J.J. Jones, OSU Extension Area Ag Economist, offered the following article in the latest edition of the OSU S.E. Area News & Notes newsletter. 

It has been an age-old debate. Is it better to raise your replacement heifers or purchase them? The question brings a lot of opinions and arguments. There are both advantages and disadvantages for each. Producers must consider each of them before making their decision.

The first table below outlines some of the main advantages and disadvantages of raising versus buying replacement heifers. Some of these points will be more important than others for different producers. For example, the only advantage listed for raising replacements is that the producer knows the genetics of their heifers. This could be important for producers that have spent considerable effort in selecting for specific traits and attributes. But for a producer that has not been managing for specific genetic traits and has a common set of commercial cows this might not be as important.

Producers need to determine what is the most important for them and their operation and make the decision based on that criteria. For most producers, one of the more important criteria is cost. What is the cost of raising replacements versus buying them? The remainder of this article will focus on that very question.

The second table compares the costs associated with buying a 4-5 month bred cow and raising a heifer until her first calf is sold. It is assumed that the purchased cow will have two calves in the same time that it takes a weaned heifer to be bred, calve and wean that calf.

When comparing the returns and costs for the first two years of buying versus raising it shows that there is a slight cost advantage to raising replacements over buying them. Although, the results are close enough that one might consider it to be a wash. Keep in mind that no consideration was given to the possibility of calving difficulties, quality of first-born calf, poor breeding percentage, or poor growth rate. Everything is kept equal so just to consider the costs.

So, with the costs being about equal producers must consider the other ramifications of buying versus selling. Producers must consider their operations resources. Not only land availability, but also time availability and management. Producers need to consider the long-term effects on the operation’s cash flow from holding onto heifers instead of selling them. Can an operation withstand the decrease in revenue and be able to wait two years for the payoff? Producers will need to determine if they could improve the quality and production of their herd faster by purchasing replacements versus raising them from existing stock.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Find out what is happening in OSU Extension at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/ 

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

The last cold front has passed, and moderate temperatures are again upon us. However, it is still January in Oklahoma and more cold weather is sure to come.  Moisture, high winds, and cold temperatures increase the cow’s energy requirements, and the question arose the other day about some guidelines to provide extra energy during winter weather events. Unsurprisingly, some thoughtful planning in the fall helps to mitigate the negative impacts of winter weather and providing extra energy ahead of a cold front is more effective than during or after.

Cows in an optimal body condition score (BCS 5 to 6) are better able to withstand adverse environmental conditions. As a risk management strategy at the ranch level going into the winter, reduce the number of BCS 4 cows and increase the number of BCS 5 cows in your herd.

Usually what happens metabolically is cows begin to shiver. These processes require extra energy. Lower critical temperature for beef cows is influenced by hair coat condition (dry or wet/muddy), body condition (thin, moderate, fleshy) and hair coat description heavy/winter, winter, fall, or summer. It is worth noting that a cow with a wet hair coat at 60 degrees expends more energy to maintain core body temperatures than does a cow with a dry hair coat at 32 degrees.

When feeding cows, we need to consider the effect of weather conditions. Dr. Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist, offers these tips for feeding cows in cold weather. The major effect of cold on nutrient requirement of cows is increased need for energy. To determine magnitude of cold, lower critical temperature for beef cows must first be estimated. For cows with a dry winter hair coat the lower critical temperature is considered to be 32 degrees F. In general, researchers have used the rule of thumb that cows’ energy requirements increase 1% for each degree the wind chill is below the 32-degree lower critical temperature. Therefore the calculation example for a cow with a winter dry hair coat would be: 

tep 1: Cow’s lower critical temperature is 32 degrees F. 

Step 2: Expected wind-chill from weather reports (let’s use 4 degrees wind chill in this example) 

Step 3: Calculate the magnitude of the cold: 32 degrees – 4 degrees = 28 degrees 

Step 4: Energy adjustment is 1% for each degree magnitude of cold or 28%. 

Step 5: Feed cows 128% of daily energy amount. (if a cow was to receive 16 pounds of high-quality grass/legume hay; then feed 20.5 pounds of hay during the cold weather event).

Research has indicated that energy requirement for maintenance of beef cows with a wet hair coat is much greater. Cows that are exposed to falling precipitation and have the wet hair coats are considered to have reached the lower critical temperature at 59 degrees F. In addition, the requirements change twice as much for each degree change in wind-chill factor. In other words, the energy requirement actually increases 2% for each degree below 59 degrees F. To calculate the magnitude of the cold when the cow is wet would be the difference between 59 degrees minus 4 degrees = 55 degrees. True energy requirements to maintain a wet cow in this weather would be 2% X 55 degrees or 110 % increase in energy (which would mean that over twice the normal energy intake is needed.)

This amount of energy change is virtually impossible to accomplish with feedstuffs available on ranches. In addition, this amount of energy change in the diet of cows accustomed to a high roughage diet must be made very gradually to avoid severe digestive disorders. Therefore, the more common-sense approach is a smaller increase in energy requirements during wet cold weather and extending the increase into more pleasant weather to help regain energy lost during the storm.

Cows that were consuming 16 pounds of grass hay per day and 5 pounds of 20% range cubes could be increased to 20 pounds of grass hay offered per day plus 6 to 7 pounds of range cubes during the severe weather event. This is not a doubling of the energy intake but by extending this amount for a day or two after the storm may help overcome some of the energy loss during the storm and done in a manner that does not cause digestive disorders.

The fact that it is not feasible to feed a wet, very cold cow enough to maintain her current body condition, underscores the need for cows to be in “good” body condition at the start of winter.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

 Last week’s column, we discussed cull cow grades. Remember cull cows that are destined to go to the packing house are graded by their fleshiness. The fattest cows are called “Breakers”.  Moderately fleshed cows are “Boning utility”. Thin cows are called “Leans” or “Lights”, depending upon the weight of the cow. There will be price differences among these four grades. 

However, within each grade, large variation in prices per hundredweight will exist because of differences in dressing percentage. Cow buyers are particularly aware of the proportion of the purchased live weight that eventually becomes saleable product hanging on the rail. Dressing percentage is (mathematically) the carcass weight divided by the live weight multiplied by 100. For instance, a cow with a 1,400 lb. live weight and a “hot carcass” weight (once they have been eviscerated, and the hide, feet, and head removed) of 650 lbs. has a Dressing Percent of 46% (650/1400 = .4642 x 100 = 46%)

Key factors that affect dressing percentage include gut fill, udder size, mud and manure on the hide, excess leather on the body, and anything else that contributes to the live weight but will not add to the carcass weight. Obviously, pregnancy will dramatically lower dressing percentage due the weight of the fetus, fluids, and membranes that will not be on the hanging carcass. Most USDA Market News reports for cull cows will give price ranges for High, Average, and Low Dressing Percentages for each of the previous mentioned grades. As you study these price reports, note that the differences between High and Low Dressing cows and bulls will generally be greater than differences between grades. Many reports will indicate that Low Dressing cows will be discounted up to $8 to $12 per hundredweight compared to High Dressing cows and will be discounted $5 to $7 per hundredweight compared to Average Dressing cows. These price differences are “usually” widest for the thinner cow grades (Leans and Lights). See examples from last week’s sale in the Oklahoma City National Stockyards: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ko_ls151.txt

As producers market cull cows and bulls, they should be cautious about selling cattle with excess fill. The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight. They should also be cautious about selling old, “broke mouth” or “smooth mouth” cows that are pregnant but not likely to be purchased by someone intending to take them to grass.

Cull cow prices are typically lowest in the fall, as many producers sell cull cows immediately after weaning. The cull cow market exhibits consistent seasonality across years, as evident in the graph below, where prices in March and April are approximately 15 index points higher than prices in October and November. Though the market price levels have seen unusual increases in more recent years, the seasonal pattern has persisted. This seasonality offers opportunities to deviate from traditional fall marketing of cull cows and potentially increasing salvage value by retaining cows into the spring months to market during seasonal high prices (Feuz 2010; Peel and Meyer 2002; Yager, Greer and Burt 1980). Many factors influence this decision, including individual cow health, potential weight gain, cash flow needs, on-farm resources for retention and feeding, current market conditions versus market expectations and time. In addition to feed costs, the decision to retain cull cows requires more labor and management time, including feeding cows, separating culls for possible rebreeding and pregnancy checking. Facilities and pasture availability are important considerations as well, since cull cows on feed are likely managed as a group separately from the breeding herd. Not considered here is the fact that retaining cull cows utilizes forage resources that might be used for another cattle enterprise, either more brood cows or stocker cattle. On the other hand, feeding culled cows may be a good way to capture the value of excess or leftover pasture or hay that may not otherwise get utilized or have a better use. Ultimately, the marketing decision has implications for the individual cow’s salvage value and the producer’s bottom line.

 Seasonal Price Index for Utility (Slaughter) Cows, Southern Plains, 2004-2013. Data Source: USDA-AMS, Compiled & Analysis by LMIC Livestock Marketing Information Center.      

Find out what’s happening on the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Calendar at https://calendar.okstate.edu/oces/#/?i=2

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.

Last week, we discussed limit-grazing as a management strategy to increase the efficiency of utilizing wheat pasture as a winter supplement program for the cow herd. In that vein of discussion, it is commonly thought that wheat pasture may cause reduced or delayed conception rates for heifers and cows during the spring breeding season. A recent article by Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist, in the OSU Extension Cow/Calf Corner Newsletter, addresses this subject.

Southern plains producers with cow calf operations may be looking to wheat pasture this winter as much of the winter feed supply.  Some producers may have questions about the utilization of wheat pasture for growing replacement heifers or cows before, during, and after the spring breeding season.  Anecdotal reports of unsatisfactory breeding performance have surfaced when replacement heifers have been exposed to bulls or AI while grazing wheat forages.  Therefore an Oklahoma State University study (http://afs.okstate.edu/research/reports/2009/page) was conducted to compare reproductive performance of heifers grazing wheat pasture before, and during breeding, with heifers grazing wheat pasture until approximately 3 weeks before breeding. 

In each of two years, 40 spring born Angus and Angus crossbred heifers were placed on wheat pasture in December and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups in mid- March.  Group one (Wheat Pasture; n=20) remained on wheat pasture (mean crude protein = 26.6 %) through estrus synchronization and fixed-time AI.  Group two (Dry Lot; n=20) was placed in drylot and had free choice access to a corn-based growing ration (11.1% crude protein) through estrus synchronization and fixed time AI.  The heifers were inseminated on about April 5 both years.  Heifers were exposed to fertile bulls starting 10 days after fixed time AI for 45 more days.  Fixed time AI conception was determined at 32 days after AI by ultrasonography.   

The percentage of heifers cycling at the start of estrous synchronization was 75% and 55% for Wheat Pasture and Dry Lot, respectively.  Weights of Dry Lot heifers were slightly heavier than Wheat Pasture heifers (897 vs. 867 pounds) at the time of AI but were similar at ultrasound (917 vs. 910 pounds).  Conception rate to fixed time AI was similar for Wheat Pasture (54%) and Dry Lot (43%) and final pregnancy rate was similar for Wheat Pasture (98%) and Dry Lot (88%).  Reproductive performance of heifers grazing wheat pasture during estrus synchronization and Fixed time AI was similar to heifers consuming a corn-based growing diet.  Source: Bryant and co-workers. 2011. February issue. The Professional Animal Scientist.  Most Oklahoma spring calving operations will begin the breeding season a little later in April when the wheat plant will be even more mature and lower in protein content. 

Kansas State University looked at grazing wheat pasture, before and during breeding with first and second calf cows.  They compared the fixed time AI and final pregnancy rates for cows on wheat with cows on native rangeland.  Five years of data were summarized in the 2011 KSU Cattlemen’s Day Report.  The AI pregnancy rates were 51.7% and 57.7% for wheat pasture and rangeland respectively.  The final pregnancy rates after a natural breeding clean up breeding season were very similar at 94.4% and 95.9% respectively.  They concluded: “This trial showed no evidence that the high protein diet of wheat pasture reduces pregnancy rate of beef cows. However, because timing of the breeding season remained constant, protein content of the diet may have moderated prior to breeding.” Source: Johnson, S.K. 2011 KSU Cattlemen’s Day Summary.

The take-home conclusion is that research has shown wheat pasture to have no adverse effect on conception rates of beef females. Wheat pasture remains an excellent winter forage supplement program and, if managed correctly, can be a cost-efficient alternative to traditional supplement programs.

Follow me on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/leland.mcdaniel

Oklahoma State University, in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Higher Education Act), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other federal and state laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, genetic information, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, or status as a veteran, in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This provision includes, but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. The Director of Equal Opportunity, 408 Whitehurst, OSU, Stillwater, OK 74078-1035; Phone 405-744-5371; email: eeo@okstate.edu has been designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies.  Any person who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based on gender may discuss his or her concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with OSU’s Title IX Coordinator 405-744-9154.