A budget analysis compared the economics of selling non- pregnant spring- calving cows immediately aft er pregnancy diagnosis or re- breeding non- pregnant cows to be sold as pregnant fall- calving cows in more favorable market prices. Simulation performed for the last 5 yr of market prices demonstrated the strategy is cost effective in different market scenarios, excluding the year 2012/2013. Due to drought, feed prices were the highest and cow prices the lowest of the 5 yr analyzed. Other than atypical scenarios like drought, positive economic results would be possible even at low pregnancy rates, but as the pregnancy rate increases net proceeds also increase

Adams, Don C., Adams

Applegarth, Andy

da Silva, Aline G.

Funston, Rick N.

Musgrave, Jacqueline A.

Nollette, John

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2016Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant FemalesAline G. da SilvaUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnJacqueline A. MusgraveUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmusgrave1@unl.eduDon C. Adams AdamsUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.eduJohn NolletteUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, john.nollette@unl.eduAndy ApplegarthUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, andy.applegarth@unl.eduSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Meat Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.da Silva, Aline G.; Musgrave, Jacqueline A.; Adams, Don C. Adams; Nollette, John; Applegarth, Andy; and Funston, Rick N.,"Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females" (2016). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 875.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/875AuthorsAline G. da Silva, Jacqueline A. Musgrave, Don C. Adams Adams, John Nollette, Andy Applegarth, and RickN. FunstonThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/8752016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 11 ©  Th e Board Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.administered at TAI only to heifers that did not have their patches rubbed off . Heifers were AI November 11 and aft er AI were placed with bulls until sold at livestock auc-tion (approximately 170 d). Pregnancy was determined by ultrasound 135 d aft er AI.DietGSLHay and supplement were fed from November to February. Th e supplement containing 29% CP was fed in the amount of 1.2 lb/hd/d. Th e cows diagnosed as non- pregnant were sold March 1. Pregnant cows grazed meadow pastures (Yr 1) or were fed hay (Yr 2) until they were sold the second week of April.WCRECHeifers grazed winter range pastures from November to April with a self- fed cooked molasses 30% CP tub consuming approximately 0.5 lb/hd/day. Th e non- pregnant heifers were sold April 14 and the pregnant heifers 2 wk later.Economic AnalysesA partial budget analysis was performed to compare economics of selling non- pregnant cows immediately aft er diagnosis as non- pregnant (November) or retaining ownership and re- breeding non- pregnant cows to be sold as pregnant fall- calving cows in a potentially more favorable mar-ket (April).Hay prices ranged from $75 to $130/ton during the study, an average hay cost of $110/ton for Yr 1 and $88.21/ton for Yr 2 was assumed. Grazing meadow cost per animal was considered to be $1/d, the cost of grazing winter range per animal was also $1/d and basic management and yardage for each female was estimated at $0.30/d. Supplement ($385/ton, DM basis) was comprised of processed grain by- products, plant protein products, roughage prod-ucts, calcium carbonate, molasses prod-non- pregnant spring- calving cows to be marketed as pregnant fall- calving cows.ProcedureAnimalsSpring- born, crossbred females diag-nosed as non- pregnant aft er the regular spring breeding season were utilized over a 2 yr period at 2 locations, the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory (GSL; Yr 1, n = 61; Yr 2, n = 72), Whitman, and the West Central Research and Extension Center (WCREC; Yr 2, n = 15), North Platte. Th e GSL females were composite Red Angus × Sim-mental and approximately 80% were 1 and 2 yr of age at the beginning of the study. Th e GSL females were exposed to a 45 d natural service spring breeding season pri-or to the beginning of this study. Pregnancy diagnosis was determined by ultrasound 45 days aft er bulls were removed. Th e WCREC heifers were primarily Angus and 1 yr of age. At the spring breeding season they were synchronized with a MGA- PG protocol prior to AI and following AI were placed with bulls for 60 d. Pregnancy diag-nosis was performed via rectal ultrasound 45 d aft er bulls were removed.Synchronization protocol and breedingGSLFemales were synchronized with a 7 d CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d natural service breeding season beginning Novem-ber 13. A 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used. Pregnancy diagnosis was determined by ultrasound 30 d aft er bulls were removed, 2 wk later non pregnant cows were sold. Pregnant cows were sold 2 mo aft er preg-nancy detection at livestock auction.WCRECHeifers were synchronized with 7 d CO- Synch + CIDR® protocol. Estrus detec-tion patches were used to detect standing estrus and the second GnRH injection was SummaryA budget analysis compared the econom-ics of selling non- pregnant spring- calving cows immediately aft er pregnancy diagnosis or re- breeding non- pregnant cows to be sold as pregnant fall- calving cows in more favor-able market prices. Simulation performed for the last 5 yr of market prices demonstrated the strategy is cost eff ective in diff erent market scenarios, excluding the year 2012/2013. Due to drought, feed prices were the highest and cow prices the lowest of the 5 yr analyzed. Other than atypical scenarios like drought, positive economic results would be possible even at low pregnancy rates, but as the pregnancy rate increases net proceeds also increase.IntroductionProbably no single aspect of modern beef herd management is as complicated, or has potentially greater economic impact, as the cow culling and replacement deci-sion. Conventional wisdom has been that open cows should be sold aft er pregnancy detection to avoid extra feeding expenses.Most oft en, these non- pregnant cows are culled and sold into the slaughter market. Th ese sales represent, on average, 10 to 20% of total gross income for the herd (2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 35– 36). Th e cull cow market has tradi-tionally been seasonal, with October and November monthly average cull cow prices being the lowest for the year. Nebraska beef production is predominantly based on a spring calving system, lending itself to November cow culling.Keeping the non- pregnant cow to re- breed is not a common option, but the variability in cull cows and feedstuff  prices suggests an alternative could exist. A study was conducted to evaluate the economics of retaining ownership and rebreeding  Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant FemalesAline G. da Silva, Jacqueline A. Musgrave, Don C. Adams, John Nollette, Andy Applegarth, and Rick N. Funston12 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Reportthe spring breeding season. A diff erent ap-proach that could be used to calculate the bull cost is split the costs for the 2 breeding seasons, the regular spring breeding season and the re- breeding season. In this way the re- breeding season has the additional ad-vantage of increased use of bulls, reducing the breeding costs of the regular breeding season.Despite the diff erences in breeding and feeding costs between the 2 locations, the diff erence in the total cost between 2 loca-tions is mainly due to the animal’s initial price. WCREC heifers were all 19 mos of age and had higher market price/cwt in November compared with older females.Th e best candidates for this strategy, in fact, would be young females that have more productive life remaining and the greatest potential for added value when sold later as a bred cow compared with her current value as a cull cow. Older cows have less productive life remaining and it’s unlikely there would be enough extra value to capture to make the eff ort worthwhile.ResultsTh e overall pregnancy rate was 86.1% for GSL and 80.0% for WCREC (Table 1). A high percentage conceived in the fi rst 21 d of the breeding season (84.4 and 66.6% for GSL and WCREC, respectively). Since they will calve sooner, it increases the likelihood these cows will adapt to the fall calving system and be more productive as fall- calving cows (2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 18– 19).Th e partial budget analysis of re- breeding a female that would be culled is presented in Table 2. Th e total cost/female was $1,483.51 and $1,703.75 for GSL and WCREC, respectively. Feeding expenses were lower for WCREC heifers, as no hay and only a small amount of supplement was fed. Re- breeding expenses were lower for GSL as the cows and heifers were not AI.An important breeding expense in natural breeding systems is bull cost; nevertheless, it was not included in the breeding expens-es in this study because it was assumed the operation already had bulls not in use aft er ucts, urea, vitamin A supplement, copper sulfate, zinc oxide, magnesium sulfate, and monensin.Cow value at the beginning of the study (November) was calculated from the Nebraska average price reported by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service for the corresponding date and respective average BW. Total breeding cost for GSL females included CIDR® cost at $11.25/cow, a single PGF2α injection at $2.87/cow and labor expense of $5/cow. Breeding cost for the WCREC heifers included CIDR® cost at $11.25/heifer, a single PGF2α injection at $2.87/heifer, GnRH injection at $2.68/injection, estrus detection aids at $1.16/patch, semen at $25/dose and technician expense of $8/heifer.Total cost was calculated by adding the purchase price, total feeding cost, breeding expenses, and 6% annual interest rate on the purchase price. Th e net cost of 1 preg-nant cow was calculated as the diff erence between total cost and cull value, divided by the number of pregnant cows. Net gain was calculated as the diff erence between pregnant female price and net cost.Sensitivity AnalysisA sensitivity analysis evaluated the economics of retaining and rebreeding for the last 5 yr of market scenarios at diff erent pregnancy rates. An analysis was performed for each location (WCREC and GSL), considering the WCREC heifers were timed AI and the GSL heifers were synchronized and placed with bulls.Feeding was assumed to be similar for the 2 locations, hay and supplement for a 160 d period. Average hay prices for each year were obtained from the Nebraska average price reported by the USDA Agri-cultural Marketing Service (2010 to 2015).Cow and heifer value in November, March, and April was calculated from the Nebraska average price reported by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (2010 to 2015) for the corresponding date and respective average BW. Total breeding costs were assumed to be similar each yr. Breeding expenses for GSL females includ-ed CIDR® cost, a single PGF2α injection and labor. Breeding cost for the WCREC heifers included CIDR®, PGF2α, GnRH injection, heat detectors, semen, and technician labor.Table 1. Reproductive performance in the re- breeding seasonDescription GSLa WCRECbAI pregnancy rate, % — 53.3Overall pregnancy rate, % 86.1 80.0Conceived in the fi rst 21 d, % 84.4 66.6aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory: synchronized with 7- day CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d natural service breeding season, 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used.bWest Central Research and Extension Center: synchronized with 7- day CO- Synch + CIDR® protocol and timed artifi cial inseminated (TAI). Aft er TAI heifers were placed with bulls for 170 days.Table 2. Partial budget analysis of rebreeding an open femaleDescription $/unitGSLa WCRECbCow initial value (Nov), hd 1,168.89 1,422.41(re)Breeding expenses,c hd 19.12 57.63Feeding expensesd 270.58 188.16Interest (6%), hd 29.03 35.56Total cost, hd 1,487.63 1,703.75Cull cow value (Mar), hd 1,475.45 1,549.26Net Cost, pregnant cow 1,502.71 1,742.38Sale value (Apr), pregnant cow 2,023.00 2,359.19Net gain, pregnant cow 520.29 616.81aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory.bWest Central Research and Extension Center.cBreeding expenses include- GSL: cost of technician, CIDR® and PGF2α injection.— WCREC: cost of technician, semen, CIDR®, PGF2α, heat detectors and GnRH injection.dFeeding expenses for a period of approximately 160 days— GSL Yr 1: hay and supplement from November to February and meadow pastures from March to April.— GSL Yr 2: hay and supplement from November to February and hay from March to April.— WCREC: Winter range pastures and supplement from November to April.2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 13 for the synchronization protocol and semen, the natural service breeding season had reduced breeding costs, raising net proceeds/heifer exposed at a given preg-nancy rate. In the present study all females were sold at livestock auction and AI bred females were not priced diff erently com-pared with bull bred females. Furthermore, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service does not provide diff erent prices for AI and bull bred females. If the producer would have higher market prices for AI bred heif-ers and cows that exceed the increased AI costs, it is recommended to use AI in order to increase profi ts.Th e strategy was not cost eff ective in the 2012/2013 scenario. As a result of the 2012 drought, feedstuff  prices in 2012 were highest and the market prices were lowest for the last 5 yr; consequently, the produc-tion costs were greater than gross proceeds. As a result, in 2012/2013 this management practice was not profi table, regardless of pregnancy rate. With the exception of 2012/2013, the strategy appears to be cost eff ective even at a modest pregnancy rate. However, as the pregnancy rate increases the net proceeds also increase.Aline G. da Silva, graduate studentJacqueline A. Musgrave, research techni-cian, Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, WhitmanDon C. Adams, professor, University of Nebraska– Lincoln West Central Research and Extension Center, North PlatteJohn Nollette, research technician, Gud-mundsen Sandhills Laboratory, WhitmanAndy Applegarth, operations manager, Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whit-manRick N. Funston, professor, University of Nebraska– Lincoln West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platteper pregnant female. Th e higher net gain for WCREC is due to the better sale prices for bred heifers compared with older bred cows. All females at WCREC were 19 mos and only 80% were 19 mos at GSL.Th e sensitivity analysis performed is presented in Tables 3 and 4 for GSL and WCREC, respectively. Considering the feed costs were the same for both locations and considering all animals 1 yr old heifers, GSL had the greatest return. However, when available, less expensive feeding strategies should be considered in order to improve economic return.Due to diff erences in drugs necessary Th e remaining non- pregnant females were sold in March, and they had a market price lower than the total cost for both locations (Table 2), adding to the net cost. In this way, as the percentage of open cows increase or the value of these animals decrease, the net cost/pregnant female increases.Pregnant cows sold in April increased in value compared with November prices by approximately 73 and 66%, for GSL and WCREC heifers, respectively. Th e increasing cow prices from November to April and a greater market price for pregnant females resulted in a net gain of $525.13 and $616.81 Table 3.  Sensitivity analysis of rebreeding non- pregnant females for the last 5 yr market scenarios at diff erent pregnancy rates— GSLNet Proceeds— $/Heifer Exposed (GSL- NSB)aPregnancy Rate (%)2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/201510 −92.16 −207.67 −802.44 63.66 −84.7930 52.44 −55.82 −730.17 147.12 85.5850 197.03 96.02 −657.91 230.59 255.9570 341.62 247.86 −585.65 314.05 426.3190 486.21 399.71 −513.38 397.51 596.68aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory– Natural Service Breeding: synchronized with 7- day CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d natural service breeding season, 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used. Feeding was considered to be hay and supplement for a 160 days period.Table 4.  Sensitivity analysis of rebreeding non- pregnant females for the last 5 yr market scenarios at diff erent pregnancy rates— WCRECNet Proceeds- $/Heifer Exposed (WCREC- TAI)aPregnancy Rate (%)2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/201510 −91.01 −206.05 −860.31 92.52 −57.2730 35.56 −76.86 −808.62 150.11 83.8150 162.14 52.34 −756.94 207.69 224.8970 288.72 181.54 −705.26 265.27 365.9790 415.29 310.73 −653.57 322.86 507.05aWest Central Research and Extension Center– Timed artifi cially inseminated: synchronized with 7- day CO- Synch + CIDR® protocol prior to fi xed time artifi cial insemination (TAI). Aft er TAI heifers were placed with bulls for approximately 170 d. Feeding was considered to be hay and supplement for a 160 d period.

Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department
2016
Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females
Aline G. da Silva
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jacqueline A. Musgrave
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmusgrave1@unl.edu
Don C. Adams Adams
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.edu
John Nollette
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, john.nollette@unl.edu
Andy Applegarth
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, andy.applegarth@unl.edu
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr
Part of the Meat Science Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
da Silva, Aline G.; Musgrave, Jacqueline A.; Adams, Don C. Adams; Nollette, John; Applegarth, Andy; and Funston, Rick N.,
"Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females" (2016). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 875.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/875
Authors
Aline G. da Silva, Jacqueline A. Musgrave, Don C. Adams Adams, John Nollette, Andy Applegarth, and Rick
N. Funston
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/875
2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 11 
©  Th e Board Regents of the University of 
Nebraska. All rights reserved.
administered at TAI only to heifers that did 
not have their patches rubbed off . Heifers 
were AI November 11 and aft er AI were 
placed with bulls until sold at livestock auc-
tion (approximately 170 d). Pregnancy was 
determined by ultrasound 135 d aft er AI.
Diet
GSL
Hay and supplement were fed from 
November to February. Th e supplement 
containing 29% CP was fed in the amount 
of 1.2 lb/hd/d. Th e cows diagnosed as non- 
pregnant were sold March 1. Pregnant cows 
grazed meadow pastures (Yr 1) or were fed 
hay (Yr 2) until they were sold the second 
week of April.
WCREC
Heifers grazed winter range pastures 
from November to April with a self- fed 
cooked molasses 30% CP tub consuming 
approximately 0.5 lb/hd/day. Th e non- 
pregnant heifers were sold April 14 and the 
pregnant heifers 2 wk later.
Economic Analyses
A partial budget analysis was performed 
to compare economics of selling non- 
pregnant cows immediately aft er diagnosis 
as non- pregnant (November) or retaining 
ownership and re- breeding non- pregnant 
cows to be sold as pregnant fall- calving 
cows in a potentially more favorable mar-
ket (April).
Hay prices ranged from $75 to $130/
ton during the study, an average hay cost 
of $110/ton for Yr 1 and $88.21/ton for Yr 
2 was assumed. Grazing meadow cost per 
animal was considered to be $1/d, the cost 
of grazing winter range per animal was also 
$1/d and basic management and yardage 
for each female was estimated at $0.30/d. 
Supplement ($385/ton, DM basis) was 
comprised of processed grain by- products, 
plant protein products, roughage prod-
ucts, calcium carbonate, molasses prod-
non- pregnant spring- calving cows to be 
marketed as pregnant fall- calving cows.
Procedure
Animals
Spring- born, crossbred females diag-
nosed as non- pregnant aft er the regular 
spring breeding season were utilized over a 
2 yr period at 2 locations, the Gudmundsen 
Sandhills Laboratory (GSL; Yr 1, n = 61; Yr 
2, n = 72), Whitman, and the West Central 
Research and Extension Center (WCREC; 
Yr 2, n = 15), North Platte. Th e GSL 
females were composite Red Angus × Sim-
mental and approximately 80% were 1 and 
2 yr of age at the beginning of the study. 
Th e GSL females were exposed to a 45 d 
natural service spring breeding season pri-
or to the beginning of this study. Pregnancy 
diagnosis was determined by ultrasound 
45 days aft er bulls were removed. Th e 
WCREC heifers were primarily Angus and 
1 yr of age. At the spring breeding season 
they were synchronized with a MGA- PG 
protocol prior to AI and following AI were 
placed with bulls for 60 d. Pregnancy diag-
nosis was performed via rectal ultrasound 
45 d aft er bulls were removed.
Synchronization protocol 
and breeding
GSL
Females were synchronized with a 7 d 
CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d natural 
service breeding season beginning Novem-
ber 13. A 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used. 
Pregnancy diagnosis was determined by 
ultrasound 30 d aft er bulls were removed, 
2 wk later non pregnant cows were sold. 
Pregnant cows were sold 2 mo aft er preg-
nancy detection at livestock auction.
WCREC
Heifers were synchronized with 7 d 
CO- Synch + CIDR® protocol. Estrus detec-
tion patches were used to detect standing 
estrus and the second GnRH injection was 
Summary
A budget analysis compared the econom-
ics of selling non- pregnant spring- calving 
cows immediately aft er pregnancy diagnosis 
or re- breeding non- pregnant cows to be sold 
as pregnant fall- calving cows in more favor-
able market prices. Simulation performed for 
the last 5 yr of market prices demonstrated 
the strategy is cost eff ective in diff erent 
market scenarios, excluding the year 
2012/2013. Due to drought, feed prices were 
the highest and cow prices the lowest of the 
5 yr analyzed. Other than atypical scenarios 
like drought, positive economic results would 
be possible even at low pregnancy rates, but 
as the pregnancy rate increases net proceeds 
also increase.
Introduction
Probably no single aspect of modern 
beef herd management is as complicated, 
or has potentially greater economic impact, 
as the cow culling and replacement deci-
sion. Conventional wisdom has been that 
open cows should be sold aft er pregnancy 
detection to avoid extra feeding expenses.
Most oft en, these non- pregnant cows 
are culled and sold into the slaughter 
market. Th ese sales represent, on average, 
10 to 20% of total gross income for the 
herd (2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 
35– 36). Th e cull cow market has tradi-
tionally been seasonal, with October and 
November monthly average cull cow prices 
being the lowest for the year. Nebraska 
beef production is predominantly based 
on a spring calving system, lending itself to 
November cow culling.
Keeping the non- pregnant cow to 
re- breed is not a common option, but the 
variability in cull cows and feedstuff  prices 
suggests an alternative could exist. A study 
was conducted to evaluate the economics 
of retaining ownership and rebreeding 
 Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females
Aline G. da Silva, Jacqueline A. Musgrave, Don C. Adams, 
John Nollette, Andy Applegarth, and Rick N. Funston
12 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
the spring breeding season. A diff erent ap-
proach that could be used to calculate the 
bull cost is split the costs for the 2 breeding 
seasons, the regular spring breeding season 
and the re- breeding season. In this way the 
re- breeding season has the additional ad-
vantage of increased use of bulls, reducing 
the breeding costs of the regular breeding 
season.
Despite the diff erences in breeding and 
feeding costs between the 2 locations, the 
diff erence in the total cost between 2 loca-
tions is mainly due to the animal’s initial 
price. WCREC heifers were all 19 mos of 
age and had higher market price/cwt in 
November compared with older females.
Th e best candidates for this strategy, 
in fact, would be young females that have 
more productive life remaining and the 
greatest potential for added value when 
sold later as a bred cow compared with 
her current value as a cull cow. Older cows 
have less productive life remaining and it’s 
unlikely there would be enough extra value 
to capture to make the eff ort worthwhile.
Results
Th e overall pregnancy rate was 86.1% 
for GSL and 80.0% for WCREC (Table 1). 
A high percentage conceived in the fi rst 21 
d of the breeding season (84.4 and 66.6% 
for GSL and WCREC, respectively). Since 
they will calve sooner, it increases the 
likelihood these cows will adapt to the fall 
calving system and be more productive 
as fall- calving cows (2012 Nebraska Beef 
Cattle Report, pp. 18– 19).
Th e partial budget analysis of re- 
breeding a female that would be culled is 
presented in Table 2. Th e total cost/female 
was $1,483.51 and $1,703.75 for GSL and 
WCREC, respectively. Feeding expenses 
were lower for WCREC heifers, as no hay 
and only a small amount of supplement was 
fed. Re- breeding expenses were lower for 
GSL as the cows and heifers were not AI.
An important breeding expense in natural 
breeding systems is bull cost; nevertheless, 
it was not included in the breeding expens-
es in this study because it was assumed the 
operation already had bulls not in use aft er 
ucts, urea, vitamin A supplement, copper 
sulfate, zinc oxide, magnesium sulfate, and 
monensin.
Cow value at the beginning of the 
study (November) was calculated from 
the Nebraska average price reported by 
the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 
for the corresponding date and respective 
average BW. Total breeding cost for GSL 
females included CIDR® cost at $11.25/cow, 
a single PGF2α injection at $2.87/cow and 
labor expense of $5/cow. Breeding cost for 
the WCREC heifers included CIDR® cost 
at $11.25/heifer, a single PGF2α injection 
at $2.87/heifer, GnRH injection at $2.68/
injection, estrus detection aids at $1.16/
patch, semen at $25/dose and technician 
expense of $8/heifer.
Total cost was calculated by adding the 
purchase price, total feeding cost, breeding 
expenses, and 6% annual interest rate on 
the purchase price. Th e net cost of 1 preg-
nant cow was calculated as the diff erence 
between total cost and cull value, divided 
by the number of pregnant cows. Net gain 
was calculated as the diff erence between 
pregnant female price and net cost.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis evaluated the 
economics of retaining and rebreeding 
for the last 5 yr of market scenarios at 
diff erent pregnancy rates. An analysis was 
performed for each location (WCREC and 
GSL), considering the WCREC heifers 
were timed AI and the GSL heifers were 
synchronized and placed with bulls.
Feeding was assumed to be similar for 
the 2 locations, hay and supplement for a 
160 d period. Average hay prices for each 
year were obtained from the Nebraska 
average price reported by the USDA Agri-
cultural Marketing Service (2010 to 2015).
Cow and heifer value in November, 
March, and April was calculated from the 
Nebraska average price reported by the 
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 
(2010 to 2015) for the corresponding date 
and respective average BW. Total breeding 
costs were assumed to be similar each yr. 
Breeding expenses for GSL females includ-
ed CIDR® cost, a single PGF2α injection and 
labor. Breeding cost for the WCREC heifers 
included CIDR®, PGF2α, GnRH injection, 
heat detectors, semen, and technician labor.
Table 1. Reproductive performance in the re- breeding season
Description GSLa WCRECb
AI pregnancy rate, % — 53.3
Overall pregnancy rate, % 86.1 80.0
Conceived in the fi rst 21 d, % 84.4 66.6
aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory: synchronized with 7- day CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d natural service breeding 
season, 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used.
bWest Central Research and Extension Center: synchronized with 7- day CO- Synch + CIDR® protocol and timed artifi cial 
inseminated (TAI). Aft er TAI heifers were placed with bulls for 170 days.
Table 2. Partial budget analysis of rebreeding an open female
Description $/unit
GSLa WCRECb
Cow initial value (Nov), hd 1,168.89 1,422.41
(re)Breeding expenses,c hd 19.12 57.63
Feeding expensesd 270.58 188.16
Interest (6%), hd 29.03 35.56
Total cost, hd 1,487.63 1,703.75
Cull cow value (Mar), hd 1,475.45 1,549.26
Net Cost, pregnant cow 1,502.71 1,742.38
Sale value (Apr), pregnant cow 2,023.00 2,359.19
Net gain, pregnant cow 520.29 616.81
aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory.
bWest Central Research and Extension Center.
cBreeding expenses include- GSL: cost of technician, CIDR® and PGF2α injection.— WCREC: cost of technician, semen, CIDR®, 
PGF2α, heat detectors and GnRH injection.
dFeeding expenses for a period of approximately 160 days— GSL Yr 1: hay and supplement from November to February and 
meadow pastures from March to April.— GSL Yr 2: hay and supplement from November to February and hay from March to 
April.— WCREC: Winter range pastures and supplement from November to April.
2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 13 
for the synchronization protocol and 
semen, the natural service breeding season 
had reduced breeding costs, raising net 
proceeds/heifer exposed at a given preg-
nancy rate. In the present study all females 
were sold at livestock auction and AI bred 
females were not priced diff erently com-
pared with bull bred females. Furthermore, 
the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service 
does not provide diff erent prices for AI and 
bull bred females. If the producer would 
have higher market prices for AI bred heif-
ers and cows that exceed the increased AI 
costs, it is recommended to use AI in order 
to increase profi ts.
Th e strategy was not cost eff ective in 
the 2012/2013 scenario. As a result of the 
2012 drought, feedstuff  prices in 2012 were 
highest and the market prices were lowest 
for the last 5 yr; consequently, the produc-
tion costs were greater than gross proceeds. 
As a result, in 2012/2013 this management 
practice was not profi table, regardless of 
pregnancy rate. With the exception of 
2012/2013, the strategy appears to be cost 
eff ective even at a modest pregnancy rate. 
However, as the pregnancy rate increases 
the net proceeds also increase.
Aline G. da Silva, graduate student
Jacqueline A. Musgrave, research techni-
cian, Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, 
Whitman
Don C. Adams, professor, University of 
Nebraska– Lincoln West Central Research 
and Extension Center, North Platte
John Nollette, research technician, Gud-
mundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman
Andy Applegarth, operations manager, 
Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whit-
man
Rick N. Funston, professor, University of 
Nebraska– Lincoln West Central Research 
and Extension Center, North Platte
per pregnant female. Th e higher net gain for 
WCREC is due to the better sale prices for 
bred heifers compared with older bred cows. 
All females at WCREC were 19 mos and 
only 80% were 19 mos at GSL.
Th e sensitivity analysis performed is 
presented in Tables 3 and 4 for GSL and 
WCREC, respectively. Considering the feed 
costs were the same for both locations and 
considering all animals 1 yr old heifers, 
GSL had the greatest return. However, 
when available, less expensive feeding 
strategies should be considered in order to 
improve economic return.
Due to diff erences in drugs necessary 
Th e remaining non- pregnant females 
were sold in March, and they had a market 
price lower than the total cost for both 
locations (Table 2), adding to the net cost. 
In this way, as the percentage of open 
cows increase or the value of these animals 
decrease, the net cost/pregnant female 
increases.
Pregnant cows sold in April increased 
in value compared with November prices 
by approximately 73 and 66%, for GSL and 
WCREC heifers, respectively. Th e increasing 
cow prices from November to April and a 
greater market price for pregnant females 
resulted in a net gain of $525.13 and $616.81 
Table 3.  Sensitivity analysis of rebreeding non- pregnant females for the last 
5 yr market scenarios at diff erent pregnancy rates— GSL
Net Proceeds— $/Heifer Exposed (GSL- NSB)a
Pregnancy Rate 
(%)
2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015
10 −92.16 −207.67 −802.44 63.66 −84.79
30 52.44 −55.82 −730.17 147.12 85.58
50 197.03 96.02 −657.91 230.59 255.95
70 341.62 247.86 −585.65 314.05 426.31
90 486.21 399.71 −513.38 397.51 596.68
aGudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory– Natural Service Breeding: synchronized with 7- day CIDR®- PG protocol prior to a 60 d 
natural service breeding season, 1:25 bull to cow ratio was used. Feeding was considered to be hay and supplement for a 160 
days period.
Table 4.  Sensitivity analysis of rebreeding non- pregnant females for the last 
5 yr market scenarios at diff erent pregnancy rates— WCREC
Net Proceeds- $/Heifer Exposed (WCREC- TAI)a
Pregnancy Rate 
(%)
2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015
10 −91.01 −206.05 −860.31 92.52 −57.27
30 35.56 −76.86 −808.62 150.11 83.81
50 162.14 52.34 −756.94 207.69 224.89
70 288.72 181.54 −705.26 265.27 365.97
90 415.29 310.73 −653.57 322.86 507.05
aWest Central Research and Extension Center– Timed artifi cially inseminated: synchronized with 7- day CO- Synch + CIDR® 
protocol prior to fi xed time artifi cial insemination (TAI). Aft er TAI heifers were placed with bulls for approximately 170 d. 
Feeding was considered to be hay and supplement for a 160 d period.


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Economics of Rebreeding Non- pregnant Females

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries