A NEWS SOURCE FOR COMMERCIAL BEEF PRODUCERS
MARCH•APRIL 2010
VOLUME 2
ISSUE 2
FRONTLINE beef producer
Herd Health & Grazing Management
Brangus is Our Business Calving ease sires to limit dystocia, increase live calves and benefit cow longevity
Strong maternal emphasis for quality udders, increased fleshing ability and better dispositions
Selection for performance, muscle, structural soundness and tight sheaths
Adaptable genetics for harsher environments from southern Florida to Idaho, Arizona to Missouri and anywhere you need adaptability. Increased heterosis advantage to improve your bottom line. Contact your local ABS Representative or call 1-800-ABS-STUD to find out how the ABS Brangus lineup can go to work for you. ©2010 ABS Global, Inc. · 1525 River Road, DeForest, WI 53532 · Ph: 1-800-ABS-STUD · Fax: 608-846-6392 · www.absglobal.com FRONTLINE Beef Producer 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURES
13 Management Change: by Clifford Mitchell
FRONTLINE Beef Producer Holistic approach fit grass-fed model
Commerical Marketing Programs
Grant Keenen Administration/Circulation
15 Herd Health & Nutrition: by Marcine Moldenhauer
The Impact on Production and Total Herd Value
16 2010 Cattle Industry Convention and NCBA Trade Show attracts Thousands of Cattle Producers to San Antonio by Bethany Shively
17 Identifying Profit Potential by Clifford Mitchell
DEPARTMENTS
4 Out Front
Challenges Facing the Cow Calf Producer by Dr. Joseph Massey
5 Genetic Strategies
Grazing Managment and Genetic Improvement by Mark Enns, PhD
Frances Miller Contributing Editors
Dr. Dave Anderson Dr. Mark Enns Dr. Matt Hersom Dr. Joseph Massey Clifford Mitchell Marcine Moldenhauer Advertising
Melanie Fuller 979.828.5300 Copy Editor
Carolyn Kobos Proofreader
Jim Bulger Operations
Mary Douglass Rosanne Sralla Patti Teeler
FRONTLINE Beef Producer is a product of:
6 The Bottom Line
Brangus Publications, Inc. P.O. Box 696020 San Antonio, Texas 78269-6020 Phone: 210.696.8231 Fax: 210.696.8718
8 Nutrition Strategies
Brangus Publications, Inc. Directors: Don Cox - Chairman Dr. Joseph Massey - President David Vaughan - Secretary/Treasurer Dale Kirkham Angelo Zottarelli
Herd Health by Grant Keenen
Considerations for Energy Requirements and Supplementation of Grazing Beef Cattle by Dr. Matt Hersom
Information appearing in this issue may be reprinted only with written permission of Brangus Publications, Inc.
LPC Livestock Publications Council - Member
On the Cover: 20 STATE DIRECTORY 25 SERVICES 26 ADVERTISER INDEX 26 CALENDER OF EVENTS
2 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
With Spring around the corner, it’s time to consider your herd health and pasture management plans.
F o r a g e Te s t e d O C F B u l l S a l e
160 Registered OCF Brangus & Red Brangus Bulls
Saturday, October 30, 2010 • 12:30 pm Oak Creek Farms Sale Facility • Chappell Hill, TX
Forage Field Day & Cattle Viewing Friday, October 29, 2010 4 0 R e g i s t e r e d R e d B r a n g u s & B r a n g u s H e i f e r S a l e • Friday, October 29, 2010 ∙ 6:30 pm
All S ale B ulls are B red a nd Deve lope d by Oak Cree k Far ms
MERITS OF FORAGE DEVELOPED OCF BULLS: 4 Practical - raised on forages
4 Structurally Sound - less feet & leg problems
4 Forage Testing - eliminates hard doing bulls
4 Healthy Development - less fat forms around scrotum
4 Profitability - less feedlot time for progeny
4 Longevity - can extend by one to three breeding seasons
4 Adaptability - thrive in our hot humid climate
4 Libido - tends to be higher in good pasture ready bulls
4 Pasture Ready - do not fall apart
4 Finish - excellent breeding condition not real fat
OCF Bulls Forage Tested on the ranch beginning on March 1st and ending September 1st under guidelines of Texas Forage & Grassland Council. Weights and Measures recorded by Texas A&M Extension Service
Grass + Forage Efficient Easy Fleshing Cattle = Profit Breeding Brangus Since 1967 John & Carolyn Kopycinski Chappel Hill, Texas • 979/836-6832 Sale Bulls DNA tested with Complete DNA Profile This is the 7th year we have used DNA test results as a tool in selecting genetics.
www.oakcreekfarms.com
DNA Proven with 6 years ofBeef data! FRONTLINE Producer 3
OUT FRONT | by Dr. Joseph Massey
Challenges Facing the Cow Calf Producer
A
s we start to make decisions about our spring and summer pastures, the biggest challenge that we need to confront is that cost of inputs, such as fertilizer, labor and feed supplement have not reset relative to the price that we can expect for our calves. In addition, this winter has offered up a more sever environment bringing additional costs of inputs.. The questions that face us today, maybe more than in the past, are what type of animals should we be raising when it comes to breed or breed type and what size animal as it relates to ability to maintain, breed and raise a calf with the inputs available. We need a better understanding of not only the type of animals we want to produce but the type of animals we don’t what to produce. Perhaps we should change the way that we view our cattle: maybe we should take better care of the bred, thin looking cow with a big calf at side rather than the cow without a calf which looks good. This observation helps us to understand size, frame and the genetic potential of the resulting offspring.
Gause, Tx.
Taking super F-1 Tigerstripe cows, breeding them to meat wagon Brangus bulls; Jim McCord: Owner producing black and black baldy replacement females 979-279-5649 that will work for any 979-229-1205 rancher. These heifers are all ranch-raised and are Josh Kinslow: Manager culled first as yearlings and 979-589-1149 then again as two-year-olds. 979-574-7914 Our heifers are many time class and division winners at Ft. Worth, San Antonio, and Houston Commercial Female Shows & Sales. Look for our females at:
2010 Ft. Worth Southwestern Exposition Invitational Commercial Female Show & Sale
2010 San Antonio Commercial Female Sale 2010 Houston Livestock Show All Breeds Commercial Female Sale 2010 Beaumont SETICA All Breed Commercial Female and Bull Sale 4 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
Over the last several years, we might have been forced to sell off animals that have not produced for any number of reasons from environmental factors to the cost of production. We should all be aware that the production model may be changing and we can’t afford to make the same old mistakes breeding or managing as we have in the past. We need to realize that identifying the do’s and don’t of our business carry equal weight today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Massey has served as Executive Vice President of the IBBA since 2004. In 2007, he started Genetic Performance Solutions, LLC, a breed registry services and performance analysis company serving the cattle and breed association industry— a joint venture between the IBBA and the Red Angus Association of America. GPS manages online registry programs for breed associations and the data base management of performance data like multibreed EPDs.
We sometimes think that what is good for our neighbor is good for us and that prevents us from changing our way of thinking and taking action. We do not need a crystal ball to know that the genetic value of our bulls plays a more important role today in the management of our cow herds. Making predictions based on offspring from phenotypic bull selections is too costly a proposition and a risk that we can no longer take. We can no longer pretend that EPDs don’t work if we don’t understand them. Although EPDs are a tool like our records, computer, scale and so on, EPDs are only one tool and their value depends on how we learn to use them for our operations. No tool is absolute and EPDs are certainly not a simple tool but EPDs may be one of the best tools available to all cattlemen in the cow calf business.
I have attended a number of Bull Sales this season and I have been surprised to see many animals selling with little to no performance data and more importantly no EPDs. It has been surprising to me that these animals have been allowed to sell with bulls having complete data since there is an implication that these animals are as good as those with performance data. I have asked the organizers why they allow these bulls in their sale and their answers are surprising: because the sellers have participated in past sales and we have bulls for all buyers. Why would any buyer want to buy these bulls and the answer is that they can get them cheaper, which is a great plan for failure. I have never seen a plan that works when the process starts with cheap inputs as an objective. I have been struggling to understand what our new model of production will be in order for us to make money in the cattle business. I have to be honest and and admit that I wish I had a magic crystal ball to predict the right model. What I do know is that producing animals which grow, thrive and produce efficiently will give us the best chance of making money in the future. This is not the time to save a dollar on an unknown source of genetics; we need to commit resources and effort in selecting Continued on page 12
GENETIC STRATEGIES | by Mark Enns, PhD
Genetic Management and Genetic Improvement
W
ith grazing management and herd health the focus of this Frontline issue, focusing on grazing management seems reasonable, but grazing management and genetic improvement together??—to many of you it may seem a bit of an odd topic. But appropriate grazing management impacts genetic improvement. The two basic grazing management programs are continuous and rotational grazing, each with numerous modified versions designed to fit a particular producer’s needs. With continuous grazing in its simplest form, the number of animals appropriate for a given land area are determined and this number graze that pasture for an extended period, often the whole grazing season. This is common on many operations lacking internal fencing, sufficient labor, and/or other resources to manage their animals more intensively. Many of us follow this program and/or know those who do. Other producers with sufficient resources manage their animals more intensively, implementing rotational grazing programs. For those with the resources, the primary motivation is a financial one with rotational grazing often resulting in greater livestock production per unit of land area and improved plant vigor, quantity and quality given appropriate plant recovery time as stated by R.L. Dalrymple of the Noble Foundation in Ardmore, OK (http://intensivegrazing.tamu.edu/benefits.htm). Many times rotational grazing plans result in managing the herd in larger groups than possible with continuous grazing programs. But what relationship does this have to genetic improvement? The grazing management system implemented typically determines the number of cows in the breeding pastures and this is where the relationship with genetic improvement starts. The number of cows in a breeding
group typically determines the number of bulls turned out with those cows no matter which grazing program you implement. The larger the breeding group, the more bulls required. The number of bulls in a breeding pasture influences our ability to identify the sires of the poorest performing calves in the herd. This ability to identify “problem sires” influences genetic progress. In single-sire mating pastures, sire identification is easy and with that information, bulls producing subpar performing calves are easily identified and can be replaced before the next breeding season. As the number of bulls in a pas- ABOUT THE AUTHOR ture increases, sire identification becomes Dr. Enns’ research focuses on methods to genetically more difficult as does the identification of evaluate and select the sires of poor performing calves. This in animals that fit their turn, limits the ability to cull and replace production environment “poor” bulls and consequently limits genetic both biologically and improvement of the herd. However, with economically. These efforts use of DNA technologies now available, this include development of is no longer a limitation to larger breeding new methods for evaluating groups. For instance, I have heard of a num- and improving cow and heifer fertility, cow ber of producers using these technologies to maintenance requirements, identify bulls that are causing increases in time to finish in the feedlot; calving difficulty. With the identification of and development of the “problem bulls”, those animals can be re- methods to better use placed, hopefully reducing calving problems economic information in the next season. In our example, this iden- selection decisions for tification is accomplished by matching the increased profitability of problem calves to their sire using the DNA beef production. information and typically involves only sampling those calves that were difficult births. (Limited sampling also helps keep the costs of this technology down). This approach can be used for any trait of concern, not just calving ease. For more information on the technologies, Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California –Davis has an excellent article on DNA-based progeny testing which is available at http://www.nbcec.org/producers/DNAbased_progenytesting.pdf. How big of a problem could unidentified poor producing sires be? Based on her research, in multi-sire pastures there are often bulls that sire the majority of the calves while other bulls sire none. In another study (Holroyd et al, 2002), 14% of bulls in their respective breeding pastures often sired over 30% of the calves. The effect of these bulls can be dramatic on a herd, especially if the bull is producing poorer performing calves. As producers, we have to manage our forage resources appropriately to remain economically viable, especially with feed costs typically accounting for over 60% of all costs associated with a cow-calf operation. However this doesn’t replace the need to maintain genetic improvement in our herds which can also result in increased profitability. These new technologies enable us to manage both grazing and forage resources with genetic improvement—the best case scenario for the savvy producer.
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 5
THE BOTTOM LINE | by Grant Keenen
Herd Health
H
erd health is an issue that every cattleman across the country should take seriously. A successful health program will directly impact your bottom line in a very positive manner. When your cattle are healthy, they can focus all of their energy on production instead of maintenance and repair. Prevention of health issues is much cheaper than treatment. This article will focus directly on health management programs and their benefits for marketing your feeder cattle. Weaning and vaccination programs are one of the best and simplest ways to add value to your calves before marketing. In the last 15 years these programs have become very prominent; most of you have probably all heard the terms of Vac 30, Vac 45 or Wean Vac. Everyone has probably heard it announced at their local sale barn or while watching the Superior Livestock Auction on TV – “weaned, two rounds of shots, bunk broke, tank broke”. But, what does all that mean? And more importantly, how many of you have implemented such programs at your farm or ranch? Weaning a calf from its mother is a simple concept, but I am one of the first to admit that it is not always a simple step. The basic idea is to separate the calf from its mother so that it is no longer dependent on her for comfort and nourishment. The calf must learn to eat out of a feeder or bunk and most generally drink water out of a stock tank of some sorts. This better enables the calf to be productive at the next level because it has already learned how to make it on its own. However, weaning takes certain resources and labor that not everyone has or is able to provide. Things like good fences, corrals, working facilities and the needed manpower are necessary to get the job done. Nevertheless, if it is possible for your operation, a weaned calf will most generally net more dollars than a non-weaned. If you have the requisite facilities and other resources to wean your calves, then you more than likely also have the ability to vaccinate them. There are several different programs or protocols that can be implemented. They each have a common goal – ensuring health, quality and performance. Any standard program will generally consist of two rounds of vaccinations. The first round introduces the vaccine to the animal’s body and the second round works as a booster. Different manufacturers and programs will call for the booster shots to be given anywhere from two to four weeks after the original shot. Some regimens say to administer shots two to three weeks before weaning and the boosters at time of weaning. It is up to you to decide what works better for your cattle and operation. I encourage you to work with your local veterinarian, livestock marketing facility, extension agent or animal health supplier to tailor a program that fits your farm or ranch. These individuals can help answer questions about the difference between
6 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
live and modified live vaccines. They can also ensure your knowledge of Beef Quality Assurance guidelines. In today’s economy with margins being very narrow, producers should be striving to do anything possible to increase the value of their animals. Weaning and vaccinating will do just that. Over the last several years, cattle that have been preconditioned have continually averaged more dollars per head than their counterparts. It is very common to see premiums of $20-$40 or more per head depending on sex and weight. This concept may not be feasible for everyone, but it is an idea that all cattlemen should think about. If it is something you can do, I am certain it will positively effect your cattle operation’s reputation and your bottom line. Grant R. Keenen International Brangus Breeders Association Director of Commercial Marketing Programs
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Grant Keenen is the Director of Commercial Marketing Programs for the IBBA. For any questions or inquiries regarding IBBA Commercial Programs, such as OptimaxX and Brangus Gold, Grant can be reached by phone at 210.696.8231 or by email at grant@int-
Add the above ideas to an Age and Source Verification program and your cattle will have a complete set of credentials placing them at the front of the class. The International Brangus Breeders Association offers their USDA approved ASV program, OptimaxX, to any cattlemen that has the needed documentation to prove age and source and genetic verification. Feel free to contact me any time as I would be more than happy to discuss our programs with you.
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 7
NUTRITION STRATEGIES | by Dr. Matt Hersom
Considerations for Energy Requirements and Supplementation of Grazing Beef Cattle Introduction
As beef cattle production systems change and the genetic makeup of the cow herd progresses, the utilization of grazed forage as the main feed resource remains important. The forage base is a dynamic source of nutrients, particularly energy. The variation in energy content of forage is affected by a number of factors (stage of growth, fertilization, precipitation, etc). The amount of forage available for grazing also fluctuates throughout the year. Therefore, differences in forage availability also constitute another variable affecting forage nutrient availability. Due to the variation of forage energy content and forage availability, grazed forage often does not meet the energy requirements or desired rate of performance of the beef cattle grazing the forage (Moore et al. 1999). To exacerbate a difficult situation, the energy requirements of the grazing cattle change during the year based upon stage of production. Additionally, the energy requirements of grazing cattle are not well documented (Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997). Therefore, the combination of changing forage chemical composition and thus energy availability and changing beef cattle requirements presents a challenging environment in which to provide adequate nutrition.
Important Forage Factors
As previously mentioned, the forage base is one of the two key factors affecting the energy supply and subsequent supplementation of grazing beef cattle. Forage chemical composition and forage intake potential are interrelated and important variables affecting cow energy supply. Forage chemical composition varies throughout the year, among forage species, and across geographic regions. Numerous reports exist in the literature that detail forage chemical composition on an annual basis. These data offer an op-
portunity to review the extent of energy content variation for specific forages and across time. Energy content of forages can have ranges of about 5 to 20% total digestible nutrients (TDN) or 0.05 to 0.20 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mcal/lb of net en- Dr. Hersom is currently ergy of maintenance an Assistant Professor (NEM). Other and Extension Beef Cattle chemical charac- Specialist at the University teristics that are of Florida, specializing in the development of important for the strategic nutritional and estimation of intake supplementation programs potential (acid de- to optimize beef cattle tergent fiber [ADF], performance utilizing neutral detergent forage and roughage based fiber [NDF], and diets and evaluation of calf crude protein [CP]) production and growing vary to a greater practices to improve animal performance in integrated extent throughout beef production systems. the year. Coupled together, the variation of energy content and intake potential can significantly affect the forage energy availability for grazing cattle. In Table 1, the differences in dry matter intake potential on a monthly basis across a year utilizing different intake prediction equations are presented. This table alone should be sufficient evidence for the challenge of predicting and meeting grazing cattle energy supplies when coupling cow and forage factors together. All the equations incorporate some forage factor in their calculation. The Moore and Kunkle (1999) equa-
Table 1. Monthly potential dry matter intake as a % of cow body weight by different intake predictions equations a
Continued on page 10 8 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 9
NUTRITION STRATEGIES
Continued from page 8
tion incorporates crude protein, TDN, and ADF. Similar to the Moore and Kunkle equation, the CP_ADF equation utilizes crude protein and ADF. The 1996 NRC equation in contrast, utilizes shrunk bodyweight and NEM of the diet. While there is similarity in the input variables between the Moore and Kunkle and CP-ADF equation, these equations have the largest difference in predicted intake and therefore subsequent energy intake. The prediction intake equations predict intake as a percent of bodyweight, assuming a January 1 calving date, the cow’s bodyweight is at its annual low point because of the recent loss of the calf and products of conception. Amongst all prediction intake equations, predicted forage intake is lowest in January. The low intake results in the minimal energy for maintenance (NEM) and lactation (NEL) intakes in January. This low energy intake corresponds to the occurrence of increased energy requirements.
Cow Energy Requirements-A Three Part Story
Cow energy requirements change throughout the year. The requirement for energy by the mature cow is a dynamic situation because the production cycle is not static. At no point in a yearly production cycle does a cow experience only maintenance energy requirements. We may say that “a cow is just maintaining herself ”, but if she is a productive member of the herd more than maintenance is occurring on a daily basis. Maintenance is defined as the amount of feed energy intake that will result in no net loss or gain of energy from the tissues of the cow’s body (NRC, 1996). In reality a cow must always be adding or subtracting energy from her body Table 2. Monthly energy requirement of grazing beef cow a
tissues. The additive functions to maintenance include; growth, gestation, and lactation. The result of all ongoing energetic functions results in the total energy requirement of the cow.
Maintenance
Interestingly enough the NRC does not consider all maintenance equal. Table 2 presents the energy requirements on a monthly basis of a 5 year-old Brangus cow in a body condition score 5, mature bodyweight (BW) 1,175 lb, peak milk production of 16 lb/d at 8.5 weeks after calving. There exist two distinct phases of maintenance requirements: the lactation period and the dry period. About a 20% difference (NRC, 1996) exists between these two periods. This increase in maintenance energy requirement associated with lactation is due to the increased metabolic demand upon body tissues, not the product (milk) result of lactation. Additionally, the nominal maintenance energy requirements do not account for any energy expenditure for activity associated with grazing. The difference in maintenance energy requirements for grazing cattle could be from 10 to 50% greater depending upon the grazing conditions and forage availability.
Lactation
The net energy of lactation (NEL) requirement expressed for lactation is a function of milk yield, milk fat %, and milk protein %. The previously mentioned variables change during the lactation cycle, and thus the energy requirement of lactation changes accordingly. In the monthly energy requirements (Table 2) peak lactation energy requirement occurs during the second month postpartum. Identified differences between and within breeds that affect milk yield and milk composition also affect the lactation energy requirement. Unlike other energy requirements, lactation has a rapid onset of demand for energy that is initiated by parturition. Development of mammary tissues occur prepartum, but the majority of the lactation energy requirement is associated with milk production.
Gestation
The energy requirement associated with pregnancy is an underlying energetic demand for 10 out of 12 months during the yearly production cycle. Whereas the energy required for gestation is initially very small, just 0.1% of the NEM during the third month postpartum. In contrast, the gestation energy requirement one month prior to parturition is approximately 56% of the NEM requirement during the same time. The post-weaning period is often referred to as a “maintenance period” for the grazing beef cow. Indeed, gestational requirements at weaning (3% of total energy required) do not equate to the greater energetic demand of lactation (17% of total energy demand), however this is an important energetic supply and demand period. This period is utilized for growth of the products of conception.
Growth
Growth in the case of the mature cow herd can be construed as the recovery of body tissue energy (i.e. bodyweight and body condition) not associated with the products of conception. During a small time period after the cessation of lactation and prior to the accelerated fetal growth, additional energy supplied to the cow can be utilized for growth of body tissues. This growth is utilized to regain lost bodyweight and body condition due to the mobilization of body tissues during lactation. These accreted body tissues will most likely be re-utilized at some point during the production cycle to support maintenance or lactation. 10 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
Energy Balance of Grazing Cows
The energy supplied by the forage diet and the energy required by the grazing cow result in the monthly energy balance. The basic premises of a factorial approach to energy supplementation are: 1. There is a hierarchical portioning of energy use in the cow’s body. 2. Maintenance energy requirements are met first. 3. Subsequent energy requirements (lactation, gestation, growth) are met with any remaining energy supply. 4. Supplemental energy will be utilized to meet any deficiency in maintenance energy supply, then to meet productive energy requirements. A comparison of energy requirements and energy supplied by the forage will indicate several months in which energy supplied by the grazed forage is deficient to meet maintenance energy requirements of the example cow. Figure 1 indicates an example of the NEM balance on a monthly basis. The variation in predicted intake and energy supply using different means of estimation is apparent, especially in March through August. Particularly in those months where NEM requirements are not met, lactation and gestational energy requirements are also not met. A deficiency in energy supply indicates that either more feed is necessary or greater energy density in the ration is needed. Suppose that the predicted forage intake by any of the equations had no the maximal limit. If that were the case additional forage could be utilized to meet NEM requirements of the cows. The amounts of forage needed to meet the NEM requirement for each prediction equation in the month of January for the example cow would be an additional 4.8, 3.2, or 8.7 lbs (Moore and Kunkle, NRC, CP_ADF; respectively) of forage dry matter. Likewise in February, the energy deficiency of NEM for the cow would necessitate additional energy input. In February the extra forage intake that would be needed is 0.7, 1.6, and 5.4 lbs of forage. Obviously, the forage energy supply is not sufficient to meet a lactating-grazing cow’s energy requirements. However, since we believe that the prediction equations are accurately predicting maximal forage dry matter intake, there likely would not be sufficient intake capacity in January and February (first two months after parturition) for additional forage dry matter intake. As obviously shown in Table 1, total intake and thus predicted energy supply from forage alone varies among the three presented prediction equations. These prediction equations consider a number of chemical components to arrive at the predicted dry matter intake. Accurate prediction of grazing cattle dry matter intake has been and continues to be a challenge to accurately asses. Obviously in production settings large, long-term energy deficiencies are not tolerated. More to the point, the NRC predicts for the example grazing cow that nominal monthly pasture conditions would result in a loss of one body condition score every 35 to 55 days from January through June without any input of additional energy. During this time period the energy requirements are too great and forage quality and availability are too limiting to achieve acceptable cow performance. The alternative to additional forage dry matter intake is to provide additional energy in supplemental feeds. To meet the NEM deficiency in January and February a reasonable approach to supplemental energy can be accomplished with energy dense supplemental feeds. The quantity of supplemental feed will vary depending upon the predicted dry matter in-
take and NEM concentration of the supplemental feedstuff. The amounts of supplemental feed needs to be determined to meet the energy deficit. Given the nature of energy supplementation factors such as substitution, associative effects, and dietary protein adequacy are likely to have multiple impacts on forage dry matter intake and the resulting energy balance. Ultimately during the year, cow NEM and NEL requirements decrease and these energy requirements can be met entirely by the grazed forage. Having met the NEM requirements, the next priority in energy partitioning is lactation. In the factorial design, all forage energy is first partitioned to meet NEM requirements. In the case of January and February no forage would be available to meet NEL requirements because of the NEM deficiency. Therefore, all of the energy to support lactation would be derived from the supplemental feeds. In the subsequent months of March through June, an excess of NEM exists in the forage. The excess NEM allows some of the forage to be utilized to meet the NEL requirements during the rest of lactation. The available excess forage from NEM therefore decreases the amount of supplemental feed needed to support lactation. Gestation is the final energy requirement to be met. The cow will maintain herself and current calf through lactation before expending energy for gestation. Gestation energy requirements begin in March (for the example cow), and because of simultaneous NEM and NEL requirements, energy supplementation to support gestation would also occur in March. Gestational energy requirements are relatively low during the first trimester (March to May), indicating only a minor demand for energy supplementation to a grazing cow. Depending upon which dry matter intake prediction equation is utilized dictates if forage alone can support gestational energy requirements during May and June. The equation developed by Moore and Kunkle indicates adequate forage in May and June to supply energy for gestation. In contrast, the NRC and CP_ADF equations do not predict adequate forage intake in May and June to meet maintenance, lactation, and gestation energy requirements. Thus a slight energy deficiency is present indicating minimal energy supplementation is needed. From July through September adequate forage energy exists to meet both maintenance and gestation requirements. However, during the last trimester gestation energy demands increase and can not be met by grazed forage alone. In fact, gestational energy demands just prior to parturition can nearly equal those of early lactation. The increase in energy requirement associated with pregnancy would necessitate the initiation of energy supplementation to the grazing-gestating beef cow.
Forage Supplement Interaction
As previously mentioned, supplemental feeds to meet energy requirements can create an interaction of the forage and supplement. Acknowledgement of that interaction should be addressed. One should refer to the work of Moore et al. (1999) to examine the interaction of supplement type and forage type on animal intake. In their review, Moore et al. (1999) indicated that forage intake was both increased and decreased with supplementation. These authors reported that much of the negative effect on forage dry matter intake (substitution) occurred when forage TDN:crude protein ratio was less than 7, whereas a TDN:crude protein Continued on page 12 FRONTLINE Beef Producer 11
Nutrition strategies
Continued from page 11
ratio greater than 7 likely indicates a nitrogen deficit in the forage. This nitrogen deficit likely affects forage intake, digestibility, and thus forage energy value. Marston and Lusby (1995) indicated that once protein requirements within the diet are met, increasing energy intake by feeding supplementation would be difficult without substitution. Consideration of the forage-supplement interaction needs to be fully addressed in practical feeding situations.
Conclusions Our current inability to wholly and accurately predict grazing cattle forage intake impairs our ability to accurately assess and meet the energy requirements of cow particularly as cow herd genetics evolve. The combined variances of forage supply, forage quality, and animal require-
ments during the year present a matrix of scenarios that increases the difficulty of assessing energy balance in cattle. The same environmental factors that affect forage growth also affect cow-calf management. Movement of the calving season to more closely match cow energy requirements to forage energy availability presents other serious management considerations. The consequence of not matching energy supply and demand necessitates energy supplementation to our cow herd. Altering the energy status of cows in productive settings presents particular challenges throughout the year including forage energy concentration, intake potential, and supplement type. In addition, characteristics not addressed in this discussion (associative effects) will affect forage dry matter intake and energy intake, and ultimately cow energy balance.
“THE COWMAN’S KIND OF CATTLE” Fourth Annual Brangus Bull and Female Sale
Saturday, April 17, 2010 * 1:00 p.m. At the ranch near Byars, Oklahoma
Selling approximately 450 head
80 Registered Brangus Bulls 70 Registered Brangus Females 200 Commercial Brangus and Ultrablack Females
Sutton x PowerSurge x Exacto Top 15% for BW and REA. Posted a 15.84 Actual REA for a 1.54 REA/CWT.
Chili Pepper x KO x Raybro Maternal Power. Dam consistently produces one of the top fall bulls and she sells too!
Leadtime x Lutine x Prime Loaded with red meat! Excels in performance and phenotype.
References Caton, J. S. and D. V. Dhuyvetter. 1997. Influence of energy supplementation on grazing ruminants: Requirements and responses. J. Anim. Sci. 75:533-542. Garces-Yepez, P., W. E. Kunkle, D. B. Bates, J. E. Moore, W. W. Thatcher, and L. E. Sollenberger. Effect of supplemental energy source and amount of forage intake and performance by steers and intake and diet digestibility by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1918-1925. Marston, T. T. and K. S. Lusby. 1995. Effects of energy or protein supplements and stage of production on intake and digestibility of hay by beef cows. J. Anim. Sc. 73:651-656. Moore, J. E. and W. E. Kunkle. 1999. Evaluation of equations for estimating voluntary intake of forages and forage-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 77(1):204. Moore, J. E., M. H. Brant, W. E. Kunkle, and D. I. Hopkins. 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. J. Anim. Sci. 77(2): 122135. NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington DC. Out Front
Continued from page 4
Grant x Best Bet x Lutine Power. Power. Power. Top 20% for WW and top 15% for YW.
Cadence x Chili Pepper x Lutine Ranks in the top 15 % for Milk EPD. Will calve to our popular Grant 194/6, by sale day.
Grant x Lutine x Lutine Moderate birth and packed with growth, she should calve to Brinks Casino 541T108 in February.
Call, email, or visit www.djmfarms.com for catalog!
bulls with known predictability of performance. I cannot stress strongly enough, that our only real chance of success rests on our ability to identify bulls with high levels of predictability. Selecting a bull with no knowledge of its genetic value is like gambling at a favorite recreational watering hole.
DJM FARMS 39002 130th Street * Byars, OK 74831
Danny Meyer, Owner, (405)833-6232 Tyler Dean, Manager, (405)207-6921 email@djmfarms.com * www.djmfarms.com
12 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
To place your ad in the State Directory, please call Melanie Fuller at 979.828.5300
FEATURE | by Clifford Mitchell
Management Change Holistic approach fit grass-fed model
F
amily businesses pass from one generation to the next almost daily. It’s an honor, for most, to pass the torch and keep the legacy alive; however for some, the glory has often faded with time and the older generation seeks a better life for the next. This way of thinking gave birth to T.O. Cattle Company and Morris Grass Fed Beef in San Juan Bautista, operated by Joe and Julie Morris, along with their children Jack and Sarah. “My grandfather, J.J. Baumgartner, always told me not to get into the beef business. He’d say go do something else where you can make a better living. That idea never really appealed to me and I started working ranches. I have been on my own since 1991,” states Joe Morris. Most cattlemen come by tradition honestly and change is a hard word to enter the vocabulary. It was exactly opposite for Morris as he began to establish a business model and look for ways to add profitability to his ranching enterprise. “When I talked with the best ranchers I knew, they all said you can’t make a living in the cattle business. I knew then I had two choices,” Morris says. “I either had to do things the same way they did and starve to death or make a change.” Morris began looking at ways to manage the ranch that were both economically and ecologically sound. An evaluation of the rangeland helped the family move toward a different type of management that would, hopefully, improve the ranch. “When we looked at the rangeland, we didn’t like the things we were seeing. The oak trees, perennial grasses and creeks were all in a state of decline,” Morris says. “Holistic management made a lot of sense in our situation. We started limiting the time the riparian areas were exposed to cattle, rather than just look at numbers. Once we implemented the new management system, we actually extended the grazing season by two weeks. That’s money in my pocket. Our creeks and riparian areas have made vast improvements.” Periodic reviews of financial records for budgeting and planning purposes is a sound business practice. During one of these routine checkups, Morris found a weakness. “When we looked at marketing, we realized we weren’t getting enough dollars for our cattle,” Morris says. “That’s when I decided to take over marketing and go directly to the consumer. After all, I grew up on my grandfather’s beef and it was the best I had ever tasted.” The abrupt change in marketing philosophy led to some hard and fast decisions. To put the plan in action, Morris had to look at his resources
and define his product. The highly competitive nature of the beef business would allow for few mistakes. “I didn’t know a lot about feedlots. At the same time, I didn’t want to learn because feedlots have struggles that we don’t have out on the land,” Morris says. “The grass-fed model worked for us and we started producing that product for our friends.” The USDA has strict interpretations and label concerns for niche market products. ABOUT THE AUTHOR These products, to garner that moniker, must Clifford Mitchell is a second fall under the guidelines of certain raising and generation cattleman who handling practices. Morris feels, even within currently owns and operates the framework of the rules, his product is Elkhorn Creek, a freelance somewhat unique when compared to other communicationsbusinessin Guthrie, Oklahoma. Upon products that have the grass-fed label. “Carbon is the biggest greenhouse gas graduation from Oklahoma State University he began a Americans produce. As cattlemen, it becareer in communications, hooves to try and change this situation. We starting as a field reporter. can do this by managing the relationship be- Mitchell currently writes tween the grazing animal and grass,” Morris for a wide range of beef says. “What’s the process from the sun hitting publications. the grass until that piece of meat on your fork gets to your mouth? All grass-fed beef isn’t the same because you can hit USDA’s written target through a variety of means. I know people who haul forage to cattle and call it grass-fed beef. It doesn’t have the same virtue as my grass fed beef.” Most beef producers like to think they are working with Mother Nature as a partner to produce the end product. Morris takes this one step further, knowing his system has to make the most of the resources she provides. “We plan our grazing system to fit the needs of the plants. In dry years, we have to manage within the reality of the conditions and prepare the surface for the next rainfall. We improve our chances of survivability by taking advantage of every opportunity to control our plan,” Morris says. “Mother Nature helps us fulfill our system requirements.” The holistic approach allows Morris to keep improving the ranch’s resources. Managing the relationship between the grazing animal and the grass, in periods of adequate moisture, is where the outfit starts to reap the rewards of good stewardship. “We definitely want the animal gaining everyday and the more days we can graze the better. When we manage the relationship correctly, the animals do well and the plants do well, there is no trade off,” Morris says. “If we abuse our animals or our resources aren’t as good, we have lesser quality beef to sell to our customers.” Since every year is different, sometimes harvest age and weight will vary based on the grazing conditions. Morris divides his supply into basically three age groups for harvest. “We harvest animals as two-year olds, three-year olds and we have a “culinary cow.” Since we graze on all native pastures, some cattle don’t Continued on page 14 FRONTLINE Beef Producer 13
management change
Continued from page 13
finish as twos. All of our customers are families and that good quality cow can eat in a variety of ways,” Morris says. “Sometimes we have to extend harvest because of drought or other management challenges. The slaughter facilities in our area are rare and not that big. This flexibility helps us in many ways. Specifically, we can better manage our ground and things like cash flow.” Most outfits that have crossed the lines into the beef business have looked to supply restaurants, specialty markets or gift boxes on the internet. Morris specifically targeted the buyers of halves and split halves for his product. “It always made the most sense to have a diverse customer base. A restaurant only wants one, two or three different cuts off beef and you’re constantly juggling inventory,” Morris says. “In our direct marketing program, customers take all of the beef. We harvest seasonally, but we are going to try to deliver our frozen product on a year round basis.” He explains most animals are home-raised stock; however, last year when numbers were down due to drought recovery, about 15 percent of the harvested animals were purchased to help grow the company at an adequate rate. Morris enjoys the one-on-one relationship this type of marketing can bring. Time constraints force the outfit to find creative ways to keep in contact with the customer base. “We have to keep that one-on-one relationship as simple as possible. We will have one field day annually. The customer can visit our ranch and view our operation. We try to make this time meaningful to our customers,” Morris says. “I also put out a newsletter two or three times per year.” Processing facilities are the key to this type of business. For each order, Morris explains the ranch follows a relatively simple protocol to deliver the product. “We have prescribed cutting instructions for the butcher. We work with three different processing facilities and we handle all of them a little differently,” Morris says. “Usually, we’ll haul animals in with the cutting instructions and we’ll pick most of the beef up and deliver it. We try to get all of our pick-up orders at the same facility.” Closely working with the processing facilities helps Morris provide a better product. He credits these firms with fine-tuning the process. “Our butchers have been great allies. They’ve helped us figure out the best way to cut our product,” Morris says. “Our target has always been a high Select, low Choice product. Due to our feed resources and our genetics we’re just now starting to have cattle hit that target. We have identified genetics that will produce a higher quality carcass in our management program. We dry age our product anywhere from 10 to 21 days,
14 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
depending on the butcher’s facilities. The jury is still out on what’s best. Our customers want the product aged.” Every beef producer has to be part educator to enlist support from the buying public. Grass-fed beef takes on its own identity and presents different challenges than the corn-fed product. To most “Greenies”, this is a better alternative to what they can buy in the store. “Grass-fed beef contains more Omega 3 fatty acids. Most people really like the taste and for some reason, all kids like it. The steaks and ground beef are pretty much a slam dunk with our customers,” Morris says. “We have to coach people on how to cook it. It has less fat than corn fed beef and people often cook it too fast, too hot and too long. It’s almost like a second job and that’s why direct marketing beef doesn’t fit every operation.” With all the negative media influences and certain animal rights groups pressuring politicians, it’s harder and harder for some ranchers to trust neighbors, even though most have good intentions. This is also occurring in other parts of the United States, not just in California. Morris believes his form of marketing and the relationships he’s made over the years can help foster good will between two diverse parts of our culture, seizing the moment to use a raising practice to help befriend the community. “In California, we have an unfair advantage because of the number of neighbors we have. I have sold my neighbors beef and opened the avenue of communication. This has helped create fans, instead of unhappy neighbors. Most of our customers are urban. It’s not only about the quality of the beef, but also the relationships with those on the land,” Morris says. “Our local market wants to know who’s producing it, where it’s coming from and how it’s being raised. All of these things have helped us grow our market. This is more than a romantic tale. We can show good management helps the range. We have cleaner creeks and better grass. All of these things push us to keep that animal grazing as long as possible.”
To place your ad in the State Directory or services, please call the Melanie Fuller at 979.828.5300
FEATURE | by Marcine Moldenhauer
Herd Health & Nutrition
The Impact on Production and Total Herd Value
A
s the February winter weather drags on, most producers look forward to the fresh faces of new baby calves being born, greening pastures, and warming days. It’s the time of year for renewal, new beginnings, and getting excited about what lies ahead for the New Year.
This is an awesome time that I have always looked forward to…don’t we all wish every boy and girl could experience the joy of new life in agriculture! Wow, what a difference it might make to the livestock industry in general…..well enough of my soap box, what we are talking about is herd health or factors which can impact or be a result from herd health. There are many technical experts in both academia and industry that can provide volumes of research and reasoning for making herd health a critical element in your production system. However, I would like to turn from strictly herd health to include the importance of nutrition to support a herd health program. Production at the ranch is important but there are other reasons for a good herd health program. Overall herd health is impacted by good herd nutrition and thus to the point of this article, carcass or meat quality. It is no secret that for animals and humans to receive the most long lasting benefits and effects from a health regimen, nutritional balance is absolutely critical. There are volumes of research which prove that if an animal’s nutritional state is not balanced and sufficient, the best health care in the world doesn’t return the best possible results.
continual measurement woven into your management system. Manage from measurements, no guessing needed. Over time you will have a much better “feel” of what changing conditions mean and how you supplement for them, such as excess moisture versus drought, different ages of your cows, body score condition when going to pasture, etc. You know the list. Right about now you are thinking: what is the point of all of my rambling. Well it is from my years of experience with many ranchers from all across the U.S. that these measurements have unlocked many frustrating mysteries.
The performance of your cattle will speak volumes about your attention to detail.
Now I know what some of you are thinking… you manage and balance health with nutrition along with regional issues unique to your ranch, but it’s the next guy who screws up your hard work. For today’s sake, let’ not worry about that for now….instead we will focus on what you can control which affects our cattle’s performance for the “next guy or the buyer”. The performance of your cattle will speak volumes about your attention to detail. Speaking of attention to detail; let me get specific on what I am talking about and what you need to make sure you are taking actions to measure and then “micro manage”. Nutritionally speaking, it is the attention to little details that really matter. These would include details about deficiencies of minerals identified by soil samples from each pasture and hair samples of your cows, bulls, and calves. This should be done before you go to pasture and at weaning if possible. Knowing these specifics should change how you match any deficiencies to your vitamin / mineral supplement package. Any improved performance from this effort plus the complement of your available feed stuffs is money in your pocket. These measures should not be a onetime discovery process; rather a
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Marcine Moldenhauer, Owner and President of Meat≈Link Management, a Livestock and Meat Business Consulting Firm; Contact Information: Wichita, Kansas 67230, Office 316-7338506, marcine_moffice@att. net
There are countless producers that I have spent hours with, laboring over why their cattle didn’t perform like expected at the ranch, feeding and carcass. I don’t mean to infer that all of them fed their own cattle, rather pointing out that they have a mind set of sharing what they do and know with their buyers and only look for buyers of their cattle that will share data back.
Having bought, fed, and worked with alliances who have a strict mission to work with producers like the people I am referring to above, I know that the value placed on producers having health and nutrition records ranks as high, if not higher, than knowing all of the detail around the expected genetic potential. WHY? Mostly because the long term impact on cattle performance from substandard or poorly balanced health and nutrition management has far reaching and irreversible impacts to the “overall P & L”. From this experience, I have watched and learned that the answers to performance problems were directly related to a mineral imbalance at the pasture level. Simple soil and hair samples revealed serious deficiencies which were easily and relatively quickly corrected. The amazing part of these stories is that these ranches started experiencing dramatic improvements in cow pregnancy rates, number of live calves born, increase in pounds of calves weaned, and cows maintaining a higher body condition on virtually the same amount or less feed. In closing, the message is very clear, herd health is very important, but don’t forget to include a well balanced, smartly managed nutrition program as well….one without the other will result in average results compared to what is possible. FRONTLINE Beef Producer 15
Beef cattle genetically selected for semi-arid rangeland
FEATURE | by Bethany Shively
2010 Cattle Industry Convention and NCBA Trade Show Attract Thousands of Cattle Producers to San Antonio Attendees are Addressing Key Industry Challenges,Opportunities San Antonio (January 28, 2010) - More than 5,000 cattle industry members descended on San Antonio, TX for the 2010 Cattle Industry Convention and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Trade Show. The event is the largest of its kind in the cattle industry, and includes the annual meetings of NCBA, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, American National CattleWomen, Cattle-Fax and the National Cattlemen’s Foundation. “This is an important time for the future of the beef industry,” Gary Voogt, NCBA past president told thousands of producers attending the Opening General Session. “Our business and our way of life are under attack.
28th Annual NMSU Cattle and Horse Sale Saturday, April 24, 2010 Cattle at 10:00 am and Horses later that day NMSU Horse Center in Mesilla Park, NM Cattle:
45 yearling Angus, Brangus, and Brahman bulls on test. Offering a few 2-year old Brangus and Brahman bulls, and ~10 Angus and Brangus heifers. Including a strong set of ¼ Brahman x ¾ Angus cattle from 1st generation breeding. Cattle derived from Chihuahuan Desert Rangeland Research Center and Corona Range and Livestock Research Center. Brangus since 1966, Angus since 1982, and Brahman since 1998. We are excited about the balance among the traits of calving ease, fertility, and growth. 19 bulls in this test had an actual birth weight less than 75 lbs.
Horses:
Selling ~20 ranch-type Quarter Horses. 15 are well-broke and three years of age and older. For updates, catalogues and images: http://aces.nmsu.edu/ academics/anrs/ or contact: Cattle: L. Neil Burcham (575) 646-2309 or Milt Thomas (575) 6463427, milthoma@nmsu.edu Horses: Joby Priest, (575) 646-5595, priest@nmsu.edu
16 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
“Our committees will be addressing this and other problems this week as we work toward a unified plan to make the business profitable and sustainable again,” he told attendees. “The buck stops with you. Get after it.” Keynote speaker at the Opening General Session of the Convention was Chris Gardner, author of the book The Pursuit of Happyness and inspiration for the 2006 blockbuster movie of the same name starring Will Smith. The Pursuit of Happyness chronicles a compelling rags-to-riches story that found Gardner homeless and trying to raise his son 20 years ago. He landed a trainee position at Dean Witter Reynolds in 1981 and worked his way up, becoming a top earner at Bear Stearns & Company and starting his own brokerage firm, Gardner Rich LLC in Chicago. The NCBA Trade Sow opened featuring more than 260 exhibitors who are highlighting their products and services to attendees. In addition, NCBA’s award-winning Cattlemen-to-Cattlemen television program aired two live programs on RFD-TV Tuesday and Wednesday night to showcase the Convention and views of many of its attendees. The 2010 Cattle industry Convention wrapped up Saturday, Jan. 30, when the annual meetings of the NCBA and the Cattlemen’s Beef Board are conducted. ### The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has represented America’s cattle producers since 1898, preserving the heritage and strength of the industry through education and public policy. As the largest association of cattle producers, NCBA works to creat new markets and increase demand for beef. Efforts are made possible through membership contributions. To join, contact NCBA at 1-866-BEEF-USA or membership@beef.org. --------------------The Brangus breed was represented at NCBA by the International Brangus Breeders Association, Camp Cooley Genetics (TX), Circle X Land & Cattle Co. (TX), and Southern Cattle Company (FL).
FEATURE | by Clifford Mitchell
Identifying Profit Potential Tag programs offer market flexibility
T
he Olympics provide a good look into what it means to be unified and, at the same time, the freedom for athletes to rise above their countrymen. During the opening ceremonies, all the countries are unified under the flag creating a symbol for its athletes. For each competition, individual athletes can distinguish themselves with their achievement.
Tag programs come in many forms, but also have the ability to unify groups of calves into a single marketing group. The information base and management protocol needed to meet the requirements of these programs will often differentiate certain producers from competitors. “These programs often start producers keeping records. They start operating their cow herd like a business. Through simple record keeping and the information created with these programs, producers can make better management decisions,” says Ben Neale, Executive Director, Tennessee Livestock Network, Nashville, Tennessee. “Sometimes these programs will put more pressure on operators to become better businessmen. As producers pay more attention to detail, they can start identifying troublesome cows or that inferior herd bull, which leads to genetic improvement” says Curt Lacy, Extension Economist-Livestock, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension, Tifton, Georgia. “Programs like this help producers keep better records. They’ll do things like tighten breeding season up more so they have a more uniform set of calves to sell. Any program, like OptimaxX, will help producers be more aware of how to run their operation,” says Steve Densmore, Circle X Land and Cattle Co. Ltd., Bryan, Texas. OptimaxX is an IBBA sponsored PVP program available for users of Brangus genetics. There are many programs available to producers. Each program comes with its own laundry list of benefits. Producers need to look at each program and see which one will suit the program and production goals. “The biggest advantage that the OptimaxX program offers is the calves are age and source verified. Right now, we’re not seeing a lot of premium, but hopefully as the demand for age and source verified cattle increases, we’ll see those premiums at the producer level,” Densmore says. “There is more paperwork, and we don’t like to do more paperwork, but we have to do it so we can share information.” “The fact the cattle are age and source verified is a big advantage. We bought some of these program calves and have them on feed. When we get closed out, hopefully, we’ll know more about what the cattle will do,” says Lee Alford, Alford Cattle Co., Caldwell, Texas. “There are buyers who are very interested in age and source verified cattle because there are some programs that provide guaranteed premiums at harvest,” Neale says. “Producers who have two calving seasons have
a great opportunity because these programs will need a steady supply of age and source verified cattle.” “Age and source verification is becoming more important as a marketing tool. I really think you are selling information,” Lacy says. “Documentation of management practices applied to an animal and how cattle are handled will be important in the future.” Cattlemen have been trained to look for premiums at the market place. AlloABOUT THE AUTHOR cating the benefits of increased management Clifford Mitchell is a second throughout the operation could help justify generation cattleman who the extra management. currently owns and operates “Cattle that qualify for these pro- Elkhorn Creek, a freelance grams give producers more market flexibility communicationsbusinessin and should create some value,” Lacy says. Guthrie, Oklahoma. Upon “Cattlemen are going to have to focus on graduation from Oklahoma State University he began a avoiding discounts rather than capturing precareer in communications, miums. I think as the market turns there is starting as a field reporter. going to be more of a difference in base price Mitchell currently writes and cattle that are discounted.” for a wide range of beef “Premiums for age and source veri- publications. fication vary from time to time. It all boils down to what the cattle are going to cost and how they fit the market,” Alford says. “You would think there would be a point in time, that age and source verification would be a definite advantage. It all depends on timing and market demand.” “To get full benefit you have to market cattle that qualify into specific programs,” Neale says. “There are a lot more benefits that come with increased management than just a market premium. Following program guidelines and keeping better records can help create a better product.” “OptimaxX is a good program, but it could take a while for the producer to actually start seeing premiums for his calves. The demand, for age and source verified calves, is still in the infant stages,” Densmore says. “Producers need to take advantage of any program that offers the potential to add value to the calf crop.” As cost of production continues to climb, some producers may have to re-evaluate management. Producers need to look at the business model to determine revenue generating goals. “Lower market price and rising costs of production are both contributors to shrinking profit. I don’t see anything out there that makes me think cost of production is going down,” Lacy says. “Producers have to do anything they can to help maximize profit generating ability. Find ways to add revenue, with the current production costs.” Cattlemen must be prepared to do a little extra to realize value in their calf crop. Producers who are willing to take the extra step add market flexibility and are able to maximize profit. “We sell our calves to the same buyer year after year for a premium. The age and source verification component of the OptimaxX proContinued on page 18 FRONTLINE Beef Producer 17
management change
Continued from page 18
gram works well for us because we we’re already individually identifying calves anyway,” Densmore says. “We’ve been backgrounding and pre-conditioning our calves for years. Age and source verification allows us more flexibility in the market.” “You still have to buy cattle right and lock in your profit, but there should be a little more profit potential with age and source verified calves,” Alford says. “The commercial cow calf man needs to realize along with age and source, the best way to add value to his calves is to background them. Age and source doesn’t affect health.” “Putting that tag in their ear is just the “cherry on top of the sundae.” It’s a combination of genetics, health and the ability to market in load lots. What good is age and source on cattle if they still get sick,” Neale says. “Market your cattle into a specific program. Some years retained ownership is an option or producers need to focus on direct marketing to find “true value” in the calf crop.” “Age and source verified pre-conditioned cattle are what buyers are looking for. We’re seeing this through the sales our feeder calf marketing associations are having right now. Buyers are looking for a bundle of attributes not just one thing or another,” Lacy says. “People who can’t provide this information are very limited in their ability to market the calf crop. This information provides a producer with the flexibility to market cattle in a special sale, take them to the local auction or if they are willing to take the risk, retain ownership. Whatever situation provides the most value.” The information trail created should help facilitate information up and down the chain. This data could be useful to the cow/calf man and help influence future genetic improvement decisions. Enrolling cattle in specific programs could have benefits for smaller producers willing to cooperate with other producers in the area or look at special sales. “We have more buyers who are interested in this type of information. This should help information move up and down the chain more efficiently,” Lacy says. “As the number of cattle enrolled in these programs increase, we’re seeing local auctions willing to feature this type of cattle. Producers have to get used to marketing this information.” “This type of information could definitely assist producers in making decisions with the cow herd because they have a better feel for what they are producing,” Alford says. “I don’t know if this type of program will help the guy with 25 calves unless he can co-mingle his calves with a neighbor to make a load lot. Buyers want load lots and are willing to pay premium, in some cases, for this information.” “There are programs out there where you can get carcass data back through the 15-digit number on that ID tag. We’re in the information age, we have to use all the information we can get to start making changes,” Neale says. “These programs can help level the playing field somewhat. Smaller producers can become more efficient and make better breeding decisions. With a little organization and teamwork smaller producers can become “price makers” instead of “price takers.” It takes a little more effort marketing, but he can make it work, even if he only has 25 head to sell.” “Information is important. Down the road, if we can get enough customers enrolled, we’ll buy the tags for people using our genetics the first year to help get them started,” Densmore says. “If we can show them a program that works, it will benefit both of us in the future. We have to be able to exchange information in a timely manner.” The market is ever-changing. As producers dig into their marketing toolbox the alternatives to help find value all come with a price and increased management. Working with a combination of tools to help improve the product could be the only answer. Tag and health programs are nothing new. Finding the right program to facilitate information flow, add market flexibility and increase profit potential could begin with one of these programs. To find “true value” producers must concentrate on production goals, constantly evaluating their parameters to be successful. Focusing on one element of any given program only adds to the confusion in the market place. Visit us at: 18 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
“Once we have more consumers demanding an age and source verified product, hopefully the premiums will trickle down to the producer. People using our genetics have to be successful and they’ll keep coming back, if they make money,” Densmore says. “The OptimaxX program offers a lot of potential. You have to start with a quality product. It still comes back to genetics and health. The tag will not change quality just, add ways to market the calf crop.” “The program has lots of potential and lots of advantages. If I am looking for this type of product, the program could help everybody, even if I don’t buy the calves,” Alford says. “I’ll give a little premium for age and source verified cattle. I’ll give a little premium if they have been backgrounded. It all has to go hand-in-hand. It’s a combination of things that make cattle worth more.” “The potential with these programs is endless. If nothing else, the information you get back can help your program. It still boils down to relationships made with potential buyers. As the confidence builds in your program, that’s where you’ll really start to see premiums,” Neale says. “If you already have a program in place and the market changes, you know what type of product you’re selling because you have the data and can making changes accordingly. Producers, who don’t have information, have to start from scratch.” “We’re starting to see more cattle sold with this combination of health and information. One of the strong markets we’re seeing is for locally produced products right now. People want to know more about what they’re eating,” Lacy says. “You’re selling a reputation that you’ve created through a relationship with the buyer. If you participate in these programs, you’re proud of the product you’re supplying. You’re not necessarily offering a warranty, but you’re willing to associate your name with those cattle.”
OptimaxX is. . .
The Optimum Age & Source Verification Program for Maximum Profit.
Tilt the scales in your favor for just the cost of a tag! No enrollment fees! No data management fees!
OptimaxX works for you. . .
F Free promotion of tagged calves. F Value added marketing opportunities. F Access to “branded” programs. F Access to age and source verification premiums.
www.GoBrangus.com
210/696-8231
a Age Verified
a Source verified to ranch of origin
a Traceability to at least 50% IBBA genetics.
Performance Tested Bull Sale Saturday, September 25, 2010 Calhoun, GA
Selling 100 Brangus bulls for Profit-minded Beef Producers
David and Susan Vaughan, Owners Ben Spitzer, General Manager ben@svfbulls.com 864-723-3779 (Cell)
PO Box 185 Fairmount, GA 30139 706-337-2295 (Office) www.svfbulls.com FRONTLINE Beef Producer 19
20 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 21
22 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 23
24 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 25
ADVERTISERSINDEX ADVERTISER
PAGE
ABS
1
WEB SITE
PHONE NUMBER
www.absglobal.com
800.ABS.STUD
Circle X Land and Cattle Co., Ltd.
IBC
www.circlexbrangus.com
979.776.5760
DJM Farms
12
www.djmfarms.com
405.833.6232
GENETRUST
BC
www.genetrustbrangus.com
877.GENETRS (436.3877)
www.igenity.com
877.IGENITY
IGENITY
8
JM Cattle Co
4
979.279.5649
New Mexico State University
16
575.646.2309
Oak Creek Farms
3
www.oakcreekfarms.com
979.836.6832
Purina
7
www.cattlenutrition.com
800.227.8941
RJ Cattle/RAMRO LLC
14
361.318.8638
Salacoa Valley Farms
19
www.svfbulls.com
706.337.2295
Southern Cattle Company
IFC
www.southerncattlecompany.com
850.352.2020
Triangle K Farm
9
www.trianglekfarm.com
713.695.6457
Triple JR Cattle Company
10
www.triplejrcattleco.com
713.906.8141
CALENDaROFEVENTS MARCH • 2010
APRIL • 2010
3-5
IBBA Annual Convention, Houston, TX
5-9
Miller Brangus 1st Annual “Pounds on the Ground” Internet Sale
5-6
International Brangus & Red Brangus Show, Houston, TX
16-17
TBBA Convention & Sale, Brenham, TX
5
Global Collection Sale, Houston, TX
17
The Cowman’s Kind of Cattle Sale, Byars, OK
6
Genetic Edge XV Sale, Houston, TX
4/22-5/2
National Red Brangus Show, Monterray, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
7
Global Roundup, Fort Bend County Fairgounds
24
NMSU Cattle & Horse Sale, Mesilla Park, NM
13
“Cut Above” Production Sale, Cullman Alabama Stockyard
24
GENETRUST at Cavender Neches River Ranch, Jacksonville, TX
13
Indian Nation Spring Brangus Sale, Ada, OK
MAY • 2010
18-20
Mound Creek Ranch Sale, Leona, TX
1
JLS International “Winning Tradition”VIII Sale, Devine, TX
20-21
Miami Int. Agriculture & Cattle Show, Miami, FL
8
8th Annual Stars & Stripes Sale, Raymond, MS
23
GENETRUST at Suhn Cattle Company, Eureka, KS
15
1st Annual Field Day, Southern Cattle Co, Marianna, FL
27
WTBBA Springtime Sale, Abilene, TX
27
Cain Cattle Company Bull Sale, Holly Springs, MS
APRIL • 2010 3
SEBBA Showcase IV Sale, Perry, GA
26 FRONTLINE Beef Producer
FRONTLINE Beef Producer 27
28 FRONTLINE Beef Producer