Cattle CODE — Coproduct Optimizer Decision Evaluator — is a model developed to predict performance and economic returns when byproducts are fed to finishing cattle. Four scenarios were evaluated to illustrate how the model works and to show sensitivity to corn price and distance from the ethanol plant, which resulted in positive returns for feeding WDGS, Sweet Bran, or DDGS up to 50% of diet DM and under 100 miles distance from the ethanol plant to the feedlot

Bremer, Virgil R.

Buckner, Crystal D.

Erickson, Galen E.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Mark, Darrell R.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department January 2008 Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle Crystal D. Buckner University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cbuckner2@unl.edu Virgil R. Bremer University of Nebraska-Lincoln, vbremer2@unl.edu Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu Galen E. Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Darrell R. Mark University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dmark2@unl.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Buckner, Crystal D.; Bremer, Virgil R.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Erickson, Galen E.; and Mark, Darrell R., "Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle" (2008). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 19. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/19 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. © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 47 Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot CattleCrystal D. BucknerVirgil R. BremerTerry J. KlopfensteinGalen E. EricksonDarrell R. Mark1SummaryCattle CODE — Coproduct Opti-mizer Decision Evaluator — is a model developed to predict performance and economic returns when byproducts are fed to finishing cattle. Four scenarios were evaluated to illustrate how the model works and to show sensitivity to corn price and distance from the ethanol plant, which resulted in positive returns for feeding WDGS, Sweet Bran, or DDGS up to 50% of diet DM and under 100 miles distance from the ethanol plant to the feedlot. The model can be found at http://beef.unl.edu under the byproduct feeds tab.IntroductionType of byproduct, dietary inclu-sion level, moisture content, truck-ing costs, feeding costs, and price relationship between byproducts and corn price affect cattle feeding profit or loss when using byproducts. Our objective was to use Coproduct Optimizer Decision Evaluator (Cattle CODE, at http://beef.unl.edu), a model designed to estimate profit or loss from feeding byproducts in feedlot diets, to evaluate these factors.ProcedureCattle CODE required cattle inputs of feeder and finished BW and their respective prices. Dry matter intake and F:G for cattle fed a corn-based diet with no byproducts were required inputs. Cattle processing and medi-cal costs, death loss, yardage costs, and loan interest were also required. Feed ingredient prices, ingredient DM (%), and dietary inclusion level on a DM basis were needed for corn, byproducts, roughages, and a supple-ment. Inputs of semi-truck load size, cost/loaded mile, and miles hauled to the feedlot were needed for trucking costs (Table 1).With these inputs, the model pre-dicts DMI and F:G for each byprod-uct type and inclusion levels based on equations from research trials. The trials used include: wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS; Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 51-5), dry distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS; Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 6-8), modified distillers grains plus solubles (MDGS; Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 50-51), Sweet Bran® and traditional wet corn gluten feed (Bremer et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 7-8), and wet Dakota Bran cake (Dbran; Bremer et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 57-58). With predicted DMI and F:G, the model calculated ADG. Feeder and fat cattle BW do not change in the model with inclusion of byproducts. Therefore, days on feed (DOF) were calculated based on ADG.Yardage costs were divided into two parts. The model assumed 1/ of yardage cost was for feeding costs, while the other 2/ was for nonfeed-ing yardage costs. The feeding yardage cost component would account for any added costs associated with feed-ing wetter diets due to wet byproduct inclusions. Processing and medical expenses, death loss, and cattle loan interest remained the same in the model regardless of byproduct inclu-sion.The model added urea (and associ-ated cost) to diets when supplemental protein was needed to obtain at least 1.5% dietary CP. The model calcu-lated dietary DM content with the inputs of feed ingredient DM and % inclusion, which was important for calculating feeding yardage costs. Byproduct hauling costs were calcu-lated with load size, cost/loaded mile, and miles delivered to the feedlot.A few byproduct feeding scenarios were evaluated to illustrate how this model can calculate profit/loss with any given inputs. Assumptions for inputs included: 740 lb feeder steer at breakeven price to cause the corn diet to have $0 profit, 1,00 lb finished steer at $90/cwt, 24 lb DMI and 6.5  F:G for cattle consuming a corn-based Table 1. Inputs required and outputs derived for Cattle CODE.Inputs Required Outputs GeneratedCattle Predicted/ Calculated Parameters Feeder weight  DMI for byproduct scenario Feeder price/cwt  F:G for byproduct scenario Finished weight  ADG Finished price/cwt  DOF DMI on corn diet Costs/ head F:G on corn diet  Nonfeeding yardage Yardage cost/head/day  Feeding yardage Processing and medical costs/ head  Byproduct transportation to the feedlot Death loss % Diets Cattle loan interest %  DM%Feed  CP% Byproduct costs/ ton and %DM  Diet cost/ ton DM Corn costs/ bushel, %DM, % of diet  Total feeding cost/ head Roughage cost/ ton, %DM, % of diet Overall Supplement and urea costs/ ton, %DM, % of diet  Cost of gain/ lbTransportation  Profit or Loss/ head Truck load size (lbs as-is)  Byproduct returns/ head Hauling cost/ loaded mile  Miles from ethanol plant(Continued on next page)Page 48 — 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.diet, $12.00/ head for processing and medical costs, 1.5% death loss, 8.1% cattle loan interest, and $0.5/ hd*day for yardage costs. Feed inputs included blending dry-rolled corn ($.70/bu) with high-moisture corn ($.5/bu) on an equal DM basis, 7% alfalfa hay ($10/ton), 4% dry supple-ment ($190/ton), and urea priced at $20/ton. Only three byproducts were evaluated for this report, including: WDGS (% DM) and Sweet Bran (60% DM) priced at 95% and DDGS priced at 100% the price of corn (DM basis). Transportation inputs included $.00/ loaded mile and 50,000 lb (as-is) byproduct capacity per load. A sensitivity analysis was conducted for mileage at 0, 0, 60, and 100 miles with hauling WDGS or Sweet Bran to a feedlot from the supplier. As the ethanol industry continues to expand with changing byproduct prices, we wanted to examine the price relationship of WDGS to corn at 95%, 85%, and 75% (DM basis). We also evaluated the sensitivity of changing corn prices at $2.70, $.70, and $4.70/bu with a changing corn market on DDGS returns.ResultsDistance between the ethanol plant and the feedlot impacted cattle returns when WDGS was fed. Feeding WDGS (priced at 95% of corn price) increased returns quadratically as WDGS inclusion levels increased up to 50% diet DM compared to feeding corn alone (Figure 1). If the feedlot was at the ethanol plant, the opti-mum inclusion level was 5% to 40% of diet DM and returns were $40-50 more/head compared to feeding corn. Figure 2. Economic return for feeding Sweet Bran at 95% the price of corn ($3.70/bu corn) at 0, 30, 60, and 100 miles.40020100Sweet Bran Return ($/head) 00601000 10 20 0 40 50Sweet Bran Level (DM basis)Figure 1. Economic return for feeding WDGS at 95% the price of corn ($3.70/bu corn) at 0, 30, 60, and 100 miles.5040020100WDGS Return ($/hd)00601000 10 20 0 40 50WDGS Level (DM basis)As the distance from the ethanol plant to the feedlot increased from 0 to 100 miles, the returns decreased for feeding WDGS when compared to corn alone. The optimum inclusion of WDGS also decreased as distance increased from the ethanol plant to the feedlot. These examples suggest that the optimum DM inclusion of WDGS was 5% to 40% if the feedlot was at the ethanol plant compared to an optimum inclusion of 20% to 25% if the feedlot was 100 miles away from the plant. Distance from the ethanol plant to the feedlot has a larger impact on economic returns as dietary inclu-sion level increased.The analysis for transporting Sweet Bran (priced at 95% of corn price, DM basis) from 0 to 100 miles to a feedlot resulted in positive returns by feeding Sweet Bran up to 50% of diet DM (Figure 2). When the feedlot was located at the ethanol plant, the optimum inclusion level of Sweet Bran was 50% diet DM, with returns © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 49 mum inclusion level increased to 40% diet DM and returned $55/head. Pric-ing WDGS at a lower cost relative to corn had a larger impact on economic returns as inclusion levels of WDGS increased. We determined the sensitivity of corn prices at $2.70, $.70, and $4.70/bu with DDGS (priced at 100% of corn price), as 60 miles hauling dis-tance for DDGS remained constant. This resulted in positive quadratic returns up to 40% diet DM (Figure 4) as optimum DDGS inclusion level remained the same at 20% to 25% diet DM for each of these corn prices with returns of $25 to $/head. Increasing corn prices improved returns for feed-ing DDGS, but the most economic changes were observed at intermedi-ate dietary inclusion levels of DDGS. Similar relationships were observed with feeding WDGS and increasing corn prices, as more profit resulted from increased corn prices with great-er WDGS inclusion levels.Based on these limited examples, feeding byproducts increased cattle economic returns compared to feed-ing corn. However, returns were impacted by type of byproduct used, inclusion level in the diet, distance from the ethanol plant, corn price, and byproduct price relative to corn. This model should allow for pro-ducers to use their own inputs and improve their decision making ability on using byproducts. The model can be downloaded at http://beef.unl.edu.1Crystal D. Buckner, research technician; Virgil R. Bremer, research technician; Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor; and Galen E. Erickson, associate professor, Animal Science, Lincoln. Darrell R. Mark, assistant professor, Agricultural Economics, Lincoln.Figure 3.  Economic return for feeding WDGS with $3.70/bu corn at 60 miles to the feedlot with 95%, 85%, and 75% WDGS price relative to corn (DM basis).605040020100WDGS Return ($/head) 95%85%75%0 10 20 0 40 50WDGS Level (DM basis)Figure 4. Economic return for feeding DDGS at 60 miles to the feedlot with 100% DDGS price relative to corn when corn is priced at $2.70, $3.70, or $4.70/bu.40020100DDGS Return ($/head)2.70.704.700 10 20 0 40DDGS Level (DM basis)up to $40/head compared to feeding corn. As distance from the ethanol plant to the feedlot increased from 0 to 100 miles, the optimum eco-nomic inclusion level for Sweet Bran remained the same at 50% diet DM, but the overall returns at 50% inclu-sion decreased to about $20/head at 100 miles. These results suggested that feeding Sweet Bran increased returns as dietary inclusion levels increased up to 50% of diet DM compared to corn, regardless of mileage. Inclusion level had a larger impact than distance from the ethanol plant for Sweet Bran based on economic returns.With a constant corn price ($.70/ bu) and distance (60 miles), eco-nomic returns were sensitive to price of WDGS relative to corn. If WDGS was priced at 95% of corn price, then optimum inclusion of WDGS was 0% which returned $8/head (Figure ). The optimum inclusion of WDGS was 5% diet DM when WDGS was priced at 85% of corn price and returns were $45/head. When pricing WDGS at 75% of corn price, the opti-

Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
January 2008 
Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct 
Returns for Feedlot Cattle 
Crystal D. Buckner 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cbuckner2@unl.edu 
Virgil R. Bremer 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, vbremer2@unl.edu 
Terry J. Klopfenstein 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu 
Galen E. Erickson 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu 
Darrell R. Mark 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dmark2@unl.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Buckner, Crystal D.; Bremer, Virgil R.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Erickson, Galen E.; and Mark, Darrell R., "Cattle 
CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle" (2008). Nebraska Beef 
Cattle Reports. 19. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/19 
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. 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 47 
Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining 
Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle
Crystal D. Buckner
Virgil R. Bremer
Terry J. Klopfenstein
Galen E. Erickson
Darrell R. Mark1
Summary
Cattle CODE — Coproduct Opti-
mizer Decision Evaluator — is a model 
developed to predict performance and 
economic returns when byproducts are 
fed to finishing cattle. Four scenarios 
were evaluated to illustrate how the 
model works and to show sensitivity to 
corn price and distance from the ethanol 
plant, which resulted in positive returns 
for feeding WDGS, Sweet Bran, or 
DDGS up to 50% of diet DM and under 
100 miles distance from the ethanol 
plant to the feedlot. The model can be 
found at http://beef.unl.edu under the 
byproduct feeds tab.
Introduction
Type of byproduct, dietary inclu-
sion level, moisture content, truck-
ing costs, feeding costs, and price 
relationship between byproducts 
and corn price affect cattle feeding 
profit or loss when using byproducts. 
Our objective was to use Coproduct 
Optimizer Decision Evaluator (Cattle 
CODE, at http://beef.unl.edu), a model 
designed to estimate profit or loss 
from feeding byproducts in feedlot 
diets, to evaluate these factors.
Procedure
Cattle CODE required cattle inputs 
of feeder and finished BW and their 
respective prices. Dry matter intake 
and F:G for cattle fed a corn-based 
diet with no byproducts were required 
inputs. Cattle processing and medi-
cal costs, death loss, yardage costs, 
and loan interest were also required. 
Feed ingredient prices, ingredient 
DM (%), and dietary inclusion level 
on a DM basis were needed for corn, 
byproducts, roughages, and a supple-
ment. Inputs of semi-truck load size, 
cost/loaded mile, and miles hauled to 
the feedlot were needed for trucking 
costs (Table 1).
With these inputs, the model pre-
dicts DMI and F:G for each byprod-
uct type and inclusion levels based 
on equations from research trials. 
The trials used include: wet distillers 
grains plus solubles (WDGS; Vander 
Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Report, 
pp. 51-5), dry distillers grains plus 
solubles (DDGS; Buckner et al., 2007 
Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 6-8), 
modified distillers grains plus solubles 
(MDGS; Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska 
Beef Report, pp. 50-51), Sweet Bran® 
and traditional wet corn gluten feed 
(Bremer et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef 
Report, pp. 7-8), and wet Dakota 
Bran cake (Dbran; Bremer et al., 2006 
Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 57-58). With 
predicted DMI and F:G, the model 
calculated ADG. Feeder and fat cattle 
BW do not change in the model with 
inclusion of byproducts. Therefore, 
days on feed (DOF) were calculated 
based on ADG.
Yardage costs were divided into 
two parts. The model assumed 1/ 
of yardage cost was for feeding costs, 
while the other 2/ was for nonfeed-
ing yardage costs. The feeding yardage 
cost component would account for 
any added costs associated with feed-
ing wetter diets due to wet byproduct 
inclusions. Processing and medical 
expenses, death loss, and cattle loan 
interest remained the same in the 
model regardless of byproduct inclu-
sion.
The model added urea (and associ-
ated cost) to diets when supplemental 
protein was needed to obtain at least 
1.5% dietary CP. The model calcu-
lated dietary DM content with the 
inputs of feed ingredient DM and % 
inclusion, which was important for 
calculating feeding yardage costs. 
Byproduct hauling costs were calcu-
lated with load size, cost/loaded mile, 
and miles delivered to the feedlot.
A few byproduct feeding scenarios 
were evaluated to illustrate how this 
model can calculate profit/loss with 
any given inputs. Assumptions for 
inputs included: 740 lb feeder steer 
at breakeven price to cause the corn 
diet to have $0 profit, 1,00 lb finished 
steer at $90/cwt, 24 lb DMI and 6.5  
F:G for cattle consuming a corn-based 
Table 1. Inputs required and outputs derived for Cattle CODE.
Inputs Required Outputs Generated
Cattle Predicted/ Calculated Parameters
 Feeder weight  DMI for byproduct scenario
 Feeder price/cwt  F:G for byproduct scenario
 Finished weight  ADG
 Finished price/cwt  DOF
 DMI on corn diet Costs/ head
 F:G on corn diet  Nonfeeding yardage
 Yardage cost/head/day  Feeding yardage
 Processing and medical costs/ head  Byproduct transportation to the feedlot
 Death loss % Diets
 Cattle loan interest %  DM%
Feed  CP%
 Byproduct costs/ ton and %DM  Diet cost/ ton DM
 Corn costs/ bushel, %DM, % of diet  Total feeding cost/ head
 Roughage cost/ ton, %DM, % of diet Overall
 Supplement and urea costs/ ton, %DM, % of diet  Cost of gain/ lb
Transportation  Profit or Loss/ head
 Truck load size (lbs as-is)  Byproduct returns/ head
 Hauling cost/ loaded mile 
 Miles from ethanol plant
(Continued on next page)
Page 48 — 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
diet, $12.00/ head for processing 
and medical costs, 1.5% death loss, 
8.1% cattle loan interest, and $0.5/ 
hd*day for yardage costs. Feed inputs 
included blending dry-rolled corn 
($.70/bu) with high-moisture corn 
($.5/bu) on an equal DM basis, 7% 
alfalfa hay ($10/ton), 4% dry supple-
ment ($190/ton), and urea priced at 
$20/ton. Only three byproducts were 
evaluated for this report, including: 
WDGS (% DM) and Sweet Bran 
(60% DM) priced at 95% and DDGS 
priced at 100% the price of corn (DM 
basis). Transportation inputs included 
$.00/ loaded mile and 50,000 lb 
(as-is) byproduct capacity per load. 
A sensitivity analysis was conducted 
for mileage at 0, 0, 60, and 100 miles 
with hauling WDGS or Sweet Bran 
to a feedlot from the supplier. As the 
ethanol industry continues to expand 
with changing byproduct prices, 
we wanted to examine the price 
relationship of WDGS to corn at 95%, 
85%, and 75% (DM basis). We also 
evaluated the sensitivity of changing 
corn prices at $2.70, $.70, and $4.70/
bu with a changing corn market on 
DDGS returns.
Results
Distance between the ethanol 
plant and the feedlot impacted cattle 
returns when WDGS was fed. Feeding 
WDGS (priced at 95% of corn price) 
increased returns quadratically as 
WDGS inclusion levels increased up 
to 50% diet DM compared to feeding 
corn alone (Figure 1). If the feedlot 
was at the ethanol plant, the opti-
mum inclusion level was 5% to 40% 
of diet DM and returns were $40-50 
more/head compared to feeding corn. 
Figure 2. Economic return for feeding Sweet Bran at 95% the price of corn ($3.70/bu corn) at 0, 30, 
60, and 100 miles.
40
0
20
10
0
Sw
ee
t B
ra
n
 R
et
ur
n
 (
$/
he
ad
) 0
0
60
100
0 10 20 0 40 50
Sweet Bran Level (DM basis)
Figure 1. Economic return for feeding WDGS at 95% the price of corn ($3.70/bu corn) at 0, 30, 60, 
and 100 miles.
50
40
0
20
10
0
W
D
G
S 
R
et
ur
n
 (
$/
hd
)
0
0
60
100
0 10 20 0 40 50
WDGS Level (DM basis)
As the distance from the ethanol 
plant to the feedlot increased from 0 
to 100 miles, the returns decreased 
for feeding WDGS when compared to 
corn alone. The optimum inclusion 
of WDGS also decreased as distance 
increased from the ethanol plant to 
the feedlot. These examples suggest 
that the optimum DM inclusion of 
WDGS was 5% to 40% if the feedlot 
was at the ethanol plant compared to 
an optimum inclusion of 20% to 25% 
if the feedlot was 100 miles away from 
the plant. Distance from the ethanol 
plant to the feedlot has a larger impact 
on economic returns as dietary inclu-
sion level increased.
The analysis for transporting Sweet 
Bran (priced at 95% of corn price, 
DM basis) from 0 to 100 miles to a 
feedlot resulted in positive returns 
by feeding Sweet Bran up to 50% of 
diet DM (Figure 2). When the feedlot 
was located at the ethanol plant, the 
optimum inclusion level of Sweet 
Bran was 50% diet DM, with returns 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2008 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 49 
mum inclusion level increased to 40% 
diet DM and returned $55/head. Pric-
ing WDGS at a lower cost relative to 
corn had a larger impact on economic 
returns as inclusion levels of WDGS 
increased. 
We determined the sensitivity of 
corn prices at $2.70, $.70, and $4.70/
bu with DDGS (priced at 100% of 
corn price), as 60 miles hauling dis-
tance for DDGS remained constant. 
This resulted in positive quadratic 
returns up to 40% diet DM (Figure 
4) as optimum DDGS inclusion level 
remained the same at 20% to 25% diet 
DM for each of these corn prices with 
returns of $25 to $/head. Increasing 
corn prices improved returns for feed-
ing DDGS, but the most economic 
changes were observed at intermedi-
ate dietary inclusion levels of DDGS. 
Similar relationships were observed 
with feeding WDGS and increasing 
corn prices, as more profit resulted 
from increased corn prices with great-
er WDGS inclusion levels.
Based on these limited examples, 
feeding byproducts increased cattle 
economic returns compared to feed-
ing corn. However, returns were 
impacted by type of byproduct used, 
inclusion level in the diet, distance 
from the ethanol plant, corn price, 
and byproduct price relative to corn. 
This model should allow for pro-
ducers to use their own inputs and 
improve their decision making ability 
on using byproducts. The model can 
be downloaded at http://beef.unl.edu.
1Crystal D. Buckner, research technician; 
Virgil R. Bremer, research technician; Terry J. 
Klopfenstein, professor; and Galen E. Erickson, 
associate professor, Animal Science, Lincoln. 
Darrell R. Mark, assistant professor, Agricultural 
Economics, Lincoln.
Figure 3.  Economic return for feeding WDGS with $3.70/bu corn at 60 miles to the feedlot with 95%, 
85%, and 75% WDGS price relative to corn (DM basis).
60
50
40
0
20
10
0
W
D
G
S 
R
et
ur
n
 (
$/
he
ad
) 95%
85%
75%
0 10 20 0 40 50
WDGS Level (DM basis)
Figure 4. Economic return for feeding DDGS at 60 miles to the feedlot with 100% DDGS price relative 
to corn when corn is priced at $2.70, $3.70, or $4.70/bu.
40
0
20
10
0
D
D
G
S 
R
et
ur
n
 (
$/
he
ad
)
2.70
.70
4.70
0 10 20 0 40
DDGS Level (DM basis)
up to $40/head compared to feeding 
corn. As distance from the ethanol 
plant to the feedlot increased from 
0 to 100 miles, the optimum eco-
nomic inclusion level for Sweet Bran 
remained the same at 50% diet DM, 
but the overall returns at 50% inclu-
sion decreased to about $20/head at 
100 miles. These results suggested that 
feeding Sweet Bran increased returns 
as dietary inclusion levels increased 
up to 50% of diet DM compared to 
corn, regardless of mileage. Inclusion 
level had a larger impact than distance 
from the ethanol plant for Sweet Bran 
based on economic returns.
With a constant corn price ($.70/ 
bu) and distance (60 miles), eco-
nomic returns were sensitive to price 
of WDGS relative to corn. If WDGS 
was priced at 95% of corn price, then 
optimum inclusion of WDGS was 
0% which returned $8/head (Figure 
). The optimum inclusion of WDGS 
was 5% diet DM when WDGS was 
priced at 85% of corn price and 
returns were $45/head. When pricing 
WDGS at 75% of corn price, the opti-


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Cattle CODE: An Economic Model for Determining Byproduct Returns for Feedlot Cattle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries