With expansion underway, how big a cowherd does the U.S. need?

Burt Rutherford                                                                                                January 22, 2015

There’s a chance everyone will be surprised, but the sure money among industry analysts and pundits alike is that the forthcoming USDA Jan. 1, 2015 Cattle Inventory report will show that herd rebuilding is well underway.
“What we’re seeing today are market prices that are increasingly a market insistence that we need to be bigger,” Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing economist, told a packed room at the Southwest Beef Symposium recently in Amarillo, Texas. “We are smaller than we need to be.”
And while he’s certain that 2014 data will show herd rebuilding is underway, he says that’s not really the question. “If you can tell me what the weather will be and (what) drought conditions (will be), we’ll know if that’s sustainable going forward. But once we stop liquidating, then the next question is how big do we need to be?”
A look back at recent history might give a clue. “If you go back to 2004, we tried to grow from there. We had minor growth to 2006.” But remember what happened then? “That’s when the feed market shocks, the ethanol juggernaut, fuel prices, fertilizer prices, took us for a ride in 2008 and 2009. Then recession in 2009 and 2010 aggravated it. It was really cost-side impacts that caused this liquidation (since 2007). So all else being equal, the last time we tried to grow as an industry was at 32.5 million (beef) cows,” he says.
Last year’s Cattle Inventory report pegged beef cows at somewhere around 29 million. “When you look at U.S. demand, international potential and other things, I think this industry needs to be somewhere in the 32 to 34 million head (beef) cow range,” he says. “We’re a lot smaller than we need to be and we took a long time to get here for reasons we didn’t plan on. In order to rebuild, it’s going to take some time.”
Just how long is how long? Since cows don’t have litters, Peel says it will be next year or into 2017 before we see any payoff from heifers retained in 2014. Then there’s this: will cattle producers believe it’s going to be good enough long enough to make it worth the extremely high prices we’re seeing for breeding animals?
In addition, Peel says you have to factor in things like the age of the average cattle producer, financial considerations and what the weather might do. “All those are things that could slow down (rebuilding) even slower than the biology lag does,” he says.
Here’s Peel’s bottom line: “When I look at the numbers and look at a relatively aggressive expansion starting from a year ago with some expansion beginning in 2015, I think we’re talking out to 2020 or beyond to get us very far back to that 32 to 34 million head.”

Ask the Consultant: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?

Written by Bryan Nichols and Deke AlkirePublished on 19 Jan 2015
Progressive Cattleman Online Magazine

Consultants at the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation work with livestock producers on ranch solutions related to their operations.
This column highlights common questions asked by producers of Noble consultants. This month’s question: Does feeding heifers in late gestation increase dystocia?
According to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 28 percent of all calf deaths before weaning are due to birth-related problems. Therefore, managing females to calve with minimal difficulty is extremely important.
A topic that is often discussed in cattle production is whether or not the level of nutrition given to a pregnant female late in gestation affects birthweight and calving difficulty (dystocia). Many producers worry that providing good nutrition to a pregnant female, especially heifers, increases birthweight of the calf and, subsequently, dystocia.
However, providing inadequate nutrition can have long-term effects on pregnancy rates and profitability. This is a topic that has been very well researched over the past several decades.

Protein and energy supplements

In 1989, researchers assembled an extensive review of studies examining the effect of prepartum energy supplementation, protein supplementation and cow condition at calving on birthweight and dystocia.
Ten studies were summarized where differing levels of energy were offered (high energy, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate energy, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low energy, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).

In nine of the 10 studies, moderate or high energy increased birthweights; however, only two of those 10 studies reported an increase in dystocia when feeding higher energy levels. One study actually reported an increase in dystocia when feeding lower energy levels.
Five studies were summarized where differing levels of protein were offered (high protein, more than 100 percent of NRC requirements; moderate protein, approximately 100 percent of NRC requirements; low protein, less than 100 percent of NRC requirements).
Two of the five studies showed increased birthweights when feeding high-protein versus low-protein diets.
One of the five studies showed increased dystocia with increased protein, and one study showed decreased dystocia when feeding increased protein. In general, calf vigor was also decreased when feeding lower levels of protein.

BCS and pregnancy rate

Body condition at calving was also examined in five studies. These studies demonstrated two important messages. First, dystocia is increased in obese (BCS greater than 7) compared to moderately conditioned females.
Second, dystocia is not decreased in thin females compared to those of adequate body condition; however, calf vigor is decreased.
In addition, most research agrees that body condition score (BCS) at calving is the most important factor affecting subsequent estrus and ovulation, and therefore pregnancy rates. Table 1 shows the relationship of BCS to pregnancy rate and calving interval.
Several studies agree that pregnancy rates increase from about 60 percent at a BCS of 4 to 79 to 86 percent at a BCS of 5 and to 90 to 92 percent at a BCS of 6. However, these differences can be much greater in first-calf heifers and second-calf heifers.
In a Florida study, pregnancy rate was only 50 to 53 percent for first-calf and second-calf heifers with a BCS of 4 compared to 84 to 90 percent of those with a BCS of 5 or greater.
Therefore, it is imperative that heifers are in adequate body condition at calving and provided an adequate plane of nutrition through the breeding season to maintain future production.

Fetal programming

Research has shown that inadequate nutrition in the last two-thirds of gestation can decrease muscling and marbling potential. Other complications reported from inadequate nutrition during gestation include increased abortion, decreased birthweight, reduced ability of the calf to produce body heat after birth, increased sickness and death, poor growth performance and reduced meat quality.
While there is an argument that calves whose dams were nutrient-restricted during gestation may be more efficient later in life, one study showed no difference in intake, average daily gain or feed efficiency. This topic is not completely understood and needs more research.
Maternal nutrition may also affect the fertility of the calves born. In a 2007 Nebraska study, researchers showed that heifers born to supplemented cows had a pregnancy rate of 93 percent compared to 80 percent for heifers from unsupplemented cows.
In addition, 77 percent of these heifers calved in the first 21 days, whereas only 49 percent of the heifers from unsupplemented cows calved in the first 21 days. This could have long-term implications because, typically, heifers that calve early tend to calve early the rest of their lives, and calves born early should weigh more at weaning.
Given specific goals, resources and abilities, some producers may be able to capitalize on reduced feed costs and potential increases in efficiency when developing heifers to lighter weights. However, there can be risks to this approach, and due diligence should be given to the risk and reward of such situations, especially in times of record-high prices.
There is a wealth of data on the subject of bred-heifer nutrition. The data supports that for most producers the ideal BCS of a bred heifer at calving is 6. If a producer’s goal is to decrease calving difficulty, selecting bulls for calving ease and providing proper nutrition to heifers will yield much better results.
Deke Alkire and Bryan Nichols are livestock consultants with The Noble Foundation.
References omitted due to space but are available upon request. Click here to email an editor.

Farms can be held liable for pollution from manure

By Ayesha Rascoe, Reuters January 20, 2015 | 4:32 pm EST

A U.S. federal court has ruled for the first time that manure from livestock facilities can be regulated as solid waste, a decision hailed by environmentalists as opening the door to potential legal challenges against facilities across the country.

A large dairy in Washington state, Cow Palace Dairy, polluted ground water by over applying manure to soil, ruled Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Wednesday.
"The practices of this mega-dairy are no different than thousands of others across the country," said Jessica Culpepper, an attorney at Public Justice, one of the firms that represented the plaintiffs, a collection of public advocacy groups.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in March to decide the extent of the contamination and the clean-up.
This is the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, has been applied to animal waste from a farm.
Industrial livestock operations produce hundreds of millions of tons of manure annually.
The district court ruling, if upheld, could affect any large livestock facility that produces more manure than it can responsibly manage, including poultry, beef and hog farms, Culpepper said.
An attorney for Cow Palace said on Friday that it plans to ask for an appeal.
"There's a reason no court has ever done this. It's because the statute was not intended to apply to these situations," said Debora Kristensen, an attorney for Givens Pursley, a law firm that represented Cow Palace.
Kristensen said Cow Palace has already entered into a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which enforces the act, to address water contamination concerns.
Fertilizer is not considered waste under the act, but the district court found that Cow Palace was applying more manure to crops than needed. In one instance, the plaintiffs in the case said Cow Palace applied more than 7 million gallons (26 million liters) of manure to an already "sufficiently fertilized field."
The district court said Cow Palace's excessive application transformed the waste, which is "an otherwise beneficial and useful product," into a discarded material.
The court found that Cow Palace's management of its manure violated the "open dumping" provisions of law.
Unlike other federal contamination laws, the act requires violators not only to stop polluting, but to clean up any damage it has caused.
The case is Community Association For Restoration Of The Environment, Inc. et al v. Cow Palace, LLC et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 13-CV-3016

Additional Farm Bill Info

Some Definitions:

Basic ARC and PLC Program Information (Continued)
E   Basic Summary Comparison of PLC, ARC-CO, and ARC-IC
The following table provides a basic comparison of PLC, ARC-CO, and ARC-IC.

PLC                                  ARC-CO                                    ARC-IC

Uses national MYA price plus the PLC yield established on the farm. Payments determined by
individual crop of covered commodity base acres. Payments made on 85 percent of base acres by crop base acreage. Production report not required.
May elect PLC or ARC-CO on the same farm on a covered commodity by covered commodity basis.

Uses MYA price plus county yield.
Payments determined by individual crop of covered commodity base acres. Payments made on
85 percent of base acres by crop base acreage. Production report not needed.
May elect ARC-CO or PLC on the same farm on a covered commodity by covered commodity basis.

Uses MYA price plus the producer’s yield from the farm.
Payments determined by all crops planted of covered commodities combined on the farm.
Payments made on 65 percent of total base acres.
Must report annual production of covered commodities.
Planted acres used to attribute base acres.  ARC-IC election applies to entire farm and all 21
covered commodities.

F   Deadlines
The following table lists some important deadlines.

Date                                                                 Event
2-CP                                           Acreage reporting date.
July 15, 2014                             Final date to report 2013 production for 2013 ACRE farms.
September 29, 2014                   Base acre reallocation and CC yield update signup begins.
February 27, 2015                      Base acre reallocation and CC yield update signup ends.
November 17, 2014                   ARC and PLC reallocation period begins.
March 31, 2015                          ARC and PLC reallocation period ends.
mid April 2015                          ARC and PLC enrollment begins for 2014 and 2015. June 1,
2015                                          ARC and PLC enrollment ends for 2014 and 2015.

June 1 of each ARCPLC program year 2016 through 2018.

Farm Bill Update Info

Some important websites:

FSA Federal website: Lots of useful information.

·        http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA

Click under Popular Topics – Agricultural Risk Coverage / Price Loss Coverage

The Agricultural & Food Policy Center @ Texas A&M

·        https://www.afpc.tamu.edu/

Click under Current Topics – 2014 Farm Bill Programs and Insurance Decision Aid

o   This online tool is used to help you evaluate which program will best fit your program.

Click under Farm Policy Minute Link – List of Podcasts that explain Farm Bill

Blogs: (online newsletter) – Updated information from Luther and Patrick

·        http://currycountyagriculture.blogspot.com/

·        http://rooseveltcountyag.blogspot.com/

 

Some Definitions:

PLC – Price Loss Coverage

·        Price Protection Program

·        Payments issued when prices for covered commodities fall below the reference price

ARC-CO – Agricultural Risk Coverage – County Level

·        Revenue based program

·        Designed to cover a portion of “out of pocket” loss – (Shallow Loss)

·        Payments made when revenue falls below Benchmark Revenue Levels

·        Works from County Level historic revenue

ARC –IC - Agricultural Risk Coverage – Individual Level

·        Revenue loss coverage at the farm level for ALL acreage planted to all covered commodities, across all Farm’s enrolled in the State

·        ARC-IC is “Elected” for ALL covered commodities at the farm level

·        Requires commodity to be planted

·        Production reports are required