1

Chris Richards, Ph.D.

OSU Beef Cattle Extension Specialist

2

“… the phenomenal gains in U.S. agricultural productivity of the past century brought profound benefits to all consumers, regardless of their connection to a farm, in the form of lower prices, better quality and more choices at retail outlets…”

Alan Greenspan

“… we should rise to the challenges that

come with innovation, because innovation brings great improvements in material well‐being.”

Alan Greenspan

Where to begin?

3

AND things are a changingWe are hearing so much about consumers wanting

Natural 

Organic

Sustainable?

Technology ?

Vaccines

Wormers

Antibiotics Injectable

feed

Ionophores

Implants

Hormone injections

Beta‐Agonist

National Cattle Evaluation

Synchronization

Semen storage/extending

Pregnancy testing

Ultrasound

Blood protein test

Embryo transfer

EPD’s

Genomic Enhanced Selection

Disease Testing

4

Technology ?

Irradiation

Electrical stimulation

Injected enhancements

Modified atmosphere packaging

EPDs, AI, Synchronization, ETPhenotypic Trend in Angus Cattle

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Adjusted yearling weights

Adjusted birth weights

1217

847

Beef quality% Cattle Grading USDA Choice and Above

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2009 2016

5

Reproductive Technologies

Connealy Consensus 7229

6,818 of his calves were registered in 2014

Sustained Cow Fertility (SCF)

The Sustained Cow Fertility (SCF) results, reported in percentage units, are oriented such that larger breeding values reflect sires whose daughters calve annually for more years.

Sustained Cow Fertility (SCF)

Both bulls have 200 plus daughters in production

One bull SCF = 170One bull SCF =   57

6

WE TEND TO LEAVE A LOT “ON THE TABLE”

302

546

321

565

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Summer Gain Weaning Weight

Summer Gain (lb)

N R

2014 Implant Study, OSU

P<0.01 P<0.01

19 lbsmore to market

“Current” Use of ImplantsCow/Calf

5.516.4

24.8 26.9

0102030405060708090

100

1-49 50-99 100-199 200+

Pe

rce

nt

of

Op

era

tio

ns

National Animal Health Monitoring System

7

Use Declining in Larger Operations?

64.3

26.531

0102030405060708090

100

1995 2009 2012

Pe

rce

nt

of

Op

era

tio

ns

Superior Livestock Video Auction

Percentage Lots Implanting / Not Implanting

Superior Livestock, 1995-2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

'95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13

Implant

No Implant

Source: Modified from King, Seeger, et al. JAVMA,2006, 2011 

“Current” Use of Implants Finishing and Stocker

9994

77

0102030405060708090

100

Finishing Large Stocker Small Stocker

Pe

rcen

t o

f O

per

atio

ns

Cattle Fax

8

SPBS

Summary of 26 Studies from 1976‐2015

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1.3 1.8 2.3Response to Ralgro (lb/d

)

Control ADG (lb)

Implant response over control ADG

9

-$0.60

-$0.50

-$0.40

-$0.30

-$0.20

-$0.10

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

No Implant

Price Advantage for Not ImplantingSuperior Livestock, 1995-2014

Source: Modified from King, Seeger, et al. JAVMA,2006, 2011 

Natural VS Conventional Beef Production

Implants on Pasture Body Weight

550

806850

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Initial Non‐Implanted Implanted

Body Weight, lb

10

24.68

3.27

7.56

25.56

4.26.09

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overall DMI Overall ADG Overall F/G

Lb

Feedlot System: Overall Feedlot Performance

Natural Conventional

3.6%

28.44%19.44%

798

935

700

750

800

850

900

950

Hot Carcass Weight

Lb

System Effect: Hot Carcass Weight

Natural Conventional

17%137 lbs

($150.24)a

$53.45b

‐200

‐150

‐100

‐50

0

50

100

$/steer

Net Return W/O premiums, $/steer

Natural Conventional

$203.69

SEM = $44.43

11

Historical context

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%2007 1977 Capper, 2011 JAS 89:4249-4261

‐16%

‐18%

‐33%

‐12%

‐19%

‐30%

Production efficiency: 

More with less

What if we stopped using growth enhancing technology? Ionophores

Steroid implants

Melengestrol acetate (MGA)

Beta‐adrenergic agonists

Capper and Hayes, 2012 – sustainablebeef.org

94.9

5.1

Pounds

Other

NaturalandOrganic 93.7

6.3

Dollars

Other

NaturalandOrganic

Natural and Organic Beef Sales

Source: FreshLook Marketing Data 13 weeks ending 12/28/14.

12

Implications 3 oz lean beef

25 grams of protein 154 calories

25 grams of protein from Peanut Butter 564 calories.

Technology in 1 Steer

Feeds 1 1/4  more US Citizen for 1 year17% increase

Sustainablebeef.org

13