Future riding on the semi to feedlot

By Steve Suther

November 22.2011

Hey seekers (my jargon for all of us looking to optimize quality and maximize profit) —

This is just a report, really, with thoughts at the “digression” before the end. We loaded a semi Nov. 11, and I thought the 5 light steers sold in September at 450 pounds probably would have been all right to join the load that went to our custom feeding partners. Some of the steers gained more than 160 lb. in seven weeks of preconditioning on silage with grain topping, and the 46 steers we retained half interest in weighed 717 lb. on arrival in at the Iowa yard. The 77-head load averaged 715 lb., and other family members retained a little interest in their steers as well.

Since then, the markets have been anything but calm. Is the world coming to financial Armageddon or is this a corn-buying opportunity? Consensus less than 90 days ago was that any chance to buy corn under $6.50 wouldn’t last long. UNLESS… or as Sonic the Hedgehog often wonders, What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Extreme volatility is part of the market this fall. I have tried to use “The Boards” with mixed results, but my main strategy to limit risk is using planned genetics with a planned health and weaning protocol. The steers need about $1.27 on April Live Cattle to break even on $6.60 corn, but that’s before this dip in corn and before premiums that history says I can expect, if I knock on wood often enough. And WOW, look at the differential spread—if CAB is still $30 higher than Select next April, we should do all right.

I could digress here and consider asking my feeding partner to throw every high-tech growth enhancement at these cattle. I mean we know they COULD go 70% CAB. It was recently suggested to me that such cattle are the perfect match for the kind of technology that has been proven to reduce quality grade (and tenderness) in the process of delivering more pounds (beta-2 agonist). Enough more that it supposedly always shows a profit (even though some packers won’t buy cattle that have been fed it). With all my years of trying to produce better cattle, I am not sorely tempted to try for a few more bucks in the near term that hinder consumer demand in the long run. What do YOU think?

Anyway, when I got the inweights back on a spreadsheet, first thing I did was compare to preweaning weights, then enter ages and calculate weight per day of age (WDA). Next I entered the sire and dam of each steer followed by cow weight and negative comments, if any. No news is good news there. Backgrounding ADG is a guestimate based on other family cattle at weaning, since mine had 21 days back on the cow after weights were recorded. I put in a column for percentage cow weight, too, and noted how great most of the heifers did. A few got negative comments like, ONE more chance…

It was a great report, but lacking the 1/3 of cows that had daughter last spring, so I added them in, guessing at 95% of backgrounding gain. This project never ends because you can always cross-link more facts, but the next data I’ll look up will be relevant sibling performance and carcass merit.

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

–Steve

The Power of Curiosity

by Briley Richard | Sep 1, 2026

Dr. Del Miles built a career on asking better questions to inform smarter decisions. Throughout his career, he challenged assumptions, advanced science-based management and helped cattle feeders prevent problems before they started. His influence reaches beyond feedyards, shaping the way veterinarians, researchers and cattlemen think about herd health.

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

by Courtney Weekley | Aug 31, 2026

Interest in quality beef production continues to grow. This year, the Colvin Scholarship Fund awarded $100,000 to 24 students across the country, helping them continue their education and prepare for careers that will contribute to the strength and advancement of the beef industry.

From Data to Dollars

by Morgan Boecker | Aug 27, 2026

The journey to produce high-quality beef presents market volatility and management challenges. But today, there are data, technology, tools and partners to identify the best value and how to attain it. At the 2026 Feeding Quality Forum, each speaker added to the same message on Aug. 4 and 5 in Amarillo, TX.

« Older Entries

First-born beef advantage

by Wyatt Bechtel

Early-born calves have a better chance than the later born of making a profit for their owners.

That’s what a 2010 study of Iowa Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity (TCSCF) data helped confirm. The analysis looked at birth date and age of Angus-Simmental rotational crossbred calves, compared to their feedlot performance and carcass traits.

Birth-to-harvest data on 1,369 spring-born calves from 2002 to 2007 on a central Missouri ranch were divided into four groups by date of birth.

Those born in the first 21 days qualified for the Certified Angus Beef^® (CAB^®) brand 28.6% of the time compared to only 11.24% for the calves born after 63 days in the sequence. Calves in the mid-early (22 to 42 days) sequence went 24.37% CAB while those born 43 to 63 days managed only 16.28% qualifiers.

“I didn’t expect to see that large of a difference in quality,” says Darrell Busby, TCSCF manager. Carcasses from the early-born calves earned approximately $11 more than those from the two middle groups, while outperforming the late group by more than $40 (see table).

Busby was also surprised at how the later-born calves did not catch up to their earlier-born herd mates in terms of weight gain. The oldest calves each year had higher weights entering and leaving the feedlot compared to their younger counterparts.

“In other words, you are going to have higher quality grades and more pounds in the earliest born calves,” says Gary Fike, beef cattle specialist for CAB, who presented the findings at last year’s American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver. The abstract and slide presentation may be viewed at https://cabcattle.com/news/research/index.php

Another somewhat surprising note from the research indicated the earlier a calf was born, the better its disposition. Busby found logic in that, however: “The more time you interact with cattle, the more it allows them to adapt to you. That’s probably why we saw more docile disposition scores in the earlier-born calves.”

The University of Nebraska pioneered this area of research with a study that looked at progeny of a Red Angus-Simmental herd at the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory near Whitman, Neb., finished at the West Central Research and Extension Center near North Platte, Neb.

Nebraska animal scientist Rick Funston says the study, which aimed to underline the importance of a short calving period, showed 30% of calves born in the first 21 days of calving graded average Choice or higher. Fewer than 17% of later-born calves hit that mark.

Carcass weight was positively affected as calves were born earlier. There was a 45-pound (lb.) difference in final carcass weight between the earliest born calves and those born after 42 days.

It all added up to a $77 advantage in carcass value for the oldest calves, but there are other advantages, too. “Probably the biggest impact is that those cows that calve earlier are going to have a longer period in which to rebreed,” Funston notes, adding the resultant increase in cow longevity will decrease the need for replacement heifers as well.

The study also looked at the impact of heat synchronization on pasture mating, as one possible intervention method. Cows injected with prostaglandin five days after bull turn-in had more calves born in the first 21 days of the calving season and weaned heavier, more valuable calves. Both studies show the benefits of a more uniform calf crop.

“Extension and universities have been telling us for a long time to tighten up your calving season from the basis of marketing your calves and making them as uniform as possible,” Fike says.

When retaining ownership on feed, he recommends selling the latest born calves at weaning to help increase uniformity in the rest: “Let someone else manage those late calves as you reap the benefits of the older calves.”

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

by Courtney Weekley | Aug 31, 2026

From Data to Dollars

by Morgan Boecker | Aug 27, 2026

Curiosity Changed the Beef Industry

by Briley Richard | Aug 5, 2026

« Older Entries

Hide color and end-product value

April 12, 2011

Animal scientist Ty Lawrence knows that it’s what’s under the hide that counts.

The West Texas A&M researcher was in a beef packing plant one night when he had a revelation: “I’m looking down the stun line and the cattle that were coming toward me were a Heinz 57 mix of hide colors,” he says. “Then immediately behind me I could see the carcasses going to the hotbox. My thought was, ‘There’s a tremendous perception of value differences of the live animals, but when they cross the grading rail, where the true carcass value is determined, those value differences are minimized.’”

So he and graduate student Tyson Brown set out on a yearlong Texas data collection project they recently published in The Professional Animal Scientist. They tracked hide color on 18,575 animals and matched that up with subsequent carcass information. The twelve color categories included everything from Holsteins and blacks to reds, striped and whites.

“The factors that influence feeder calf value are largely evaluated via visual appraisal,” Lawrence says. “And there’s a lot of bias and perception of live animal attributes, yet those expectations aren’t always met when you peel the hide away.”

When they calculated yield, quality and other premiums and discounts, there was only a range of $2.01 per hundredweight (/cwt.) from the lowest valued phenotype color to the highest.

Multiplying that times carcass weight showed a $30 difference in gross carcass value. Whites and blacks topped that at $983.76 and $982.51, respectively.

“The black and the white cattle were worth significantly more than the red, red-white-faced, spotted or striped cattle,” Lawrence says.

The take home message, he says, is that you can’t tell much by color alone.

“Color is less important and knowledge of the cattle background, history, level of finish, days on feed, etc.—all those things—are actually going to determine if this animal receives discounts or premiums,” Lawrence says.

Take the black example, for instance.

“Other breed types have entered with blacks,” he notes. “If you could go into that database and extract only the higher percentage Angus cattle, they would probably look better for quality grade. But this gets back to phenotype versus genotype [which was not part of the study]. When a cattle buyer is driving down the alley at a feedyard, he or she may have no more knowledge than what the feedyard tells them.”

The research also looked at sex and found heifers may be unfairly discounted in the sale barn. Feeding differences aside, their carcass market value was $122.70/cwt. versus $122.67/cwt. for steers.

“When you get to looking at the carcasses, it would be hard to discount a heifer for carcass performance,” Lawrence says.

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

by Courtney Weekley | Aug 31, 2026

From Data to Dollars

by Morgan Boecker | Aug 27, 2026

Curiosity Changed the Beef Industry

by Briley Richard | Aug 5, 2026

« Older Entries

Mythbuster Monday gets to the bottom of CAB’s acceptance rate hike

You’ve heard this before: Often times if it seems too good to be true, it is. Like in the case of low-fat ice cream that claims the same taste as the original. (Whatever you do, don’t buy it folks. Get the real deal—trust me!) But sometimes the stars line up and you get a “too good to be true” moment that is, ironically, genuine. Just like the sunshiny, wind-free, 70° day I spent in Colorado in February.

Or like the rise in Certified Angus Beef ^®(CAB^®) acceptance rates.

Following that theme, Laura recently picked up this myth from the road:

Myth—Since CAB has had such a dramatic rise in acceptance rate, you must have lowered your standards.

Continue reading “What’s up?”

Enough, but not too much

Research shows a beef quality benefit to modest use of distillers grain byproducts

by Miranda Reiman

A decade ago, distillers grains were not common feedstuffs. Today they’re routinely included in cattle finishing diets, at levels that can boost beef quality grades.

Chris Calkins, University of Nebraska meat scientist, says when “wet distillers grains plus solubles” (WDGS) are fed at moderate levels, marbling scores increase.

“It tends to be a quadratic effect. If you do not feed any distillers grains, you get a given level of marbling,” he says. “As [WDGS] in the diet increases, we see an increase in marbling score up until about 30% to 40%; beyond that the benefits to marbling tend to disappear.”

At national animal science meetings last summer, Calkins presented a meta-analysis of studies that looked at WDGS feed effects. Larry Corah and Mark McCully of Certified Angus Beef LCC (CAB) cited that presentation in a recent research review of factors responsible for a spike in beef quality grades. Through July 2009, 60.1% of cattle in the nation’s harvest mix were grading USDA Choice, a 7.5-percentage-point leap in just two years.

An abrupt departure from the 30-year decline in grades, the recent turnaround may be partly explained by judicious use of WDGS.

“Marbling increases, but if you get the levels too high it starts to trail off,” Calkins says. The data he presented showed a marbling score of 518 for animals fed no WDGS. The score increased 14 to 15 points, up to 533, for animals fed WDGS at 20% to 30% on a dry-matter (DM) basis.

“That seems to support earlier findings that at inclusions above that 30% to 40%, distillers can actually hurt quality grade,” says Corah. “Fortunately a large majority of feedlots are using the byproducts at a fairly low rate.”

A 2007 survey estimated most feedlots used WDGS at 16.5% of diets, but that has likely jumped in recent years due to availability.

Calkins says the marbling score increase is probably related to fat content of the feedstuffs.

“When you make ethanol from corn you’ve basically driven off about two-thirds of the components,” he says, noting that both ethanol and CO₂are produced from the starch that comprises two-thirds of corn grain. “So everything else is concentrated by about three-fold. That includes the fat content.”

This higher-fat diet promotes marbling development. Theoretically, it can increase external fat as well, but Calkins says that’s a fairly small shift.

“I don’t think there’s a big worry for producers in terms of cutability issues with using wet distillers grains,” he says.

WDGS also seems to increase DM intake, especially in starter rations. One Nebraska study shows nearly a 30% increase.

“It’s a highly effective feedstuff in terms of increasing average daily gain and dry matter intake,” Calkins says.

From a meat quality standpoint, the only drawback to feeding WDGS seems to be the increase in polyunsaturated fats. They can cause discoloration and off-flavor more quickly than other fats when exposed to oxygen.

“That’s dose-dependent,” he notes. “In other words, the more distillers we feed, the bigger issue it can become.” Feeding WDGS at 20% to 30% should pose fewer challenges for retail beef than those higher percentages. However, at any level the problems can be easily managed by supplementing diets with vitamin E, Calkins adds.

Although the WDGS effect on marbling score seems slight, Corah estimates it accounts for around 5 percentage points of the grade increase. That’s based on applying the shift to packing data, where many cattle grades sit on the line between Choice and Select or low- and premium Choice.

“That’s going to increase the proportion of cattle that could conceivably qualify for the Certified Angus Beef^® brand,” Calkins says. “When you draw a specific line in marbling, that 15-point shift can be pretty meaningful.”

To read “Quality Grade: What is driving the recent upswing?” in its entirety, visit www.cabcattle.com/about/research.

What’s up?

Quality grades… and a new research paper explains why

By Miranda Reiman

Three years ago, a 30-year decline in beef quality grades was apparent, with only half of fed cattle grading USDA Choice. The Choice/Select spread hit record highs in 2006, but today the picture is much different (see chart). July figures show 60.1% of the harvest mix graded Choice the first half of this year, but why?

Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) animal scientists recently authored a research paper on those trends. “Quality Grade: What is driving the recent upswing?” by Larry Corah and Mark McCully, delves into regional differences, how quality improved so quickly and why it changed.

Nationwide, the share of Choice grading cattle made a 7.5-percentage-point leap in just two years.

“The main reason for that rapid shift is that a large number of cattle marbling scores are very close to the USDA grading lines,” Corah, CAB vice president, says. Just adding 20 more units of marbling, going from Slight-80 to Small-0, results in 5.71% more cattle grading Choice.

“That seemingly tiny change has an even greater impact on those qualifying for the Certified Angus Beef^® brand,” he says.

After a low of 14% CAB acceptance in 2006, the brand will beat 19.5% during this fiscal year. That’s nearly a 40% increase in three years.

The Central Plains show the greatest improvement and distillers grain byproducts might be part of the answer, although potentially part of the problem if they get above 40% of the dry-matter ration content. By 2007 these byproducts were fed in 82.5% of feedlot rations, but at a moderate 15% to 30% level.

When held to those levels, research shows distillers corn byproducts actually result in higher grades, partly by increasing appetite, and especially in starter diets.

“Higher dry-matter intake, better calf health and higher daily gains support higher quality grade,” says McCully CAB assistant vice president, noting that Elanco Animal Health Benchmark® Program data reveals positive trends in all of these areas.

That’s coupled with herd liquidation, which has boosted the heifer share of the harvest mix to 37.4%, a few points above normal.

“Heifers tend to grade 9 to 10 points better than steers, so that may account for at least a half a percentage point increase overall,” he says.

Use of Angus genetics is on the rise and at the same time, the expected progeny difference (EPD) for marbling score in Angus has moved up 7 points since 2004.

“It only moved 9 points in the first 25 years of the EPD’s existence,” Corah says. Angus bull usage increased from 39% to a 55% share of all bulls from 1994 to 2008, and nearly 70% of commercial cows are now considered primarily Angus.

Iowa feedlot futurity data shows only 52.7% of calves with less than a quarter Angus breeding grade Choice, compared to their counterparts that are at least three-quarters Angus, at 86.2% Choice and Prime. CAB acceptance rate nearly quadruples with the greater Angus heritage.

Although quality grade is hard to predict, this grading surge might stick. That doesn’t mean producers counting on grid-based premiums should be discouraged.

“If quality grades do not decline within a year, it could mean the infusion of higher-marbling genetics has had a lasting effect,” Corah says. “Coupled with smaller cattle numbers, consumer demand in a recovering economy will likely drive the Choice-Select spread to higher levels.”

To read the entire paper, visit https://cabcattle.com/about/research/

AngusSource ’08 contest winners

by Miranda Reiman

The top groups in the 2008 AngusSource® Carcass Challenge (ASCC) “blew the doors off” average quality grades, says program director Sara Snider.

Three feedlots won more than $1,000 in cash and prizes for first through fifth place finishes during the inaugural year of the contest. Entries consisted of at least 38 head of age-, source- and genetic-verified calves fed through the network of Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB)-licensed partners.

“Our goal was to illustrate the value of those calves in the feedyard and recognize those procuring AngusSource calves and targeting the brand,” Snider says.

Beller Feedlot, Lindsay, Neb., received $500 for the winning group that went 80.7% Certified Angus Beef^® (CAB^®) and Prime. That’s more than four times the national average.

Those 62 steers were purchased from longtime Montana customers Mike Green, Dennis Green and Scott and Traci Glasscock.

“We scanned for high marbling and took the top 62,” says Terry Beller, feedlot owner-manager. “These were kind of the heart of them, but even the ‘out’ cattle did extremely well.”

The third-place entry, at 68.2% CAB and Prime, also belonged to Beller Feedlot. That earned them an additional $100.

Neighboring feedyard, Beller Corporation, scored second and fifth place in the ASCC. The cattle purchased from Gray’s Angus Ranch, near Harrison, Neb., went 69.1% CAB and Prime. Their number five group went 67.4%.

“There’s a big advantage to buying from the same source: You know what you’ve got,” Doug Beller says. He, along with brothers Dennis and Duane, collected $350 in prize money.

Cattleman’s Choice Feedyard, Gage, Okla., and Jimmy Taylor, Elk City, Okla., split the $100 prize for their fourth-place entry. Taylor’s first time retaining ownership showed 66 steers going 67.7% CAB and Prime.

“We set the standards pretty high here. I’m going to have to work really hard to keep it at this level,” says Dale Moore, owner-manager of Cattleman’s Choice.

In the fourth-quarter 2008 ASCC results, 45 heifers harvested Nov. 24 at the Cargill-Schuyler (Neb.) plant surpassed national quality grade averages but did not make it to the final round, Snider says. Still excellent, high-value cattle, they were fed by Beller Feedlot, which bought them from Schroeder Ranch, Thedford, Neb. Second- and third-quarter ASCC winners were previously announced.

Snider says the American Angus Association is looking forward to this year’s contest, which will continue to name quarterly winners in each region before bestowing a national title at the end of the year.

“We’d really like to see the contest grow,” she says. “If you’re feeding at or selling to a Certified Angus Beef licensed feedyard, just make sure they know you are interested in the ASCC. There’s no cost to enter and the paperwork is minimal.”

In addition to the 38-head minimum, cattle must be harvested in one lot. They can be steers, heifers or mixed-sex groups and can come from multiple operations, if all are AngusSource enrolled.

To learn about the AngusSource program or the ASCC, visit www.AngusSource.com, contact Snider at 816-383-5100 or email her at ssnider@angus.org.

Tag: quality grade

Future riding on the semi to feedlot

By Steve Suther

You may also like

The Power of Curiosity

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

From Data to Dollars

First-born beef advantage

by Wyatt Bechtel

You may also like

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

From Data to Dollars

Curiosity Changed the Beef Industry

Hide color and end-product value

You may also like

$100,000 to Future Beef Leaders

From Data to Dollars

Curiosity Changed the Beef Industry

Mythbuster Monday gets to the bottom of CAB’s acceptance rate hike

Enough, but not too much

Research shows a beef quality benefit to modest use of distillers grain byproducts

by Miranda Reiman

What’s up?

Quality grades… and a new research paper explains why

By Miranda Reiman

AngusSource ’08 contest winners

by Miranda Reiman