$400percowand overheadtolessthan $100.

The post Cattle Operations — Is The Y In The Road Grass Or Grain? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Caution and considerable thought needs to be used because, once changed, an early calving date is not easy to get back.

Through the years of looking at calving intervals, most herds can come close to averaging a 365- day calving interval. Seldom do herds come in under 365 days. The majority come within two to three days in excess of 365 days.

Older cows usually leave the herd due to age or structural issues before they work their way out of a herd due to late calving. An example would be a cow with an average calving interval of 368 days. If she produces nine calves, her 10th calf would be projected to be born 30 days later than her first calf nine years ago. This means that changing the calving date is a big deal, and to err when one changes the calving date is even a bigger deal.

Many producers are looking seriously to change their calving date. The common indicator is a gradual delay in turning the bulls out and then gauging how the delay affected the herd. Changing the calving date shifts the entire cow nutritional plan and how nutritional needs are met.

The important, but sometimes missed, point is that the nutritional plan will shift in time but not change the requirements. The daily nutrient requirements of a cow are based on cow production and size, not time of year.

Nutrition

There are adjustments due to weather, but nutritional requirements remain. The land mass or production unit does not change significantly from one year to the next unless a major change in management has occurred. The production of grass can be tracked historically.

Lee Manske, range scientist at the Dickinson Research Extension Center, says nutritional values for grass from early May to the end of the grazing season in October have a very defined pattern. If one was to use crude protein as an indicator of value, the percentage of crude protein starts high. It usually is more than 17 per cent in May and slowly decreases during the grazing season to less than five per cent by mid-fall.

So, how do we match the calving time of the cow with the natural value of the grass? If one looks at the typical crude protein requirement of cows following calving, the value is eight-plus per cent (depending on the size of the cow) for lower production expectations to 11 to 12-plus per cent for greater calf production expectations. These values can increase by almost one per cent by the time peak milk production kicks in during the second month of lactation, and then the values decrease to a low of around six per cent at weaning.

Good grazing

There are two schools of thought. Producers have the natural or Mother Nature’s way of producing protein that starts high in May and bottoms out in October. This is location dependent. Every producer needs to get access to the numbers for his or her own location and environment.

The second thought is the nutritional requirements of the cow. These requirements are not dependent on location, but they are on cow type and expected production.

If one overlays these two thoughts, the natural tendency is to match or align the two concepts. Peak nutritional requirements should meet peak grassland production opportunities.

Peak lactation requirements are one month after calving, so it makes sense to have those cows that have month-old calves on a high-protein pasture in May. The pastures will decrease in protein production, depending on the grazing system, but that decrease will coincide with the gradual decline in protein requirements of the cow and calf.

It makes sense, then, that historical calving time in the northern Plains is March and April. The urge still is to change and move to a later calving date. However, the move is not because of nutritional needs but for labour reasons.

NorthDakotaStateUniversity ExtensionServicebeefspecialistKris Ringwallwritesaweeklycolumn archivedat www.BeefTalk.com

———

Theimportant,but sometimesmissed,point isthatthenutritional planwillshiftintime butnotchangethe requirements.

The post Calving Dates Vary But Nutritional Needs Stay The Same appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

For many operators, each task needs to be prioritized, knowing well that delays often mean missing a timely market niche. At that time, the missed opportunity is mentally noted, added to the expense column with invisible ink and life goes on.

The marketing of cull cows and bulls certainly falls into the “need to get it done” category. It goes without a lot of explanation that selling cows and bulls as market cow and bull beef is inevitable.

When is the best time? Generally, not when you are ready, but nonetheless the trucks arrive. The sorting, grouping and resorting are much more of a challenge in the cow-calf scenario than the traditional feedlot that has great alleys, neat work facilities and pens that are made to hold a sorted set of cattle.

In contrast, wired-up panels and steel posts bought at the local supply store always leave something to be desired. Perhaps that is why an occasional snakelike cow never gets to market. She just seems to know how to avoid the trap and sometimes will take a few of her cohorts with her.

We hear the occasional “What the…!” as cowhands are seen running somewhere. “What the…!” is generally followed by “Who didn’t…!” Oh, well, most of the cows get sorted and resorted or at least noted, and the coffee is cordial.

The bulls are about the same, provided they are in agreement with what you want to do. It’s not so much that they dislike the presence of people, although there are bulls that do dislike people being around.

For the most part, bulls dislike the presence of another bull that seems to be challenging the established pecking order. Two bulls that are out of place means something is going to happen. The pecking order needs to be and will be re-established and made proper. The initial arched neck, dropped head, inflated nostrils and low bellow generally mean “back off or else.”

Out in the pasture, the best approach is to back off until everything settles down. Not true if the bulls are being moved into new surroundings, such as unfamiliar pens or some of those fine, homespun working facilities. Generally, the challenged bull has nowhere to turn and the challenging bull has no way to change his mind, so the fight is on.

The initial swing is not too bad because no harm is intended. However, the first wave of bystanders, cows and cowhands are brushed aside, so open space appears. Most posts and panels are cleared away immediately and the remnants scattered as if a Category 5 tornado has hit.

In a meager attempt to help resolve the conflict using the keen idea of separation, the gate is swung open with the hope that one bull will leave. As both bulls head out with the their only intent to conquer the other, more tussles occur as both bulls swing sideways and knock out both six-inch- square gate posts at ground level.

At this point, the only prayer is for open range. However, more likely what happens is a progressive explosion of posts, timbers, feed bunks and notable landmarks. The bulls eventually play out and seem to settle their differences with some reasonable coaxing.

The ranch hands hope that next fall is as good as this one so more time can be put into fixing things up before shipping day next fall. The suggestion is to buy some of those good eight-inch posts, but some things just cycle, such as “breakin’” and “fixin’.”

About that time, the boss comes by and suggests that maybe we should put a little gain on those critters before we ship them. “What the…!”

NorthDakotaStateUniversity ExtensionServicebeefspecialistKris Ringwallwritesaweeklycolumn archivedat www.BeefTalk.com

———

Weheartheoccasional“Whatthe…!”ascowhandsareseenrunningsomewhere.“Whatthe…!”is

generallyfollowedby“Whodidn’t…!”

The post Shipping One Bull Is One Thing, Shipping Two Is Another appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Fall cattle processing raises the question of just how much a producer wants or needs to do. What if two neighbours each were selling 30 steer calves and split the trucking cost?

The calves were well-grown, typical northern calves that were managed simi larly through pre-and post-weaning. The calves averaged 650 pounds.

The first set of calves sold in the ring for $1.11 per pound (all figures U. S.). This gives us an average price of $721.50. The second set of calves brought $1.15 per pound for an average price of $747.50.

The first lot grossed $21,645, while the second lot grossed $22,425, which is a difference of $780 or $26 per head.

Since the cattle appeared similar and the same buyer bought both sets of calves, the producers asked what the difference was. The buyer flipped open his cellphone, pulled the feedlot notes off the company’s website and said that the first set of calves bought from the same producer last year had a three per cent greater death loss than the calves from the second producer.

The difference meant the first set of calves, if they perform as they did the previous year, would have to make up the value of a dead calf, plus the added treatment and feed expenses for a dead calf. The moral of the story is that people who buy cattle know their business and can track previous purchases and fine tune expectations by using modern communication devices.

With a little calculation, the previous year lowered the potential value of this year’s calves by the dollars lost in last year’s dead calf, plus the amount of investment the feedyard had in the calf prior to its death. When calves are in short supply, buyers may be challenged if they get too picky. However, the fact remains that surviving in the beef business depends on sharp pencils and knowing the field.

The offset for producers is to better present calves as being fully prepared for the market and highlight expected future performance and calf health.

Retaining or selling?

Two basic principles apply based on two questions.

As a producer, will I be keeping ownership of the calves following weaning and for how long? If one plans on keeping the calves or retaining interest in the ownership of the calves through feeding, one needs to make sure the calves are fully prepared for maximum protection because dead or sick calves do not bring a reward.

Likewise, making sure the calves can qualify for additional market opportunities also is critical. Owning cattle at the time of harvest allows for a direct transfer of premium dollars if the cattle have met the required criteria for the desired market.

Second, will I be selling directly off the cows? This question is a bit more problematic.

A similar concept would be fixing up a house or car before advertising it for sale. How many dollars does the current owner want to put into a calf to please a future owner?

As often noted, the obvious marketing benefits are not always so obvious. One thing does seem more and more obvious: Technology does not forget.

With cellphones and other communication devices, instant communication has become the norm. Large historic data files are readily available and usable.

With current technology, cattle buyers can call up performance measures and health histories on previously purchased cattle at the touch of a phone pad. Pictures and feedyard performance are standard recall, and any harvest opportunities that were captured can be noted.

The price is a result of a quick review by phone that tells the cattle buyer all that he or she needs to know. The buyer then knows how hard to push for a given set of cattle.

In this case, the neighbours are still neighbours. On the way home, both reviewed their herd health protocols and just how they could better present their calves at next month’s sale.

Before I forget, the producer who got more money for his calves bought supper.

NorthDakotaStateUniversityExtension ServicebeefspecialistKrisRingwallwritesa weeklycolumnarchivedat www.BeefTalk.com

———

death rate

calvesThe calculated impact of a three per centdifference in historic calf death rate.Death LossSale Weight ValuePer-Head Value $721.50

ProducerAP roducerB

3%650 lbs $1.110%650 lbs $1.15

$747.50

The post Last Year’s Cattle Can Affect This Year’s Prices – for Oct. 25, 2010 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.