Chapman, C. Kim

Zobell, Dale

English

DigitalCommons@USU

1999-2000 Ranch to Rail Summary ReportUtah State University Extension’s Ranch to Rail program is designed to give cattle producers information on post-weaning feedlot performance and carcass data enabling them to better market their calf crop.  It is not intended to promoteretained ownership programs, nor is its aim to compare or promote breeds or breeders.  Rather, it gives producers theopportunity to see how their cattle fit into beef production and what changes in management or selection they must make toremain competitive.  Only steer calves from the 1999 calf crop were eligible to be included in the program.The 1999-2000 Ranch to Rail program included entries from 21ranches from throughout Utah.  The 144 head enrolled in the program werereceived at Johnson Feedlot in Aurora, Utah on November 1, 1999 with theprogram beginning on November 17th following a two-week warm-up period.. When they arrived at the feedlot the steers were eartagged, weighed, injectedwith Bovi-Shield™ and One Shot Ultra™ for protection against respiratory andclostridial diseases, treated with Dectomax® Pour-on for parasite control,implanted with a Ral-Gro™ implant and assigned an in-value based on marketprices received for steers at Producers Livestock Marketing Service in Salinathat week.  Pfizer Animal Health sponsored the program this year and providedthe vaccines and anthelmintic for the entire program year.  Pfizer shippedproduct to producers who pre-enrolled cattle in the program so their calveswere backgrounded prior to coming to the feedlot.  The steers were sorted intothree feeding groups based on frame size, body type and weight.  Managementrelative to feeding times, medication and rations during the feeding period wassimilar to other feedlot calves. Two steers were removed from the program following the warm-upperiod due to their inability to be brought up to feed on the grower ration.As the steers reached 900 pounds, each individual was scanned using an ultrasound scanning device and the data wasentered into software from Kansas State University to determine the optimal marketing window, taking into account botheconomic and performance factors.   As individuals reached the weights and body condition which have been identified asacceptable by the beef industry, they were again scanned to ascertain whether they were sufficiently finished to grade Choice. The ultrasound imagery combined with weight, breed characteristics and visual evaluation were used to determine when thecattle were to be slaughtered.  The cattle were slaughtered and marketed through E.A. Miller Packing in Hyrum, Utah. Carcass data was collected approximately 72 hours after slaughter.  Ribeye photos were taken of each carcass and these weresent to the owner of that steer along with detailed performance and carcass data.  Feed, yardage, processing and medicalcharges were financed by the feedlot.  Expenses were deducted from the carcass sale proceeds and the balance was sent to theowner following slaughter.PERFORMANCE INFORMATIONWeights used to determine rate of gain werethe weight at the beginning of the test (following thewarm-up period) and the final sale weight.  Averagebeginning weight was 636 pounds, and the average saleweight was 1182 pounds with a range of 942 to 1468pounds.  Days on feed averaged 171 days and rangedfrom 118 to 258 days.  Average daily gain for all steersin the program was 3.29 pounds and ranged from 1.65to 4.57 pounds.  Seventy percent of the calves gainedover 3.0 pounds per day while 9.2% gained less thanPrices Used to Determine In-ValuesWeight Range Price400 to 449 $89.30450 to 499 $86.30500 to 549 $84.04550 to 599 $82.04600 to 649 $79.75650 to 699 $76.75700 to 749 $75.75750 to 799 $73.75800 to 899 $71.25900 to 949 $69.752.5 pounds.  There was very little illness in the calves during the feeding period, which partially explains why the rates of gainwere so high.  The beginning weights of the calves ranged from 374 to 935 pounds, which resulted in calves being sorted intopens based on weight, breed composition and predicted days on feed.  This system appears to have been successful for themajority of the calves.Feed consumption per head wascalculated by dividing the total pen consumptionby the total number of head days for the pen. Each steer was then assigned its feed costsaccording to the number of days on feed.  Thiswas based on the assumption that every steer hadequal access to feed.  Sorting of the calvesinitially  enabled calves of similar weight to befed together.Feed costs were calculated for eachgroup at the time of marketing and reflectcurrent commodity prices for the feeds in theration at the time the calves were marketed. Feed cost of gain averaged $45.24 and rangedfrom $42.00 to $49.70.The total cost of gain included feed,yardage, shipping and brand inspection fees. The total cost of gain per cwt. averaged$52.29 and ranged from $47.87 to $61.30.CARCASS INFORMATIONThe steers were sold on a carcass basis when the ultrasound scan combined with live weight, breed characteristicsand visual evaluation indicated a high probability of the carcass grading choice.  The steers were sold in six market groups.  Carcass weights averaged 688 pounds, with 71.30% of the carcasses falling within the 650 lb. to 850 lb. rangepreferred by most packers.Approximately 71% of the carcasses graded Choice, less than one percent were Prime and 28.37% were Select. None of the cattle graded lower than Select.   Due to strong markets in the spring, steers were sold as soon as it wasdetermined the would grade Choice, in order to take advantage of those markets.Ninety-five percent of the steers produced carcasses with yield grades below 3.0.  Average yield grade was 2.10 andthe range was from .66 to 3.44.Yield grade is influenced by the amount of fat a carcass is carrying and the carcass’ muscle mass.  The average backfat thickness over the ribeye was .28 inches and fat thickness ranged from .10 to .70 inches.  Optimal fat thickness is between.25 and .45 inches.  Less than this optimal amount can lead to tough cuts due to cold shortening and these carcasses often donot display enough marbling to grade choice.  Thicknesses in excess of the .45" level lead to excessive trim waste.  High fatdeposition can be a factor of either being held on feed too long, genetic predisposition to deposit fat, or a combination ofboth. The surface area of the ribeye is the chief indicator of overall muscle mass on the carcass.  Ranch-to-Rail steer ribey-es averaged 13.01 square inches and ranged from 9.3 to 16.2 square inches.  Ribeye areas in the range of 11.0 to 17.0 are themost marketable in the retail market, and nearly 93% of the carcasses fit that criteria.  Extremes on both sides of this optimalrange present marketing and fabrication problems and selection should be made to minimize these types of animals from thebeef herd.Carcass Characteristics of Ranch-to-Rail steers for each marketing periodDays on Feed 118 139 167 195 223 258Date Sold 3/8/00 4/5/00 5/3/00 5/31/00 6/28/00 8/2/00Quality Grade Yield Grade No. No. No. No. No. No.Prime 2 1Choice 1 3 4 14 2 8 82 11 8 26 4 2 13 1 6 1Select 1 6 2 1 6 3 72 6 6 2 13 1Cutability (%)47   50 11 4 21 351  53 16 15 29 11 12 954  56 1 1 1 7The amount of ribeye area tends to increase as carcass size increases.  One way to measure ribeye area relative tocarcass size is to calculate the ribeye area per 100 pounds of hot carcass weight.  The average for this measure was 1.89square inches per cwt., and the range was 1.51 to 2.46.  The higher values indicate greater thickness of muscle, but selectionsolely on this trait could increase management problems associated with calving difficulty.  Therefore, selection should bemade for moderately high muscling which would coincide with a 2.2 or smaller ribeye area per cwt. of hot carcass weight. Approximately 91.5 percent of the steers on test fell into this range.FINANCIAL INFORMATIONAs seen in the budget (left), the average net return per headwas -$ 6.75.  The range in net return per head varied between a profitof $81.20 and a loss of $159.65.  The profitable calves tended to bethose that came in at slightly heavier weights, had high daily gains andwere marketed early in the program.  The calves marketed later in theprogram were characterized by decreased efficiency of gain or wereextremely light coming in. This was especially true of the cattle in thefinal two marketing groups.   Profitability of the steers in the fifthmarket group was also hindered by the historical mid-summer priceslump.  Carcass price for the fifth market group was $1.04 comparedto  $1.11 to $ 1.17 for earlier groups sold.  The final group benefittedfrom higher prices in early August.Profitability was further affected by extremely high feedercalf prices in the fall of 1999.  This created a high opportunity cost forfeeding cattle out versus selling the calves as weanlings.Over 48 percent of the calves in the program had a positivenet return.  Just over 20.5 percent of the steers showed a net loss ofbetween $0 and -$25.00, while slightly over 31 percent had a net lossgreater than -$25.00.  These net return values do notreflect the cost of trucking from theranch to the feedlot or interest on thefeeder steer value, as these values werenot available for analysis.It should be stressed that this isnot a retained ownership program.  Theprogram is based around the individualfeedlot performance and carcassattribute data which is collected on eachenrolled calf.1999-2000 Ranch to RailAverage Financial ResultsIncomeExpensesFeeder Steer ValueFeedYardageShippingBrand InspectionTotalNet$778.55$500.05247.0125.5610.931.75$785.30<$6.75>SUMMARYThe amount of variability in terms of feedlot performance, carcass traits and net return per head demonstrate thediversity found throughout the U.S. beef industry and in Utah.  Producers must reduce this variability and produce a productthat meets the needs of all segments of the industry if they are to remain competitive with competing meats such as pork andpoultry.  Ranchers must take stock of their respective operations, reduce costs wherever they can and then make adjustmentsin the genetics of their herd to insure they remain on track with market trends.  The time is rapidly approaching whereinproducers will be paid for the “value” of their product instead of simply being paid for a commodity.  Those that know whatcomprises value in their product will be those who will receive higher returns for that product.  The purpose of the Ranch toRail program is to give producers the information on their cattle which will aid them as they make these production decisionsto increase their production efficiency and profitability while providing a valuable marketable product to the beef industry.For Additional Information Contact:Dr. Dale ZobellExtension Beef SpecialistUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah 84322-4815435-797-2144C. Kim ChapmanExtension Animal Scientist250 N. MainRichfield, Utah 84701-2165435-893-0474435-979-6343 (cell)CooperatorsJohnson Feedlot - Aurora, UtahUtah State University ExtensionDepartment of Animal, Dairy& Veterinary SciencesE.A. Miller Packing - Hyrum, UtahProgram Sponsor  	To participate in the 2000-2001 Ranch-to-Rail Program contact either Dr. Dale Zobell or C. Kim Chapman at the addresses or phone numbers listedabove. Utah State University Extension is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer which provides programs and services to all personsregardless of religion, gender, disability, race, color or national origin.Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement by the Utah State University Extension, and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms.

1999-2000 Ranch to Rail Summary Report

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=extension_histall

1999-2000 Ranch to Rail Summary Report

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU