JOPLIN, Mo. – Missouri beef herd owners learn profits and risks of sending their calves to a feedlot. They’ve entered 50 Missouri Steer Feedouts run by University of Missouri Extension.

To cut risks in learning, they enter samples of five to 20 head, said Eldon Cole, MU Extension livestock specialist. The Missouri Steer Feedout for winter-spring born calves began Nov. 6 at the Joplin Regional Stockyards in Carthage. The program teaches cow-calf farmers to keep a sampling of their steer calves through harvest.

The steers go to Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity in southwestern Iowa. Throughout the process, their weight gain, feedlot performance and herd health are noted. The feedlot manages them until they are harvested by Tyson Foods in Nebraska in the spring.

Cole, from Mount Vernon, has done this since 1981 with lots of help. Over the years, 365 owners have entered 7,557 steers in the Missouri Steer Feedout. Participants come from Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Producers enter a minimum of five steers. Most herds consign 10-20 head to allow them to compare sires.

MU Extension livestock specialists, Southwest Missouri Cattlemen’s Association members, and employees of USDA and Missouri Department of Agriculture sorted, tagged, weighed, graded and priced 139 steers from 15 groups. They weighed an average of 639 pounds. An average set-in price of $151.73 will be used to calculate feedlot performance.

Farmers hear comments as a panel views the steers. The panel included Jodie Pitcock, USDA, St. Joseph; Dan Hill, Missouri Department of Agriculture, West Plains; Jackie Moore, Joplin Regional Stockyards; Matt Thompson, Crossroads Cattle Co., Columbia; Wes Spinks, order buyer, Jerico Springs; and Mark Harmon, Joplin Regional Stockyards. They discussed strengths and weaknesses of the steers, including frame, muscle score and body condition.

“The 15 lots of steers gave the audience a great chance to see the diversity of cattle in southwest Missouri,” says Cole. There were mostly Angus and Angus crosses. There were some Brahman crosses, straight Charolais and Red Angus. Body conditions ranged from 4 to 7. Calves were born late December to April.

Harmon gave tips on how to help the auctioneer get more bids on the cattle. Write down vaccination types and date and weaning dates on a recipe card to take to the auction barn, Harmon says. “Once you get information, put it to work,” Cole says.

Through the years, Missouri cattle producers learned “you can’t tell a steer’s post-weaning performance by its cover,” says Cole. “The only way you’ll learn your herd’s genetics for overall performance is to feed them at least two or three times.”

Cole says feedouts don’t guarantee more money. Since 1981, the average profit per head has been less than $50. The payoff comes when producers use results to adjust their genetics and management. Cole says most producers enter five to 15 head of cattle. This is a low-risk way to find strengths and weaknesses, he says. The program helps small herd owners gain data to improve their herd’s genetic reputation.

Cole urges participants to set reasonable goals and realize “there are lots of average cattle.” A goal is to have 70 to 80 percent of carcasses grade USDA choice or higher.

Steers are ranked on temperament when they are worked. Disposition matters. Graders also check for bad eyes, primarily pinkeye. Steers with eye problems generally weigh 34 pounds less at weaning and gain less in finishing.

Cole tells participants to track steer performance back to the sire and dam and use this data to market herd mates as feeders or breeding stock. He teaches producers about the feedlot and packer’s desired grid. Results should arrive in late May to early June.

Southwest Missouri Cattlemen’s Association President Russell Marion of Pierce City has enrolled in the program the last 16 years. His profit per head averaged $39.96, ranging from $328 to minus $185. He also weighs calves and operates the chute at the feedout weigh-in.

Cole urged Marion to enter calves several years ago. “I wanted to see what they would do in the feedlot,” he says. “This is another whole segment of our industry.”

Marion says he uses the feedout to learn about his own herd. He usually brings oddly colored calves that would not bring as much money at a livestock auction. For feeding, hair color does not matter. Judges put emphasis on carcass grades and yield. Marion has a 400-head operation and 200 acres of hay. He rents his row crop acres.

For more information, contact any MU Extension livestock specialist in southwestern Missouri:

• Eldon Cole, Mt. Vernon, 417-466-3102.
• Andy McCorkill, Dallas County, 417-345-7551.
• Patrick Davis, Cedar County, 417-276-3313.
• Randall Wiedmeier, Ozark County, 417-679-3525.
• Daniel Mallory, Ralls County, 573-985-3911.
• Zac Erwin, Adair County, 660-665-9866.

Learn more at extension.missouri.edu/lawrence/documents/FOBrochure2018-19.pdf(opens in new window) and www.swmobcia.com(opens in new window).

Photos available for this release:

https://extensiondata.missouri.edu/NewsAdmin/Photos/2018/msf162.jpg(opens in new window)
Mount Vernon beef producer Steve Jones removed old tags and tagged steers with a number to help feedlot operators track each calf’s progress. He also brought two cattle of his own for the feedout. Photo by Linda Geist.

https://extensiondata.missouri.edu/NewsAdmin/Photos/2018/msf200.jpg(opens in new window)
Steers in the Missouri Steer Feedout go through an extensive grading by, from left, MU Extension livestock specialist Eldon Cole; Dan Hill, Missouri Department of Agriculture; and Jodie Pitcock, USDA. Looking on is Gerald Eggerman, South Greenfield. Photo by Linda Geist.

Writer: Linda Geist

Source: University of Missouri extension

Source: North Dakota State University extension

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Livestock Marketing Specialist

The cull cow market likely reached a seasonal low in November but it has been difficult to understand this market this year. Prices for Breaker cows in Oklahoma City averaged $50.13 per hundredweight in November, nearly 11 percent lower year over year, while Boning cows averaged $47.88 per cwt., over 16 percent down from one year ago. Cull cow prices have been counter-seasonally lower year over year from May through October and have averaged 13 to 15 percent lower year over year for the last seven months.

Cull cow prices typically begin a slight recovery in December following the November seasonal low. Cull prices average a much stronger seasonal increase after Jan. 1, increasing by 6.7 percent in January from the November low; with February up 16.2 percent; March up 18.75 percent; April up 19.6 percent and May up 21.1 percent all from the November low. From current levels, this would suggest breaking cow prices of $53.47 per cwt. in January; $58.26 per cwt. in February; $59.53 per cwt. in March; $59.94 by April and $60.85 per cwt. by May.

The question is whether the normal seasonal price increase can be expected given how weak the cull cow market has been since May of this year. One of the big factors contributing to weak cull cow prices has been weak cow boxed beef prices in the second half of 2018. In the last week of November, cow boxed beef prices were 7.8 percent lower than year earlier levels and have averaged 8.3 percent lower year over year since mid-year.

Increased supplies of cow beef is no doubt part of the cause for lower cow beef (and cull cow) prices. Total cow slaughter is projected to be up 7.2 percent in 2018 over last year, with a projected 9.6 percent year-over-year increase in beef cow slaughter and 4.9 percent increase in dairy cow slaughter. This is higher than the 2017 year-over-year increase of 6.3 percent in total cow slaughter. Total cow slaughter in 2019 is forecast to be flat to slightly lower year over year and should reduce the supply pressure a bit following three years of increasing cow slaughter. Beef imports, the bulk of which are processing beef that compete with cow beef, have been flat in 2018 and are forecast to decrease 3 to 5 percent in 2019.

While overall beef demand has been strong in 2018, the demand for cow beef is more uncertain. The bulk of cow beef is used for ground beef. It is possible that ground beef demand is facing more pressure from large supplies of pork and poultry compared to beef middle meats. Cow beef (90 percent lean) is mostly used to mix with fed trimmings (50 percent lean) to make the appropriate ratio of lean-to-fat in ground beef. Fed trimmings prices have remained close to year ago levels in contrast to the weakness in cow beef prices. Increased fed slaughter in 2018 and forecast larger slaughter again in 2019 would seem to suggest ample fed trimmings supply to support cow beef prices. However, growing exports of some fed products, such as navels, that historically were part of fed trimmings may be the reason for stronger fed trimmings prices relative to cow beef prices.

With all that said, I expect that a relative tightening of cow beef supplies will help cull cow prices to follow close to a normal seasonal increase going into 2019. Like all beef markets it is dynamic and evolving and bears watching in the coming months.

Dr. Andrew Griffith, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee

There have been a few questions the past two or three weeks concerning the optimal weight to market calves and feeder cattle. These questions hinged around the weight that would return the largest profit.

The answer to this question changes continuously. Whether a cow-calf producer or a stocker producer, each producer needs to consider how to maximize profits relative to the available resources while also considering seasonality of cattle prices throughout the year. Producers also need to consider decisions that could impact long term profits and not just profits in a single year.

The cattle business is about developing a reputation for developing low risk cattle that will provide value for the next producer and ultimately the consumer. There are general answers to the aforementioned question based on expected prices during the year, but the general answer does not even fit the average producer very well.

Consider the costs of feeding the animal versus the value of feeding the animal on a regular basis and the question will be answered.

Stan Smith, OSU Extension PA, Fairfield County (originally published in The Ohio Farmer on-line)

Despite the higher price, consumers want quality, and are willing to pay for it!

To say the least, suggesting it’s been a wild ride on the path to profitability in the cow-calf sector during this decade is an understatement. Beginning in 2009-10 cattlemen saw the most dramatic increase in cattle prices ever. From there prices climbed to the point where we experienced historic highs just four years later. As would be expected, at the same time consumers were experiencing historic high beef prices in the meat case.

What might not have been expected was that while lower overall beef supplies were causing these historically high live cattle and retail meat prices, demand by consumers for premium priced branded beef continued to climb at the meat case.

In fact, it was during this time of record retail prices that for the first time domestic sales volume of Prime grade and branded beef exceeded those of Select grade beef. And, since 2014 sales of Prime grade beef has continued to increase by more than 40% in the U.S. while traditionally less expensive Select grade beef continues to decrease in sales volume. Recently the Red Angus Association of America participated in a study that’s resulted in speculation that Select grade beef could actually disappear from the marketplace over the next decade. As recently as ten years ago Select beef amounted to 40% of all beef production. By 2025 its expected that Select grade beef will account for only 5% of the tonnage sold.

As further evidence of the consumer’s steadily increasing demand for premium priced branded beef, Certified Angus Beef LLC experienced its 12th consecutive year of record sales of its signature Certified Angus Beef ® brand last year. And, in a recent “In the Cattle Markets” article, Texas A&M Extension Economist David Anderson suggested that even the higher end Texas BBQ joints are increasingly buying briskets from upper Choice and Prime graded carcasses to use in their restaurants.

It’s nothing short of remarkable the demand for higher valued quality beef continues to climb. A combination of factors has contributed to this shift, none the least of which is a recovered and strong economy. From a production standpoint more Choice and Prime beef has been available to supply the growing demand as the result of genetic improvements, grid marketing concepts that reward quality, changes in feeding practices and the industry wide growth and acceptance of quality-based branded beef programs. As indicated earlier, there’s no change in sight to the trend towards the demands for high quality beef, suggesting it’s important these production improvements at the farm level must continue.

Management decisions made on the farm a decade or more ago that included improved genetics and attention to marketing have positioned many in the industry to capture the economic benefits of a consumer base that’s increasingly willing to pay for quality beef. Recognizing that this demand is not only real, but growing, it begs us to ask ourselves if individually we’re properly positioned into the next decade to capture the benefits that come along with this growing trend. As herd expansion has leveled off, farm managers can focus their attention moving forward to making the genetic and management adjustments necessary to take full advantage of these growing opportunities.

Phenotype alone is no longer enough. Seedstock must have the genotype for high quality carcass characteristics that will satisfy the end-user.

With bull buying season upon us, the focus on genetics comes to the forefront. Seldom has the scrutiny placed on carcass genetics been to a point where it had the potential for so much impact on the long term future of individual herds. The demand for seedstock with high marbling, yet also high yielding genetics continues to grow. While it’s likely that cattle breeders will increasingly demand high marbling genetics, it’s not hard to also imagine that cattle feeders may soon be asking for data that confirms the feeder cattle they purchase have high marbling and high yielding characteristics. While marketability and price premiums for verified, high-marbling potential feeder cattle and calves will increase in the years ahead, discounts on those with low or unknown marbling potential will become more severe.

Looking forward, in order to remain on the leading edge of the consumer’s growing demand for high quality beef produced in a sustainable production system, genetics and herd management must be clearly focused on maintaining herds that result in satisfying the end-user.

 Christine Gelley, Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator, OSU Extension Noble County

If you have consistently, or even occasionally, read my column in 2018, you should be aware that there are changes in store for the beef industry as we ring in 2019.

Some segments of the beef supply chain will expect cattle producers to be certified in Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) at the turn of the year. Ohio State Extension has been working with the Ohio Cattlemen’s Association and the Ohio Beef Council to provide certification programs for interested producers across the state throughout 2018.

Certification programs will continue to be offered in 2019. Upcoming Ohio BQA training opportunities are listed here. Training can also be completed anytime online at www.bqa.org.

The BQA program has been developed from research backed best management practices, with one of the goals being developing consumer trust with transparency. As of this moment, BQA is not a legal requirement for sale of cattle, but will be a moral requirement for some of the nation’s cattle buyers.

Inevitably, we will see the BQA program continue to change in response to market demands, producer needs, and consumer desires. If there is anything that is consistent in life, it is that things will change over time.

The New Year is an opportunity for many to make a clear change in expectations for business practices.

For example, producers who have their cull cows processed locally may see a change in fee structure from the meat processor. Notice will be given to 2019 customers about new policies and fees from the processor when they call to schedule an appointment.

A beef producer I interact with regularly brought the change in fee structure to my attention last week. After a conversation with the processor, I felt that the fee was justified logically and legally. The fee was concerning processing cattle over 30 months of age. There would be an additional charge for these cattle due to the legal disposal of Specified Risk Materials (SRMs).

Specified Risk Materials are cattle tissues that may be a source of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease. The BSE repository tissue locations vary depending on the age of cattle at slaughter.

Cattle of all ages must have the tonsils and first 80 inches of the small intestine (distal ileum) removed and disposed of as specified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For cattle over 30 months of age, SRMs include those tissues, as well as, the skull, eyes, spinal cord, trigeminal ganglia, dorsal root ganglia, and vertebral column.

The processor is responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining written procedures for the segregation, removal, and disposal of SRMs for FDA compliance. This includes paperwork that documents the disposal of SRMs for each applicable animal they process and approved disposal methods. Both of which cost the processor additional time and money. Hence, the processing fee change in 2019.

The cost of disposal remains consistent week to week for the processor, while the volume of tissue to dispose varies greatly. To compensate, the cattle producer will be sharing the cost of disposal in the new fee structure.

Assuring that SRMs are disposed of appropriately is crucial for human and animal health. The costs associated with disposal are another one of the prices we pay for a safe food supply.

To read more about SRMs and the FDA’s requirements concerning processing and disposal, consult the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service’s resources online at www.fsis.usda.org.

These are just a couple of changes that may affect our local beef producers in 2019.

Whatever changes are awaiting for you in the new year, I hope that you will willingly accept the ones that improve your healthy, happiness, and financial well-being. Sometimes they come as blessings in disguise.

Happy New Year Readers!