DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Hormone Growth Promotants to Increase Beef Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using Hormone Growth Promotants to Increase Beef Production Using hormone growth promotants to increase beef production Contact: Meat & Livestock Australia Ph: 1800 023 100 This publication is based on the following MLA reports: B.NBP.0397 Hormonal Growth Promotant (HGP) Use in the Australian beef industry by R.A. Hunter (2009) B.NBP.0506 Economic evaluation of hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) by B. L. Davies (2008) A.MFS.0118 HGP Literature Review by Evan Sergeant (2007) Editor: Ian Partridge Published by: Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN: 39 081 678 364 November 2010 © Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, 2010 ISBN: 1 74036 785 5 To be replaced This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information in the publication; however, MLA and the contributors to this publication cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. Readers should rely on their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their interests. The inclusion of trade or company names in this publication does not imply endorsement of any product or company by MLA or any contributor to this publication. MLA and the contributors to this publication are not liable to you or any third party for any losses, costs or expenses resulting from any use or misuse of the information contained in this publication. Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this report. Using HGPs to increase beef production i This publication has arisen from requests from the Regional Beef Research Committees for clear and unbiased information on best practice use of HGPs. Acknowledgments The editor thanks Andrew and Renee Richardson, Bill Knowles, Brad Snow, Lauchie and Carlie Ward, Cam and Lisa Hughes, Ian and Kate McCamley, and Ben Maher for providing the information and photographs used in the case studies. He also acknowledges the assistance of Elanco in providing some illustrations and procedures used in this publication and Rachel Djamaludin for the line drawings of implanting technique. ii Using HGPs to increase beef production Introduction iii Key messages for the use of HGPs iv 1. Why use HGPs? 1 2. The hormones 3 3. The implants 4 4. Effects of HGPs on cattle 6 5. Implant strategies 12 6. Purchasing and implanting HGPs 18 7. Effects on human health 22 8. Economics of using HGPs 24 9. Case studies From backgrounding to feedlot on HGPs 27 HGPs for grassfed beef 29 HGPs for all fattening stock 30 HGPs in the farm feedlot 31 Backgrounding on buffel with HGPs 32 Eating quality premiums versus HGP weight gain 33 HGPs in the large-scale feedlot 34 Contents Appendix 1. HGPs registered for use in Australia 36 Using HGPs to increase beef production iii Key messages for the use of HGPs Some general principles can be applied to the use of hormone growth promotant (HGP) implants and to the design of programs using them. • Daily weight gain can be increased by 10–30%, feed conversion efficiency by 5–15% and carcase leanness by 5–8%. This can represent an economic benefit of $30–80 per head over untreated animals. • Cattle need good feed to maximise the benefits from HGPs. • Cattle maintaining or losing weight will not respond but will not lose extra weight because of the HGP. • Once an HGP implant program has started, it should be continued through until slaughter if growth response is to be maintained. • Long payout HGPs are most suitable when cattle cannot be easily yarded for re-implantation. • Growth can be promoted continuously through repeated implants with oestrogenic hormones or by alternately implanting an oestrogen and a combination implant of oestrogen plus androgen. • Repeated implanting with an androgenic HGP will reduce carcase fatness and marbling, and may result in downgrading of carcases at slaughter. • Implanting with an oestrogen, even repeatedly, does not affect carcase composition at full maturity, but cattle at commercial slaughter weight will be leaner. • Repeated implantation, especially with a combination implant, will result in a reduction in eating quality. • HGP-treated cattle are eligible for MSA grading but will be penalised to reflect the reduction in meat eating quality. • The European Union market will not take HGP-treated animals. • Meat from animals implanted with HGPs is safe for human consumption. iv Using HGPs to increase beef production 1. Why use HGPs? Why use HGPs? Hormone growth promotants (HGPs), by faster under these seasonal patterns of definition, promote growth. Cattle implanted pasture growth. The choice of HGP program with a HGP grow faster than non-implanted will be determined by how long there is likely animals when provided with good feed. to be good quality feed, which breeds of cattle Actual improvements in weight gain and feed are being fattened, the market for which they conversion will depend on many factors, but are being prepared and how often the cattle average daily weight gain can be improved are normally mustered. by 10–30%, feed conversion efficiency by 5–15% and carcase leanness by 5–8%. This can represent an economic advantage of $35–80 per head over untreated animals. Grassfed cattle Grassfed cattle reliably gain about an extra 0.1kg/day while they are on good feed but the response is less during the dry season. This faster growth is especially important in northern Australia where pasture quality declines with the onset of the dry season. Faster growth and earlier turnoff on pasture The additional liveweight gain from using In southern Australia, fewer cattle have been HGPs may mean the difference between implanted with HGPs since the European steers meeting the specifications for a higher Union (EU) banned the use of HGPs in beef value market or being consigned to lower it sources from overseas suppliers. Many value products such as grinding beef. This producers have preferred to keep their is illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 1.1 market options open by not using HGPs. which shows annual growth rates and their This facilitates access to Australia’s existing effect on animals being suitable for various 7,150 tonne EU high-quality beef quota, markets. as well as to the new (2010) 20,000 tonne Extended or whole-of-life implant programs grainfed beef quota established by the EU have been developed to keep cattle growing 800 Japanese 700 600 EU ) g Stores/feeder k 500 ( t h Korean USA manufacturing g i 400 /prime e Domestic w e SE Asia, N. Africa & v i 300 Middle East live export Annual LWG L 220 200 180 150 100 135 100 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 Age (months) Figure 1.1. Seasonal growth curves for various annual liveweight gains (100, 135, 150, 180 and 220 kg/year) for grazing cattle in northern Australia in relation to live export and meat market specifications. Using HGPs to increase beef production 1 1. Why use HGPs? and available to eligible supplying countries— Benefits of using HGPs including Australia. Also, in many southern • Faster growth with good feed regions, their temperate pastures are of better quality and seasonal rainfall is less variable; • More efficient feed conversion thus, many cattle can meet the age and • Cattle reach target weight earlier weight specifications for premium markets • Cattle are heavier at the same age without using HGPs. Indeed, the Tasmanian • Access to higher-value markets Government has legislated that HGPs not • Northern cattle can be sold earlier in be used in the Tasmanian beef industry— autumn so fewer store cattle are held over presumably to create a niche market for the dry season Tasmanian beef. • Good return on cost of HGP Feedlot cattle • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions per In the feedlot industry, HGPs improve the kg beef produced. efficiency of feed conversion resulting directly in lower feed costs per unit of liveweight gain. However, Implanting a 400kg steer being fattened for • Implanting is an extra procedure 200 days will save about 100kg of feed as fed. • Cost of implant The benefits from implanting steers in the • Increased feed intake per head due to feedlot range from about $25 per steer in the heavier weights shortfed domestic market to $65 per steer • Cost and logistics of mustering for any in the longfed market. These markets would repeat implants need to offer the feedlot premiums of between • Reduced market options 5 and 13¢/kg live weight for non-implanted steers to break even with HGP-treatment. • Less suitable for some breeds These sorts of returns from implanting HGPs • Changes in carcase composition at same have led to about 70 per cent of feedlot cattle weight and 30 per cent of grassfed cattle now being • Reduced marbling, especially with implanted. androgenic implants The beef industry • Meat less tender and downgraded under The 6.5 million doses implanted in 2006/07 MSA were estimated to have contributed a total of • Some feedlots do not take implanted $210 million to the Australian beef industry. Of animals this, $130 million came from earlier turn-off of • Some bull-like behaviour grassfed animals while $80 million additional • Some prepuce prolapse value to the feedlot sector was associated • Some consumer preferences against mainly with lower feed costs per unit of added hormones in meat. liveweight gain. In 2007/08, the Australian national herd was 28 million head of cattle; of these, 8 million head were slaughtered to produce 2.15 million tonnes of carcase beef. If growth rate and carcase weight of implanted cattle are increased by an average of 15 per cent, use of HGPs could be responsible for 100,000 tonnes of the national beef production (4–5 per cent).
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]
  • 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.
    [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]