The answer to that question is the heart of a beef operation. Proper utilization of grass is critical.

Overutilization will impact the plant community negatively; underutilization impacts the plant community by not allowing for the proper stimulation of plant growth. The answer relates to what is the proper stocking rate for a given pasture.

Miranda Meehan, NDSU Exten­sion livestock environmental stewardship specialist, says, “Setting the stocking rate is one of the most important decisions that ranchers or land managers make. The stocking rate is the number of specific kinds and classes of animals grazing or using a unit of land for a specific time period.

“Regardless of which grazing management system is employed, vegetation type grazed or kind and class of livestock involved, stocking rate has the largest impact on the health of the grassland resource and animal performance of all management tools available,” she adds.

The stocking rate discussion becomes a discussion of carrying capacity.

“When setting the stocking rate, knowing the carrying capacity of the pasture is critical,” Meehan notes. “Carrying capacity is a measure of how much forage a grazing unit has and is able to produce in an average year. The carrying capacity is the maximum stocking rate possible that is consistent with maintaining or improving forage production and vegetation composition, and other related resources.”

Determining carrying capacity is not simple. However, the time producers take to better understand how carrying capacity is determined is very beneficial. A visit with a range specialist to get a broader understanding of major land resource areas and ecological sites is helpful, but in the end, the correct answer to just how many cattle are turned out and how long they will be grazing a set pasture is critical.

The better the understanding and acceptance of the information that calculates the stocking rate, the less likely a producer is going to arbitrarily adjust the number of cow-calf pairs turned into a pasture and/or the period of time they will be in a pasture.

The temptation to simply look at the waving grass, open the gate and come back later to adjust the number of cattle is not good. Do not give in to quick thoughts, but rather come to appreciate the amount of current and historical information involved in the evaluation of ecological sites and summer forage availability, and correctly calculate the number of cattle.

The number of cattle is converted to animal unit months for proper calculation of full-season grazing plans.

“Carrying capacity is also defined as the amount of forage available for grazing animals, expressed as the number of available animal unit months, or number of animal units grazed for one month,” Meehan explains.

So how does one actually bring the vast amount of knowledge known regarding grazing systems and stocking rate to a practical level? Meehan answers the question.

“The most accurate way to calculate carrying capacity is to calculate forage production using the clip-and-weigh method,” she says. “This method requires the harvesting of standing forage at a given time to predict available forage. The available forage is measured by hand clipping and weighing plots within a grazing unit.”

The process is a valuable tool as cow-calf producers prepare for the summer’s grazing season.

“To ensure the health of your grazing resources, it is important that the stocking rate does not exceed the carrying capacity,” Meehan stresses. “Although these calculations are complicated, through the help of modern computer skills, these averages are easier to get, and certainly through the assistance of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or NDSU Extension, through their local offices, the needed information can be gathered up and reviewed.”

She adds: “A variety of factors can influence the amount of forage available for livestock consumptions, including precipitation and management. Many producers are seeing a decline in forage production as a result of the 2017 drought. It is important that they are adjusting their stocking rates to prevent overgrazing, resulting in further loss in forage production.”

NDSU Extension has developed a set of grazing management tools that are available on our website.

May you find all your ear tags.

The post BeefTalk: How many cattle should go in the pasture? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The slow days of late gestation are eminent. In another month, many cows will be calving. Producers have time now to look ahead.

In fact, the cow actually is looking ahead as well, trying to determine what the perfect spot will be to give birth to her new calf. If we are not careful, we miss some of those subtle herd discussions as we drive by.

That being said, I was driving by some pasture the other day and an eerie feeling came over me. The snow had thawed and what snow was left was blown aside, exposing the grassless soil surface among occasional nodes of grass. The sinking, scary feeling of drought returned.

Last summer took a serious toll, leaving even fewer options this spring if rain fails. But rather than focus on the negative, let’s be positive and draw on what we know. Long-term, sustainable thinking means less inputs and more output.

Drought-driven, sustainable managerial changes force producers to limit feed intake during the months that feed is short, keeping a delicate balance between hungry and content. Feed waste is not an option. And producers have an innate desire for the time when what feed is going to grow actively grows.

In preparation for this winter, many producers decreased the body weight mass of the cow herd fed through the winter. Many times, that means keeping lighter, younger cows, as well those cows with a reduced body size, to decrease total feed needs and, at the same time, keeping open the opportunity to add more cows in the future if the seasons normalize.

In an effort to add more options, the Dickinson Research Extension Center has increased cropping systems’ plant diversity by focusing on crops that will provide forage even if the plants do not reach a growth stage for grain production. Shifting acres to fall-seeded winter intercrop mixes allows the centre to take advantage of available cool-season growth following the spring thaw.

These planting thoughts have increased beef average daily gain on annual crops successfully and provided profit opportunity with improved forage production per acre. Despite the need to reduce the overwinter mass of cattle, the centre’s yearling stocking rates have increased.

The other significant change at the centre is avoiding feeding lactating cows in winter dry lots and moving cows to pasture prior to calving. The 1,400- to 1,500-pound cow needs just less than 30 pounds of dry matter before calving, more than 35 pounds of dry matter right after calving and just less than 40 pounds after calving if she milks well.

More hay is needed, more water is needed and more waste is generated. So the centre has taken seriously the later-spring calving as an opportunity for beef producers.

Think about it: Producers depend on the annual plant cycle, a cycle one cannot change, to grow and produce beef. Plants have a growing season set by forces cattle producers do not control. When producers understand the development of a sustainable forage and plant world, they integrate beef production into that system.

Too often, and to the detriment of the beef production system, the beef cow plan is laid out first, leaving forage and plant production to a later discussion. The beef-first, plants-later philosophy increases demand for hay and other processed feed and increased equipment needs to haul in inputs and haul out waste.

This is a commodity-based system that may very well lack system sustainability in the long run. This approach leads to watching markets: Buy low, sell high. This is not criticism but reflective of the majority of the models beef producers utilize for beef production systems.

But is that the only model? No. Expandable and, we hope, more sustainable systems are available. Producers need to understand and take seriously the need for sustainable beef systems that integrate production strategies matching forage, plant and cattle conditions to the land.

Including forages into traditional cropping systems can provide the resources necessary to develop integrated production strategies that increase sustainability and profitability. Matching cattle inventory and calving date with appropriate forage-based systems is critical as producers seek later calving.

Turnout to cool-season grass is around May 1 in the region. Warm-season grasses are ready for grazing around June 1. Cows turned out to calve in May convert very admirably to grazing crop residue, standing corn and cover crops as the perennial grasses start to prepare for winter.

The system works. Realistically, change at one end of a chain affects other links, complicating the effects of change. But for those who have spent a lot of time pushing chains, why not grab the other end and pull? Change can happen. Life can be simpler.

May you find all your ear tags.

The post BeefTalk: Why push a chain up a hill? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That seems like a strange question, but the question surfaced as the Dickinson Research Extension Center (DREC) prepped for the current drought on this year’s feed supply. The answer is to develop all the heifers as future brood cows.

The answer may seem as strange as the question, but keep in mind one of the focuses of the centre is to maintain calves longer in their life cycle, utilizing lower inputs and more forage. The bottom line: more pounds of beef.

The centre summered 262 mixed-age cows in 2017. Because of the feed situation, the centre cut the cow herd to 143 coming three- and four-year-old cows this past fall, plus 18 embryo-transfer cows that are treated as a separate herd.

As a background note, starting in 2014, the centre began a study to evaluate frame score and longevity in cattle. The centre kept all the heifers, bred them and placed them in the cow herd. The unexpected result allowed for a more rapid changeover in the cow herd as 117 older cows were sold to spare winter feed.

Fortunately, the centre has 86 pregnant heifers from last year’s calf crop, so the current bred female inventory is 229. This is not a traditional approach, but one factor stood out very clearly: The younger cows are lighter and require less feed, and bred heifers have more flexibility to seek outside locations to feed.

The bred heifers were transferred from the North Dakota State University Beef Cattle Research Complex in Fargo, where they were developed and bred, to the Central Grasslands Research Extension Center near Streeter for winter feeding. The DREC took advantage of the feed resources in eastern North Dakota and saved hay-shipping costs.

Interestingly, cow numbers can vary tremendously within a given time period for a given cattle operation. And, depending on what the makeup of the inventory is, the reduction in cow numbers will have varying impacts on the cow age distribution.

One point that stood out in the centre’s favour was the large inventory of younger, lighter cows. That was a good thing this year. Heifer retention at the centre means keeping all the heifers. The requirements: The heifer had to be alive with no obvious health issues, no heifers born twin to a bull (freemartins), no obvious structural issues and at least 500 pounds at a year of age. Heifers that met these requirements were retained for development.

Interestingly, during the past three years, following a low-input winter backgrounding period, no heifers had health, structural or weight issues, and only an occasional freemartin was put with the steer calves. So essentially, if a heifer was weaned, she was sent to the NDSU Heifer Development Center at NDSU in Fargo.

The DREC has sent 303 heifers to the NDSU Heifer Development Center in the past three years. Heifers not adjusting to a confined feeding system were sold as yearlings because the lack of adjustment capacity was assumed to be an indication of adaptation issues. The remaining heifers were developed and bred with the expectation they would return to the DREC.

To date, 229 developed females, or just less than 76 per cent, are pregnant. Of the initial set of 100 heifers born in 2014, 77 coming four-year-old cows, or 77 per cent, remain. Of the second set of 93 heifers born in 2015, 66 coming three-year-old cows, or 71 per cent, remain. Of this year’s 110 heifers born in 2016, 86 coming two-year-old heifers, or 78 per cent, remain.

The essence of the project is to follow the cows throughout their lifetime and evaluate the effect of frame size on the lifetime production of the cow and birth weight of her calf. That will be another story at a later date.

The point today is simple: If a producer keeps all the heifers and exposes them to the bull, approximately 20 per cent, or one heifer out of five, may not become established as a mature cow in the breeding herd. In this particular study, a cow needs to be open two consecutive years to be culled.

Time will tell. Producers may have a hidden opportunity to consider keeping more heifers and exposing them to the bull. During droughts, preserving a herd’s genetics can be accomplished by keeping more heifers, which also increases flexibility within managerial options.

Essentially, finding a location to park bred heifers for the winter months is easier than trying to purchase and transport hay. Like most, we learn as we go, and in preparation for future droughts, producers should start thinking of how to aggressively maintain more heifers and let Mother Nature select out the less adapted heifers.

The bottom line is to explore more options on keeping a higher percentage of the annual calf crop as yearlings and taking advantage of the yearlings’ ability to grow. Heifers may be a good option, and keeping a younger cow herd allows a producer to manage the mature weight of the cow herd.

The post BeefTalk: Keeping more heifers turned out well appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Oct. 10 values were $98.87 for live cattle and $124.65 for feeder cattle (all figures U.S. funds). I had a simple thought: “What, two-digit live-cattle prices!” My second thought: “We have got to get costs down!”

For someone trained in genetics, my mind was trying to make sense of a $1.30 cost per pound of weaned calf per exposed cow. This was not good, because this was my conclusion of costs when gross margins per cow were exceeding $1,000 in many beef operations. Prior to this thought, I was thinking of what would happen if gross margins dropped to $600 and direct and overhead expenses were $650 per cow.

Earlier this fall, I expected a gross margin of $700 and expenses of $650; this was a positive thought based on the new market prices. Now I am thinking I should go back to my original thought, and check the savings account.

Beef production management is a swing from market highs to market lows and back and forth. Sometimes the swing goes really high. Sometimes it moves very little. But swing it does, and beef production swings with it. Of course, we have those who want to find someone to blame, but finding blame does not stop the swing.

I can remember one spring a pen of market heifers that the Dickinson Research Extension Center owned, and every day the cattle were worth less, and the discussions of break-even were long gone. Finally, the cattle were sold and the centre took a significant loss.

Through the years, that has been the exception, but exceptions are still real. We all should learn the supply-and-demand principle very early. If I have something that everyone else has and the demand is small, my asking price will be low. If I have what few people have, and the product is desirable, my asking price will be higher. And I actually may have the ability to ask for a price, although I cannot say I ever have had that option.

The movement up or down in beef prices results in many news stories indicating the consequences. The challenge for beef producers is to develop a production system in which expenses are underneath the ever-changing swinging commodity prices while learning to utilize the appropriate financial tools to help minimize risk.

This balance of risk protection as investments mount, versus limiting investment by decreasing expenses, is a fundamental split in the beef world. For producers, balancing these two principles is the challenge. At what point do producers quit putting money into the trough versus trying to make the trough smaller?

Today, I am going to go down the hard path of controlling expenses. I suggest producers also visit with those who have much more expertise in managing risk.

At the centre, our yearly response to the cattle business has been to look at production systems that will lower expenses and keep us under the swings.

Expenses can be controlled, and the first step to lowering costs is to know what the costs are in the first place. Unfortunately, despite many efforts, many beef producers do not have an adequate handle on expenses. That is not meant to be critical of beef producers but simply acknowledging the difficulty in tracking expenses.

At the centre, we do track costs. Presenting those costs as typical would be misleading because every cow-calf enterprise is unique. Ranch and farm records are very diverse, resulting in difficulty in clearly understanding what the records mean. This diversity also results in even more difficulty in trying to take the concepts of one cow-calf enterprise and model that enterprise on one’s own operation.

Producers must take care to ensure the accuracy of the numbers needed to answer the question. In addition, even if the expenses are known, the market price of a calf minus the direct expenses of producing that calf is far from any indication of the financial status of a beef operation.

The issue of controlling expenses has no simple answers because answers start with tax preparation, loan renewals, chequing account balances, gross margins, direct and indirect expenses, depreciation, net returns, labour and management charges, and, ultimately, return on total assets. Management needs to provide the financial analysis that determines an acceptable return on total assets, which leads to sound decisions regarding the future of the beef enterprise, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the markets.

But that being said, an evaluation of expenses and reduction of the cost of production, along with improved production and marketing efficiency, is still a good place to start. That we all can do and must do, but this effort generates some interesting thoughts. More later, so start pondering.

May you find all your ear tags.

The post BeefTalk: Lower prices need lower costs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Calving has started on many ranches, and the complicated production scenarios already are constantly churning for producers. Unfortunately, the dollars associated with many production scenarios often are in place well before adequate financial evaluations are done. The critical point is that the dollars are coming in well, but the dollars going out also are growing.

The cattle business costs money.

In visiting with Jerry Tuhy, farm business management instructor at the Dickinson Research Extension Center in North Dakota, he noted that free markets will tend to price commodities at or near a break-even point for the bulk of producers. In other words, high-cost producers will be the first producers to lose money in good or bad markets. No market will remain positive enough that all producers will survive the financial tests through time. Cost control remains critical at all times in the cattle business.

In the current world, competition from the energy- and food-producing sectors of agriculture is real. The competition between land uses, such as crops grown for human consumption, crops for energy and crops for livestock feed, is very real. Given Mother Nature’s hesitation to provide moisture, the competition only gets tougher.

Grass is becoming even more of a premium. Despite agriculture’s tremendous effort at keeping energy costs low and feeding people, the price is high as these inputs return to farms and ranches as needed supplies.

Cost control is the driver for sustaining beef operations and is achieved by the continual evaluation of the planning process.

We need to return to the North Dakota Farm Management Program, along with the FINBIN database from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota. These programs allow our discussion to focus on the dollars and ‘sense’ involved in the beef enterprise.

Gross margin

A good place to start is gross margin. According to Tuhy, gross margin accounts for the purchase and sale of all calves, cull cows and bulls, plus animals transferred in and any overall changes in cattle inventory. The bottom line: Gross margins reflect the amount of money cattle producers have to work with.

In the bigger picture, if gross margins are very small, a producer needs to ask why he or she is involved in the beef business because the money in and the money out are a wash.

Well, that is not true in the beef business because those producers who have at least 50 cows and were involved in the 2011 North Dakota Farm Management program had $729 in gross margins.

Without going too far back in time, these cattle producers have had stable to increasing gross margins to work with. From 2006 through 2010, cattle producers who were enrolled in the North Dakota Farm Management program had gross margins of $578 in 2010, $451 in 2009, $464 in 2008, $543 in 2007 and $529 in 2006.

In 2011, the total direct and overhead expense was $546 per cow. Although the 2010 gross margin was above 2011 expenses, 2009 through 2006 gross margins were all below the current 2011 expenses.

In other words, if cattle prices returned to the prices offered from 2006 through 2009, cattle producers would be operating in the red, which is not a pleasant thought. The total direct and overhead expenses per cow from 2011 back to 2006 were $546 in 2011, $466 in 2010, $464 in 2009, $452 in 2008, $445 in 2007 and $424 in 2006.

A quick review of the numbers points out that, even though average gross margins have been good, if recent expense numbers are any indication of future expense numbers, expenses are accelerating.

From 2010 to 2011, expenses jumped more than 17 per cent, while gross margins jumped more than 26 per cent — thus the increase in net returns for the cattle producer. However, the red flag still is there, so it will be interesting when the 2012 numbers come out as to where production costs are going.

For now, the point remains: The cost of production is a large, sustainable block in the survival of beef operations. A simple fact is that producers need to plan well while on the high-speed road leading to cattle profits as the 2013 year engages.

The post Cow-calf producers’ survival is still about production costs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

If that is true, why is the industry not expanding? Good question and certainly a relevant one.

We can speculate on the many reasons why the cattle numbers are what they are. In anticipation of this spring’s summaries of agricultural enterprises provided by the North Dakota Farm Management Program (NDFM) at www.ndfarmmanagement.com, I have been reviewing previous numbers. Data also are available on the FINBIN website at www.finbin.umn.edu and come from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota.

With the increasing competition for land and competing crops, the big question is: Why run cattle? Returns from crop enterprises are good, and many will say they enjoy the more structured time crop operations offer, especially the time off that is not always available for those who engage in livestock operations.

If one reviews net returns per cow, and without going too far back in time, cattle producers certainly have had positive net returns. From 2006 through 2011, cattle producers who were enrolled in the NDFM program generally have had positive net returns over direct and overhead expenses.

The actual net return values were (all figures U.S.) $182 in 2011, $111 in 2010, minus $13 in 2009, $12 in 2008, $98 in 2007 and $105 in 2006. It will be interesting to see where these numbers are for 2012, but one would speculate that the industry had positive net returns over direct and overhead expenses.

Not everyone in the black

Are these numbers high enough to keep producers in business? Yes, but let’s look at those producers who were at the lower end of net returns, which are those producers who were in the lower 40 per cent bracket.

This group was in the black in 2011 and 2006, but lost money in 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007. The actual net returns over direct and overhead expenses were a positive $76 per cow in 2011, minus $3 in 2010, minus $120 in 2009, minus $91 in 2008, minus $6 in 2007 and a positive $18 in 2006.

The long and short of it is that this group of cattle producers has had to find some other enterprise to pay for an average of $21 per year, per cow for direct and overhead expenses because the cow could not pay her costs. That may not seem like much, but also what was lost was the opportunity to do something that may have made more money on the same land.

Why do producers who have negative returns through six years remain in the cow business? Speculation is just speculation. The bottom line for the bottom 40 per cent of this sample of producers is that the cows are not paying their way.

Why expand or even stay in the cow business? For the cattle operations that are in the lower 40 per cent for net returns per cow, the average gross margin from 2011 back to 2006 was $500. Total direct and overhead expenses averaged $521 for the same period for an average loss of $21 per cow.

Flags are waving

As noted earlier, times are good in the cattle business. However, some serious flags are waving. High income and low expenses are good partners, but high expenses do not partner well with anything. Any lowering of revenue for high-cost operations will take out the option of staying in the cattle business.

Cattle expansion is not a given. Unfortunately, there is a very serious play for land that can be used for more profitable agricultural enterprises. There is very little incentive for those operators who are struggling to stay afloat to keep the cow operation.

Let me repeat myself. In the current world, the competition from the energy- and food-producing sectors of agriculture is real. This competition will drive costs up and, given Mother Nature’s hesitation to provide moisture, the competition gets tougher. Cost control is the driver for sustaining beef operations and is achieved by the continual evaluation of the planning process.

For now, the point remains: What would you say if someone told you 40 per cent of the cow-calf producers are struggling to justify being in the beef business? The cost of production is a simple fact, so learn well as the 2013 year engages.

Survival comes before expansion.

The post Survival comes before expansion in the beef cattle business appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

For many, the cows and calves head home, and then the calves are sorted for market. The busyness of it all is mind boggling at times. The pens are stretched to the max, and there is not enough time to get every animal fed and watered on a normal schedule.

A quick sort often will move the bulls aside and put the cows and calves at centre stage. Off in the distance, one can hear someone ask if the bulls have been fed.

The point being, bulls still are a very important part of a cow-calf enterprise. In all honesty, way too many times bulls take a back seat once the breeding season is done. Just like the cows, bulls need time to recover.

If the bulls can’t hold up, why are they there in the first place? That question is a point of discussion. We all need to remember that many bulls are terminal bulls. In other words, they breed cows and sire calves that are designed to be feeder calves. These bulls often are purchased for high dollars, so the key to making the bulls affordable is years of use. A bull that can be depreciated out over four or five breeding seasons is much better for the bottom line than a bull that only lasts two or three seasons.

The market calves will perform well in the feedlot and be aggressively sought after by feeder calf buyers. This means that most bulls are not intended to produce replacement heifers. If, in fact, the bull was intended to sire replacement heifers, he had better come in reasonable shape. Regardless, the bulls have worked hard and need some recuperation.

Student wisdom

The cow-calf management class that I teach at Dickinson State University is always fun, and listening to the students certainly brings insight into the beef business.

A former student once wrote, “After the breeding season, many producers would like to forget about their breeding bulls, and some do. They become a hassle because no one wants them in the way. How much easier it is to push them to the back 40 and worry about them next spring.

“Although it is apparent that breeding bulls do not require a lot of extra attention in the off-season, some care must be fulfilled to reduce costs for the next year. Most breeding commences in the spring or early summer and extends for two to three more months. Even with a 60-day pre-breeding conditioning period, this still leaves approximately seven months of post-breeding. These usually are in the fall and winter months.

“After the completion of the breeding season, old or crippled bulls should be sorted off and sold. Mature, healthy bulls won’t require a lot of extra care, so they could go by themselves. This leaves the younger, thinner bulls to work with. These are the ones that should receive a little higher-quality feed through the winter to increase their years of productivity. Properly balanced nutrition, including minerals, should be available to assure optimum reproductive performance.

“Nutrition begins with adequate amounts of feed. For example, a 1,300-pound bull needing to gain 1.5 pounds per day needs 26.1 pounds of dry matter. It would consist of two pounds (7.9 per cent) of protein and 15.6 pounds (59.7 per cent) of total digestible nutrients (TDN) or energy. A larger bull, say 1,900 pounds, needs to gain one-half pound per day. This bull would need 32.2 pounds of dry matter per day. To accomplish this, the bull needs 2.2 pounds (6.9 per cent) of protein and 16.8 pounds (52 per cent) of TDN or energy.

“Shelter also is an overlooked aspect. Testicles easily can be frozen in this part of the Midwest, so some bedding and shelter are important. Remember that bulls constitute 50 per cent of next year’s calf crop. Therefore, wise management practices can reduce variable costs, which will result in greater overall revenue.”

Bulls can be a pain

I couldn’t have said it better or been any more right when he said that producers sometimes would like to forget about the bull inventory because bulls can be a pain. The key to bull management, like all other cattle management, is the willingness to address topics in a very timely manner rather than waiting until a crisis arises.

Bull care and nutrition needs to start now, not next spring prior to bull turnout. Bulls need to be physically healthy, athletic in nature and conditioned for a vigorous marathon. In addition, the bull requires approximately eight weeks for viable sperm cell development.

For bulls that are mismanaged and have their spermatogenic cycle disrupted, a minimum of two months is needed for the bull to start having a viable sperm supply for the proper conception of next year’s calf crop.

Listen up: Don’t forget about those bulls, so keep them in sight and properly fed.

The post Winter is no time to forget about the bulls appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The beef world is changing, but one should avoid the word chaotic because the beef world has a lot of structure and is far from disorganized. However, the incoming forces that we do not control, such as Mother Nature, are slamming us. Although the response is quite organized, those forces certainly increase our sense of losing control. In that case, chaos may not be such a bad description.

Cattle are no different from any other living thing. Rule No. 1 is that cattle must eat and meet their daily nutritional requi rement s. Occas ional imbalances may be tolerated for short periods, but through the long haul, every cow, calf, yearling, replacement heifer, finishing calf and bull must eat. Two to three per cent of their body weight should be consumed in dry feed every day.

Drought and excess moisture are interacting across North America to destabilize what was perceived to be a very stable feed base. Chaotic may be appropriate if you throw in the changing and demanding world of people and their desire to go beyond food by tinkering with new energy models.

Historically, great herds of ruminants always have moved with the feed. The survival of those that exist in the wild depends on finding a food source. Failure means death. In the most severe case, it means extinction. Cattle are no different.

Like many of their nomadic cousins, the cattle industry historically has moved to where feed availability was assured and reasonably priced. Some would even say cheap.

Therefore, we have the current cattle industry dilemma. In a modern cattle production industry that has relatively immobile facilities, what does a producer do? Even the large feedlots, if one takes the time to visit with the founder, are located based on feed availability and good neighbours who are willing to raise that feed.

Although cow-calf producers initially landlocked themselves to fence in available forage, the initial layout and fence structure was designed to accommodate the local stocking rates. It was well understood that a pasture without forage is a pasture without cows.

REPLACING COWS IS EXPENSIVE

Reversing the trend of decreasing cow numbers is proving to be traumatic. Why is that? Let s return to the North Dakota Farm Management education program (www.ndfarm management.com), along with FINBIN ( www.finbin.umn.edu/) data from the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota. Several pieces of the model can be surmised. The future of beef rests on income and expenses.

Trauma No. 1 is the fact that replacing cows is expensive. Utilizing the previously mentioned database, producers should be targeting and expecting cows to contribute $650 to $700 to the collection plate. However, along with increased income comes an expensive replacement heifer.

As cow numbers continue to decline, money set aside for replacements on an annual basis should be $150 per cow in the breeding herd. If a producer replaces a cow on the average of every six years, the cow has six years of productive life in the herd. Therefore, the $150 per year sets aside $900 to buy a replacement, plus the cost of developing the replacement. That will not be enough given the increase in replacement values.

The only redeeming feature may be the continued increase in calf values. The bottom line is that cows are and only will become more expensive to replace.

Trauma No. 2 is the fact that expenses are increasing at a greater rate than income. The bottom side of the equation ultimately determines net profit. Historically, as the model grows, approximately 75 per cent of direct costs are feed related, regardless of net return. If one was to project direct costs per cow at $400 per year, the producer has $300 of feed expense to work with.

As Mother Nature and energy production demands toy with beef producers, the industry can ill afford spiralling feed costs. The current production models have little room to absorb imported high-dollar feed. That is why, as noted before, cattle move to feed because feed does not move very well to cattle.

These are tough thoughts and will have producers pondering who should be in the beef business. The cow business works with gross margins of $600 per cow, provided direct costs can be held to less than $400 and overhead to less than $100.

If the previous year s estimates put feed input at $300 per cow, Mother Nature and energy demands may and actually are pushing feed input costs out of what many would consider a comfortable risk area.

Too much input and not enough output equals one less beef producer.

May you find all your ear tags. North Dakota State University

Extension Service beef specialist Kris Ringwall writes a weekly column archived at www.BeefTalk.com.

The post The Beef Industry Is On The Horns Of A Dilemma appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The North Dakota Beef Cattle Improvement Association processes beef records for many producers. Typically, these producers turned out their bulls in late spring to early summer. If one reviews the records since 1998, 32 per cent of the producers turned their bulls out in May and 58 per cent turned bulls out in June.

In recent years, the typical bull turnout date from 2002 through 2008 was June 7, 6, 9, 4, 2, 9 and 5, respectively. For the purpose of discussion, let’s assume a typical bull turnout date of June 6.

By June 27, the bulls will have been exposed to the cows for one heat cycle. These producers should have 63 per cent or more of their cows bred by the end of June.

TURNOUT DATES

By July 18, bulls will have been exposed to the cows for 42 days, or have had the opportunity to be exposed to each cow for two heat cycles. For mature cows, 86 per cent of the cows should be pregnant at this point. Of course, keep in mind that I am using an average bull turnout date of June 6.

Since most bulls are turned out from mid-May to late June, a set of goals can be established to monitor breeding performance. For example, a goal for those producers turning out bulls for natural service on May 15 should have 90 per cent of the cows bred by June 26.

Likewise, producers with bull turnout dates of May 29, June 12 and June 26 should expect 90 per cent of their cows to have conceived and be with calf by July 10, July 24 and Aug. 7.

So, one can assume all is well when having turnout fertility-checked bulls that are sound and aggressive breeders. However, one also can assume that even though a bull tested good prior to bull turnout, not all bulls breed cows.

AVOID FALL SURPRISES

Fall surprises can be avoided by simply monitoring the cows. A quick check of the cow cycling activity can be made by remembering that the average estrous cycle of the cow is 21 days. If all the cows are cycling, about five per cent should be expressing “heat” each day (one day divided by 21 days).

Let’s assume one has 100 cows. An average of five cows should be in heat or estrus on any given day. Realizing that not all the cows calve the first 21 days of the calving season, this number can be adjusted.

In fact, typically, only 63 per cent of the cows calve the first 21 days of the calving season. For typical producers who expose mature bulls to 100 cows, at least three to four cows should be in heat every day early in the breeding season.

In the last seven days, how many times did I check the cows and how many appeared to be cycling? That is the question producers should ask as they monitor the bull battery and check and recheck the cows and bulls.

As the second-cycle cows (those cows that calved later in the calving season) start to cycle, the typical producer should have 23 per cent of the cows just starting to cycle within the second 21 days of the breeding season. Those same mature bulls that were exposed to 100 cows should have 23 cows to breed the second 21 days of the breeding season, or roughly one cow per day.

STANDARD STOCKING

If standard bull stocking rates are used (three bulls per 100 cows), a producer should be monitoring the herd for breeding activity.

In summary, three to four cows should be cycling every day during the first 21 days of the breeding season, but only one cow per day during the second 21 days. After 42 days, breeding activity should be sporadic.

The point is, most producers should be monitoring breeding pastures in July. If much breeding activity is noted, do some checking or bring in a reserve bull. If producers do not monitor the herd, unwanted surprises in the form of open cows make for a sad day during fall pregnancy palpation, so stay alert.

Remember, if the bull is breeding at a similar or greater rate after being exposed to the cows for three weeks, you have a problem. You better take a good look at the bull bench and hope you have some depth on the team. May you find all your ear tags.

———

Threetofourcows

shouldbecycling everydayduringthe

first21daysofthe breedingseason.

The post BeefTalk: Does Your Bull Need Some Help? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As cattle producers, each brash attack from Mother Nature should cause us to ponder what we are doing. More specifically, in the North Country, one of these significant storm events came in the form of snow, wind, sleet, rain, more wind, more snow and then more wind. In the middle of a storm, it is hard to find beauty in Mother Nature.

What makes a “significant” storm event in contrast to weather-related management issues? For most producers, cattle feed intake can be adjusted upward as the weather gets wetter and/or colder. The fundamental purpose of increasing feed intake is to increase energy as the cattle adjust their bodily functions to offset the additional body heat loss due to the cold and/or wet conditions.

Simple processes, such as shivering, all take energy. The opposite is true when excessive heat arrives. The rations are changed or the intake simply decreases. Either way, the body is good about regulating body temperatures if the appropriate nutrition is available. In addition, the process of digestion also produces heat. This adds to the list of available heat the body may rely on to offset wet and/or cold environments and maintain body temperature.

However, that does not explain a significant storm event. In a significant storm event, a producer no longer can provide the needed care or the cattle cannot take advantage of the care provided. The cattle become aimless and begin to wander in search of the care they are used to finding. Having their daily routine and herd structure lost, they become disoriented.

The cattle can become lost because normal identifiable home points are missing, so they are driven with the wind, snow and rain. Fences are barriers, but the snow will fill in to make the effectiveness of the fence useless. Even if the fence is good, the first cattle that arrive at the barrier are pushed by the weight of the herd behind them, so the fences give way or the cattle are crushed by the force of the herd.

As the cattle become crushed, they form a ramp, so the herd goes right over the top and keeps going. The worst-case scenarios are open pits, lagoons and other water sources that are encountered. The front cattle can be pushed into these water sources and then die as those behind them keep coming.

It certainly is not pleasant to think about, but producers do have to go out and find the cattle that have encountered a significant storm event. From a producer’s point of view, the management is right, the planning is good, but the overpowering impact of Mother Nature is an unknown no one controls.

However, there is more to this story than the generation of good storm stories for later telling. Yes, the Dickinson Research Extension Center cattle experienced a significant storm event. The cattle drifted away but did not encounter any life-threatening barriers, which was fortunate.

The next day, all the cows and calves where rounded up across a path of three or more miles. The calves were separated from the mothers and all ended OK. Other producers were not so fortunate. Many significant storm events are cruel and merciless and leave producers wondering what it is they can do differently.

In the big picture, the choices seem to be more with the selection of what significant storm events one wants to deal with because no one is immune.

For cattle producers, the perpetual question of when you want the cows to calve is asked again. One thing is very evident. Even if a producer wants to avoid the mud, slop and pains of winter weather, calving in April still places the operation and cattle in harm’s way because of possible winter weather.

May you find all your ear tags.

Your comments are always welcome at http://www.BeefTalk.com.

———

Forcattleproducers,the perpetualquestionof whenyouwantthecows tocalveisaskedagain.

The post BeefTalk: A Significant Storm Event appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.