Arkansas - Agricultural Communication Services - University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Arkansas Animal Science Department Report 2001 Results and Discussion The steer and heifer financial reports are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Average steer and heifer gross income per head was $878.05 (range = $593 to $1,102) and $821.01 (range = $614 to $1,008), respectively. The feedlot returns for steers and heifers averaged $616.52 and $555.11, respectively, whereas the calculated returns averaged $112.30 (range = $-138 to $259) and $130.35 ($-51 to $258), respectively. The fall of 1999 was exceptionally dry and windy which may have contributed to an increase in sickness. A total of 45 calves (14.6%) were treated for sickness. The average medicine cost per sick calf was $31.86. The medicine cost for the entire group averaged $4.65 per head. The health status of cattle in the feedyard usually has a major impact on performance and profit. Healthy steers had higher feedlot returns ($631) than steers that became sick ($522; P < 0.01). In addition, healthy steers had a higher dressing percentage (64.2%) than steers that became sick (62.0%; P < 0.001). Significant differences (P < 0.001) were detected between healthy steers and steers that became sick for final weight (1,210 lb vs. 1,159 lb), average daily gain (3.37 lb vs. 3.03 lb), feed cost of gain ($0.40 vs. $0.44), days on feed (166 vs. 175), carcass weight (776 lb vs. 715 lb), carcass value ($888 vs. $813), total cost of gain ($0.47 vs. $0.58), and percent grading Choice (sick calves = 24% and healthy calves = 50%). Only 8% of the healthy calves graded Standard whereas 41% of the sick calves graded Standard. The steer and heifer average off-the-truck arrival weights were 650 (range = 440 to 920) and 610 lb (range = 490 to 680), respectively. The steer average daily gain, average days on feed, feed cost per lb of gain, and total cost per lb of gain were 3.33 lb (1.57 to 4.77), 167 days (146 to 190), $0.41 ($0.30 to $0.75), and $0.49 ($0.35 to $0.99), respectively. The heifer average daily gain, average days on feed, feed cost per lb of gain, and total cost per lb of gain were 2.78 lb (1.93 to 3.78), 176 days, $0.46 ($0.39 to $0.60), and $0.56 ($0.45 to $0.83), respectively. The average steer carcass weight, ribeye area, dressing percentage, yield grade, and fat thickness were 768 lb (567 to 1,021), 12.4 in 2 (9.0 to 16.1), 63.8% (54.5% to 70.8%), 2.93 (1.09 to 5.63), and 0.42 in. (0.12 to 1.16), respectively. Fortysix percent of the carcasses graded Choice whereas 40% and 13% graded Select and Standard, respectively. A few carcasses graded Prime (0.4%). Carcass value for Choice-Yield Grade 2 carcasses was $117.50, $119.00, $120.50, and $115.50 for March 23, April 12, April 26 and May10 harvest dates, respectively. The percentage English, Continental and/or Brahman breeding was determined for each calf. Carcass of steers that were at least 50% English, no more than 50% Continental and less than 25% Brahman were sorted into one group and those steers that did not satisfy the breed-type criteria were placed in a second group (Table 3). Calves that fit the breed-type criteria graded 65% Choice compared to 35% Choice for the calves that did not fit the breed-type criteria. After reviewing the data, there appears to be enough evidence to support the recommendation that market cattle should be composed of at least 50% English, no more than 50% Continental, and less than 25% Brahman. Listed below are six significant factors that affected the return over specified costs in the 1999-00 Feedout Program. Factors are listed from the most important to the least important. Factors Affecting Returns Over Specified Cost 1. Hot Carcass Weight 2. Days on Feed 3. Quality Grade 4. Yield Grade 5. Medicine Cost 6. Dressing Percentage 1. Hot Carcass Weight – The relationship between hot carcass weight and feedlot returns over specified cost was positive. That is as hot carcass weight increased so did feedlot returns. The more carcass pounds sold, the greater the gross income and feedlot returns. Table 4 shows the relationship between hot carcass weight, total cost of gain, average daily gain and feedlot returns over specified costs. Hot carcass weight discounts were observed for carcasses weighing less than 550 lb and greater than 950 lb. 2. Days on Feed – Cattle were sold on March 23, April 12, April 26 and May 10, 2000. There was a negative relationship between days on feed and returns over specified cost. This means that on the average, the longer that cattle were on feed the lower the returns (Table 5). A factor that affected the relationship between days on feed and feedlot return over specified costs was the price difference between Choice and Select quality grades on two slaughter days. Early in the spring, there was a $3 per carcass cwt. discount between Choice and Select but on May 10 the spread was $7 per carcass cwt. 3. Quality Grade – Cattle that graded Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard had feedlot returns of $560, $557, $507, and $399, respectively for the past two feedouts (1998-1999 and 1999-2000). Marbling is the main factor that affects a calf's ability to grade Choice. Three main factors that affect marbling are: (1) the genetic ability to marble; (2) the maturity, or the physiological age, not the chronological age; and (3) diet. Some cattle breed associations report marbling EPD’s in their sire summary. Carcass traits such as marbling are highly heritable; therefore, selecting high marbling EPD bulls can impact the marbling ability of their progeny. Breed type can also influence a calf's ability to grade Choice. 4. Yield Grade – As yield grade increased from 1 to 4, feedlot return decreased ($565, $521, $523 and $414 for yield grades 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). 5. Medicine Cost – Healthy calves had higher dressing percentage (64.2% vs. 62.0%) and higher feedlot returns over specified costs ($631 vs. $523) than calves that were treated for illness. Healthy calves had a calculated return of $134 more than sick calves. 84
AAES Research Series 488 6. Dressing Percentage – The relationship between dressing percentage and feedlot net return was positive. As dressing percentage increased so did feedlot net return. Many of the factors that affect hot carcass weight also affect dressing percentage. Table 6 summarizes the performance and carcass data from the steers that were in the bottom 25% and top 25% (based on returns over specified costs) and the average of all the steers. In summary, the calves in the bottom 25% had high feed and medicine cost, low dressing percentage and failed to grade Choice. The cattle that performed the best were medium to large framed, heavy muscled, gained well, had a high dressing percentage, did not get sick, and graded Choice. The beef cattle industry has set the standard that quality grade should be Choice, yield grade should be < 3.5, and hot carcass weight between 550 and 950 lb. This year 37% of the steer calves fit all those requirements. Steers that met the industry standards had higher average daily gain (3.40 vs. 3.20 lb) and averaged $65 more per head than those that did not fit the industry standards (P < 0.01). They had higher carcass values ($1.18 vs. $1.06) because they graded Choice, were not discounted for yield grades greater than 4.0 and no carcasses were outside the weight range (550 to 950 lb). Implications Extremes in feedlot return over specified costs, health costs, performance factors and carcass parameters exist in the beef industry. A producer's goal should be to reduce these variables and produce a product that meets the needs of all segments of the beef industry. Value-based marketing at all levels of the industry is rapidly becoming a reality. Ranchers who produce a product that meets the demands will be more competitive in the market place. Table 1. 1999-00 Arkansas steer feedout summary financial results. Item Gross income Expenses Feed Medicine Freight,processing, yardage, interest, etc Total feedlot expenses Feedlot return Steer calf in value Return over specified cost Average Range $878.05 $593 to $1,102 $222.07 $151 to $274 4.32 0 to 72 35.14 _______ 31 to 39 ___________ $261.53 $182 to $342 $616.52 $298 to $806 $504.22 _______ $345 to $661 ___________ $112.30 $-138 to $259 85
Page 1 and 2:
Arkansas Animal Science Department
Page 3:
spine copy ARKANSAS ANIMAL SCIENCE
Page 6 and 7:
INTRODUCTION The faculty and staff
Page 8 and 9:
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation T
Page 10 and 11:
The Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizati
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Demographics and Academic Success o
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Efficacy of Mannan Oligosaccharide
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Effects of Dietary Magnesium and Ha
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Effect of Feather Meal on Live Anim
Page 38 and 39: Arkansas Animal Science Department
Page 42 and 43: Maternal Effects for Performance Te
Page 60 and 61: Supplementation of Beef Cows and He
Page 70 and 71: Influence of Supplementing Cobalt i
Page 80 and 81: Long-Term Immune Response of Beef H
Page 92 and 93: Small Grain Forage for Stocker Catt
Page 100 and 101: Economics of Production Systems Inv
Page 118 and 119: Influence of Moisture Concentration
Page 126 and 127: Impact of Spontaneous Heating Durin
Page 134 and 135: Effects of Tall Fescue Inoculated w
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Yield and Nutritive Value of Easter
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
2000 Dairy Herd Improvement Herds i
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
The Impact of Multiple Antimicrobia
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
The Impact of Multiple Antimicrobia
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
The Use of Hurdle Technology to Red
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Consumer Acceptability of Forage Fe
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180:
show all

Arkansas - Agricultural Communication Services - University of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?