Heavy vs Light Weight Steers Grazing Old World Bluestem at Three Stocking Rates: I. Steer Weight Gain and Economic Analysis

Similar documents
LIGHT VS HEAVY WEIGHT STEERS GRAZING OLD WORLD BLUESTEM AT THREE STOCKING RATES. II. NUTRITIVE VALUE, FORAGE INTAKE, AND GRAZING TIME.

Wheat Pasture Intake by Early-Weaned Calves

Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics

Effect of Selected Characteristics on the Sale Price of Feeder Cattle in Eastern Oklahoma: 1997 & 1999 Summary

EFFECTS OF LIMIT FEEDING ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS

Integration of Pasturing Systems for Cattle Finishing Programs

Opportunities exist to increase revenue from cull cows through changes in marketing strategies. This figure shows that cull cow prices tend to bottom

EFFECT OF GRAZING TALL FESCUE ENDOPHYTE TYPES ON SUBSEQUENT FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY

No-till Dryland Cover Crops as a Forage Option for Beef Cattle

Stocker Options Under Adverse Conditions

A Comparison of Milk Production In

Fall Calving in North Dakota By Brian Kreft

The Value of Improving the Performance of your Cow-Calf Operation

Phosphorus Removal by Different Wheat-Stocker Cattle Production Systems

Effects of Sulfates in Water on Performance of Cow-Calf Pairs

Effect of Backgrounding System on Performance and Profitability of Yearling Beef Steers

Ranch Calculator (RanchCalc)

Canfax Research Services A Division of the Canadian Cattlemen s Association

Slope Farms. Our farm. Our work with other farmers. Experience with leasing land. Models for seasonal grazing

Growth Performance of Stocker Calves Backgrounded on Sod-seeded Winter Annuals or Hay and Grain

Grazing Economics 101 Keys to Being a Profitable Forage Producer MODNR-SWCP Mark Kennedy and John Turner

Beef Cattle Profitability Expectations for Kenny Burdine UK Agricultural Economics

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond: A Comparative Analysis Of ND - Demo Cow Herd To North Dakota Database

Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle

Determining Your Unit Costs of Producing A Hundred Weight of Calf

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond A Comparative Analysis Of Demo Herd 1997 Herd To McKenzie County Database

Balancing Forage Demand with Forage Supply

Animal Science 144 Beef Cattle and Sheep Production. Fall Final examination. December 12, 2000

ALFALFA FOR BEEF CATTLE

Use of Soft-Red Winter Wheat Forage for Stocker Cattle Production During the Fall and Winter 1

The Modern Range Cow has Greater Nutrient Demand than the Old Style Range Cow

EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS. Story in Brief

Effect of rotation crop, cover crop, and bale grazing on steer performance, carcass measurements, and carcass value

SDSU. Effect of Calving Time and Weaning Time on Cow and Calf Performance - A Preliminary Report CATTLE 00-7

Update on Preconditioning Beef Calves Prior to Sale by Cow Calf Producers. Objectives of a Preconditioning Program. Vac-45 Calves

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF YOUR PASTURES. Jose Dubeux, IFAS - NFREC NW FL Beef Conference and Trade Show 2015

EFFECTS OF LIMITING FEED ACCESS TIME ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF FEEDLOT STEERS

The Impact of Corn and Fed Cattle Prices on Feeder Cattle Price Slides

Operators in the Texas Panhandle. W. Arden Colette. West Texas A&M University; Division of Agriculture. WTAMU Box 60998, Canyon, Texas 79016

Alternative Livestock/Dryland Forage Systems in the Texas Panhandle

Telephone: (706) Animal and Dairy Science Department Rhodes Center for Animal and Dairy Science

The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resource 20:42-51 (2007) 42 Agriculture Consortium of Texas

Beef Improvement New Zealand Inc.

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

U.S. Beef Production Practices ---

(Key Words: Female Replacement Rate, Profitability, Beef Cattle.) Introduction

BEEF COW/CALF ENTERPRISE BUDGET 2016 Estimated Costs and Returns - San Luis Valley

Reproductive Management of Commercial Beef Cows. Ted G. Dyer, Extension Animal Scientist

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

EC Estimating the Most Profitable Use of Center-Pivot Irrigation for a Ranch

Kansas Farm Economy Update Land and Leasing

A COMPARISON OF BEEF CATTLE BREEDING METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. D.G. Landblom and J.L. Nelson

FEED EFFICIENCY IN THE RANGE BEEF COW: WHAT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT?

Cow-Calf Ranch Input Worksheet- Unit Cost of Production Workshop Users Guide

Opportunities and Challenges for Cow/Calf Producers 1. Rick Rasby Extension Beef Specialist University of Nebraska

Britt Hicks, Ph.D., PAS Area Extension Livestock Specialist. September 2011

Economics Associated with Beef Cattle Ranching. Larry Forero UC Cooperative Extension April 21, 2016

NUTRITION-COW-CALF AND STOCKER

SDSU Sheep Day andusssa Regional Workshop

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE August 1972 FCR-83 cooperating with New Mexico State University COSTS NOV

Jesse D. Savell University of Florida

Long Calving Seasons. Problems and Solutions

Influence of Cow BCS and Late Gestation Supplementation: Effects on Cow and Calf Performance 1

RESEARCH AGRICULTURAL SOUTHEAST AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER. Report of Progress 1013

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Value of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn

Details. Note: This lesson plan addresses cow/calf operations. See following lesson plans for stockers and dairy operations.

Alabama Beef Cattle Strategic Plan

Seeding Rates of Ball Clover in Mixtures with Annual Ryegrass in North Florida

Intro to Livestock Marketing Annie s Project. Tim Petry Livestock Economist 2018

Beef Cattle Nutrition Fast Start Training Dec. 11, Overview U.S. Beef Cattle Numbers. Industry Segments U.S.

The Cattle Feeding Industry

Cattle Feeder's Planning Guide

Cattle & Beef Outlook

Lamb Growth Efficiency and Optimum Finished Weight

2006 Conference Proceedings

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues 1

SHEEP FLOCK PLANNING GUIDE,"

Focus. Panhandle Model Farms - Case Studies of Texas High Plain Agriculture. Diana Jones Dustin Gaskins Jay Yates

2011 STATE FFA FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT TEST PART 2. Financial Statements (FINPACK Balance Sheets found in the resource information)

Change FORAGES MORE PEOPLE FORAGES: CHANGE-CHALLENGES- OPPORTUNITIES. Garry D. Lacefield Extension Forage Specialist University of Kentucky

Got Milk? An Economic Look at Cow Size and Milk. July 13 th, 2015

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Background and Assumptions

An Economic Comparison of Organic and Conventional Dairy Production, and Estimations on the Cost of Transitioning to Organic Production

Central Texas Cow/Calf Clinic

Grass-fed and Organic Beef: Production Costs and Breakeven Market Prices, 2008 and 2009

October 20, 1998 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info U.S., WORLD CROP ESTIMATES TIGHTEN SOYBEAN SUPPLY- DEMAND:

Value of Preconditioned Certified Health Programs to Feedlots

Incorporating Annual Forages into Crop-Forage-Livestock Systems

Feeding Bison Dr. Vern Anderson Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Box 219 Carrington ND USA 58421

Setting a Proper Stocking Rate

Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products

Why Rotational Stocking Makes Dollars and Sense Victor Shelton & Jerry Perkins Grazing Specialists Natural Resources Conservation Service

Silvopasture Economics: Three Case Studies. Larry Godsey Ph.D. Center Economist

Forage Production and Carrying Capacity: Guidelines for Setting a Proper Stocking Rate

Creep Grazing for Suckling Calves A Pasture Management Practice 1

Grazing Management Systems for Optimum Pasture Utilization

Background and Assumptions

Transcription:

1998 Animal Science Research Report Authors: Heavy vs Light Weight Steers Grazing Old World Bluestem at Three Stocking Rates: I. Steer Weight Gain and Economic Analysis Story in Brief Pages 174-180 C. J. Ackerman, S. I. Paisley, G. W. Horn, H. T. Purvis II, T. N. Bodine and B. R. Karges Two-hundred fourteen mixed breed light weight steers (average initial wt: 311 + 37 lb) and 115 mixed breed heavier weight steers (average initial weight: 584 + 37 lb) were used to evaluate the effects of stocking rate on weight gain of steers grazing Plains old world bluestem (OWB) from May 29, 1997 through August 5, 1997. Additionally, the income of the two sizes of steers was analyzed. Three stocking rates were used; 1.5, 1.1, and.7 acres/500 lb of initial steer live weight for light, moderate, and heavy stocking rates. As stocking rates (lb/acre) increased, daily gains decreased by.0003 and.009 lb/steer for light and heavy steers, respectively. Additionally, increasing stocking rate (lb/acre) resulted in increased gains per acre of.46 lb/acre for light and.25 lb/acre for heavy steers. Daily gains were greater for heavy (2.67 lb/d) than light (2.22 lb/d) steers, however, light steers gained more BW/acre (252 vs 158 lb/acre for light and heavy steers, respectively). Steers in the heavy stocked pastures had lower ADG (2.27 lb) than steers associated with moderate (2.49 lb) or light (2.57 lb) stocking rates. Net income for light steers was $34.87/steer and $58.57/acre while net income for heavy steers was $9.98/steer and $8.43/acre. Light weight calves had a higher net income per pound of gain, thus, even though ADG was lower and total initial investment was greater for these steers, greater net income would have been realized for LHT calves. (Key Words: Growing Cattle, Stocking Rate, Old World Bluestem.) Introduction Old world bluestem is one of the main grasses which has been planted on marginal farmland in Oklahoma (Berg and Sims, 1995). The nutritive value of old world bluestems declines rapidly as they mature. Therefore, forage must be kept in a vegetative and actively growing stage in order to achieve optimal performance of growing livestock (Dewald et al., 1985). One method of maintaining this growing stage may be manipulation of stocking rate. Establishing which stocking rates achieve optimal use of forage while maximizing cattle performance would aid in making production decisions. Sims (1988) proposed that old world bluestem pastures could be stocked at a rate of 1 acre per steer in eastern and 3 acres per steer in central Oklahoma during the summer grazing period. Body weight of stocker cattle may be important when considering stocking rates and net income. If stocking rates are based on pounds of liveweight per acre, light weight calves may offer the opportunity to stock more steers per acre. Additionally, the value of body weight gain is often higher for light calves than for heavy calves. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of three different stocking rates on the live weight gain of light and heavy steers. Forage intake, diet quality, and grazing time of these cattle are reported in a companion paper in this report. Materials and Methods Study Site. The study site was located at the Bluestem Research Range 7 miles southwest of Stillwater, OK. Cattle were allowed to graze Plains old world bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum var. Plains: OWB) from May 29, 1997 through August 5, 1997. One hundred lb of N/acre and a herbicide treatment were applied to the pastures early in the growing season. Cattle and Stocking Rate. Two-hundred fourteen mixed breed light weight steers (average initial wt: 311 + 37 lb: LHT) and 115 mixed breed heavier weight steers (average initial weight: 584 + 37 lb: HWT) were used in this study. Steers were weaned and vaccinated prior to their arrival in Stillwater. All steers received a Synovex-Câ implant prior to initiation of the trial.

Stocking rates were: light stocking; 1.5 (LS), moderate stocking; 1.1 (MS), and heavy stocking;.7 (HS) acres/500 lb of initial steer live weight. When expressed as lb/live weight/acre, calculated stocking rates would have been 333, 455, and 714 lb/live weight/acre for LS, MS, and HS, respectively. However, due to variance in steer live weight, actual stocking rates were approximately 350, 450, and 750 lb live weight/acre for LS, MS, and HS, respectively. All stocking rate by cattle type combinations were replicated twice resulting in a total of 12 pastures. Cattle were weighed May 28, 1997 and August 8, 1997. In an attempt to equalize fill across treatments, all cattle were placed in the same tallgrass prairie pasture 3 to 4 d prior to both weigh dates. Approximately 12 to 16 h prior to weighing, cattle were moved to a small holding area devoid of grass, and water was withheld until weighing. Economic Analysis. Gross returns to summer grazing were calculated by multiplying the weight gain of steers by the value of weight gain for each size of steer. For comparison of returns to grazing, gains of LHT and HWT steers were averaged across stocking rates. The value of gain was calculated using the 10-yr, seasonally adjusted Oklahoma City National Stockyards purchase and selling prices for medium-frame, No. 1 steers (Trapp, 1997). The April purchase price of steers was $107.56/cwt for 300 to 400 lb steers and $91.08/cwt for 500 to 600 lb steers. The August selling price was $96.01/cwt for 400 to 500 lb steers and $80.56/cwt for 700 to 800 lb steers. Net income was calculated for both HWT and LHT steers to compare relative profitablity of the two groups. Health and implant costs were estimated to be $18.00/steer for LHT and $9.00/steer for HWT steers, season-long pasture costs were estimated to be $.28/lb of gain. Average death losses were assumed to be 2% for LHT and 1% for HWT steers. Variable costs without interest were $67.33 and $65.03/steer for LHT and HWT steers, respectively. Initial purchase price for LHT steers was $334.52/steer while initial purchase price for HWT steers was $531.91/steer. Thus, total dollars invested were $401.84/steer for LHT and $596.94/steer for HWT steers. Assuming 10% initial equity, the amount of money borrowed would have been $361.66/steer for LHT and $537.24/steer for HWT steers resulting in interest costs (10% rate; 2% above the prime interest rate) of $6.83/steer for LHT and $10.15/steer for HWT steers for the trial period. Thus, total costs, including interest, were $74.16/steer for LHT and $75.18/steer for HWT steers. Net income was calculated by subtracting total costs from gross income. Statistical Analysis. Steer performance data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS (1992) as a replicated 2 x 3 factorial. Treatment means were separated using Fishers protected LSD. Due to significant (P<.10) interaction, gain/acre data were analyzed using MIXED of SAS (1992), and SLICE was used to analyze simple effects. Regression analysis was conducted using SAS (1992). Results and Discussion Daily gains were greater (P<.01; Table 1) for HWT (2.67 lb/d) cattle than LHT (2.22 lb/d) cattle. As stocking rate (lb/acre) increased, daily gains decreased by.0003 and.009 lb/steer for LHT and HWT (Figure 1) steers, respectively. Steers in LS and MS pastures gained (P<.10) more (2.57 and 2.49 lb/day, respectively; Table 2) than steers HS pastures (2.27 lb/d). The higher rates of gain for lighter stocking rates may be expected due to possible differences in forage availability, quantity, and(or) quality factors as a result of increasing stocking rate. There was a significant (P<.10) cattle size x stocking rate interaction for gain/acre, however, when simple effects were analyzed, LHT cattle gained more (P<.01; Table 3) BW/acre than HWT cattle at all stocking rates. Additionally, there was an increase (P<.01) in gain/acre as stocking rate increased for both types of cattle as would be expected. Gain per acre increased by.46 lb/acre for LHT cattle and.25 lb/acre for HWT cattle (Figure 2) as stocking rates (lb/acre) increased. Light weight cattle gained more per acre despite having more animals per acre in all stocking rates than HWT cattle, thus, the larger number of animals/acre did not decrease gain/acre. Gain per acre continued to increase as stocking rate increased. Therefore, it appears that standing crop, or pounds of forage available to the steers, was not limiting to overall gain/acre at any stocking rate, even though individual animal performance was decreased slightly. The calculated value of weight gain (Table 4) was $72.00/cwt for LHT steers and $47.00/cwt for HWT steers. Due to increased weight of steers and seasonality of prices, both groups of steers decreased in terms of value per pound of live weight from April to August. However, the

value of LHT steers per pound of live weight was greater than the value of live weight for HWT calves both at the beginning and at the end of the trial, thus, gain was worth more per pound for LHT than HWT steers. After variable costs were calculated, net income for light steers was $34.87/steer and $58.57/acre while net income for heavy steers was $9.98/steer and $8.43/acre. Light weight calves had a higher net income per pound of gain, thus, even though ADG was lower and total initial investment was greater for these steers, greater net income would have been realized for LHT calves. Literature Cited Berg, W. A. and P. L. Sims. 1995. J. Range Mgt. 48:465. Dewald, C. L. et al. 1985. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 40:277. SAS. 1992. SAS for Windows (Release 6.08), SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Sims, P. L. 1988. Old World Bluestem Conference. Okla. Coop. Ext. Serv. E. 901:1. Trapp, J. N. 1997. Oklahoma Current Farm Economics. Dept. of Ag. Econ., Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. 10 (3):58. Table 1. Weights, ADG, and gain per acre of light vs heavy steers. Cattle type Light Heavy SE No of steers 214 115 --- Starting wt, lb 311 b 584 c 3.3 Final wt, lb 462 b 766 c 5.7 ADG, lb 2.22 b 2.67 c.060 Total gain, lb/acrea 252 158 5.3 a Significance levels not reported due to interaction (P<.05). b,c Means within a row without common superscripts differ (P<.05). Table 2. Effect of stocking rate on average daily gain and gain per acre of light and heavy steers. Stocking rate Light Moderate Heavy SE Stocking rate, acres/steera 1.5 1.1.7 Stocking rate, lb LW/acreb 350 450 750 ADG, lb 2.57 d 2.49 d 2.27 e.073 Gain, lb/acrec 148 184 282 6.5 a Acres per 500 lb of initial steer live weight. b Actual stocking rates. c Significance levels not reported due to interaction (P<.05). d,e Means within a row without common superscripts differ (P<.10).

Table 3. Weight gain of light vs heavy steers as influenced by stocking rate. Cattle type Stocking Rate Light Heavy SE Light 183 b 113 a 9.1 Moderate 217 b 152 a 9.1 Heavy 356 b 208 a 9.1 a,b Means within a row without common superscripts differ (P<.01). Table 4. Net income of light vs heavy steers grazing old world bluestem averaged across all stocking rates. Cattle Type Item Light Heavy Acres 125 135 Initial number of steers 214 115 Initial weight, lb 311 584 Purchase price (April), $/cwt 107.56 91.08 Purchase cost, $/steer 334.52 531.91 Final weight, lb 462 766 Selling price (August), $/cwt 96.01 80.56 Final value $/steer 443.55 617.06 Total weight gain, lb 150 181 Gross income, $/steer 109.03 85.16 Value of gain, $/cwt 72.00 47.00 Variable costs: Health, $/steer 18.00 9.00 Pasture, ($.28/lb gain) 42.14 50.56 Death loss, $/steer 7.20 5.46 Variable costs, $/steer: 67.33 65.03 (not including interest) Total cost, $/steer: 401.84 596.94 (not including interest) Equity (10%), $/steer 40.18 59.69 Borrowed capital, $/steer 361.66 537.24 Interest (10% Rate, 68 days), $/steer 6.83 10.15 Total variable costs, $/steer (including interest) 74.16 75.18 Net income, $/steer 34.87 9.98 Net income, $/acrea 58.57 8.43 a Net income per acre = $/steer x number of steers remaining at the end of the trial/acres.

Figure 1. Relationship between average daily gain and stocking rate for both light and heavy steers. Figure 2. Relationship between gain per acre and stocking rate for both light and heavy steers. 1998 Research Report - Table of Contents