The impact of dressing percent on cull cow marketing

Drover's Cattle Network

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Extension | Updated: 10/28/2014

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 “Boners.” Thin cows are called “Leans” or “Lights,” depending upon the weight of the cow. There will be price differences among these four grades. 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.
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. Most USDA Market News reports for cull cows will give price ranges for High, Average, and Low Dressing Percents 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 $10 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 Oklahoma City National Stockyards:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ko_ls151.txt
As producers market cull cows, they should be cautious about selling cows with excess fill. The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight.

Fall/winter harvest/grazing management of sorghum forages

This is a write up by our Forage Crop Management Specialist, Leonard Lauriault, on harvest management of sorghum forages when they are frosted.  FYI, our State Extension Forage Specialist, Mark Marsalis, published an excellent resource entitled “Sorghum Forage Production in New Mexico” (Guide A-332, http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A332/).

Generally, there are two concerns with harvesting sorghum forages as hay or silage or by grazing when temperatures cool in the fall and especially when frost occurs. Those are nitrate accumulation in the stems and Prussic acid production in leaves. The causes are the same so they can both occur at the same time.

Because of the within-plant location of the two concerns, and the fate, or lack thereof of the toxins, different management strategies can be used.  Nitrates are more of a problem for hay, unless animals are forced to consume the stems during grazing. Prussic acid is more of a concern when grazing because leaves will be consumed first.

Nitrates never go away in hay, although ensiling will reduce nitrate levels as microbes utilize the nitrates. Prussic acid will naturally dissipate in 5 to 7 days  and actually is generated by cutting for hay or silage at any time during the year. Dissipation is usually complete by the time hay is cured or after 7 stress-free days have passed for the standing crop. Nitrates accumulated during stress (cold temperatures or frost) also can be assimilated by the rest of the plant after about a week of stress-free growth.

The problems with sorghum forages in the fall are temperature fluctuations and frequent frosts.

Consequently, the recommendation for grazing sorghum forages in the fall is to remove animals when frost is first anticipated and not return them until at least a week after all plants are completely dead. Then, never force them to graze the stems because the nitrates are still there. Alternatively, as soon as frost is anticipated, the sorghum forages can be harvested. This would prevent nitrate accumulation due to frost and any Prussic acid that is produced due to cutting should dissipate before baling.

The forage nitrate screening kits I provide each April (which are still good until next April 1^st, not fooling) can be used to evaluate the presence of nitrates in sorghum stems and how high up the stems the nitrates have accumulated. If you have a kit, you can have producers collect stems cut at ground level in several places throughout the stand (the more sampling locations, the better). Have them identify the collection location for each stem. Split the stems and apply a drop of the nitrate screening solution about every two inches up the stem. If nitrates are present, the drop will immediately turn a deep blue. The point at which there is no blue will indicate a possible cutting height to leave most of the nitrates in the field. This could also leave considerable hay yield in the field, but I suspect most producers will consider their animals of greater value.Also, any nitrates left in the field may be available to a subsequent crop as a fertilizer savings. Identifying sample collection location may give an idea of areas where nitrates are higher or lower in the field due to soil or microclimatic factors. Hay from high nitrate areas could be sold separately to protect the value of any low nitrate hay.

Because nitrates never go away in hay, in every case in New Mexico, no matter how well the sorghum forage crop was managed or how optimum the growing conditions were, every cutting of sorghum hay should be tested for nitrates. The forage nitrate screening kits I provide only indicate the presence of nitrates and not the amount, and amount counts. Management options to utilize high nitrate hay have been devised based on the forage nitrate level. Forage quality analysis also should be done as a marketing tool. Proper hay sampling technique is critical to estimate the nitrate content or nutritive value of any forage with any degree of confidence (see Circular 641, http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/CR-641.pdf, also by Mark Marsalis).

By the way, sorghums also produce nitrates and prussic acid until new plants are about 18-20 inches tall. Consequently, after planting or harvesting, they should not be grazed until they are about 2 feet tall. Cut for hay at 40 inches to maintain fine stems for higher quality and more rapid curing. Silage should be harvested at soft dough stage and may need to be swathed to allow wilting to 65% moisture before chopping.

An alternative to sorghum for forage is pearl millet (see Guide A-417; http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A417/, by guess who). Management practices are similar, except that pearl millet does not produce Prussic acid, and although it can accumulate nitrates, pearl millet is not generally as likely to do that as the sorghum forages (even alfalfa can accumulate nitrates). Consequently, pearl millet does not present the same concerns during the fall that the sorghums do. Of note is that pearl millet does not withstand intensive grazing (lower stubble height) as well as the sorghum forages for regrowth, but if you’re grazing it out in the fall, who cares about regrowth.

Eric Scholljegerdes is conducting the second year of a grazing trial at Tucumcari that may shed further light on the difference in animal performance when using pearl millet or sorghum forages for late summer and fall pasture (thanks, Eric and graduate student Leah Schmitz). We’ll keep you posted as results are substantiated.

Mr. Leonard Lauriault, Certified Forage and Grassland Professional

College Professor - Superintendent  and Forage Crop Management Scientist
New Mexico State University College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences: http://aces.nmsu.edu/
Plant and Environmental Sciences Department: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pes
Agricultural Science Center at Tucumcari: http://tucumcarisc.nmsu.edu/
6502 Quay Rd AM.5
Tucumcari, NM 88401
Phone: 575-461-1620 x 103
FAX: 575-461-1631

 Perseverance is the pathway to perfection (Philippians 3:12-16).

 

Cattle Prices: How high is high…revisited?

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

The Newsletter

 

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

October 6, 2014

 

 

“Feeder and fed cattle prices are at or near all time highs and are poised to keep moving higher.  Both Feeder and Live cattle futures suggest that higher prices are yet to come. In several recent meetings and conversations with producers, I am seeing a couple of reactions to the current situation.  There seems to be an overall feeling of disbelief or a sense that there is another shoe to fall.  The basic question seems to be one of “Is this for real?”.  Given everything we have been through in recent years and the amount of volatility in most input and output markets, such hesitancy is understandable.  It is easy to remember corn and wheat markets in 2008 which soared to astronomical heights for a brief period of time.  Are cattle markets in the same situation: set for a wild but short-lived ride into the stratosphere?”

 

The preceding paragraph was taken from an article that I wrote in January of 2011.  I stumbled across it recently and realized that it applies to an even greater extent today with a market situation that is significantly different than when the original article was written.  Feeder cattle prices today are nearly double (up over 90 percent) the level when the question was posed in 2011. Fed cattle prices are up over 50 percent from early 2011.  No one knew in January, 2011 that the beef industry would suffer tremendously with drought impacts into 2014 that would take an already tight supply situation to extreme levels and provoke the current unimaginable production and market situation.

 

It appeared in early 2011 that the beef cattle industry was poised for herd expansion with cattle inventories already lower than intended by the industry.  Instead, we find ourselves in 2014 with the beef cow herd down another 6 percent from the 2011 level.  Though herd expansion has likely started in 2014, it will take another three years to recover the 1.87 million head of beef cows lost since 2011.   Additional expansion beyond that level is likely but will depend on domestic and international market conditions towards the end of the decade.  The prospects for herd expansion for much of the rest of the decade suggest that cattle prices are likely to grind higher yet from current record levels before peaking and working lower towards the end of the decade.  I’m hearing many producers and others repeating the adage that “high prices cure high prices” and they do; but in the case of the beef industry it will likely take most of the rest of the decade for that to happen.  The beef industry does not work like crop production in which major production adjustments can occur in a matter of one crop year.  Heifer retention will make tight cattle supplies tighter for a couple of years before any resulting production increase hits the market. The current situation pretty much ensures a four to six year recovery process with supply driven price strength for much of that process.