PROGRESSIVE PRODUCER

BULL MANAGEMENT FOR A SUCCESSFUL BREEDING SEASON

by Zach McFarlane, Ph.D., Cal Poly Beef Cattle Production Systems Specialist

How often do you think about your herd bulls during your breeding season? Do you know if they are breeding? How do you know if one bull is doing the majority of the work? These are just some of the questions I’ve asked my family and friends during this breeding season. These questions have been driving my research efforts at Cal Poly, where we recently finished analyzing the bull management and selection survey that was sent in the mail to CCA members starting in February 2020.

Who knew that the COVID-19 pandemic would change the world as the breeding season was fully underway for many California producers last year? Fortunately, the California beef industry is essential – as evidenced by the responses from CCA members, bull development and management are essential topics for future research and outreach efforts.

California’s approximately 660,000 head of beef cattle are dependent on bulls that are “range-ready” to produce calves across the state’s diverse regions. Bulls need to be functional on rugged coastal landscapes, rolling foothills, deserts and in high-elevation terrain. In 2017, approximately 93 percent of cows and 77 percent of heifers were bull-bred exclusively in the United States as indicated by the USDA National Animal Health Monitoring Services (USDA NAHMS) Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices Report. Therefore, we conducted a survey to investigate how California bull buyers manage bulls after purchase. Additionally, current research at Cal Poly has focused on bull activity during the breeding season and the effects on bull body weight, body composition and fertility.

Bull Management

Typically, bulls are fed to increase body condition prior to being sold. In fact, California bull buyers agreed (88 percent of survey respondents) that bull body condition was an important consideration for bull selection and purchase. Producers were also asked how bull body condition was managed after purchase. Most respondents (70 percent) indicated that bull body condition was not reduced prior to the breeding season.

Changes in body condition during the breeding season may have an influence on semen quality and is an important management consideration for producers after purchasing a bull. Scrotal circumference is highly correlated with daily sperm production and semen quality. Studies have shown that testicle size, scrotal thermoregulation, and body condition can affect semen quality. Poor or excessive bull body condition negatively impacted the probability of breeding soundness examination passage rates. Furthermore, studies have illustrated that high-energy diets fed to

bulls after weaning increase scrotal circumference but also total sperm production, while also increasing sperm morphological abnormalities and decreasing motility. For example, research conducted by Canadian veterinarian Albert Barth, DVM, and colleagues evaluated bulls at sale time and a subsequent testing period post-sale to assess the influence of body weight loss on breeding soundness classification. Bulls that were classified “unsatisfactory” during a breeding soundness exam lost significantly more body weight (approximately 200 pounds or 4 pounds/ day) when compared with “satisfactory” bulls. Therefore, it is important to remember to manage bulls so that they can cope with the stress and workload during the breeding season.

It is also important to consider underweight bulls and the impact on performance. Currently, the Drought Monitor has the majority of the California in severe to extreme drought. Cattle experience heat stress during drought periods along with reductions in forage availability and nutrient availability for weight gain. Heat stress has been shown to negatively impact semen quality. In addition, recent research has indicated that semen quality can be affected by plane of nutrition. Young bulls especially can have a much harder time during the breeding season and often lose about 10-15 percent of their body weight. Kacie McCarthy, Ph.D., cow-calf specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, recommends that yearling bulls should achieve approximately 65-75 percent of their mature weight at the beginning of their second breeding season. Therefore, a 1.5 to 2-pound average daily gain is necessary to recover body weight lost during the first breeding season for a yearling bull.

Bull workload can vary, but the general recommendation is to utilize one bull for every 25 females. The bull to cow ratio depends on the capability of an individual bull, the ranch location/landscape and the breeding system. For example, the use of artificial insemination in combination with bull-breeding reduces bull workload. Bull age as well as docility is a consideration. Bull aggression may play a role in the number of cows a bull successfully inseminates. As bull age increase the percentage of confirmed pregnant cows serviced successfully increases. A young bull will mount more times than a mature bull, but these services are not always successful. A younger bull is still trying to figure out his job.

A bull is required to increase his activity level to breed females and to graze which contributes to weight loss during the breeding season ranging from 100-400 pounds. Bulls need to regain body weight in preparation for the next breeding season. Remember, yearling bulls are still growing. Nutritional requirements for the level of activity during the breeding season and to achieve mature weight are high. A good mineral program is essential. Selenium is critical for normal sperm cell production and zinc plays a role in male fertility, particularly with regard to sperm cell integrity. Therefore, consideration of bull management pre- and post-breeding is warranted.

Producer management preferences for bull management prior, during and after the breeding season have not been well-documented. California bull buyers indicated that they utilized one breeding season per year with an average length of 3.5 months. In addition, producers indicated 5 years as the average length of time that bulls were used on their operations. California producers were asked to identify how bulls were managed in the off-season. Half of respondents utilized a separate bull pasture, while 21 percent used a combination of a bull pasture and supplemental hay. Ongoing research efforts across the U.S. hope to investigate appropriate management techniques for bulls at all stages of production.

Bull Activity During the Breeding Season

A two-year pilot study at Cal Poly assessed the influence of bull activity during the breeding season on metabolism and fertility. The second year of data is currently being collected with the breeding season wrapping up in mid-March 2021. Cal Poly has three ranch locations with a staggered bull turnout dates which is generally 1-month apart. Bulls are turned out with heifers and 2-year-old cows starting in November and the other 2 groups of bulls are turned out in December and January, respectively.

In year one, bull activity was influenced by ranch location and bull-turnout date with average total distance traveled exceeding three miles per day at one Cal Poly ranch location. Bulls lost an average of 267 pounds from day 0 to 65 of the breeding season regardless of the breeding season start date. Bull body composition exhibited a turnout date by study period interaction for ribeye area and fat thickness ultrasound measurements. Ribeye area and fat thickness decreased from day 0 to day 65 of the breeding season for bulls turned out in November and December, while these measurements did not change for bulls turned out in January. Breeding soundness exams were performed at day 0 and day 65 of the breeding season. Scrotal circumference was not different, and neither were semen quality attributes (sperm motility or morphology) based on breeding season start date or ranch location. However, the spermatogenesis cycle (i.e. production of new sperm cells) of bulls is approximately 61 days. Bull recovery time after the breeding season is an ongoing research goal.

This pilot study is just the first step in the investigation of bull activity during the breeding season. A whole list of questions come to mind when considering the implications of bull activity during the breeding season and the relationship to actual breeding soundness. Can we eventually select for bulls that are more likely to breed cows? How many producers have a bull that lacks libido? These are some intriguing questions that we hope to investigate in the future.

Producer Tips to Implement Today

One thing to make sure you perform prior to turning out bulls for the next breeding season is a breeding soundness exam (BSE) performed by your local veterinarian. This physical exam is vital to examine any structural abnormalities of the testes, penis and

...CONTINUED ON PAGE 16

and calves in consultation with your local veterinarian. At the end of the day, you want to provide every the accessory glands responsible for producing semen. opportunity for your bulls to successfully breed females. Research has shown that approximately one in five bulls Bull nutritional management is critical because the have unsatisfactory semen quality and/or structural bull contributes half of the genetics to your calf crop. soundness. Ultimately, an analysis of semen quality to assess sperm morphology and motility is imperative to determine bull fertility prior to turnout. A bull that successfully passes a BSE must have a minimum scrotal Whereas, a breeding soundness exam will let you know if your bull is ready to work. Reproductive management is the most economically relevant management system. circumference (based on age; ≥ 30 cm for bulls less A producer’s calf crop results in the paycheck they have than 15 months of age) and greater than or equal to been waiting for all year. Make sure you provide every 70 percent morphological normal opportunity for your breeding season to be successful. sperm cells and greater than 30 percent progressively motile sperm. Your veterinarian should also evaluate if there is evidence of infection by looking for white blood cells in the semen, as well as any evidence of venereal disease like trichomoniasis (trich testing).

Prevention of venereal diseases like trich and vibriosis is important to maintain fertility of the cow herd. Trichomoniasis infections can Embryo Services Available On-Site with Our cause significant economic damage to a beef producer’s bottom-line. USDA-Approved Mobile Export Laboratory or at A 2017 study from New Mexico Our Cooperator Facility with Schmidt Cattle Company State University reported a loss in profit of approximately $400/cow THANK YOU TO THE BREEDERS WHO TRUST THEIR COWS TO US! with an outbreak of Trich in the herd. Pregnancy rates and weaned calve percentages were reduced in response to an outbreak of Trich. These compounding factors resulted in a loss of profitability for producers. One of the most effective means of prevention is to test and cull infected bulls and/or cows. Infected bulls can create wide-spread infection if the protozoan

Tritrichomonas foetus inhabits the mucosa of the penis or the crypts of the prepuce, and the infected bull breeds multiple cows. It is imperative for your veterinarian to test for infection before bulls are turned out with females. Bulls of any age can act as a carrier if they have been exposed to infected females. Infections are common throughout the GREGORY GARCIA western United States. Therefore, Mobile 530-945-6525 it is important to test bulls prior to turnout. Always make sure to develop an appropriate vaccination THD © 11380 Little River Road Glide, OR 97443 program for bulls, cows, heifers

OPTIMISM ABOUNDS

CattleFax anticipates strong demand with higher prices ahead

Despite pandemic disruptions, consumer demand for beef at home and around the globe remained strong in 2020, a trend that will continue in 2021 and beyond, especially as foodservice operations begin to fully reopen. The strong demand, combined with expected higher cattle prices, signal an optimistic future for the beef industry, according to CattleFax, which presented an outlook session during the virtual 2021 Cattle Industry Convention Winter Reboot on Feb. 24.

According to CattleFax CEO Randy Blach, cattle numbers will continue to contract in 2021, and producers will gain leverage on packers and retailers and margin distribution will be more equitable. Packing capacity is expected to increase slowly with the addition of more small-scale plants, and U.S. meat exports will continue to grow. Overall, profitability is expected to improve significantly for cow/calf producers.

Lost incomes due to unemployment were replaced by government transfer benefits and household wealth increased more than $620 billion in 2020, according to Blach. In 2020, total meat sales volume at retail was up 10 percent and total dollar sales at retail up 18 percent, with beef’s share of the increase in spending accounting for 45 percent or $5.7 billion. Consumers also saved at record levels during the pandemic resulting in U.S. household net worth rising $5 trillion, which bodes well for beef demand going forward.

As beef demand reached record highs in 2020, cattle producers didn’t capture much of the margin with the bottleneck created due to plant closures as a result of COVID-19. According to Blach, the margin exists, and redistribution will lead to improving prices in the second half of 2021 and into 2022 and 2023. “The bottom line is that things are on the mend, with producers gradually recapturing margin,” he said. “A one percent shift in margin will result in $6 per hundredweight increase on fed price.”

Kevin Good, vice president of industry relations and analysis at CattleFax, reported that 1.2 million head of cattle were liquidated in 2019-2020 after a 6.3 million head expansion between 2014 and 2018. Even with fewer cattle in the system, beef production still increased. Mild liquidation is anticipated in 2021 due to drought conditions and higher feed costs, said Good, and he estimates a U.S. beef cow inventory of just under 31 million head in 2022.

Good says 2021 is a tale of two halves. “There are more cattle in the system early in 2021 with big supplies on feed and heavy weights, however the second part of the year will transition to tighter calf crops and tighter slaughter,” he said. In 2021, total slaughter is expected to be up 700,000 head to 33.5 million head, average carcass weights 4 pounds lighter and beef production up 500 million pounds from 2020 to 27.6 billion pounds.

Per capita beef consumption is expected to grow slightly to 58.6 pounds per person in 2021, up from 58.5 pounds in 2020, although per capita red meat and poultry consumption is expected to decrease to 218.7 pounds per person from 221.7 pounds per person in 2020. “Over the last 20 years, beef market share increased from 40 to 48 percent, up 2 percent in 2020,” said Good. “Improvements in genetics, quality and consistency have created a better product from five or ten years ago and have helped increase demand, taking market share away from pork and poultry.”

Good forecasts the average 2021 fed steer price at $119 per hundredweight, up from $109 per hundredweight in 2020, with a range of $110-$128 per hundredweight throughout the year. All cattle classes are expected to trade higher than a year ago, and prices are expected to improve over the next three to four years. The 800-lb. steer price is expected to average $145 per hundredweight with a range of $135-$160 per hundredweight, and the 550-lb. steer price is expected to average $168 per hundredweight, with a range of $160-$180 per hundredweight. Finally,

Good forecasts utility cows at an average of $64 per hundredweight with a range of $52-$74 per hundredweight.

Trade continues to be a hot topic, with U.S. beef prices competitive for Asian markets. According to Good, exports in 2021 are expected to increase by 5% primarily to Asian markets like Japan, South Korea and China, with declining imports from Australia and New Zealand. Although only 120 million pounds of beef were exported to China in 2020, that market is expected to grow to more than 300 million pounds per year over the next few years.

“The U.S. is the largest beef producer on the planet, producing 75 percent of all high-quality fed beef in the world, and our product is different from competitors,” said Blach. “As the global population increases at a rate of 83 million people per year, U.S. agriculture is poised to play a key role with increasing exports.”

Mike Murphy, CattleFax vice president of research and risk management services, estimates that there will be 181 million planted acres of corn and soybeans in 2021, the largest ever combined acres for those two commodities. “That number is likely to be even higher, and in some regards it needs to be larger to balance the demand and build back supply,” said Murphy. Although corn should be able to balance supply and demand, soybeans will have a tighter supply globally, with a smaller crop expected from South America.

As China rebuilds its pork industry following their battle with African Swine Fever, they are looking for higher quality feed ingredients, such as corn and soybeans, according to Murphy. The U.S. has the supply available to provide the estimated 700 million bushels of corn that China is expected to accept.

Spot prices for soybeans are expected to be $13.50$16.50 per bushel for the remainder of 2021. “As soybean prices drive higher, soybeans will have a greater influence on the value of corn, bringing corn prices with it,” said Murphy. He noted, however, than any scares from Mother Nature this spring and summer will have concerning impacts.

All session panelists agreed that weather will be a major factor impacting the beef industry, and agriculture as a whole in 2021. Although the La Niña weather pattern has leveled off, it will be making a return with warm and dry conditions over most of the United States into the summer, according to Dr. Art Douglas, professor emeritus at Creighton University. Douglas indicated that the southwest U.S. will be warmer than normal, and the western half of the country will be relatively dry. In addition, dry conditions in the Rockies will eventually extend into the central corn belt, causing concerns for corn and soybean growers. “The Pacific jet stream is positioned far north from normal preventing moisture from reaching the continent,” said Douglas. “The only significant moisture will be in the Ohio Valley and along the Canadian border from northeast North Dakota into Minnesota.”

Blach concluded the session with an overall positive outlook, expecting beef demand to remain solid, foodservice markets improving significantly and beef and cattle prices trending higher through 2024. He also noted that plant-based protein alternatives will continue to grow market share, but gains will be slow. Blach indicated that increased consumer interest in sustainability, food safety protocols, animal care and traceability creates opportunities for producers to differentiate their products if they choose.

“Consumers are voting with their pocketbooks and buying beef,” said Blach. “The industry should take note, stay focused on quality, continue delivering what the consumer desires and tell their great story.”

On March 2, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced the Cattle Market Transparency Act in the U.S. Senate. If enacted, this legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Office of the Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish regional mandatory minimums for negotiated trade of fed cattle. It would also direct USDA to establish a library of cattle formula contracts, amend the definition of “cattle committed” to expand the delivery window from seven to 14 days, and clarify confidentiality rules for administering Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR). Companion legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO-4).

“Cattle producers continue to face serious obstacles when it comes to increasing profitability and gaining leverage in the marketplace,” said NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane. “Leveling the playing field and putting more of the beef dollar in producer pockets remains the top priority of this association. NCBA shares Senator Fisher’s objectives, as do its affiliates and indeed the entire industry. The best way to achieve those objectives, however, continues to be hotly debated by the very cattle producers this legislation would directly impact. We have worked and will continue to work alongside our affiliates, Congress, and USDA toward regionally robust negotiated trade, the establishment of a cattle contract library, and commonsense in USDA’s rules of confidentiality by taking direction from our membership through the grassroots policy process.”

Cattle producers make science-based, costly investments in cattle genetics and feeding innovations in order to improve the quality of their product. Formula pricing agreements pay producers a premium for this more desirable beef, allowing them to capture more of the beef dollar. The details of these agreements, however, vary widely and this lack of transparency can potentially act as a barrier to producer profitability. A cattle contract library, similar to the existing USDA swine contract library, will help producers evaluate their marketing options and make more informed decisions for their business.

USDA currently reports the number of cattle committed to meatpackers in seven-day increments. Expanding this to 14 days will help producers better anticipate packer needs for cattle and increase their leverage as prices are negotiated.

LMR is an Act of Congress which requires large meatpackers to report market information to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), who then release it to the public. AMS is also mandated by LMR to keep the “proprietary business information” of reporting entities confidential. In some major cattle feeding regions, like Colorado, USDA’s rules of confidentiality oftentimes prevent any price information from being publicly available. Cattle producers rely upon transparent reporting of transaction prices to make marketing decisions. By clarifying Congress’ intent behind LMR, USDA can equip producers with the data they need to make critical marketing decisions while still protecting sensitive business information.

BACKGROUND

Cattle producers have long witnessed the decline of negotiated trades in the fed cattle complex, and NCBA has been at the forefront of this conversation. While the use of formulas, grids, and other alternative marketing arrangements (AMAs) help cattle producers manage risk and capture more value for their product, these AMAs depend upon the price discovery that occurs in the direct, buyer-seller interactions of negotiated transactions. Current academic research has shown that more negotiated trade is needed to achieve “robust” price discovery within the industry, but each of the five USDA reporting regions contributes to this price discovery differently. To truly contribute to an environment with robust price discovery, policies must factor in the unique characteristics of each reporting region.

Last July, at NCBA’s 2020 Summer Business Meeting, the Live Cattle Marketing Committee heard a wide range of disparate viewpoints from producers on this issue and spent hours in debate to arrive at a compromise. The resulting grassroots policy states that, “NCBA supports a voluntary approach that 1) increases frequent and transparent negotiated trade to regionally sufficient levels… and 2) includes triggers to be determined by a working group of NCBA producer leaders.” The policy further states, “if the voluntary approach does not achieve robust price discovery…and triggers are activated, NCBA will pursue a legislative or regulatory solution determined by the membership.”

In August of 2020, NCBA President Marty Smith appointed a subgroup of the Live Cattle Marketing Working Group to develop the triggers required by the member-approved policy. The voluntary framework — now two months into the implementation phase — established a series of triggers to evaluate negotiated trade volumes in each region and benchmarks for improvement. The subgroup is led by a group of producers from various regions with wide-ranging perspectives and opinions on this issue, and still meets regularly to discuss new and innovative solutions to this issue.

NCBA’s grassroots policy process is the tried-andtrue venue for the entire cattle industry, from seedstock producers to cow/calf operators to cattle feeders, to work together on complex issues toward common goals. Everyone has a seat at the table, and all are welcome to join.