Team building in the herd

The winning drive to beef quality

By Laura Nelson

Preventing a “draft bust” in quarterback selection is the first step to build a winning team, says Pfizer Animal Health veterinarian Jason Osterstock.

But the genetic epidemiologist isn’t talking about football or the gridiron; he’s analyzing sire selections for beef cattle herds.

With cattlemen as general managers of the ranch team, their No. 1 responsibility is to make personnel and roster decisions, like what sires and cows will drive genetic improvement.

“The herd sire is there for the long term, and his ability really lays out the success of the operation,” Osterstock points out. “We each invest a lot of effort, attention and diligence in evaluating those herd sires before we draft them.”

Whether you go with a proven free agent with a lot of hits and high accuracy numbers or a young, unproven draft pick, that herd leader has to be surrounded by a line that stands up to his genetic ability, too. In Osterstock’s analogy, presented at a 2012 Cattlemen’s College seminar, that’s the cowherd.

“They’re the ones really doing the work, and they have to match up with the QB’s potential. It doesn’t matter how good the quarterback is if the line, or in this case your cows, can’t keep him standing upright.”

So how does an expert manager put together a team that’s Super Bowl ready? Systematic selection that utilizes the latest DNA-testing resources, Osterstock says. There are well-established methods for incorporating those predictions into the EPDs (expected progeny differences) for genomically tested registered bulls, but commercial females and their progeny represent a new opportunity.

“When we look at the benefits of genomic technology, it’s really about avoiding the draft busts,” he says. That goes for the cow line, too. “We have to accumulate enough information so that we can make investments in younger animals with a fairly minimum amount of certainty in their long term potential. And we have to do it in a much more systematic, intelligent and strategic way.”

The competitive advantage DNA technology has against other selection tools is its early predictive ability, like reading the other teams’ playbook, even before they get a peek.

“We can really get a feel for those traits that we’re most interested in for our operation’s profitability, and then make those decisions as soon as possible.” Osterstock says. “The early-in-life part is a terribly important issue here because that’s where the opportunity is.”

He points to the cheering fans in the grandstands–steak-loving consumers–as the most critical piece of the game plan. After all, even a champion team isn’t worth much if it doesn’t have a fan base to fill the seats, pay the salaries and rave about the experience.

“Ultimately,” Osterstock says, “we need to make sure we’re making those decisions based on consumer eating satisfaction. We can expend a lot of time and effort, but we are going to have a hard time ensuring a place at the table for beef and ensuring a competitive market for our product if they’re not happy.”

Those traits focus predominantly on marbling and tenderness.

“If the consumer perceives that a certain type of beef has a more favorable eating profile, then they are certainly willing to pay for it,” he says. “Those with that kind of product will be rewarded.”

Market volatility calls for strategic investment in technology that help produce sought-after beef more efficiently. But before taking genetic selection to the make-sure level of DNA testing, Osterstock suggests finding answers to three questions:

Can I make real improvements? Carcass traits carry heritability of 35% to 40%, so the veterinarian says, “Yes, we can make systematic, cumulative genetic progress and improve the herd’s genetic merit over time.”
Which ones should I test? “Focus on the young animals,” Osterstock says. “That’s where the most opportunity is.” Pay mind to the selection tools you currently use, such as EPDs, health information and eye appeal. Sort off the animals that don’t make the cut on those standards; then collect samples for DNA testing on the rest.
What test should I use? “Choose a test that provides information for the traits that you are going to put an emphasis on,” he says. Quarterbacks are usually the highest-cost member of a team, and for good reason. You want more information on him, so buy a bull with EPDs enhanced by an extensive DNA test that examines many traits.

The female “linemen” may need a smaller, more focused test to evaluate their abilities and keep costs under control. “In that situation we might choose to use a test like GeneMax™ that would give us an opportunity to assess a replacement heifer’s genetic potential for specific traits like marbling and growth,” Osterstock says.

That’s provided the heifers—or steers that could be evaluated for feeding and carcass potential—are 75% or more Angus, since GeneMax ties into the American Angus Association’s expansive genetic database, he adds.

Once the DNA test of choice has been selected and put in play, the final drive is to rank the animals’ genetic potential from top to bottom. “Then, draw a line in the rank and say, ‘these animals do not fit what I had envisioned for my operation and therefore I choose not to select them, and these other animals do fit my goals,’” Osterstock says.

As animals above the line gain influence over herd genetics and build year-over-year improvements in carcass traits, the odds improve for Team Beef winning the Super Bowl of long-term demand, he says. “It’s a plan that assures we deserve a place at the dinner table.”

Relationships

On the road again takes me back to Texas for the “Foundation Angus Alliance” (FAA) sale at the Luling Foundation, Lulling, TX. Located about 45 miles south of Austin, the Luling Foundation has been conducting agricultural demonstrations and research for nearly 100 years. It just so happens to be the location for the FAA bull sale as well.

The FAA is made up of several Texas Angus breeders who have banded togetherto offer up some great genetics for ranchers in that part of the Lone Star State. Folks like Jim and Jenice Benedict (who put me up in their beautiful home at Harwood whilst I was there); Bodey and Kathy Langford, and Bob and Ann Berger are all a part of this group. I count them all as friends of mine and I’ve developed some great relationships with these fine people.

Lot 9, a SAV Bismarck son, and offered by the Legacy Angus Ranch of Harwood, TX, brought $ 4750.

This particular group, while not entirely unique, have been able to work together for the common good of the group. This sale benefits all members; they can offer up a fine selection of Angus bulls that will undoubtedly improve local producers’ profitability.

Lot 1, a Summitcrest Complete son, boasted these impressive expected progeny differences (EDPs) that caught my eye:

Yearling weight EPD of +125
$B value of $ 85.70
Marbling EPD of +0.63
Ribeye EPD of +0.69 fetched $ 8750.

I was not able to stay for the entire sale, however, he was the high seller about 1/3 of the way into the offering. Other sire groups represented at the sale were GAR Predestined; Sitz Upward; SydGen CC&7; SS Objective T510; SAV Bismarck; SAV Mandan, and CRA Bextor.

Jenice Benedict of the Legacy Angus Ranch of Harwood proudly stands by the Certified Angus Beef booth at the FAA sale at Luling.

One topic that we always talk about here at Certified Angus Beef on the production side is “relationships.” Our agricultural industry, and in particular the beef cattle business it seems, is about relationships. We still seal a lot of deals with a phone call, a handshake, and trust in our fellow man. I have been very fortunate to have had a wonderful relationship with the Texas Angus Association and the Luling Foundation, as well as several individual breeders, feedlots, and commercial cow-calf producers.

Relationships are a vital part of the trust between the commercial producer and the seedstock producer. No doubt, then, that many folks come back to the same provider for their bulls every year. Good experiences, guarantees that are backed up in word and deed, and friendships are all crucial to this ever-changing industry!

Thanks to you, my Texas friends, for another wonderful time in your state!

-Gary

Having it all

Behind the scenes at a family photo shoot. You can bet these three keep this working gal busy, but I'm sure glad that somebody told me I could have it all!

I’m a working mom, so I know all about juggling and finding balance and all that jazz. I also know that sometime (like back in the 70s?) society stopped telling women that they couldn’t have both a successful career and a family.

Yet in the cattle industry we often hear that you can’t have it all.

Myth: You must choose between things like carcass quality and performance or between end product traits and cowherd function.

Fact: If you’re focused, you can put together a well-rounded genetic program that includes all of those things in the same package.

Professional Cattle Consultants looked at a cross-section of cattle feeding country (nearly half a million head of data) and found that the highest grading third (72.8% Choice or better) performed better and made more money than the middle and lower third.

*Cue naysayers now*

“Yeah, you can get performance and marbling, but if you’re paying attention to the feedlot traits you’ll ruin what you’ve got going on back at the ranch.”

Nope. Not true. Big ole myth.

And I know because Twig Martson reviewed all available research on the subject back when he was at K-State. And then he updated it and found the same thing: zero connection between doability and marbling.

You can read the paper or see what he’s got to say about it in this video:

Now, that’s not to say it isn’t more work or that it doesn’t take focus, but it’s possible. And it’s so worth it!

Sort of like this working mom gig….

May your bottom line be filled with black ink,

Miranda

Self-selected culls

On the last day of February, I made a passing remark that it was funny we had no calves on Leap Day; funny strange. Strangely enough, we had 18 born in the 4 days prior and 19 in the 5 days after, with calves born on every day but the 29th. Other anomalies include getting 70% heifers at the 70%-done mark in calving, just the inverse of last year’s sex ratio.

We have been following a synchronized AI program for the past 10 years, with the total number generally around 85 or 90 head. All the heifers and a better 40% of cows. Never had more than 35 AI-sired calves on the ground when the due dates were history–until this year with 45 of those calves carrying (we logically expect) better-than-average genetics, and 32 of them are heifers, prime candidates for replacements.

The last few replacements that have not yet calved will be sold, along with any obvious cullables.

If we can bring them through weaning and growing next year, we will have three AI-sire groups with 30, 12 and 18 females as we build in more and more predictability.

There are still a few things that go wrong of course, and they usually involve male calves–3 out of 4 this year (one backwards suffocated and another stillborn I did not observe in the main herd) when we could really use a few more for the feedlot program. The last heifer to have a bull calf did not clean and while the vet was here this week setting that right, I noticed another had a hoof showing. She’s a daughter of a 14-year-old cow so I expected some functionality. We shall see how that went in a bit.

Still “high headed,” she couldn’t calve on her own, but she can kick the hand that helped her. Bye-bye.

We always calve more than we put out for the summer so that the latest or least promising can be sold. Sometimes that includes an emerging disposition issue. Old #50 had her 12th calf a couple of weeks ago. She has had nearly all male calves, but not this year of course. Looking in on her first attempt at putting a replacement heifer in the herd made me realize I have a mature cow-calf pair to sell as well as a new heifer pair!

It is rare to pull a heifer, but that’s what it took for 50’s daughter. No question she would claim her calf when I brought it around to the maternity pen, but some question if she would let me nudge it under the gate without killing me, the calf or both. I used kind of a 10-foot pole to scoot her in a little more. The next morning I opened the gate to a 50-foot run, which any other heifer would at least take a look at. This one was riveted on her calf. Now, I admire maternal instincts, but like to see some hint of domesticity if not docility. This new mom thought I was the Devil and tried to exorcise me, loudly and wetly threatening to butt as I found a second to squeeze the tagger and offer her the calf: Here, take it!

She whirled and headed for the 50-foot run, breaking an L-pintle hinge off the post and gate just for spite. Glad I don’t have to debate on whether to keep her here, but maybe she will do well for somebody else selecting for ability to fend off all attackers.

Till next time, let’s keep targeting the brand and building tomorrow together!

–Steve

CAB rewards student commitment with Colvin Scholarships

Seven university students from across the Unites States have won $21,000 through the Certified Angus Beef^® brand Colvin Scholarship. The awards recognize their commitment in both activities and scholastic achievement.

“These students are the future of the beef industry,” said John Stika, Certified Angus Beef^® brand president. “This year’s graduate-level scholarship is an exciting addition to the program, and we are happy for the opportunity to extend a helping hand for tomorrow’s leaders.”

2012 Undergraduate Colvin Scholarship Awards:

$5,000-Loni Woolley, Grandview, Texas – Texas Tech University
$4,000-Meghan Blythe, White City, Kan. – Kansas State University
$3,000-Bailey Harsh, Radnor, Ohio – The Ohio State University
$2,000-Lindsey Grimes, Hillsboro, Ohio – The Ohio State University
$1,000-Wyatt Bechtel, Eureka, Kan. – Kansas State University
$1,000–discretionary award to Faith Jurek, Lubbock, Texas – Texas Tech University

2012 Graduate Colvin Scholarship Award:

$5,000–Rebecca Acheson, Windsor, Colo. – Colorado State University

The scholarships began in 1999, when CAB co-founder and executive director Louis M. “Mick” Colvin retired. The non-profit company and its licensed partners worldwide acted to honor Colvin’s inspiration for others to be their best and make their dreams a reality.

A portion of the undergraduate selection criteria was based on an essay to, “Describe the variety of branded beef programs in today’s marketplace and how they help or hinder the consumer.”

Among a variety of perspectives, the $5,000 undergraduate winner Loni Woolley wrote, “The average consumer wants to feel good about the purchase of a branded product.” Those may tout taste, tenderness, organic, antibiotic-free, grass-fed or any number of attributes. “Brands allow consumers to choose which of those traits appeal to them and most fit their lifestyle,” she wrote. Once they find that fit, “they will become a repeat buyer that relies on the excellence of that particular brand.”

The Texas Tech University (TTU) senior in animal science, meat business emphasis, plans to continue the meat science education in graduate school there. Woolley, Block and Bridle president and member of the American Meat Science Association, was part of the TTU2011 National Champion Livestock Judging Team.

Loni Woolley

Meghan Blythe

Bailey Harsh

Meghan Blythe, a junior in agriculture economics at Kansas State University, expanded that field all the way to Brazil in January and will study international animal science and agribusiness in China this May. The president of Kansas Junior Angus Association and board director of the National Junior Angus Association was awarded a $4,000 Colvin Scholarship.

Bailey Harsh is an Ohio State University (OSU) junior in both agriculture communications and animal science with a meat science emphasis. She is an OSU College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) Ambassador and member of the OSU Meats Judging Team. After earning a graduate degree in agriculture communications, Harsh plans to work in agricultural public policy. She received a $3,000 Colvin Scholarship.

Lindsey Grimes, a junior at the Ohio State University in animal science with an emphasis in meat science, earned the $2,000 Colvin Scholarship award and hopes to obtain a master’s degree in meat science at KSU. In December 2010, Grimes studied human and animal interactions in New Zealand. She is a foundation director for the National Junior Angus Association Board, an OSU CFAES ambassador, and committee chairman for OSU Saddle & Sirloin Club.

Wyatt Bechtel, senior in agricultural communications and journalism at KSU, is the National Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow (ACT) editor and a partner in his family’s commercial cow-calf and stocker cattle operations. Upon graduation, the $1,000 Colvin Scholarship winner plans to work in the communications field for the beef industry.

Faith Jurek, TTU agricultural communications major, hopes to move on to graduate school in meat science there after graduation in December 2012. Jurek is the president of the university’s ACT club and the agricultural council representative for the TTU Meat Science Association. Last summer, she competed in the Australian International Meat Judging Contest and gained a global perspective of the beef industry. She received a $1,000 Colvin Scholarship.

Lindsey Grimes

Wyatt Bechtel

Faith Jurek

Rebecca Acheson

Rebecca Acheson is the $5,000 graduate-level Colvin Scholarship recipient, and was a top undergraduate scholarship winner in 2008. She conducts doctorate-level research at Colorado State University in the area of beef cut nutrition.

As consumer dietary concerns continue to increase, “it will be essential that branded beef programs add a nutritional side to their marketing plan,” wrote Acheson, describing the benefits her research will have on high-quality beef production. “This project has been designed to encompass all parts of our industry, which includes companies that produce the highest quality beef.” When her work is completed, the public will have nutritional information for “every cut of beef from the Select to upper-two-thirds Choice quality grades.”

Following graduation in August 2013, Acheson plans to work in beef research and development, and become an active spokesperson for the beef industry.

The CAB Annual Conference golf outing and auction raise these Colvin Scholarship funds. Top undergraduate and graduate recipients win all-expense-paid trips to the 2012 Annual Conference in White Sulfur Springs, W. Va., where they can interact with leaders throughout the production, packing, retail and food service industries.

Celebrating Ag Day with some black & white & red (meat)

I love snow, and in my part of the world we haven’t gotten much of it this year. But every time I complain my dad reminds me that I can love snow, because I don’t have to work in it!

Today is National Ag Day and as I post this from a cozy, warm office I tip my hat to all the folks who work tirelessly in conditions like this:

Or this… Continue reading “Celebrating Ag Day with some black & white & red (meat)”

ATI and CAB team up to educate

By Emily Kruegar

Nobody can illustrate cattle comfort better than, well, a comfortable cow.

Even the best speakers can’t make an audience feel what it’s like on a farm. There are no words that can replace the actual experience of seeing cattle first hand—watching them roam the pasture or eat out of the feed bunk. That’s why Certified Angus Beef^® brand has a newfound tradition of sorts. Nearly every time sales partners travel to the Wooster, Ohio-based headquarters for training and education, the company takes them on a field trip. The Grace L. Drake Agriculture Laboratory, part of the Ohio State University’s Agriculture Technical Institute (ATI), just miles from the CAB office, is run as a for-profit, working farm.

“The more our licensees know about the production side of the beef business, the better it will make them at selling and marketing that product,” says Margaret Coleman, CAB assistant director of education.

Retailers, food distributors, chefs and restaurateurs travel to the ATI beef facility to learn what happens from conception to the packinghouse. Manager Casey Meek typically leads the tours, explaining the beef industry in easy-to-understand terms.

“We get all different levels of people out here, from those who raise cattle themselves to folks who have never been on a farm,” Meek says. He’s used to that, because students come into the beef program with a variety of backgrounds, too.

The farm houses a 110-head, mostly commercial Angus herd that is divided into fall and spring calving groups.

“We try not to do anything that a normal farm wouldn’t do,” Meek says. “When we need to vaccinate cows, the students come out and we teach them how to vaccinate. We teach nutrition, genetics and many other management practices.”

They finish all the progeny themselves and then they’re harvested at a local processing facility.

“When you go there, it looks like you could be pulling into any Midwestern farm,” Coleman says. Meek adds to that authentic experience, bringing knowledge from employment at working farms and ranches in Nebraska and Ohio prior to his current role.

“When people leave, they always comment on getting that personal connection with a cowboy,” she says. “They get a better understanding of what production is really like and the care that farmers and ranchers have for their livestock. That’s really important.”

Q & A sessions can be as diverse as the groups, but Meek can almost guarantee hormone implants will be part of the discussion and explained in context. Many also ask about any recent ag-related news items they’ve heard about.

“The neat part of getting people in here who have never been on a farm, is that we can show them all the good things that happen on a farm,” he says. “We can show how much people care for their animals and it’s their livelihood.”

ATI is installing a Temple Grandin-designed handling facility, adding to its focus on low-stress animal husbandry.

“They have extremely well-kept facilities, which makes it a great place to showcase,” says Coleman.

Meek is quick to note that it’s a two-way partnership, with CAB staffers giving class presentations at ATI and helping with labs.

“Education is their No.1 goal, whether it’s educating students or outside industry folks,” Coleman says.

It seems ATI and CAB share more than just a zip code.

More better beef

Welcome to this week’s Meat Market Minute.

Federally Inspected slaughter made a high-water mark for this year at 621,000, the largest harvest since the second week of December, and a 4.9% increase over the previous week. The increase came as packers paid a new record price for fed cattle at $130, after trading a small amount of cattle on Tuesday at steady money to the previous week ($128). However, the futures market showed a strong upside on Thursday posting contracts at $131 and forcing buyers to up their bids in order to secure needs.

Packers increased asking prices across all grades amid those soaring live-cattle prices. Beef buyers were resistant to increases and pushed back later in the week. CAB total cutout value was up slightly (1.3% vs. previous) on the strength of middle meats while end meats traded sideways.

CAB acceptance rates for the week of February 13 maintained the previous weeks’ level at 25%. However, the volume of A-stamped carcasses increased by 5%, thereby increasing the total accepted for the brand by more than 2,000 head at CAB® licensed packers.

Until we meat again,

-David

CAB premiums at seven-year high

Biannual packer survey shows cumulative contribution at $352 million

by Steve Suther

Demand for the Certified Angus Beef^® (CAB^®) brand surged higher in 2011, which helps explain a 40% jump in packer-reported CAB grid premiums. Licensed packers paid owners of CAB-accepted finished cattle $32.3 million last year, compared to almost $23 million in 2010, according to February reports. That does not include related premiums paid for Choice and Prime grades.

The news ended a general downtrend in annual grid premiums for the brand from the historical high of nearly $37 million in 2002 (see Chart 1). CAB volume had gained more than 40% over the eight years and premiums often decline in the face of more supply. However, during those years, the value added by CAB was becoming relatively more important in comparison to the weakening premium for USDA Choice over Select beef.

The latest fed-cattle premium spike is supported by what happened on the boxed beef side.

“A simple average across five middle-meat items—the rib, strip, tender, butt and short loin—shows that the CAB product premium in 2011 jumped roughly 20% over 2010,” says industry analyst Julian Leopold, of Leopold Foods.

That was after a “pretty flat” period for CAB premiums following the 2008 crash in the overall economy, he says. “It looks like demand is picking back up though, and likely at restaurants as well as retail.

“The other side of the equation would be the volume, as the 4% increase in 2011 CAB sales over 2010 could have further increased the total dollar premiums in the system.”

Grid premiums for CAB-accepted cattle have reached a cumulative total of $352 million, with packers paying producers about $28 million per year for hitting that target over the past 10 years.

“We’re seeing the premium nature of our brand on both the product and cattle side of the industry, with rewards to all of the stakeholders and partners who are committed to quality,” says Certified Angus Beef^® President John Stika. “The investment and focus in taking the high road above commodity beef pays off with more and more satisfied customers.”

The numbers come from a “Here’s the Premium” project that has surveyed packers on annual CAB grid premiums paid since 1998. They report total dollars but not volume of grid cattle bought, and individual data remains confidential.

The trust and integrity built into the CAB program may limit the precision of reporting on price signals, but that’s more of a problem for USDA’s Mandatory Price Reporting (MPR) system. Its “Five-Area Weekly Weighted Average Direct Slaughter Cattle – Premiums and Discounts Report” shows a weekly CAB grid premium, but that reflects only the narrowly defined 15% of value-based marketing that is “negotiated,” and does not include formula grids that pay higher CAB premiums.

MPR Supervisor Brittany Koop admits several “challenges” may lead to understated figures. Packers report intentions rather than actual records, so auditing is difficult. Even if they offer several grids, packers can list only one expected CAB premium, and Koop notes it is not in a packer’s best interest to report a higher price. Weighted averages only consider total plant volume, not CAB volume, and volume cannot be assigned to grid data. Finally, USDA confidentiality rules keep many grid transactions sealed.

Based on published grids connected with several packers, the upper range of available CAB premium last year was more than $5 per hundredweight (/cwt.) in the Plains area. Yet, despite the 40% hike in total reported grid premiums to CAB, USDA reported only a 6-cent move in CAB grid premium, to $2.84/cwt.

The historical data reported to CAB by packers indicates grid premiums have returned to the market in a big way. While it took 20 years to reach an estimated cumulative total of $3 million paid, the 14 years since then have been rewarding for Angus producers who focus on quality. Premiums have been up and down, but among the top four CAB packers, last year’s total was either the second-, third- or fourth-highest annual CAB grid outlay ever.

Looking at Urner Barry Yellow Sheet boxed beef values over the past four years by CAB fiscal year (Oct.-Sept.), versus calendar year (Table 1) illustrated the fourth-quarter strength in beef prices in 2010 and 2011.

Still, the CAB/Choice spread has not fluctuated by as much as $1 in those years, notes Urner Barry reporter A.J. Munger.

He says higher CAB grid premiums paid last year are likely due to the sharp increase in wholesale demand for premium Choice beef, “with the continued expansion of branded programs, particularly the CAB brand.” A retail demand shift from Select to premium Choice was obvious by late summer.

“That increased the competition for higher-grading market-ready cattle,” Munger says, which would be enough to increase premiums. On top of that, however, the shift coincided with a fall-off in quality grades, thus limiting total available supplies, he adds.

What will 2012 bring? It was off to a strong start with even the USDA report showing a weekly weighted CAB grid premium of $8 in January. “Of course that could be seasonal and it is way too early to talk about a trend for the year,” says Kansas State University economist Ted Schroeder.

There is much volatility and uncertainty in the market, with severely negative packer margins. But with all beef priced at historic highs, a trigger level may turn consumers toward either higher quality beef for a little more premium or away from beef toward other proteins.

“We also know that not all cattle qualifying for CAB receive a grid premium,” Schroeder says. “Many are sold in ways that return a commodity price to the seller, but enable the packer to capture CAB premiums for the beef.”

The big jump in reported CAB grid premiums for 2011, when USDA’s MPR system showed little change, suggests a lot more CAB-qualifying cattle were sold on a value-based formula or grid last year. “That says if you want in on the higher CAB premiums, you should look at selling your cattle on a value-based grid that pays a competitive rate for those that qualify,” he adds.

Topping the market

I put down the phone after a lengthy conversation with Ron Hale, an analyst for Professional Cattle Consultants, about the premiums paid for feeder cattle.

Ron Hale, Professional Cattle Consultants data wizard

He looks at millions of head of data. He crunches numbers and he knows a thing or two about this feedlot business. We’d talked about which cattle deserve a little extra in the auction ring and about how hard it is to correctly identify which ones really are worth more. That’s all covered in the article I was interviewing him for ( “Market-toppers need proof”) but this quote resonated long after that call:

“That doesn’t mean feedlots don’t buy poor quality cattle, but when they do, they buy them at a discount.”

Huh, sounds like the perfect comment to back me up on this one:

Myth—Feeders just pay their target price for cattle, whether they’re worth more or not.

Fact—Feeders and order buyers are constantly making decisions of value based on how they predict cattle will do in three main categories: gain, grade and health.

That particular PCC work that Ron and I were discussing showed four quartiles, ranging from a “heavy discount” group that averaged -$20.90 to a heavy premium at $12.37.

We know there are various traits that fetch more at the auction barn, like health, muscle tone and breed type. Researchers across the country have studied this, and we’ve written about it again and again.

We know about the advantage that known Angus genetics have over their counterparts because we’ve got an ongoing “Here’s the Premium” study. The last data collected in fall 2010 revealed Angus steers brought $6.32 per hundredweight (cwt.) more than their non-Angus counterparts.

But rather than tell you what we know, let Tom Brink, with one of the nation’s largest cattle feeders, tell you what he knows. What type of cattle do they pay more for (and why)?

May your bottom line be filled with black ink,

Miranda

Team building in the herd

By Laura Nelson

You may also like

Relationships

You may also like

Having it all

You may also like

Self-selected culls

You may also like

CAB rewards student commitment with Colvin Scholarships

You may also like

Celebrating Ag Day with some black & white & red (meat)

ATI and CAB team up to educate

By Emily Kruegar

You may also like

More better beef

You may also like

CAB premiums at seven-year high

Biannual packer survey shows cumulative contribution at $352 million

by Steve Suther

You may also like

Topping the market

You may also like