View
8
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Where are we going as cattle get bigger?
Form-A-Feed Beef ConferenceFebruary 22, 2018
Bruns, K.W., R.H. Pritchard, J.C. MacDonald, R.G. Bondurant, R.N Funston.
University of Nebraska, West Central Research & Extension Center, North Platte
Where are we going as cattle get bigger?
2017 ASAS Midwest MeetingsHarlan Ritchie Symposium
Doubling down on carcass weights
1950’s Steer 1005 lbs
1952 Champion Bull
1950’s Steer 1005 lbs
1965 Steer 1025 lbs
1952 Champion Bull
2
Significant Industry Changes
• January, 1986: National Consumer Retail Study– Consumers desiring product with less fat.
• April, 1987: Excel announces ideal specifications – More emphasis on muscle
– Ideal steer 1270 lbs, with enough finish to grade low Choice
Significant Industry Changes
• December, 1991: National Beef Quality Audit– Documents shortfalls in carcass
USDA-74 NBQA-91
HCW 678 760
Fat thickness .62 .59
Rib eye area 11.8 12.9
Yield Grade 3.4 2.2
Marbling Small+ Small24
Choice & Prime 75% 55%
Comparisons between Cycle I and Cycle VII MARC Clay Center, NE
Five year old wts Steer weights and marbling scores
Cycle I Cycle VII Cycle I Cycle VII
Breed End Wt Marbling* End Wt Marbling*
Hereford 1023 1017 Slight 60 Small 20
Angus 1036 1013 Small 50 Small 84
Simmental 1083 1122 Slight 60 Small 27
Limousin 1052 1058 Slight 50 Small 04
Charolais 1154 1129 Slight 60 Small 17
Cycle I – years 1970-1972; Cycle VIII – 1999-2000
*Marbling scores converted to reflect current USDA Standards
Comparisons between Cycle I and Cycle VII MARC Clay Center, NE
Five year old wts Steer weights and marbling scores
Cycle I Cycle VII Cycle I Cycle VII
Breed End Wt Marbling* End Wt Marbling*
Hereford 1023 1420 1017 Slight 60 1321 Small 20
Angus 1036 1411 1013 Small 50 1365 Small 84
Simmental 1083 1404 1122 Slight 60 1363 Small 27
Limousin 1052 1391 1058 Slight 50 1285 Small 04
Charolais 1154 1371 1129 Slight 60 1348 Small 17
Cycle I – years 1970-1972; Cycle VIII – 1999-2000
*Marbling scores converted to reflect current USDA Standards
Comparisons between Cycle I and Cycle VII MARC Clay Center, NE
Five year old wts Steer weights and marbling scores
Cycle I Cycle VII Cycle I Cycle VII
Breed End Wt Marbling* End Wt Marbling*
Hereford 1023 1420 1017 Slight 60 1321 Small 20
Angus 1036 1411 1013 Small 50 1365 Small 84
Simmental 1083 1404 1122 Slight 60 1363 Small 27
Limousin 1052 1391 1058 Slight 50 1285 Small 04
Charolais 1154 1371 1129 Slight 60 1348 Small 17
Cycle I – years 1970-1972; Cycle VIII – 1999-2000
*Marbling scores converted to reflect current USDA Standards
Significant Industry Changes
Yield, Genetics, Technology, Dilution Affect of Purchase Price
3
Greater shift from “live” marketing to “carcass based”
Contributors
• Genetics
1162
1081
866
642
475
427
610
551
798
855
662
594
Change in ranch direct calves
• 29 years
1984 2013
Weaning Wt 465 ___
Slaughter Wt 1014 ___ +291 12.6/year
Change in ranch direct calves
• 29 years
1984 2013
Weaning Wt 465 679 +214 7.4/yr
Slaughter Wt 1014 1415 +401 13.8/yr
+291 12.6/year
Contributors
• The value of a terminal bull
Multipurpose Terminal Sired
Weaning, lbs 552 663
Re-implant, lbs 951 1097
End Weight 1303 1475
4
Contributors
• Technology– Implant strategy
– Implant combined with Beta Agonist
• Better Nutritional and Feedlot Management – Cattle first mentality
– Better bunk management
– Better Pen Management 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450
BW
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
F/G
Beginning of career
Lately
What else contributes?
• Capture value– Dilution of higher priced feeder cattle
– Lower cost of gain allowed increase
What else contributes?
• Shortage of cattle – Fewer discounts for heavies and YG 4’s
Discounts
• Discounts– Historically managed against them
• Discounts are a smaller percentage historically
2000 2010 2016
YG4 15 10 10
Heavies 25 15 20
Total / cwt 40 25 30
$/hd discount $333 $250 $263
% of Value 27% 16% 11%
Is this sustainable?
5
Is it sustainable?
• Can plants handle it?
Is it sustainable plants?
• Can plants handle it?– Physical limitations
Is this sustainable?
• General concerns– Box Weight and handling
– Bruising
– Fewer head on trucks resulting in fewer head in pens
• Can you handle larger REA?– “We can't”
– “Worker safety issues – boxes are too heavy”
– “We are becoming less efficient on the back side”
• Do we lose identify if we just cut a REA?– “Restaurants are finding ways to prepare larger Rib eyes”
– “We lose identity”
– “Problematic to ask the consumer to do something different”
Is it sustainable?
• Box Size
• Box Weight
• Less Weight Less Product = More Boxes
• More Boxes = more handling
• More handling = more people
• More People = Greater costs
Is it sustainable?
• 68% bruised– 53% on topline
• Est $4 to $8 / hd
Is this sustainable?
• General concerns– Box Weight and handling
– Bruising
– Fewer head on trucks resulting in fewer head in pens
• Can you handle larger REA?– “We can't”
– “Worker safety issues – boxes are too heavy”
– “We are becoming less efficient on the back side”
• Do we lose identify if we just cut a REA?– “Restaurants are finding ways to prepare larger Rib eyes”
– “We lose identity”
– “Problematic to ask the consumer to do something different”
6
Is this sustainable?
• What does the consumer think?– Size of cuts
– Increase in seam fat
January 26, 2018
Commentary H. Russel Cross
Oklahoma State ResearchersWhen Bigger Isn’t Better: Steak Size and Consumer Preferences
2016 Agriculture and Applied Economics
- Retailers are being forced to cut thinner- Meet a target package price- 90% respondents negatively influenced by thin steaks
- Spitting steaks implications on demand ???- Concern with identity
NBQA 1991 to 2011- HCW 761 lbs to 825 lbs- REA 12.9 in to13.8 in
1.25” steak
1.0” steak
Is this sustainable?
• What is our goal?– Feed the world
– Provide a great eating experience
• What we need to understand…– How we effectively manage endpoints
– How backgrounding and receiving affect endpoints
Determining value with extended DOF
7
Normal Growth Curve of Cattlea
GrowthUnits
Time Units
a Adapted from Berg & Butterfield, 1976
Birth
Maturity
1000 lbs
1200 lbs
1500 lbs
Determining value with extended DOF
• Target endpoint .5 then past to .6 and .7
• 110 Simmental x Red Angus Steers 740lbs
• Fed 22 & 42 days past
• DOF 142, 163, 185
• Revalor 200 day1
• Fed ad libitum in a Growsafe facility
Days on Feed
Performance 142 163 185
Initial BW 739 741 738
Final BW 1295a 1322a 1392b
Determining value with extended DOF
abc Means with different superscript = P<.01
Days on Feed
Performance 142 163 185
Initial BW 739 741 738
Final BW 1295a 1322a 1392b
DMI 23.8 23.4 24.1
ADG 3.9a 3.6b 3.6b
F:G 6.1a 6.6b 6.8c
Feed Costs 278a 314b 367c
Determining value with extended DOF
abc Means with different superscript = P<.01
Days on Feed
Carcass 142 163 185
HCW, lb 823a 854b 903c
BF, in .49a .56a .69b
REA, in 13.9a 14.6b 13.3ab
Yield Grade 2.9a 3.0a 3.6b
Marbling Score 581 581 605
# Selects 6/36 83% 9/36 75% 5/38 87%
# YG 4’s 1/36 3% 4/36 11% 13/36 36%
# Heavies >1050 (>1000) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (6)
Determining value with extended DOF
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01def Means with different superscripts = P<.05
Days on Feed
Value 142 163 185
QG Value, $/hd 1.43 2.65 5.11
YG Value, $/hd 6.00 2.77 -19.34
Profit/Lost, $/hd 19.81d 44.02de 85.73e
Profit Ranged -$331 to +$418
Determining value with extended DOF
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01def Means with different superscripts = P<.05
8
Characteristics of Profitability, 142 d
In wt 923End wt 1610HCW 1023ADG 5.1DMI 28.2FG 5.5YG 2.9QG Choice+
Profit 375.66
In wt 707End wt 1086HCW 690ADG 2.7DMI 20.8FG 7.5YG 2.8QG Choiceo
Profit -331.46
30633298
$707.12
Characteristics of Profitability, 163 d
In wt 920End wt 1575HCW 1017ADG 4.3DMI 27.3FG 6.4YG 2.5QG Choice+
Profit 315.12
In wt 677End wt 1182HCW 764ADG 3.0DMI 23.5FG 7.7YG 3.2QG Choiceo
Profit -249.73
3290 3212
$564.85
Characteristics of Profitability, 185 d
In wt 809End wt 1596HCW 1035ADG 4.3DMI 27.5FG 6.4YG 3.7QG Choice+
Profit 417.77
In wt 683End wt 1153HCW 747ADG 2.5DMI 17.0FG 6.8YG 2.1QG Select+
Profit -275.99
33553093
$693.76
Characteristics of Profit Steers
• Divided top, middle and bottom 1/3
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01
a
b
c
Characteristics of Profit Steers
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01
a
b
c
Characteristics of Profit Steers
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01
a
bc
9
Characteristics of Profit Steers
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01def Means with different superscripts = P<.05
a
b d
b e
22.5
24.024.9
Characteristics of Profit Steers
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01
6.9
6.46.2
a
bb
Characteristics of Profit Steers
abc Means with different superscripts = P<.01
aa
b
Where do we go from here?
Understand the cattle we are getting in
• Genetics – Who is the seedstock provider
• How were they grown / backgrounded
Creep
Carried over
Management Options for Growth Curves
Creep
Carried over
Elasticity in the Growth Curve
Precision Backgrounding
10
Precision Backgrounding.1
Target ADG 2.0 lb 2.5 lb 3.0 lb SEM
Initial BW, lb 675 673 675 0.9
BW, lb 880b 872a,b 865a 2.9
ADG, lb 2.22a 2.54b 3.04c 0.040
Days 93 79 631Pritchard, Taylor and Bruns unpublished 2014
2 Slight0=400; Small0=500
Precision Backgrounding.1
Target ADG 2.0 lb 2.5 lb 3.0 lb SEM
Initial BW, lb 675 673 675 0.9
BW, lb 880b 872a,b 865a 2.9
ADG, lb 2.22a 2.54b 3.04c 0.040
Days 93 79 631Pritchard, Taylor and Bruns unpublished 2014
2 Slight0=400; Small0=500
Precision Backgrounding.1
Target ADG 2.0 2.5 3.0 SEM
Finishing
Days 122 125 127
ADG, lb 4.09c 3.90b 3.58a 0.058
DMI, lb 24.41c 23.08b 22.57a 0.150
F/G 6.34b 5.93a 5.98a 0.082
Final BW, lb 1371b 1354b 1314a 8.1
1Pritchard, Taylor and Bruns unpublished 2014 2 Slight0=400; Small0=500
Precision Backgrounding.1
Target ADG 2.0 2.5 3.0 SEM
Finishing
Days 122 125 127
ADG, lb 4.09c 3.90b 3.58a 0.058
DMI, lb 24.41c 23.08b 22.57a 0.150
F/G 6.34b 5.93a 5.98a 0.082
Final BW, lb 1371b 1354b 1314a 8.1
1Pritchard, Taylor and Bruns unpublished 2014 2 Slight0=400; Small0=500
Precision Backgrounding.1
Target ADG 2.0 lb 2.5 lb 3.0 lb SEM
Ribfat, in 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.016
HCW, lb 856c 846b 821a 5.0
Marbling2 554b 587a 578a,b 8.1
Total DOF 215 204 1901Pritchard, Taylor and Bruns unpublished 20142 Slight0=400; Small0=500
Where do we go from here?
We can develop strategies that……
• Maximize quality
• Reduce YG 4’s (excess fat)
• Manage / control carcass weights
11
Where do we go from here?
• Can innovate pricing strategies be developed? – Award for combination of quality and cutability.
– Capture the inefficiency of excess weight and fat.
• What is happening to the efficiency of your cow herd?– Given technology what is the ideal cow?
Determining value with extended DOF
“Somebody has to do something and its just incredibly pathetic
that it has to be us.”
-Jerry Gacria, Grateful Dead
Is this sustainable?
M.E. Youngers, et. al. 2017. PAS 33:135
12
Study of Growth and Development
Recommended