l s fh^nj}/ i Sal^aj , , r,i JluKe
B^nnsylvania
Beef Council
CULLING DECISIONS
DETERMINE BEEF VALUE
AND DAIRY PROFITS
MIDDLETOWN (Dauphin
Co.) To cull is “to select, to
pick out; to gather,” according to
Webster’s Dictionary. To market
is to produce something “suit
able for selling.”
In the real world, dairy
culling decisions are not often
defined in this way because the
compelling forces have histori
cally been milk price, stall avail
ability, and the cost and avail
ability of replacement animals.
Thus, culling is mostly viewed
negatively as a cost, and the ani
mal removed as salvage with lit
tle value.
Nothing could be farther from
the truth. Much of the beef from
cull cows is processed into
ground beef, representing 43
percent of all beef consumed in
this country. But, there's more.
Today, about half of the beef
from dairy cull cows is processed
and merchandised as whole
muscle cuts for such food
favorites as fajitas, Philly
steaks, deli and fast-food roast
beef, even marinated steaks.
Quality Breeds Opportunity
The dairy industry is begin
ning to sense that these deci
sions are not just about making
milk anymore. The way dairies
approach their culling and
replacement decisions is rapidly
becoming a human health issue,
in both perception and reality.
Good dairy managers recognize
the same management and
Seventh Annual
Antique Farm
Machinery Show
\HCy
JULY 17-18,1999
Route 25, Gratz
(Gratz Fairgrounds, Gratz, PA)
Featured Tractor John Deere
Featured Engine John Deere
—Application for Flea Market & Crafts■
Price includes both days $1 per ft frontage,
depth may vary ($lO mm)
Name
Addre:
Phone:
Deposit:
Frontage:
Make Checks Payable To:
Gratz Area Antique Machinery Assoc. Inc.
Send To: Ray Ferster
1075 Specktown Rd
Regional Center for
Dairy Beef Quality Assurance
SERVING THROUGH EDUCATION, PROMOTION & RESEARCH
culling practices which assure
beef quality, also demonstrate
dairy profitability.
When milk prices fall, pro
ducers tend to take a tougher
look at their cow employees.
When milk prices are higher, a
compelling force is removed, and
the tendency is to put off the vol
untary culling decisions, send
ing mostly “forced” removals to
market. By then, they’ve lost
substantial value to the beef
industry, erased management
and profit opportunities for the
producer and posed a risk to
consumer confidence.
Safeguard Dairy Image
Researchers across the coun
try are seeking ways to help
dairy farmers recognize what
kind of cows they’re sending into
the food system and the sub
stantial economic benefits to be
gained from paying attention to
this essential area of herd man
agement.
Expansion competition for
limited replacements and the
flexibility of modem dairy sys
tems add to the prevalence of
“forced” culls on the market.
As physical constraints like
facility space become less com
pelling, the broader public and
environmental factors of keep
ing the marginal dairy cow
become more compelling. The
low-milk or disease-compro
mised cow loses carcass value
daily as she either becomes too
fat, too thin, or more lame.
The decision to keep or cull
that animal may well include
($lO Mm.)
ft. (No Food Stands)
MESSICK FARM EQUIPMENT, INC. HJ2E22
Rheems Exit - Rt. 283, Elizabethtown, PA m.K'rmtt uftiiae immmi 1 onn 000 0970
HOURS: 7:30 - 5:00 Mon.-Fri. Af TKH HOUWf PAWf 1-800-222-3373
7:30 -12 Noon - Sat. - CM,!. WMMHI # ■ Fax us your order 717-367-6662
© 1999 CASE CORPORATION iU
Visit us on the Internet at http://www.casecorp.com mmm
Case IH is a registered trademark of Case Corporation
Vfi’rfffrvvitviifvkitiii
specifically assessing her envi
ronmental cost to the land-limit
ed operation, or in general, the
public image her deteriorated
market condition conveys about
the dairy industry.
Recognize Profitable
Culling
Culling and replacement of
dairy animals accounts for 20 to
25 percent of the operating costs
of a dairy, second only to feed
costs. A comprehensive, timely
approach to culling which
results in more voluntary deci
sions and fewer “forced”
removals, has been shown to
increase net returns per cow for
the entire dairy herd.
“There is more awareness of
this aspect of dairy management
as profit margins decline and
dairy economics tighten,” said
Dr. David Gallagan, associate
professor of animal health eco
nomics at the University of
Pennsylvania’s New Bolton
Center. Along with researchers
at Cornell University and the
University of Florida, Gallagan
is studying the dimensions of
culling, and testing model
approaches developed in
Holland to define the cow that
should be removed, and when.
“Culling is a complex deci
sion, and we often do not recog
nize profitable culling. The gray
zone cow in a milking herd can
be as costly as any subclinical
disease,” Gallagan said. “Every
day, a cow faces that decision,
and every day, the producer
intentionally or non-intentional
ly makes that decision. We want
to step back and look at this as a
new disease the failure to
make the right decision to main
tain the right combination of
cows in production.”
When milk price, facilities,
and replacements are the only
compelling forces driving volun
tary culling decisions, the deci
sions aren’t made at the best
time and beef values as well as
dairy profits suffer. Researchers
suggest this is largely Decause
“we look at her production as
milk only, not beef.”
This mindset creates other
economic and consumer confi
dence losses from the valu
able meat that is thrown away
due to damages from improper
injection sites, bruising and
inflammation, to the human
health and safety concerns from
extra label use of some medica
tions not approved for meat ani
mals. Dairy animals eventually
do become meat animals.
Pursue the Economic
Opportunities
Quality defects have a perva
sive negative effect on the price
that beef processors can afford
to pay for cows. According to the
1994 Non-Fed Beef Quality
Audit conducted by the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association,
producers lose about $7O on
every herd cull they sell because
the packer’s purchasing power is
diminished by the amount of
wasted meat, condemned car
casses and poor carcass quality
they lose money on every single
day.
Approximately three percent
of all cows are condemned by the
USDA at the packing plant.
Among emaciated and disabled
cows, 40 percent are condemned.
These losses can be prevented
by culling animals with health
conditions as soon as possible.
Make the Tough
Decisions Early
It’s difficult to remove the
emotional aspects which under
lay these culling decisions; how
ever, producers and their veteri
narians need to consider the
dairy cow’s final destination
when making choices about her
treatment.
“Marketing those cows before
that certain loss of body weight
is important, but it means you’re
making the decision before
you’ve given up hope on her.
That’s emotionally hard,” said
Glenn Pugh, whose 50-cow dairy
is located in Pennsylvania’s
Cumberland Valley. For him, the
biggest challenge was learning
to separate the emotions from
the dollars and cents.
“If I have a cow that shows a
good chance of not being able to
return to sound health, I’ll sell
her instead of medicating her.
With 50 cows, if I have two prob
lem cows, and I sell them, it
gives me more time to focus my
energies on the herd as a whole,”
Pugh explained, adding that he
has seen his herd respond to a
more voluntary and timely
culling approach.
He credits his grade and yield
sales to the packer for giving
him a real understanding of
what he’s selling. “These things
were probably evident before,
but I wasn’t paying attention.
The education here has brought
it into focus and forced me to pay
attention.”
Pay Attention To Condition
Selling the marginal cow
before she becomes too thin ben
efits the dairy producer, the beef
packer and the consumer. Cows
in the 2.5 to 3.0 body condition
score (BCS) range are most prof
itable in terms of carcass yield
and percentage of fat. Plus, as
cows become thinner and drop
below 2.5, they become weaker,
and are more likely to become
downer cows during transit.
Herd studies indicate that a
high percentage of cows are
marketed in early lactation,
many of them disease-compro
mised “forced” removals.
According to the Non-Fed Beef
Quality Audit, nearly five per
cent of all cull cows were in seri
ous negative energy balance and
had insufficient condition scores
of 1. These extremes can be pre
vented.
Just as sound nutritional
management practices improve
the overall health and perfor
mance of the milking animal,
they also improve her value as a
beef animal. The tough, but crit
ical part, is making the volun
tary decision before body condi
tion deteriorates.
Double the Benefits,
Not the Losses
From the beef value side
timely culling practices increase
producer revenues in two ways
by weight (pounds) and by
value (per pound). Better body 1
condition puts that animal into
a more highly valued beef pro
cessing class. The double benefit
can pencil out to a difference of
$144 in retained value between
the timely decision and the
“forced” removal 30 days later,
according to Cornell University
researcher Dr. Donald Line.
Think of it this way. That
$144 difference in beef value
based on. condition alone is
equivalent to 1,100 pounds of
$l3 milk. Now include the cost
to keep her milking, and she
would have to make 60 pounds a
day to offset the beef value loss.
(Turn to Pago A 33)