where are we going as cattle get bigger?...2018/02/02 · where are we going as cattle get bigger?...

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


• 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





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







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




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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


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


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)


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



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



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



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



a

b

c



a

bc

9



a

b d

b e

22.5

24.024.9



6.9

6.46.2

a

bb



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



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


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


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



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


We can develop strategies that……

• Maximize quality

• Reduce YG 4’s (excess fat)

• Manage / control carcass weights

11


• 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?


“Somebody has to do something and its just incredibly pathetic

that it has to be us.”

-Jerry Gacria, Grateful Dead


M.E. Youngers, et. al. 2017. PAS 33:135

12

Study of Growth and Development