For Those Who Wean On The Trailer

Help Support CattleToday:

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
3
Location
Alabama
/8/2007 12:31:00 PM


Stocker Cattle: Reduced Risk Attracts Dollars



If things work right and calves survive the stocker pasture they will move on to the feedlot with less risk of sickness and death loss than the bawling calves weaned on the Interstate that you purchased. Even so, emerging industry reality indicates the folks who can document the health history of feeder cattle of all weights can earn more dollars.

As an example, a recent Kansas State University (KSU) study indicates that across 7,600 calves at a single Kansas sale barn on four different sale days in 2000 and 2001, calves that were part of special health certified sales earned an average of $24.90 per head compared to those selling in the regular sale. Keep in mind the weight ranges (281-954 lb. for the regular sale calves and 284-917 lb. for the special sale calves) was similar, as was the condition (3.7 and 3.5 respectively) and the average lot size (4.5 and 5.5 respectively). The point is at all feeder weights, in nonsorted small groups of cattle, a verified health program and history returned premiums.



In other sales that couple a verified health program with sorting and larger lot sizes, the premiums are more significant. For instance, a Texas A&M University (TAMU) study of cattle selling in special Jordan Premium Cattle Auctionsâ€"cattle are weaned, precondi tioned, identified with electronic tags, then sorted into same-sex, uniform load-size groups with no more than 75 lb. variation top to bottomâ€"the 17,958 Premium Auction cattle received a slide-adjusted average premium of $97.37 per head for steers and $101.51 per head for heifers compared to 28,796 nonbackgrounded cattle selling at 10 other traditional auction sales at the same time.


Of course, the reason buyers are willing to pay more has everything to do with the added cost of morbidity, mortality and the suppression of feedlot and carcass performance associated with cattle sickness.


For perspective, during the last full year of TAMU’s ongoing Ranch to Rail program, cattle that were never treated in the feedlot netted back approximately $123 per head more than those that wobbled to the sick pen even once. Back that into the buying price on the front end and those healthy calves were worth $23.31/cwt. more on the purchase price. Plus, in this age of adding value, markets have little patience for health-related shoddy management, whether created or simply passed along. Consider simple management basics like castration and dehorning. When it comes to horns, Oklahoma State University (OSU) found buyers discounting steers $3.03/cwt. And heifers $1.94/cwt. compared to their polled counterparts.



That was across 31,000 head of cattle sold in 15 different Oklahoma auction barns in October of 1997. A KSU study found much the same, pegging discounts at an average of $2.30/cwt.



As far as the value of castration goes, just look at what bull calves bring versus steers. Traditionally, folks who save their knife for a special occasion can expect discounts of $3-$7/cwt. Previous work done at KSU showed that calves castrated after selling suffered a decrease in performance of .35 lb. per day for 96 days; morbidity was 21% higher for post-sale castrates. Moreover, the increasing pressure food service giants, such as McDonalds and Burger King, are applying to the animal welfare practices of their suppliersâ€"based on increasing pressure they’re receiving from their customersâ€"will likely increase these kinds of discounts in the future.



Source: Beef Stocker USA, Dale Blasi
 
So the question is who should pay for this extra performance? Should the packer or the farmer. sounds to me like the packer should. With the current market where there is a large demand and low(ish) supply there is little premium being paid for the extra work put in by the farmer. If supply and demand tighten then the return for this investment may be there and the pricing structure will offset the cost.
Right now the farmer is preconditioning cattle with little reward.
 
George Monk":1thu3n7k said:
So the question is who should pay for this extra performance? Should the packer or the farmer. sounds to me like the packer should. With the current market where there is a large demand and low(ish) supply there is little premium being paid for the extra work put in by the farmer. If supply and demand tighten then the return for this investment may be there and the pricing structure will offset the cost.
Right now the farmer is preconditioning cattle with little reward.

"Of course, the reason buyers are willing to pay more has everything to do with the added cost of morbidity, mortality and the suppression of feedlot and carcass performance associated with cattle sickness."
 
Angus/Brangus":rb846l4s said:
The article that Mike C posts simply reinforces the majority of opinions on this subject and that is, only a special interest group will pay more for treated (vaccinated) calves than the common sale barn will pay. The seller needs to determine what market they want to sell to, determine profitability and then treat or not treat their cattle accordingly. Of course, their are other treatments that could have a direct effect on calf weight like already mentioned - parasite controls, castration, growth implants etc that would net a higher return even at a simple sale barn where weight is the main criteria of the final price. The seller still has to determine if the extra labor, time and product expense is worth the additional income.

If everyone did it, the risk would be less for all calves and the prices paid for all would reflect it.

In short, the ones that don't are dragging the price down for a lot that do.
 
The waste is because the feedyards treat anyway.

:lol:

Think about it. If all producers treated....... they, the feedyards, wouldn't have to would they?

That extra expense would be saved by the feedyards and they would be assured healthier, faster gaining cattle.

I wonder how many feedyard buyers attend those sales.

All of them. There is a huge feeder sale here every Fall, and feedyard buyers from all over USA come to buy.

Hobbists must not like the idea of a putting a little effort into their calves?
 
As soon as the majority or close to it start doing something what was a premium for those that doo it now becomes a dock for those that don;t.
That's why I'm glad that most people don;t go through the effort of vaccinating, preconditioning and the source/process verified deal.
 
Hey Mike C.: You are wasting your time. Most people do not want to burn a calorie and be creative, by either going in with their neighbors and pooling calves, giving them the treatment and turning out a quality product in quanity. They especially want to make no effort to make a few phone calls and deal direct with the feedlots or buyers, they would rather load them, wean them and sell them. Which is very good for those that have a clue. :)
 
When I worked for a commission firm some years ago the calves that had a good health plan (pre-weaning, weaned shots, casterated, dehorned, ect.) always brought more money. And always more than enough to offset the expense. Also by using these good animal husbandry practices it always improved your reputation with the buyers of your calves.
 
George Monk":ovwinkmv said:
So the question is who should pay for this extra performance? Should the packer or the farmer. sounds to me like the packer should. With the current market where there is a large demand and low(ish) supply there is little premium being paid for the extra work put in by the farmer. If supply and demand tighten then the return for this investment may be there and the pricing structure will offset the cost.
Right now the farmer is preconditioning cattle with little reward.
I guess I'm missing something. The above post show a premium for preconditioned calves of about $100/head. Doesn't this mean that the feeder is paying whoever is adding the value?
 
MikeC,, if every one did it it would not be a gain. It would become expected by the feedlots. They are not going to reward us. They are going to pay the same prices but put more money in their pocket. That is the REAL way business works today. :x

With that being said I, we, precondition our calves.
 
Angus/Brangus":33x3wlrq said:
rk":33x3wlrq said:
George Monk":33x3wlrq said:
So the question is who should pay for this extra performance? Should the packer or the farmer. sounds to me like the packer should. With the current market where there is a large demand and low(ish) supply there is little premium being paid for the extra work put in by the farmer. If supply and demand tighten then the return for this investment may be there and the pricing structure will offset the cost.
Right now the farmer is preconditioning cattle with little reward.
I guess I'm missing something. The above post show a premium for preconditioned calves of about $100/head. Doesn't this mean that the feeder is paying whoever is adding the value?

Yes, according to the Ranch to Rail program example a premium was paid. However, one of the issues is whether an individual who chooses to take his cattle to the local public salebarn will realize this premium for his efforts at pre-conditioning/vaccinating etc. I say he won't. The Ranch to Rail cattle were verified to have been through a vaccination program
Well dang, if I were the buyer and it couldn't be verified that calves were preconditioned, I wouldn't pay any premium either. This is even more of a marketing issue than anything else. Like another poster said, it takes a different approach than simply hauling them to the sale barn. Opportunities do exist for capturing the value of your preconditioning, such as special sales, or maybe direct marketing to the feeder....either on your own or by pooling with neighbors.
 
txag":3rju2etm said:
Brute 23":3rju2etm said:
With that being said I, we, precondition our calves.

I thought you didn't cut? :?

Brute 23":3rju2etm said:
We do not cut either.

Is cutting part of preconditioning?

I consider "cutting" a seperate thing. For my operations it does not pay to take the extra time to cut but it does pay to precondition,,, especially when we have this much grass. ;-)

How were you able to go back and find where I said that so you could quote me?
 
Brute 23":3nbp5nzs said:
txag":3nbp5nzs said:
Brute 23":3nbp5nzs said:
With that being said I, we, precondition our calves.

I thought you didn't cut? :?

Brute 23":3nbp5nzs said:
We do not cut either.

Is cutting part of preconditioning?

I consider "cutting" a seperate thing. For my operations it does not pay to take the extra time to cut but it does pay to precondition,,, especially when we have this much grass. ;-)

How were you able to go back and find where I said that so you could quote me?

Cutting and dehorning are just 2 of the additioanl steps that add value to the calves. It'sa multifacted deal that allows you to get top dollar. If the calves can walk off the trailer and walk over to the feedbunk and start eating without any further processing, that's how you get full value.
 
Brute 23":2zdumq05 said:
Is cutting part of preconditioning?

Preconditioning typically means more than just weaning & running on grass for 30-45 days. It often includes certain vaccination requirements as well as other management practices, such as dehorning & castrating:

"Since most preconditioning programs require castrating bull calves, producers can expect higher prices for steers than for bulls, and thus higher prices for the castration requirement in preconditioning programs."

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare ... 583web.pdf

"V. Required processing:
 All bull calves are to be castrated prior to or at weaning and healed by sale day.
"

http://www.jordancattle.com/PremiumSale_Guide.pdf

"The objective of a preconditioning program is to prepare the calf for entry into a backgrounding yard or feedlot. This is accomplished by exposing the calf to the stresses of weaning, vaccination, and other common processing procedures (castration, dehorning, treatment with systemic parasiticides, and implanting) well in advance of its entry into the backgrounding yard or the feedlot."

http://www.txfb.org/texasagriculture/20 ... ioning.htm

"Preconditioning refers to the practice of preparing or “conditioning” calves to enter a grazing or backgrounding program or to go directly into a feedlot for finishing. While the specific aspects of different preconditioning programs might vary, they all basically include a health protocol consisting of various vaccinations and other management practices (e.g., weaning, dehorning, castration, implanting)."

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/1 ... 04dh01.pdf

Maybe you should call your salebarn again & ask if they consider cutting part of preconditioning:

Brute 23":2zdumq05 said:
I called the local auction barn and asked them about pre-conditioned calves. The guy said that pre-conditioned calves will bring a better price and that they will announce when the calves come in the ring... even though most people can already tell.

Brute 23":2zdumq05 said:
I consider "cutting" a seperate thing. For my operations it does not pay to take the extra time to cut but it does pay to precondition,,, especially when we have this much grass. ;-)

That's ok. Those bull calves still make my steer calves look better. ;-)

Brute 23":2zdumq05 said:
How were you able to go back and find where I said that so you could quote me?

The same way I just did it again with the local auction barn quote. :lol:

(I did a "Search" ;-) )
 
Brute 23":27akxsqp said:
MikeC,, if every one did it it would not be a gain. It would become expected by the feedlots. They are not going to reward us. They are going to pay the same prices but put more money in their pocket. That is the REAL way business works today. :x

With that being said I, we, precondition our calves.

If everyone did it, the morbidity rate would be lower, thus allowing feeders and packers to pay more. Period.

Feeders and packers work on margins. The higher the margin, the more they can pay and compete for cattle. Comprende?

You're making lame excuses for some not doing their job. ;-)
 
There are people out there who make a living buying those weaned on the trailer calves and backgrounding them before sending them on to the feedlots. So the question should be do you want them to keep making money off your calves or would you like that money yourself?
I went to a big feeder sale yesterday. This was not a precondition sale but they asked for and announced any information they could get. Weaned, vaccinated calves were 10 to 20 cents higher. I only saw one set of bulls and they were at least 20 cents off steers.
 
first I would like to say that these kind of discussions are great and wish I could participate more. My time is very limited and I end up reading more than participating so thanks to all of you that carry the conversations.

My thoughts of preconditioning do not include castration and weaning. To me that is standard practice. The preconditioning I think of is breaking to feed bunks, two rounds of vacinations, worming, using purebred sires, and testing for BVD. In Missouri this is called a blue tag. we have red and white tagging also. I have used blue tagging since its inseption. Last year was the second year for BVD testing. this really costs extra. I had my calves angus source verrified also. I think my calves are quality animals. Unfortunately at our sale they did not bring "more" than others that had only white tags. We did top the market but so did many other good quality animals that didn't have as much prep.
 

Latest posts

Top