Genomics and profitability are closely tied

Hannah Garrett of Diamond Peak Cattle Company in Craig, Colo., believes in genomics and good cattle. Genomics, the study of the DNA within a living structure, is important to any cattleman hoping to improve the genetics of his or her herd.

Genomic testing, she said, deals with the changes of the base pairs in terms of the expression of birth weight, calving ease and carcass traits. Through science, research, and academia, Garrett said changes in base pairs can be directly tied to the changes that are directly tied to an operation’s bottom line.

At her Colorado Farm Show presentation, Garrett pointed to her genetic results from a site like 23 and Me. Her results showed her high percentage of Scandinavian blood but her favorite portion of the results, she said, was the 3 percent uncertain result. It’s an illustration that the science is not perfect in either the beef cattle or human segment, leaving room for improvement.

Garrett said there are three main applications for genomics in the beef cattle industry today: parentage, genetic defects and genomic profiles.

“When we think about the future and where this technology is headed, we think about things like disease detection or being able to identify calves that have a higher susceptibility to BRD,” she said. “That would be huge, right, if you’re a feedlot operator and could, from the very beginning, identify by the genome, calves that are more likely to get sick.”

Genomics and profitability are closely tied. For an operation that turns bulls out, genomics can ensure that the bulls being kept — and fed all year — are siring a reasonable number of calves to earn their keep. She said it can also shed light upon the most effective sire and dam crosses and the heritable traits that make it so.

“Maybe it’s a specific sire group that works well when you cross it on top of your cow family,” she said. “You can chase that sire group, use that sire group more, and get more of that type and kind of calves that will bring more value for you.”

This translates to dollars on the scale, as well as the ability to select and retain the highest quality replacement heifers. The cost of improved genetics in the form of bulls is a major consideration for many operations and Garrett said parentage testing can allow producers to keep heifers resulting from this investment to continue to grow the investment.

Garrett said whether a producer is retaining ownership to the rail or weaning and shipping calves, the product being produced is beef, and genomics can ensure the quality of the product is one that is high and will result in demand. Genomically enhanced EPDs is a blending of traditional EPDs with genomic information and is often referred to as a 50K. These enhanced EPDs increase the accuracy of the traditional EPDs. Single step, or BOLT, is the math behind this development and Garrett said it is the algorithm breed associations use to blend the two sets of EPD data. Single step, or BOLT, takes relatedness into consideration.

“Traditionally, we assumed you were 50 percent your mom, and 50 percent your dad,” she said. “But you’re not. You’re 52 percent your mom, and 48 percent your dad. More importantly, rather than being 25 percent of each grandparent, you’re more like 27 and 23.”

CONSISTENT RESULTS

This becomes important in cattle, she said, when determining relatedness to a dam or sire and the attributes they possess and pass on. While EPD data changes over time, she said there is less change when genomics and EPDs are combined. As a bull buyer, this allows a higher degree of confidence in EPD data. As populations grow and more data is assigned to a bull, variability decreases over time. For seedstock producers working to produce consistent results, genomics are vital.

“As Mr. Walter told me, I want to know I can sleep at night and that the bulls I sell are the bulls that go out and perform and have the calves I expect them to have,” she said. “Seedstock producers are trying to create a relationship with you and they want you to come back. In order to do that, they’re trying to offer you the most consistent product they can.”

Genomics combined with EPDs can offer producers the confidence to select for the traits that are the most likely to return on their investment but Garrett said bulls still need to be sound and able to do their job so he has the opportunity to bring profit back to the operation. It takes, she said, the variability out of sire selection.

Heifer selection and genomics can be driven by seedstock or commercial profiles to define values in terms of maternal performance and carcass traits. Information is gathered and returned on birth weight, calving ease, milk, stayability and heifer pregnancy.

“If we can identify the heifers that will make better cows and have more calves, that puts us in a higher degree of profitability,” she said. “If we know a heifer is more or less likely to fall out of the herd and not remain as a cow, that’s a big deal because we know cows have to be in the herd for at least six years to pay themselves off.”

Culling those heifers based on genomic results can save thousands of dollars for the producer and save time wasted by developing the wrong heifers.

Carcass traits determined by genomic testing can also translate to dollars, especially for those producers retaining ownership and feeding calves that may be docked on the rail. Identifying and feeding calves with the carcass traits most desirable in an operation, she said, is money in the pockets by reducing discounts.

“Not everybody is set up to retain ownership but maybe if you could use a tool to identify the top end of your calves that are going to feed, and are more likely to gain premiums, it might be something you could pencil into your operation,” she said. ❖

— Gabel is an assistant editor and reporter for The Fence Post. She can be reached at rgabel@thefencepost.com or (970) 392-4410.

How low is too low when selecting low birth weight bulls?

Gayle Smith
Tuesday, December 29, 2015 1:21 PM
An interesting question came up when a panel of seedstock producers took the stage during an open house at the University of Nebraska Gudmundsen Research facility in Whitman, Neb. A producer from the audience wanted to know if he selects bulls for lower birth weights, is he short-changing himself?
There has been a lot of buzz around the industry lately about how low is too low when selecting bulls for birth weight. No one wants to pull a calf, but is there a point where selecting a bull for too low of a birth weight is going too extreme?
The panelists seem to think so. Jerry Connealy of Connealy Angus in Whitman, Neb., reminds producers that birth weight and yearling weight are highly correlated traits. “When generations upon generations spread bulls with heavy birth weight or light birth weight stacked upon each other, we have defeated those antagonisms,” he says. “That correlation is still real, and its still there. In the Angus breed, we have conquered a lot of that. I wouldn’t recommend to anyone stacking light birth weight on top of light birth weight. Piling negative upon negative, you will eventually get a finer boned, frailer calf that will be a less rugged animal in the end,” he added.
Loren Berger of Berger’s Herdmasters in North Platte says producers should select bulls for birth weight based on what their end point is for their cattle. “I visited several feedlots who wanted to feed my cattle, and they all told me they want to take the Continental cross cattle to 1,450 to 1,500 pounds,” he says. “Most 65 pound birth weight calves will struggle to get to that, and still have an acceptable yield grade.”
Berger sees producers who are concerned about birth weight making some adjustments in their herd. “I think those producers need to separate the cows from the heifers. A cow can give birth to a heavier calf, and have the calf get up and nurse right away, and do all this in a harsh environment. If these cows are limited to giving birth to a 65 pound calf, in my mind, that calf is a loss. I think 85-90 pounds may be more ideal in most situations,” he explains. “I feel most producers are making a big sacrifice if they take low birth weight to the extreme in the mature cows.”
Connealy says too light a calf can also have more health issues. “There is certainly some buzz out there that short gestation calves have less developed lungs, causing us to see more sickness and other negative ramifications,” he says.
“In this industry, we are guilty of being plungers. We can’t moderate,” Connealy continues. “We think if a lighter calf is good, then an even lighter one is better. We have to stop somewhere. I think we are pushing that more than we need to. A cow can have a calf that weights 85-90 pounds, and we can still use the natural correlation between birth weight and yearling weight to our advantage. Heifer bulls need to be used as heifer bulls, even if we don’t like to pull calves,” he states.
Despite a trend toward lighter birth weight calves, the panelists still see cow size continuing to climb. “I see cow size continuing to increase as an industry,” Connealy says. “In the Angus industry, and particularly in our own business, we are struggling to hold cow size, and even decrease it from what it was in the 80s, when we were selecting those taller frame bulls,” he explains.
As an industry, these panelists see cow size continuing to increase unless there is a joint effort to select replacement heifers that aren’t on top or even at the higher middle end for size. “We need to select the smaller heifers,” Connealy says. “It is easy to say, but when you are standing out there selecting your replacements, it is very hard to do.”
Panel moderator, Matt Spangler, points out conversations he has had with ranchers looking to decrease the size of their cows. “A lot of the time, I talk to the rancher who wants to moderate his cowherd, and walk him through what he needs to buy for a bull. Then, at load out, I see him loading up the highest growth, heaviest muscled bull on the sale. The problem is in part what these guys put on offer, but it is also having the discipline to go to the sale and say ‘I may buy the bull that is below the breed average for milk, or above the breed average for birth weight, because I plan to use him for my cows’.”
“In the end, the key is having the discipline to buy what you truly need,” Spangler tells the audience. “That is what will have the most tremendous impact on where we go from here with cow size.”
John Odea
Conversation Starter · February 5 at 8:29 AM
Jake and I went to a Cattlemans education evening held by UNL extension. Was very interesting and educational. Some really big take a ways from the meeting: 1. The cow calf sector is a struggle for nearly all producers. I was impressed that academia acknowledged this. 2. They presented documented proof from over 4800 cows on the research ranch over nearly the last twenty years that 1000 pound cows can produce 1400 pound fat steers that gain 4 pounds per day. 3. Birth weight is a major determining factor in profitability. A heifer bull should never be used on cows after he is too large for breeding heifers. The difference in Birth weight correlates all the way to harvest. A calf born light will nearly always be behind the bigger birth weight calves.
13 Comments
52Ryan Sexson and 51 others
Like
Comment
Comments
Ellie Ives
Ellie Ives Interested in the birth weight thing. What is considered to light for good growth? And is there a cut off as far as how big of birth weight before you no longer see increased profitability? We prefer 80 to 100 lb bw.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
John Odea
John Odea They didn’t give specifics. I think from personal experience, 1100 pound cows can have 100 pound cows unassisted. We have recip cows that have 100 pound plus calves unassisted.
I like 70 pound calves for heifers and 90 pound calves for cows.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard In general, birthweight and yearling weight are highly correlated
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d · Edited
Kit West

Write a reply…
B.j. Jones
B.j. Jones The weaning weight of a dead calf is disastrously low
11
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Hide 15 Replies
Perry Neal
Perry Neal The profitability of a dead cow is even lower.
3
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Bob Kinford
Bob Kinford But you can recoup some of the loss in romal reins and reatas Perry
6
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
BenJenny Dimond
BenJenny Dimond What is the makeup of the cows on the research ranch? What kind of bulls are they bred too?
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Perry Neal
Perry Neal Bob Kinford Only if you know how to process and braid a hide. That leavrse out Haha. I’ve heard that you’re good at braiding knots maybe you could show me.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Bob Kinford
Bob Kinford Whoever told you that was lying Perry. I’m so knot deficient I can’t tie a square knot the same way twice…Get past 3 on a braid and it looks like a pile of spaghetti to me.
2
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Perry Neal
Perry Neal Bob Kinford 😂😂
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
John Odea
John Odea BenJenny Dimond, the cows are red Angus based I believe, but I am not positive. They keep replacements and try to run it like a real world sandhills ranch.
2
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
BenJenny Dimond
BenJenny Dimond John Odea are they bred red angus? Did they talk about crossbreeding?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
John Odea
John Odea BenJenny Dimond, I can’t answer that. The calves were being managed in a yearling program. They were not going in as “calf feds”.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Hazy Delzer
Hazy Delzer BenJenny Dimond If they are taking about the GSL herd they are Husker Red Composite. Which is made up of red angus, Gelbvieh and/or simmental.
3
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d · Edited
BenJenny Dimond
BenJenny Dimond John Odea. Thank you. I would have liked to have gone to that talk
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Travis Mulliniks
Travis Mulliniks BenJenny Dimond I would be more than happy to send you the slides that I presented last night that John mention
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
BenJenny Dimond
BenJenny Dimond Travis Mulliniks When will you do another presentation? I would be interested in attending.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Travis Mulliniks
Travis Mulliniks BenJenny Dimond Monday Feb 11th in Franklin, NE. It is an afternoon (1:00) meeting.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
BenJenny Dimond
BenJenny Dimond Thank you
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Beverly Montgomery
Beverly Montgomery Hunter Montgomery
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Robert Cox
Robert Cox UNL did some kind of test on the birthweight using two groups of calves, and I can’t remember the exact details, but it essentially said that 1 pound of birthweight equaled 6 lbs of weaning weight. So calf A is born at 80 pounds and weans at 550, and c…See More
4
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
John Odea
John Odea The figures we saw last night were not that detailed. Was interesting to see the 1400 pound cows calves were only about 70 pounds heavier than the 1000 pound cows calves at harvest. Feedlot performance was flat between the two groups.
5
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Robert Cox
Robert Cox I can’t remember all the details so don’t quote me on any numbers, it just makes a guy want to push the envelope on birthweight. Some calves don’t weigh 60 pounds coming out. If you can get 25 more lbs of birthweight without assistance you should.
2
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Chad Conard
Chad Conard Some articles on the topic and questions that have come up in the comments so far
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard https://cattlebusinessweekly.com/…/How…/1/456/7773…
Manage

CATTLEBUSINESSWEEKLY.COM
How low is too low when selecting low birth weight…
1
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard https://beef.unl.edu/…/201…/MP106_pg018_Benell_et_al.pdf
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard https://beef.unl.edu/…/2019…/MP106_pg024_Whittier.pdf
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Carolyn Belden Carson
Carolyn Belden Carson Chad Conard very good article!
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Tyler Nielson
Tyler Nielson Did Travis mulinick put that on John Odea. He has a lot of really good research on cow size and milk production as well.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
John Odea
John Odea Yes
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Kevin Meyer
Kevin Meyer .
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Dustin Mills
Dustin Mills Do you know where i could find the research article on th this, for further study?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard I posted in comments above
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Chad Conard
Chad Conard “This study retrospectively evaluated the effect of cow size on cow-calf performance and post-weaning steer feedlot performance of cows at the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman. Cows were catego- rized at small, medium, or moderate within cow ag…See More
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d · Edited
Chad Conard
Chad Conard Another one that interested me —- situations where March calving may be superior and require less supplementation than May calving —- which is against the common thoughts around matching up “with nature” —- cows peak lactation and rebreeding in later c…See More
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d

John Odea replied · 1 Reply
Dennis Glanzer
Dennis Glanzer Why shouldn’t U use low birth weight Bulls on your cows ???
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Myron Durfee
Myron Durfee Dennis Glanzer there is a direct correlation between birth weight and mature size. Heavier birth weight = larger frame lighter birth weight= smaller frame.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Dennis Glanzer
Dennis Glanzer Myron Durfee and this is a bad thing when breeding for a mamma cow ??
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Chad Conard
Chad Conard Not sure about mature size, but birthweight and yearling weight are correlated, so there is a $ impact there. Interesting from their cow size study (linked above) — smallest cows weren’t the most profitable — 1150-1200 lbs cows (in their system) was the sweet spot
2
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3d
Myron Durfee
Myron Durfee Dennis Glanzer frame 5 cow takes less groceries to produce then frame 6 cow. It is just something to consider
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d
Dennis Glanzer
Dennis Glanzer Myron Durfee U must have misunderstood me . I’m sure 85 percent of my bull battery is calving ease
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d
Myron Durfee
Myron Durfee Dennis Glanzer but the same problem exists on that end as well. When you start stacking too much light weight you can get to small of framed cow
3
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d
Dennis Glanzer
Dennis Glanzer Myron Durfee I’m still sorting off heifers too big for my liking 8 years into this.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d
Kit West

Write a reply…
Kit West
Kit West Dallas Mount
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d
Todd Michael
Todd Michael I’ve said that for years about low birth weight bulls. But unfortunately alot of fellers I’ve worked for only think about the initial expense of buying bulls. I’ve tried to explain that the herd will recoup the money on the other end at sale time.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2d

Chad Conard replied · 1 Reply

Myths and truths of crossbreeding

Crossbreeding and the resulting heterosis have been utilized for generations. But questions still remain.

Jan 23, 2019

By B. Lynn Gordon

There is always a lot of discussion and debate in the cattle business about crossbreeding. Two Kansas State University researchers have teamed up to answer some of the most common questions beef producers ask about crossbreeding and address whether the questions are myths or truths.

Here are some common questions about crossbreeding.

There are benefits to crossbreeding? Truth.

“The benefits of crossbreeding are heterosis and breed complementarity,” says Bob Weaber, Extension beef cattle specialist. Historically, heterosis or hybrid vigor has been the positive outcome from crossbreeding because of the superiority of a crossbred animal as compared to the average of its straightbred parents. An increase in weaning weight, for example.

Recently, the crossbreeding discussion has included reference to breed complementarity which is the result of taking two different breeds and pairing them to complement the core traits of each breed.

“The focus is to complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses,” says Megan Rolf, K-State assistant professor of genetics. Two animals are crossed to build on the strengths of the individual animals. For example, the muscling featured in one breed to overcome the shortcoming of muscling in the other breed. Basically, it’s building off of a strength of one breed that will complement an area of needed strength in another breed to reach the end goal.

Crossbreeding results in a large increase in calf birth weight? Myth.

A large collection of data from the Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), on a variety of the major U.S. beef breeds and their crosses (over 25,000 breedings/calves in the database), re-estimated the heterosis effects on birth weight, weaning weight and yearling weight including British x British; Continental x British; and Continental x Continental, explains Weaber. “The average increase in birth weight due to heterosis was 1-1.5 pounds,” he says, “not a large increase as often believed.”

The more genetically distant the two parental breeds, the greater the amount of heterosis? Truth.

“The more divergent or different the parental breeds are, the more heterosis a beef producer will see from the mating,” says Rolf. Heterosis is derived from combinations of different alleles (commonly referred to as forms of a gene), from parent breeds, which increases heterozygosity at many places in the genome and helps individuals recover from inbreeding depression.

“For instance, crosses of British breeds like Hereford and Angus creates slightly less heterosis effect than crosses of British and Continental breeds. Crossing Bos taurus breeds with Bos indicus breeds creates substantially more heterosis than just crosses of Bos taurusbreeds,” she notes.

In general, British breeds are more closely related to each other than to Continental European breeds. These breeds are diverged from each other 100-200 years ago. Recent data suggest Bos taurus cattle diverged from Bos indicus 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, making these two groups genetically distant.

Heterosis only exists in the first generation of crossbreeding? Myth.

“The mating of two straightbred animals [of different breeds] in a first cross will result in heterosis. However, the mating of an F1 and two F1 crosses (F1 cattle are the offspring from the initial cross) with the same breed composition will still result in 50% heterosis in the mating,” Rolf says.

“In fact, the mating of two crossbred animals does result in the retention of some heterosis, however, the amount of heterosis retained will be different in different crossbreeding systems depending on the system and number of breeds involved.”

A cross of unrelated lines within a breed, (for example a maternal line with a terminal line) will result in heterosis? Myth.

“Heterosis is not available from within-breed matings, rather only available by mating animals of two or more breeds,” says Weaber. For example, a Hereford x Hereford will not provide heterosis, yet, research indicates the most heterosis will occur from crossing a British animal with a Continental animal or to a Bos indicus animal.

Carcass traits benefit more from crossbreeding than reproduction traits? Myth.

Beef research demonstrates the level of heritability and heterosis are inversely related. As a result, those traits that are highly heritable tend to be the opposite when it comes to heterosis benefits.

“While carcass performance can benefit from crossbreeding, more benefit comes from focusing on breed complementarity than heterosis. Reproductive traits, which are very important to cow-calf producers, are lowly heritable, and thus get a large benefit from heterosis,” says Rolf.

Trait                                         Heritability                    Heterosis

Reproduction (fertility)              Low                              High

Production (growth)                  Moderate                     Moderate

Product (carcass)                       High                             Low

But there is more to crossbreeding than just heterosis, Rolf reminds cattlemen. This is due to the benefits that come from breed complementarity, where the focus is on the core strengths of each breed and allowing these core strengths to compliment each other across the two breeds utilized in crossbreeding. The end goal is to optimize performance levels.

“Producers can enhance the outcome of crossbreeding by taking advantage of the economically important traits like reproduction/fertility that benefit greatly from heterosis but are lowly heritable and then utilize breed complementarity and EPDs to gain a benefit from the more highly heritable traits,” concludes Weaber.

B. Lynn Gordon is a freelance writer from Brookings, S.D.

Marketing seedstock: Make it count

Progressive Cattleman Editor Cassidy Woolsey Published on 19 November 2018

“There are no new customers,” Rick Cozzitorto, president of Angus Media, warned National Angus Convention attendees in November. “The only way you get them is to steal them.”

While that might sound a little harsh, Cozzitorto has a point. He explained that 20 years ago, there were around 800,000 commercial cattlemen and now that number has dropped to 600,000. Likewise, there used to be roughly 200 Angus sales a year, now there are 1,250 Angus sales a year.

“We’re not growing any more [cattlemen]. There is no more land, no more cattle, that’s how you do it. And that’s all done through marketing.”

To be effective marketers, Cozzitorto told attendees they need to:

  1. Establish awareness
  2. Get customers to consider their business
  3. Get customers to convert
  4. Establish loyalty

The challenge, however, is there are only eight seconds to do it.

Citing a study from Microsoft Corp., Cozzitorto pointed out that the average consumer’s attention span is only eight seconds, thanks to an increasingly digitalized lifestyle. That doesn’t give breeders much time to educate a new customer about their program and ultimately, get them to convert.

Sara Reardon, also with Angus Media, referred to the awareness and consideration phase as an “elevator speech.” Basically, she said, “make sure you are not everything to everyone. If you’re explaining your business in a paragraph, what’s really special about that? You need to be able to say who you are and what you do in eight seconds.”

Diving a little deeper, Reardon told attendees to think about what promises they can deliver and if they are realistic. She pointed out that delivering the best cattle in the U.S. probably shouldn’t be on the list. Rather, she encouraged them to ask questions such as: What values are important to their organization? What makes their business unique? What are they doing for their customers? And from there, define their purpose and translate it into a mission statement.

“It’s your guiding phrase for your business,” Reardon said. “It focuses all decisions and the way you operate. Once you’ve established that mission statement, you might be surprised when you look back at your marketing materials and find that you probably weren’t as focused as you thought you were.” She encouraged breeders to set aside time to look at their website, current ads, social media and sale books to make sure their message is consistent.

Reardon also addressed the looming question: Is there a return on investment? While breeders might feel like they are throwing away much-needed cash, Reardon noted a study showing that with consistent delivery of brand image and message, business revenue can increase by 23 percent. “Did it happen immediately with just one ad? Absolutely not,” she said. On average, consumers have to see an ad seven times before they will even notice it.

In terms of budgeting, Reardon told attendees to look at their projected gross income and then develop their budget from there. If awareness is what a breeder needs, they can expect to spend 3 to 5 percent of their projected gross revenue. If they want people to start to convert, they can expect to spend 7 to 8 percent, and if they want to make a real impact, they should expect to spend 10 to 15 percent.

She said, “If you’re not willing to invest to reach those averages, maybe you need to adjust your expectation of what you’re going to get out of those ads.”

Both Reardon and Cozzitorto agree that it is much cheaper to maintain current customers than it is to find new ones. In fact, Cozzitorto said, a loyal customer is 50 percent more likely to buy a second bull, a second heifer, semen or a new product the business is offering, whereas it’s seven times more costly to gain a new customer.

“Take care of the ones you have, return that phone call, fix the problems, do everything you possibly can because they are loyal and they’ll stay with you,” he said. “If you lose a customer, it is your fault.”

Lastly, Cozzitorto encouraged attendees to spend some time researching their competition. How many ads do they run? Do they have a website? Are they on social media? He said, “We have people who breed great cattle and get average prices, and we have people who breed average cattle and get great prices. The difference is really just marketing.”

Bull purchases should be a planned event

Robert Wells for Progressive Cattleman Published on 24 January 2019

Prescribed fire is a common practice to help control brush in native grass pastures. Those who implement prescribed fire will spend numerous hours and dollars preparing for this practice before it is implemented.

A prescribed fire will have an impact on the ranch for three to five years.

In contrast, a bull purchase decision will have an impact on the ranch for as long as his genetics are represented in the herd. If replacements from a particular sire are kept, his influence will outlive him on the ranch. It amazes me that most producers do not put as much thought and effort into sire selection as they will a prescribed fire.

The influence of a sire will have just as much or more of an impact on the ranch economics for years.

Selection decisions

Numerous decisions and processes should occur before writing the check for a new bull. Start early in order to give yourself enough time to work through the process. First, a producer needs to define his or her ranch goals and how the new bull will help to meet those goals. It is difficult for a bull to excel in every trait, and the few that do are too costly for the average commercial cattleman to buy and use for natural service.

Will the bull be used as a terminal or maternal sire? Once the decision is made on how the bull will be used, the producer should pick the breed to use and find the bull within the breed that meets their goals.

After the bull breed has been decided upon, it is time to do the early “homework” before you go to the seller’s ranch. Identify the reputable breeders in your region from whom you might purchase a bull. Request sale catalogs or registration numbers, date of birth and EPDs (expected progeny differences).

The easiest method I have found to handle the large amount of data you will sort through is to develop a spreadsheet with all the data from each bull. This allows you the ability to sort data numerous ways and easily filter out those bulls that do not meet your criteria.

Go to the breed website and look up the percentile rank tables for nonparent bulls. By doing so, you will be able to determine the relative quality of the bull for each trait. This gives you perspective as to how good and bad a bull is for each EPD trait.

I call this process “judging class on paper.” Consider the actual weights, but do not let them solely dictate your final decision. EPDs are more reliable than individual values as management can have a dramatic impact on birth, weaning and yearling weights; marbling scores; and backfat measurements.

Once you arrive on-site, you will now have a short list of bulls to phenotypically consider. Finally, a realistic price should be set on the value of the bulls you will consider. Base your purchase price on how the EPDs of interest will increase your profit potential for that bull. Some traits, like performance traits, are easier to determine the value, such as weaning or yearling weight.

Here is an example of how to place an economic value to a bull. Angus bull A has a weaning weight EPD of 67 (10th percentile). The breed weaning weight average is 52 (50th percentile). Bull A should sire calves that will be 15 pounds heavier than the average Angus bull. This bull will sire 125 calves over five years (bred to 25 cows for five years). Multiply the additional 15 pounds by 125 calves.

The result is an additional 1,875 pounds of weaning weight. If a modest value of gain of $1.35 per pound is used, the additional lifetime weaning weight from the better sire is worth $2,531.

Now, you can add this number to the average price for bulls in your area to determine the maximum bid price for this bull. If the average bull value is $2,250 plus $2,531, the breakeven for this bull would be $4,781. Assuming calves are sold at weaning in this scenario, anything less than $4,781 for the purchase price will be the profit potential of the bull.

The same calculations can be performed for all performance, carcass traits or index traits. This calculation does not take into account the intrinsic additional value you may receive for a better-perceived quality calf, such as selling a No. 1 versus a No. 2 quality calf.

Physical evaluation

Now that the homework is done, it is time to go to the bull sale and evaluate the bulls physically. Only consider the bulls on your short list. Do not deviate from the hard work you have done before sale day. The best bull on paper may be a structural nightmare and should not be bought.

Be extremely critical, and do not allow for deformities or structurally incorrect bulls. When physically judging the bull, start at the hooves and legs, then work your way up to the rest of the body. The bull should have good angles at the fetlock, hocks, shoulder and hip. A bull that has structurally incorrect legs (post-legged, sickle-hocked, etc.) will not last long in the herd.

Move the bull around and make him walk out to ensure he has a smooth, long stride and is not lame. Evaluate him from all sides – front, back and the side. This part is especially difficult with video auctions since most sale videos are short and only provide the side perspective. I once had an order buyer tell me he looks for calves that have “lots of butt and lots of guts.” Find the bull that has the most body capacity and is balanced.

Think of a rectangle. You want the body to be balanced, and as long, deep and wide as possible. You want a bull that will sire this type of calf. Likewise, disposition should be evaluated to ensure the bull will be amicable when you handle him.

Purchase day

Finally, the buyer should consider or beware of certain things when at the sale location. Make sure to pick up any supplemental sale sheets as lot numbers or data associated with a given bull may have changed. Sale day announcements will take precedence over any written information in the catalog.

Confirm the lot number of the bull in the ring before you start bidding, as a lot number may be skipped. Listen closely to the bidding process, as it will move very quickly. If you are not a seasoned bidder, sit close enough to the ring man that he can tell you where the bid price is at – do not hesitate to ask for confirmation.

In addition, for the inexperienced buyer, let another person set the opening bid. Determine the bid increment the auctioneer is using; typically, it will be in increments of $250 or $500. Try to get in on the bidding so you will be able to have the last bid at your maximum price. It is never a good feeling for a bull to sell to someone else at your maximum bid price, as you will wonder if you could have bid that value, would you have been able to get the bull bought.

Additionally, find out if the bull has passed a breeding soundness exam prior to the sale and any other health tests, such as a negative test status for Johne’s disease or persistent infection of bovine viral diarrhea virus (PI-BVDV).

Finally, know what guarantee comes with the bull. Will the seller honor the bull through the first breeding season or first year; if so, for what conditions? Most breed associations define a sound breeding bull as the bull only has to settle one cow in six months’ time. Is this the definition the seller will use, or does he have his own breeding guarantee terms?

Much planning and preparation should go into the purchase of a new bull. When possible, make a planned decision as to when the bull exits your program, and start the search early for his replacement. If you have a spring-breeding herd, when possible, look for his replacement in the fall. This will give you many opportunities to find the right bull at the right price.

Remember, the last bull in the sale is not the last bull for sale in the region. Do not lock yourself into a must-buy situation from any one seller. Doing so will only lead to a costly mistake. Prior planning will result in quality performance of the bull, and you will not be the person who is making a purchase decision “on the fly” while the bull is in the sale ring.  end mark

PHOTO: When observing a bull, try to envision a rectangle. You want the body to be balanced, and as long, deep and wide as possible. You want a bull that will sire this type of calf. Photo courtesy of Noble Research Institute.

Robert Wells

Marketing seedstock: Make it count

Progressive Cattleman Editor Cassidy Woolsey Published on 19 November 2018

“There are no new customers,” Rick Cozzitorto, president of Angus Media, warned National Angus Convention attendees in November. “The only way you get them is to steal them.”

While that might sound a little harsh, Cozzitorto has a point. He explained that 20 years ago, there were around 800,000 commercial cattlemen and now that number has dropped to 600,000. Likewise, there used to be roughly 200 Angus sales a year, now there are 1,250 Angus sales a year.

“We’re not growing any more [cattlemen]. There is no more land, no more cattle, that’s how you do it. And that’s all done through marketing.”

To be effective marketers, Cozzitorto told attendees they need to:

  1. Establish awareness
  2. Get customers to consider their business
  3. Get customers to convert
  4. Establish loyalty

The challenge, however, is there are only eight seconds to do it.

Citing a study from Microsoft Corp., Cozzitorto pointed out that the average consumer’s attention span is only eight seconds, thanks to an increasingly digitalized lifestyle. That doesn’t give breeders much time to educate a new customer about their program and ultimately, get them to convert.

Sara Reardon, also with Angus Media, referred to the awareness and consideration phase as an “elevator speech.” Basically, she said, “make sure you are not everything to everyone. If you’re explaining your business in a paragraph, what’s really special about that? You need to be able to say who you are and what you do in eight seconds.”

Diving a little deeper, Reardon told attendees to think about what promises they can deliver and if they are realistic. She pointed out that delivering the best cattle in the U.S. probably shouldn’t be on the list. Rather, she encouraged them to ask questions such as: What values are important to their organization? What makes their business unique? What are they doing for their customers? And from there, define their purpose and translate it into a mission statement.

“It’s your guiding phrase for your business,” Reardon said. “It focuses all decisions and the way you operate. Once you’ve established that mission statement, you might be surprised when you look back at your marketing materials and find that you probably weren’t as focused as you thought you were.” She encouraged breeders to set aside time to look at their website, current ads, social media and sale books to make sure their message is consistent.

Reardon also addressed the looming question: Is there a return on investment? While breeders might feel like they are throwing away much-needed cash, Reardon noted a study showing that with consistent delivery of brand image and message, business revenue can increase by 23 percent. “Did it happen immediately with just one ad? Absolutely not,” she said. On average, consumers have to see an ad seven times before they will even notice it.

In terms of budgeting, Reardon told attendees to look at their projected gross income and then develop their budget from there. If awareness is what a breeder needs, they can expect to spend 3 to 5 percent of their projected gross revenue. If they want people to start to convert, they can expect to spend 7 to 8 percent, and if they want to make a real impact, they should expect to spend 10 to 15 percent.

She said, “If you’re not willing to invest to reach those averages, maybe you need to adjust your expectation of what you’re going to get out of those ads.”

Both Reardon and Cozzitorto agree that it is much cheaper to maintain current customers than it is to find new ones. In fact, Cozzitorto said, a loyal customer is 50 percent more likely to buy a second bull, a second heifer, semen or a new product the business is offering, whereas it’s seven times more costly to gain a new customer.

“Take care of the ones you have, return that phone call, fix the problems, do everything you possibly can because they are loyal and they’ll stay with you,” he said. “If you lose a customer, it is your fault.”

Lastly, Cozzitorto encouraged attendees to spend some time researching their competition. How many ads do they run? Do they have a website? Are they on social media? He said, “We have people who breed great cattle and get average prices, and we have people who breed average cattle and get great prices. The difference is really just marketing.”  end mark

Cassidy Woolsey

PHOTO: Rick Cozzitorto, president of Angus Media, speaks to National Angus Convention attendees in Columbus, Ohio. Photo by Cassidy Woolsey.

Updated across-breed EPD adjustment factors released

Expected progeny differences (EPDs) have resulted in substantial, positive genetic change in the cattle industry since their inception in the 1970s. However, because breed associations often use different national evaluation programs, EPDs of animals from different breeds cannot be compared because most breed associations compute their EPDs in separate analyses and each breed has a different base point.

BBG19 Bob&Kerry AcrossBreed EPDs
Acrossbreed EPD adjustment factors for 2019

Since 1993, the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) has produced a table of factors to adjust the EPDs of cattle so that the merit of individuals can be compared across breeds. These are called across-breed EPD (ABEPD) adjustment factors.

The across-breed adjustment factors allow producers to compare the EPDs for animals from different breeds for these traits; these factors reflect both the current breed difference (for animals born in 2016) and differences in the breed base point.

Updated across-breed EPD adjustment factors released

The factors are derived by estimating breed differences from the USMARC germplasm evaluation program and adjusting these differences for the EPDs of the sires that were sampled in the system. The traits for which factors are estimated are birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, maternal weaning weight (milk), marbling score, ribeye area, backfat depth, and carcass weight (Table 1). These factors adjust the EPDs to an Angus base (chosen arbitrarily).

Adjustment factors for carcass traits have been calculated since 2009 and carcass weight was added in 2015; to be included, breeds must have carcass data in the USMARC database and report their carcass EPDs on an actual carcass basis using an age-adjusted endpoint.

Bulls of different breeds can be compared on the same EPD scale by adding the appropriate adjustment factor to the EPDs produced in the most recent genetic evaluations for each of the 18 breeds.

The ABEPDs are most useful to commercial producers purchasing bulls of more than one breed to use in cross-breeding programs. For example, in terminal cross-breeding systems, ABEPDs can identify bulls in different breeds with high growth potential or favorable carcass characteristics.

As an example, suppose a Charolais bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 25.0 lbs. and a Hereford bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 70.0 lbs. The across-breed adjustment factors for weaning weight (see Table 1) are 32.7 lbs. for Charolais and -16.5 lbs. for Hereford. The ABEPD is 25.0 lbs. + 32.7 lbs. = 57.7 lbs. for the Charolais bull and 70.0 – 16.5 = 53.5 lbs. for the Hereford bull.

The expected weaning weight difference of offspring when both are mated to cows of another breed (e.g., Angus) would be 57.7 lbs. – 53.5 lbs. = 4.2 lbs.

It is important to note that the table factors (Table 1) do not represent a direct comparison among the different breeds because of base differences between the breeds. They should only be used to compare the EPDs of animals in different breeds.

To reduce confusion, breed of sire means (i.e., one half of full breed effect; breed of sire means predict differences when bulls from two different breeds are mated to cows of a third, unrelated breed) for animals born in 2016 under conditions similar to USMARC are presented in Table 2.

The adjustment factors in Table 1 were updated using EPDs from the most recent national cattle evaluations conducted by each of the 18 breed associations (current as of December 2018).

The breed differences used to calculate the factors are based on comparisons of progeny of sires from each of these breeds in the Germplasm Evaluation Program at US MARC in Clay Center, NE. These analyses were conducted by US MARC geneticists Larry Kuehn and Mark Thallman.

Future release of ABEPD factors

The ABEPD factors were traditionally derived and released during the annual Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) conference each year. However, this is not ideal for commercial producers buying bulls in the spring or fall season.

A BIF working group recommended a plan to begin releasing the ABEPD factors near the beginning of each year to facilitate the use of these tools during spring bull buying. That began last year.

Additional updates may be released throughout the year, particularly if breeds are aware of significant changes to their evaluations, such as base adjustments. As of now, changes to the factors will be reported on the BIF website (www.beefimprovement.org); for instance, we are working to update information for the marbling adjustment factor in Brahman. — BIF

Producers struggle to regulate cow size

Teresa Clark
for The Fence Post

Determining what size of cow is ideal for the environment is a hot topic. It depends on the environment, the ranch, and sometimes the rancher. What is even harder is settling on a certain size of cow, and maintaining it.

University of Wyoming Extension Rangeland Specialist Derek Scasta shared a story about his grandfather’s struggles to maintain cow size in his own herd. “What we have is a lot of information to go through,” Scasta told producers during the recent Southeast Wyoming Beef Production convention. “When my grandfather would go to a bull sale, he was looking for EPDs for low birth weight and higher weaning weight, but he may have ignored the maternal traits, and then kept the higher end of the heifer calves for replacements,” he said. The result over time was larger cows.

Looking at the bull’s maternal EPDs will indicate how the heifer calves will look, Scasta said. The bull may have had a positive EPD for milk and mature size, producing larger daughters. “That is why you really need to sort through the bull catalog and look at those EPDs,” he said.

400 POUNDS

In 1975, the average beef cow in the U.S. weighed 1,000 pounds, which became the range management standard for calculating animal unit months. However, recent data suggests the average beef cow now weighs 1,400 pounds. “In 2010, 16 percent of the U.S. beef cows were more than 1,500 pounds,” Scasta said. “That’s millions of beef cows that weigh more than 1,500 pounds on range and pasture in the U.S.”

Despite a more than 400 pound increase in cow size in the last 40 years, Scasta said no evidence exists to suggest that increase has resulted in weaning larger calves. “We have enhanced the production and performance potential of cows, but we may not be realizing that in terms of calf weaning weight,” he said.

The EPD for yearling weight has increased 100 pounds in the Angus breed, which basically shows ranchers have been selecting for growth in cattle. In 1985, the average carcass weight was 725 pounds, and in 2015, it was 892 pounds, which is 165 pounds larger. “Cattle are basically 20 percent heavier than 35 years ago, and 10 percent heavier than 15 years ago,” he said.

With that amount of growth has come some negatives in relation to animal welfare. Cattle pots were originally designed to haul smaller cattle. “With these bigger cattle, a lot of them will bump their back going into that lower deck, which leaves a bruise on their back leading to a cut out. It is costing the industry $35 million a year because the cattle are bigger today than what the trailers were originally designed for,” Scasta said.

RANGE IMPACT

It is not just a matter of muscle growth. Ranchers have also selected for milk production. “As we have enhanced the performance of our cattle, what has been happening to rangeland? Actually, rangeland has stayed pretty flat despite the production potential of cattle increasing. We have managed to optimize what we get from the range, and it has stayed pretty consistent over time,” he said. “Ranchers have done a good job of matching their cattle genetics with range productivity.”

Scasta said there is a lot of disagreement over optimum cow size. Some studies suggest smaller cows are better because of live weight production and income, while others find larger cows to be more efficient because they have a larger rumen which could be an advantage for the efficiency of processing low quality forages.

A lot of the data available comes from feeding trials, where they did a lot of modeling, Scasta said. “What I found was a lot of mixed studies, and a lack of information in Wyoming,” he said.

Do larger cows wean larger calves?

One study he shared that was published in the Journal of Animal Science, studied how cow size impacts calf weaning weights relative to precipitation extremes. The four-year study involved 80 cows grazing rangeland northwest of Laramie.

The study showed that during the driest years, the larger cows had an advantage, and the smaller cows weaned lighter calves. However, the results were opposite during wet years, and variable during average years. “Taking the average of all four years into account, they found no significant difference in terms of cow size class,” Scasta said. “Smaller cows weaned calves statistically similar to those weaned from the bigger cows, riding the roller coaster of wet-dry-wet-dry,” he said. Calculating the input-output ratio, which is the pounds of grass consumed relative to the pounds of calf weaned, the smaller cows were weaning similar size calves across all wet-dry cycles, Scasta said, while eating less because their nutritional requirements were lower.

A 1,000 pound cow consumed 7½ pounds of grass per pound of weaned calf, according to the study. For a 1,200 pound cow that number jumped to 8½ pounds, and for 1,400 pound cow, it was 9½ pounds. “Basically, the larger cows had to eat more per pound of calf weaned,” he said. “Most ranchers have an efficiency target for the cow weaning a calf that is at least 50 percent of the cow’s body weight. So, a 1,000 pound cow should wean at least a 500 pound calf. In this study, the smaller cows were the only ones to reach that target,” Scasta said.

In another study, Scasta worked with a Wyoming ranch to analyze 8,000 cow/calf records with 13 years of data to determine which cow size is most efficient. The cow size on this ranch varied from 800 to 1,600 pounds, but the majority of the cows weighed 1,100 to 1,300 pounds, Scasta said.

From this data, Scasta found that the smaller to moderate size cows were closer to hitting the 50 percent cow size to weaning weight target, compared to their larger counterparts. “The 1,600 pound cows were actually pretty inefficient for the amount of grass they eat,” he said. “I think the data indicates managing for moderate size cows, and to not let them get bigger over time.” ❖

— Clark is a freelance livestock journalist from western Nebraska. She can be reached by email at tclarklivenews@gmail.com.

Where do I get the right bulls for my maternal cowherd?

Finding fast-growing, terminal bulls is relatively easy. But good bulls that will make good cows can be a difficult search.

Burke Teichert | Jan 03, 2019

Last month I wrote about heifer development, suggesting methods different from those typically used. I have since been wondering about the bulls used by most ranchers who produce their own replacement heifers. Are those bulls “undoing” most of what the producer is trying to accomplish with his heifer development and selection practices?

Looking back into my own history of cattle breeding, I have become convinced that most of us ranchers have been using terminal matings across our entire herd, except for heifers, since the early 70s when the continental breeds started to arrive in the U.S. It was an easy way to get a nice increase in weaning weight.

Related: Burke Teichert’s top 5 tips on bull selection

At about the same time, progeny testing was becoming popular and many of us got caught up in a race for higher and higher weaning weights which was further facilitated by the advent of EPDs. We did get higher weaning weights because we could always find a bull with a little more growth.

We were making terminal matings. The problem was that we weren’t doing terminal marketing. We were keeping those heifer calves as replacement heifers. So, cow size and milk production kept increasing. And stocking rate was decreasing or purchased feed was increasing.

Related: Burke’s Challenge: Find a better way to ranch

I see no problem with ranchers deciding to use only terminal matings if they sell all of their calves—steers and heifers. In fact, I think many producers would be well advised to do exactly that.
It is easy to find good bulls for terminal matings. Current EPDs lend themselves well to selection for growth and carcass traits. I know a good number of breeders who buy replacement cows, make terminal matings and sell all of the calves.

The cows are just cows—nothing special. But the calves have a great potential for growth and carcass performance. They are nicely profitable. What if the cows were something special—coming from well-developed maternal herds?

Now, where are the bulls for the maternal breeders who are making their own replacement heifers, perhaps with the idea of having some bred cows to sell? These bulls are difficult to find.

Most of the EPDs available are not for maternal traits except as limiters—reducing cow size and milk, keeping growth in a moderate range, balancing maternal calving ease and calving ease direct, etc. Moderation of size, milk, growth and muscle seem to make better long-term mother cows.

The use of selection indices has some appeal. But when “supposed” strength in one trait can compensate for “supposed” weakness in another trait, what is an acceptable balance? When does high growth cause reduction in fertility or increase cow size (reduce stocking rate) in the next generation? At what level should milk production become a negative in the index?

I have asked a number of seedstock breeders those questions and only one had an answer; and I thought his level was too high—purely a guess on my part. What about epigenetic effects? This happens when environmental factors turn on or off (or possibly modify) gene effects. How much of that is heritable or not heritable?

While I like to get aggressive in the use of EPDs for terminal sire selection, for reasons cited, I am much more cautious in the use of EPDs to select bulls for maternal herds. “Moderate” needs to be defined for your ranch, but the range around “your moderate” cannot be too large for any trait.

Cows must become adapted to your environment and then be adaptable to year-to-year variation. Nature will tell you which cows to cull and which bulls to select; but you need to recognize which ones they are.

There are some physical traits that are important such as udder quality, ability to move and travel, ability to maintain body condition on grazed feed with minimal supplementation, feed intake capacity, etc.

Beyond these, I am reminded of a statement heard many years ago—“We need to quit telling cattle what to look like and, instead, tell them what we want them to do and then let them look the way they need to look in order to do what we want them to do.” Remember, we can’t ask them to do more than the environment will provide for and allow.

I think there are a few people who have learned what cows need to look like, but most of us don’t have that skill except for the very obvious. So, how do you choose a bull for maternal matings?

First, the bull must be born in the first 25 days of the calving season—ideally a result of first cycle conception. Then I like to know as much as possible about closely related females. What about their udders, what is their mobility, how about disposition, how long are they staying in the cow herd, what kind of calves do they produce, are they always healthy, etc.?

Fertility and longevity along with the ability to produce an acceptable calf are really what we are looking for in good cows. Bulls that make that kind of cow are hard to find. Bulls that make the good cows usually come from good cow families—dams, grand-dams, sisters, and daughters are almost all good.

I think that is the reason that a good number of successful commercial ranchers are producing their own bulls. They select bulls from their adapted cows that have always calved in the first cycle. The cow must have calved as a two-year-old and again as a three-year-old before a bull can be kept.

The bulls must have good weight in relationship to hip height at one year of age. They must pass a BSE at a year of age after minimal development. A few breeders are breeding their yearling heifers to their yearling bulls—only yearling bulls—then using DNA for parentage to know which bulls sired the most calves. That ought to check for a combination of fertility, libido and structural soundness at a young age.
To have a good maternal cow herd you must use bulls that are highly fertile, structurally sound, that will produce calves that have good growth (not outstanding) and are acceptable in the marketplace.

Let’s Talk Efficiency!!!

Taken from – http://www.midlandbulltest.com/blog/

Welcome back to the “Final Sort Blog!”  We need to talk efficiency folks! It’s all about getting MORE for LESS…working SMARTER…not HARDER!

In spite of the work done here at MBT, efficiency STILL seems to be elusive to some folks.  We recently communicated about the efficiency of an unnamed herd.  A tremendous number of assertions were being made, but there was no measurement of INPUTS!  Now it is true that they had a great understanding who the “apparent” easy do-ers were in their herd, but they moved them right into the category of “efficient bulls.” Now we must agree!  It is certainly nice to see those nice, soft, round sided calves at weaning.  Those shiny buggers that pair growth and gain into a beautiful package that knocks your eyes out!  We’ll take that any day, but we’ve said it once, and we’ll re-assert!  The margin is in the middle…lodged right between the money you get and the money you give!

The whole conversation makes me think of two geldings Gus and Sam standing out under the big cottonwood tree swatting flies.  Gus and Sam are nearly a matched pair, both golden in the summer sun, fat and a bit sassy.  The only thing that separates Gus and Sam is a board fence that runs between the grass pasture that Gus stands in and the dry lot corral Sam lives in.  Gus grazes nearly all day long until the summer sun blazes down when he finds relief under the big oak tree.  Sam gets about three flakes of grass hay every morning and evening spending the majority of his day coveting Gus’s knee deep luscious green grass!  Now I assure you, we think the world of Gus, but he’s just an easy keeper. Sam is able to maintain the same body condition on less!  Hands down, Sam is the most efficient specimen in the herd!  Efficiency happens when each pound gained requires less than average input and ‘ol Sam nails it!

The fallacy happens when folks only focus on the gross.  It doesn’t matter if you gross your first million but you spent two million to make it happen.  The same is true when we feed cattle.  Here at Midland, we search out those individuals who require less feed (and therefore money) to gain each and every pound.  That trait must be paired by the same animal with the ability to also out gain their contemporaries!  That’s the combination we are looking for!  Simply spoken, it’s doing more with less!

It is mighty hard to refocus our priorities when we’ve programed ourselves for years to seek those 650 pound weaning weights.  Many a shiny bragging rights have accompanied those plump weaning weights here in our Big Sky country.  Those plump shiny calves do paint a pretty picture as they trot across the scale.  But!  Consider this….here at Midland, we focus on achieving those same goals, all the while minimizing your feed costs.

For Example…

Two bulls were tested at Midland and both came off the efficiency test at 1,100 lbs.  Their stats are as follows:

Bull A – ADG 3.47, Dry Matter Intake 28.73 lbs/day, Feed to Gain Ratio 8.28 lbs of feed/lb of gain, RFI 3.90

Bull B – ADG 3.26, Dry Matter Intake 22.45 lbs/day, Feed to Gain Ratio 6.90 lbs of feed/lb of gain, RFI 2.77

Without measuring their inputs, it appears that the bulls performed almost identically with Bull A showing a slight advantage in the raw ADG.  When the inputs are added to the equation, the picture changes radically!  Bull B consumed 6.28 pounds per day less than Bull A marking a 21% difference!  When we put the dollars and cents to it, that’s an $80-$120/head savings in the feedlot and $60-$80/year savings on daughters retained in the cow herd without impacting any weights of their calves!

We’re in a dog eat dog business and we can’t afford to have inefficiency unnecessarily inflating our costs by 21%; and we can’t afford to waste 21% of our grass, hay and silage!  The dirt needed to produce that grass is simply too expensive to throw away 21% of the crop!  And folks!  That’s just the cost side!  These savings create growth opportunity as that 21% is an unrealized opportunity allowing us to increase our carrying capacity and incremental revenue!   Imagine if your retirement planner explained that you could earn an additional 21% return on your investments!  We certainly wouldn’t leave that opportunity on the table!

Let me say that one more time!  You have a choice!  Efficient cattle will cut your incremental cost thereby increasing your margins.  At the very same time, in a static environment, you will find that you are able to INCREASE your carrying capacity!  Wow!

Long story short….fat does not equal efficiency and you can’t select for a trait unless you measure it! AND!!! EFFICIENCY PAYS!