DOCSLIB.ORG

Nutritional Management of Feedlot Cattle to Optimize Performance and Minimize Environmental Impact1, 2, 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nutritional Management of Feedlot Cattle to Optimize Performance and Minimize Environmental Impact1, 2, 3 NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT OF FEEDLOT CATTLE TO OPTIMIZE PERFORMANCE AND 1, 2, 3 MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT N. Andy Cole, R. W. Todd, K. E. Hales, D. B. Parker, M. S. Brown, and J.C. MacDonald 4 USDA - Agricultural Research Service, Bushland, TX and Clay Center, NE., West Texas A&M University, Canyon, and Texas AgriLife Research, Amarillo INTRODUCTION The past decade has seen an exponential growth in the cattle feeding industry in Brazil and prospects are the growth will continue in the future (Millen et al., 2009, 2011). Feeding cattle nutritionally balanced, high-energy diets in confinement can have several advantages over pastoral systems. However, there are also potential risks. The feeding of livestock in confinement leads to concentration of feed nutrients into a relatively small geographic area. The nutrients of primary environmental concern to agriculture are nitrogen (N), carbon, (C), sulfur (S) and phosphorus (P). In addition, hormones (endogenous and exogenous), antibiotics, and other feed additives may accumulate in the manure. Only a small percentage of the nutrients consumed by livestock are ultimately retained by the animal; hence, little is removed from the premises when the animal leaves the facility. Accumulation of these “excess” nutrients, the extraneous losses of these nutrients to ground water, surface water, and the 1 Presented at the IV Simposio Internacional de Producao de Gado de Corte, Viscosa, Brazil, June 7-10, 2012. 2 USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this article is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. 4 Research Animal Scientist / Research Leader; Soil Scientist; Research Animal Scientist; Agricultural Engineer/Research Leader; and Associate Professors, respectively. 2 - VIII Simpósio de Produção de Gado de Corte atmosphere, and removal of accumulated manure is a significant environmental concern to the cattle feeder. Nitrogen concerns revolve around both water (nitrates in surface & ground water) and air quality (ammonia – NH3, nitrous oxide – N2O, odors) issues. Carbon concerns are related to water (organic matter/biological oxygen demand) and air quality (methane – CH4). Sulfur concerns relate to emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and other odorous compounds. Phosphorus concerns revolve primarily around potential contamination of surface waters. The potential hazards of misapplication of manures to farm- and pasture-land is also a concern. In the U.S., concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO)are required to develop Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) that address factors such as feed management, manure handling, and land application of manure (NRCS, 2000). They are also required to report / mitigate emissions of some gases and particulates. Nutrition and management practices can influence the quantity of nutrients excreted by the animal, as well as influence transformations and movements of excreted nutrients. Today, researchers, nutritionists, feedmills, and feedlot managers may be called on to play an increasingly important and vital role in helping livestock operations meet environmental challenges. Many “common” practices may have to be revised and producers may be required to balance production efficiency and net income with real and perceived environmental concerns. IV Simpósio Internacional de Produção de Gado de Corte - 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATING TO ANIMAL FEEDS AND CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO): BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES General In general, less than 20% of the nutrients consumed by livestock are ultimately retained by the animal; most is deposited as feces and urine. In the U.S., during a “typical” 150 day feeding period, 1,000 head of finishing beef cattle will excrete the following quantities of nutrients: 1,200 metric tonnes of dry matter (DM), 535 tonnes of C, 27 tonnes of N, 6 tonnes of calcium (Ca), 3.6 tonnes of P, 1.8 tonnes of magnesium (Mg), 1.2 tonnes of S, 6.3 tonnes of chloride (Cl), 6.3 tonnes of K, 1.4 tonnes of sodium (Na), 180 g of cobalt (Co), 12 kg of copper (Cu), 718 g of iodine (I), 120 kg of Fe (Fe), 60 kg of manganese (Mn), 239 g of selenium (Se), and 48 kg of zinc (Zn). In addition to nutrients, the waste will also contain pharmacologically active compounds (PAC: includes resides of pesticides, feed additives such as antibiotics and hormones, exogenous hormones from implants, and endogenously produced hormones), pathogens (bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi) and endotoxins produced by gram negative pathogenic bacteria. In the U.S. beef cattle are typically fed in open pens with native soil surfaces. Manure is normally scraped from the pens after each group of cattle is finished. Some of the manure may be stacked in the pen to provide mounds that improve pen drainage. Manure removed from the pen may be immediately applied to fields, stockpiled for later use, or composted in windrows. Manure scraped from the pens normally has a moisture content of 30% to 50% and may contain some soil from the pen. Because the manure may sit in the pen or in stockpiles for several months before it is applied to the field, much of the N and C may be lost to the atmosphere before the manure is collected. 4 - VIII Simpósio de Produção de Gado de Corte Water Quality General Nutrients, pathogens (E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter, and Cryptosporidium: Berry et al., 2006) and PAC in manure can potentially flow from feedlot surfaces to surface waters or percolate into ground waters (Sharpley et al., 1996). Nitrogen (usually as nitrates), P, and organic matter (OM) can potentially runoff into surface waters causing eutrophication or percolate into ground water making it unsuitable for drinking. In some areas and situations, K, Na, and some trace minerals can be a concern. Feeding operations with properly designed and maintained runoff control structures (RCS) such as retention ponds (term for liquid waste storage area) and(or) lagoons (term for liquid waste treatment area) normally have little, if any, effect on surface or ground water quality. The most probable site for manure contamination of surface waters is via mismanagement at the feedlot or via runoff from fields fertilized with manure. As nutrient, pathogen, or PAC concentrations in the soil profile increase, the risk that they can leave the cropland in runoff also increases. When manure is applied to cropland at P utilization rates, the quantity of land required to dispose of manure is 5 to 10 fold greater than when manure is applied to meet crop N requirements. Decreasing manure output. Beef cattle fed high concentrate diets excrete approximately 28 kg of wet manure daily (85% moisture) per 454 kg of body weight (BW). In general, because of increased feed intake and (or) decreased ration digestibility, the quantity of manure DM produced increases as the forage content of the diet increases. The digestibility of the concentrate portion of the diet can also affect manure production. For example, steam-flaking decreases total manure DM excretion, and fecal starch content (Tucker and Watts, 1993). Hales et al (2012a) noted that manure OM excretion was 15% greater in steers fed dry rolled corn (DRC)- based diets than in steers fed steam flaked corn (SFC)-based diets. When fed at equal energy intake, OM excretion increased 10 to 25% when the concentration of distillers grains+solubles (DGS) increased from 0 to 30% of the diet (Hale et al., 2012a, b) IV Simpósio Internacional de Produção de Gado de Corte - 5 Decreasing phosphorus & other mineral losses. According to NRC (1996) most feed grains contain at least 0.3% P. Thus, if fed at 80% of the diet, the basal P content of finishing diets will be 0.25% or more. Phosphorus from protein supplements, liquid feeds, byproducts, or some forages increase this further. Erickson et al. (1999, 2002) and Geisert et al (2010) noted that performance of yearling steers and calves was not adversely affected by feeding finishing diets with P concentrations as low as 0.17%. Similarly, in growing steers, Greene et al. (2001) noted that decreasing the dietary P concentration from 0.33 to 0.22% decreased P intake 50%, and decreased P excretion by 54% without affecting average daily gain and gain/feed. Vasconcelos et al (2009) noted that replacing cottonseed meal with urea as the supplemental N source decreased dietary P concentration by 29.4% and P excretion by 20.5% without adversely affecting animal performance (Gleghorn et al., 2004). The quantity of P excreted increased with days on feed (59, 74, and 88% of P intake on days 30, 75 and 120, respectively). Thus, at present, it appears that supplementing P in most grain-based feedlot finishing diets is not necessary. By feeding more biologically available sources of minerals, it may be possible to decrease the amounts of these minerals required in the diet, and thus, decrease the quantities that are excreted to the environment. The bioavailability of different mineral sources for ruminants has not been thoroughly researched and values in the literature vary greatly. Some values for bioavailability of trace mineral sources are presented in Table 1 (Albin, 1988; Henry, et al., 1988; Greene, 1995; and Spears, 1996). 6 - VIII Simpósio de Produção de Gado de Corte Table 1 - Relative bioavailability of trace minerals from different inorganic and inorganic sources in relation to the availability of the sulfate form (Albin, 1988; Greene, 1995; Spears, 1996) Mineral Sulfate Oxide Carbonate Chloride Organic Cobalt 100 10-30 110 100 85-100 Copper 100 0-30 60-100 110 100-130 Iron 100 <10 0-75 40-95 -- Manganese 100 30-80 30-95 -- 100-120 Zinc 100 40-90 60-100 40-85 100-200 Air Quality.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mad-Cow’ Worries Intensify Becoming Prevalent.” Institute
    The National Livestock Weekly May 26, 2003 • Vol. 82, No. 32 “The Industry’s Largest Weekly Circulation” www.wlj.net • E-mail: [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] A Crow Publication ‘Mad-cow’ worries intensify becoming prevalent.” Institute. “The (import) ban has but because the original diagnosis Canada has a similar feed ban to caused a lot of problems with our was pneumonia, the cow was put Canada what the U.S. has implemented. members and we’re hopeful for this on a lower priority list for testing. Under that ban, ruminant feeds situation to be resolved in very The provincial testing process reports first cannot contain animal proteins be- short order.” showed a possible positive vector North American cause they may contain some brain The infected cow was slaugh- for mad-cow and from there the and spinal cord matter, thought to tered January 31 and condemned cow was sent to a national testing BSE case. carry the prion causing mad-cow from the human food supply be- laboratory for a follow-up test. Fol- disease. cause of symptoms indicative of lowing a positive test there, the Beef Industry officials said due to pneumonia. That was the prima- test was then conducted by a lab Canada’s protocol regarding the ry reason it took so long for the cow in England, where the final de- didn’t enter prevention of mad-cow disease, to be officially diagnosed with BSE. termination is made on all BSE- food chain. they are hopeful this is only an iso- The cow, upon being con- suspect animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Grass: the Market Potential for U.S. Grassfed Beef 3 Table of Contents
    BACK TO GRASS THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR U.S. GRASSFED BEEF Photo: Carman Ranch ABOUT THIS REPORT Grassfed beef in the U.S. is a fast-growing This report was produced through the consumer phenomenon that is starting to collaboration of Stone Barns Center for Food attract the attention of more cattle producers and Agriculture, a nonprofit sustainable and food companies, but there is a lack of agriculture organization dedicated to changing coherent information on how the market works. the way America eats and farms; Armonia LLC, While the U.S. Department of Agriculture a certified B-Corp with a mission to restore (USDA) produces a vast body of data on the harmony through long-term investments; conventional beef sector, its data collection and Bonterra Partners, an investment consulting reporting efforts on grassfed beef are spotty. firm specializing in sustainable agriculture and Pockets of information are held by different other natural capital investments; and SLM private sector organizations, but they have Partners, an investment management firm that rarely been brought together. focuses on ecological farming systems. The lead authors were Renee Cheung of Bonterra This report addresses that gap by providing Partners and Paul McMahon of SLM Partners; a comprehensive overview of the U.S. they were assisted by Erik Norell, Rosalie Kissel grassfed beef sector, with a focus on market and Donny Benz. and economic dynamics. It brings together available data on the current state of the sector, Dr. Allen Williams of Grass Fed Insights, identifies barriers to growth and highlights LLC acted as a consultant to the project and actions that will help propel further expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • What Have We Learned from Cattle/Beef Disputes?
    What Have We Learned from Cattle/Beef Disputes? R.M.A. Loyns, President, Prairie Horizons, Ltd. and Former Professor, University of Manitoba; Linda M. Young, Agricultural Policy Coordinator, Trade Research Center; and Colin A. Carter, Professor, University of California–Davis Research Discussion Paper No. 41 April 2000 The purpose of research discussion papers is to make research findings available to researchers and the public before they are available in professional journals. Consequently, they are not peer reviewed. This paper was first prepared for presentation at a conference, Trade Liberalization under NAFTA: Report Card in Agriculture, sponsored by the Policy Disputes Information Consortium. The Consortium, with members from NAFTA countries representing government, business, and academia, have sponsored six workshops on agricultural policy issues within NAFTA. Their publications are discussed at www.farmfoundation.org/pubs2.htm. The authors acknowledge research/drafting assistance provided by Kitty Sue Squires (MSU), Julia Davis (UC Davis), and the NCBA and CCA for providing documents for review. The authors also want to thank Gary Brester and John Marsh (MSU) for the generous use of several graphs. What Have We Learned from Cattle/Beef Disputes? Abuse of important trade laws represents one of the most ominous threats to a liberal international trading regime. Joseph Stiglitz, SEJ, 1997. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE PAPER In this paper, informal and formal disputes in the cattle/beef sector are identified because they are both important to understanding trading relations among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. R-CALF, and antidumping duties imposed by Mexico against imports of U.S. beef in 1999, are the only formal disputes that we have found.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Markets Task Force REPORT
    Cattle Markets Task Force REPORT SEPTEMBER 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary Page 3 II. Cattle Markets Task Force Report Page 5 III. The Work of the Task Force Page 6 IV. Nebraska’s Cattle Industry Page 10 V. Task Force Recommendations Pages 16-33 V. i - Fed Cattle Markets Page 16 V. ii - Livestock Market Reporting Act Page 21 V. iii - Small and Medium-Sized Packing Facilities Page 23 V. iv - Packer Market Power Page 25 V. v - Risk Management Page 30 V. vi - Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) Page 33 VI. Conclusion Page 36 2 Cattle Markets Task Force Report - September 2020 I. Executive Summary SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Following the large cattle market and boxed beef price shifts after the fire at the Tyson beef processing facility in Holcomb, Kansas, the Nebraska Farm Bureau (NEFB) State Board of Directors voted to create a Cattle Markets Task Force charged with examining current Farm Bureau policy, providing policy recommendations, and providing input on what NEFB’s role should be in addressing concerns regarding cattle markets. The closure of a number of processing facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic created an even larger disparity between the price producers received vs. retail and boxed beef prices. Over the course of five months, the NEFB Cattle Markets Task Force met online and in person with agriculture economists, cattle organizations, auction barn owners, feedlot managers, restaurant owners, and consultants in order to gain a better understanding of the entire beef supply chain. Following the Task Force’s initial meetings, the group decided on six topics to explore and ultimately suggest policy resolutions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Livestock and Products Annual Uruguay
    THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Required Report - public distribution Date: 9/5/2017 GAIN Report Number: Uruguay Livestock and Products Annual 2017 Approved By: Lazaro Sandoval Prepared By: Ken Joseph Report Highlights: Uruguayan beef exports for 2018 are forecast to decline by almost 3 percent to 420,000 tons. This volume is slightly lower the volumes of the past two years, but still one of the highest on record. China will continue to be the top market, followed by the EU and the United States. Exporters are looking forward to the opening of the Japanese market. Beef production in 2018 is projected to drop marginally to 570,000 tons due to slightly lower slaughter. Domestic consumption is also expected to decline. Executive Summary: Commodities: Animal Numbers, Cattle Meat, Beef and Veal Author Defined: Production Beef production in Uruguay in 2018 is forecast to fall to 570,000 tons carcass weight equivalent (cwe) because of the drop in the number of slaughtered cattle. Local analysts project a lower slaughter of cows than the previous years, maintaining a relatively stable slaughter of steers. The average carcass weight is forecast to increase moderately. The Uruguayan livestock sector is expected to remain stable, with relatively small production variations from one year to the other. The cattle ending stock in 2018 is forecast at almost 12 million head. Despite large exports of live cattle, representing 12-14 percent of the annual slaughter, the calving seasons of 2017 and 2018 are forecast to be more abundant than normal.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs
    Guidelines For Uniform Beef Improvement Programs Ninth Edition “To develop cooperation among all segments of the beef industry in the compilation and utilization of performance records to improve efficiency, profitability and sustainability of beef production.” First Edition 1970 Second Edition 1972 Third Edition 1976 Forth Edition 1981 Fifth Edition 1986 Sixth Edition 1990 Seventh Edition 1996 Eighth Edition 2002 Ninth Edition 2010 Guidelines is a publication of the Beef Improvement Federation, Joe Cassady, Executive Director, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7621, Raleigh, NC 27695 www.beefimprovement.org CONTRIBUTORS Editors Larry V. Cundiff, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, L. Dale Van Vleck, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA and the University of Nebraska William D. Hohenboken, Virginia Tech Chapter 1, Introduction Ronnie Silcox, University of Georgia Chapter 2, Breeding Herd Evaluation Bill Bowman, American Angus Association Bruce Golden, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Lowell Gould, Denton, Texas Robert Hough, Red Angus Association of America Kenda Ponder, Red Angus Association of America Robert E. Williams, American International Charolais Association Lauren Hyde, North American Limousin Foundation Chapter 3, Animal Evaluation Denny Crews, Colorado State University Michael Dikeman, Kansas State University Sally L. Northcutt, American Angus Association Dorian Garrick, Iowa State University Twig T. Marston, University of Nebraska Michael MacNeil, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Lab., ARS, USDA, Larry W. Olson, Clemson University Joe C. Paschal, Texas A&M University Gene Rouse, Iowa State University Bob Weaber, University of Missouri Tommy Wheeler, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Steven Shackelford, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Robert E.
    [Show full text]
  • Niche Beef Production
    ANR Publication 8500 | July 2014 http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu Niche Beef Production Chapter 1. Introduction Larry C. Forero is University of his publication is a beginning resource for anyone who is interested in developing a niche California Cooperative Extension farm advisor, livestock and Tbeef marketing program. Here you will find information on finishing, processing, labeling, and natural resources, Shasta and marketing the niche beef product as well as case studies of beef enterprises that will help you better Trinity Counties; Glenn A. Nader understand the meat product you will be producing. is UCCE farm advisor, livestock and natural resources, Sutter, Traditional beef cattle operations are land-, labor-, and capital-intensive. Profit margins for traditional ranches that sell calves Yuba, and Butte Counties; Roger into the commodity trade are relatively low. A recent UC Cost study estimates a return over cash costs of approximately negative $20 per cow (Forero et al. 2008), and when the value of cattle is S. Ingram is UCCE farm advi- Cattle Price Adjusted for In ation adjusted for inflation, returns are even lower (Figure 1.1) (Forero 2002). 120 sor, livestock and range man- agement, Placer and Nevada The combination of high operation costs and relatively thin 100 Counties; and Stephanie Larson profit margins has led to increased interest in offering a value-added, 80 is UCCE farm advisor, live- ranch-raised product that will sell for higher prices. The scale of the stock and range management, operation can range from a few head to thousands of head per year. 60 Sonoma and Marin Counties. The availability of ranch-raised meat products has increased in recent $/cwt years, to where they are now found in natural food stores, restaurants, 40 and farmers’ markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting
    UNDER SIEGE: THE U.S. LIVE CATTLE INDUSTRY BILL BULLARD† Although the largest U.S. agricultural sector—the live cattle industry—is still comprised of hundreds of thousands of independent producers, it is currently on a trajectory to become a vertically integrated supply chain controlled by just a handful of dominant meatpackers. This is the fate already suffered by the nation’s hog and poultry industries within which once competitive markets have been replaced with corporate command and control and opportunities for independent livestock businesses have largely disappeared. Only by renewing the nation’s long lost appetite for antitrust enforcement and other legal actions to preserve livestock market competition can the ailing cattle industry be revitalized for future generations. I. AMASSING MARKET POWER Following behind the hog and poultry industries that blazed the initial trail toward industrial livestock and poultry production, the U.S. live cattle industry is quickly succumbing to efforts by dominant meatpackers to capture control over the live cattle supply chain. With gross receipts averaging $50 billion annually, the live cattle industry is the single largest segment of American agriculture and is, consequently, critically important to the prosperity of Rural America.1 In many respects, the live cattle supply chain is the meatpackers’ “Last Frontier,” as it represents the last major U.S. livestock or poultry sector that continues to resist the birth-(or egg-)to-plate corporate control manifest under the industrialized livestock and poultry production model.2 † The author is a former cow/calf rancher from Perkins County, South Dakota; former executive director of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission; and now serves as the chief executive officer of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (“R-CALF USA”).
    [Show full text]
  • Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico Derrell S
    A Report from the Economic Research Service United States Department www.ers.usda.gov of Agriculture LDP-M-206-01 August 2011 Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico Derrell S. Peel Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr., [email protected] Contents Rachel J. Johnson, [email protected] Mexican Cattle Production Is Important to the United States . 3 Abstract Rising Beef Consumption in Mexico Drives Shifts in Market Structure and Trade Growth . 5 Cattle raised for export in Mexico represent, on average, over half of total U.S. cattle Production of Stocker Cattle imports, as the United States has the comparative advantage in feeding cattle. In turn, in Mexico . 7 Mexico imports the largest quantities of U.S. beef and beef products of all U.S. beef Dynamics and Development trading partners to satisfy the increasing demand for beef, including higher quality of the Mexican Feedlot feedlot-fi nished beef. The authors describe the production systems and stocker and Industry . 9 feedlot production practices commonly employed in Mexico, including regional factors Feeder Cattle Production Systems . 11 like production parameters, cattle marketing, and sourcing practices. Changes in consumer demand and continued population and economic growth support the potential Feedlot Production Practices in Mexico . 12 for increased fed beef demand in Mexico. As a result of increased fed beef production, Mexico’s Cattle and Beef feed demand from other livestock industries, competition from crop production for Industry Poised for Growth land and water to produce feed and forage, and international competition for inputs, the but Faces Challenges .
    [Show full text]
  • Feeder Cattle Price Differentials Using Northeast Texas Beef Improvement Organization Sulphur Springs and Cattle Auction Data A
    FEEDER CATTLE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS USING NORTHEAST TEXAS BEEF IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION SULPHUR SPRINGS AND CATTLE AUCTION DATA A Thesis by TAIWO BANKOLE Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University-Commerce in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2016 FEEDER CATTLE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS USING NORTHEAST TEXAS BEEF IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION SULPHUR SPRINGS AND CATTLE AUCTION DATA A Thesis by TAIWO BANKOLE Approved by: Advisor: Jose A. Lopez Committee: Jose A. Lopez Rafael Bakhtavoryan Douglas Eborn Associate Director: Derald Harp Director: Jose A. Lopez Dean of Graduate Studies: Arlene Horne iii Copyright © 2016 Taiwo Bankole iv ABSTRACT FEEDER CATTLE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS USING NORTHEAST TEXAS BEEF IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION SULPHUR SPRINGS AND CATTLE AUCTION DATA Taiwo Bankole, MS Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2016 Advisor: Jose A. Lopez, PhD The United States is a major contributor to the world’s beef production market with its large export market and the largest fed cattle industry in the world (United States Department of Agriculture, 2016). Price fluctuations are sources of risk to producers who are looking to profit from cattle production. Factors such as futures prices, physical and lot characteristics of cattle have been known to also effect cash prices. The objective of this study is to identify inherent market value for feeder cattle lot and physical characteristics of the Northeast Texas Beef Improvement Organization (NETBIO) cattle sold through Sulphur Springs Livestock Auctions (SSLA). NETBIO data over four years from Sulphur Springs Livestock Auction sales in Northeast Texas were used. Therefore, a hedonic regression model was used to analyze the impact of lot size, weight, sex, and breed and feeder cattle futures prices on feeder cattle cash prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Grades for the Future: What, Why, And
    Grades for the Future: What, Why and How? Gary C. Smith* If there were no grades at all for cattle or for beef, what Beneficiaries of the use of grades include purebred breed- would be gained by developing grading systems for feeder ers, producers of feeder animals, feedlot operators, livestock cattle, slaughter cattle, beef carcasses and/or retail cuts? A sys- and meat marketing personnel, packers, wholesalers, res- tem for identifying differences in value and acceptability of taurateurs, retailers and consumers. A complete grading sys- beef might increase consumer confidence as purchases were tem would be comprehensive-satisfying needs of the entire made, might stimulate sales of beef of the preferred grades, livestock and meat industry by providing grades applicable to and might encourage production of improved beef cattle. For feeder animals, to slaughter animals, to carcasses and to retail precisely those reasons, some 250 beef cattle breeders and cuts. For purposes of this report, discussion is confined tc feeders formed the Better Beef Association in 1926 and de- grades for cattle and beef; however, the principles involved cided to sponsor a grading service which would label beef so would apply, at least to some extent, to other livestock and that consumers would have a reliable guide for identifying related meat products which are or which could be graded. beef of the quality they desired. Then, as now, there was a need for providing a tool-a system of grades for cattle and Feeder Cattle beef-for reflecting consumer preferences
    [Show full text]
  • Beef Quiz Bowl Questions
    Beef Quiz Bowl Questions BEEF 1 – Bite into Beef BEEF 1 – QUIZ BOWL QUESTIONS 1. What beef breed was developed at the King Ranch in Texas? Sante Gertrudas 2. What solid black polled breed originated in Scotland Angus – weights bull 1,600 – 2,000 Cow – 1,000 – 1,400 3. What is the middle joint of the rear leg of a calf called? Hock 4. Where are the pin bones located? Bone by Tailhead 5. What is an example of a comparative judging term describing the finish of a steer? Cleaner, trimmer, more optimally conditioned, longer bodied, more extended – page 11 6. When should you start halter breaking a calf? Several months before the show when they are still calves 7. What are four pieces of equipment used to fit a steer? Adhesive, scotch comb, flathead clippers, sheep head clippers, spray bottle, blower 8. How do you set up the legs of a beef animal when showing? The legs need to be square under the animals body. 9. What approximately percent crude protein should growing cattle be fed? 12 – 16% 10. What are three signs of a sick calf? humped back, snotty nose, yellow runny feces, slow moving, doesn’t come to feeder 11. What are three examples of feed ingredients used as protein sources in a ration? Cottonseed meal, soybean meal, distillers grain, brewers grain, corn gluten meal, urea 12. What do feed ingredients like hay, barley and oats supply in a ration? Energy 13. What is the name of the bone found in a chuck roast? Blade and arm bone 14.
    [Show full text]