A22-LancMter Fanning, Saturday, February 5, 2000
By-Product Feeds Could Help
Trim Dollars From Feeder Costs
ANDY ANDREWS
Lancaster Farming Staff
LANCASTER (Lancaster
Co.) Feeder cattle are becom
ing more expensive to fmish. So
producers have few alternatives
to rescue the bottom line
other than using alternative, by
product feeds to survive in a vol
atile grain market, according to
several industry experts here
Tuesday.
The feeder-to-fed price “may
be the widest in history,’’ said
Dr. Harold Harpster, Penn State
ruminant nutrition specialist.
“It will take all your manage
ment savvy ... to make a
profit. We’ll have to be pretty
creative in getting cost of gain
down.”
Harpster spoke at the Penn
State-sponsored Lancaster
Cattle Feeder’s Day.
An alternative to grains are
food by-products available from
food processors. They include
cookie meal, bread, potato chips,
pretzels, and other items.
Harpster spoke about one
Penn State study that analyzed
the feed efficiency of cookie
meal from Griffin Industries.
The cookie meal measures two
points higher in protein and has
triple the fat of conventional
corn.
The study examined the use
of 60 percent cookie meal, at $9O
per ton, on crossbred steer year
lings fed in a 112-day period.
The cookie meal was more effi
cient than corn over a cumula
tive period in terms of feed per
pound of gain. However, in the
last 20 days of the feeding cycle,
“feed efficiency took a dive,”
said Harpster.
In Pennsylvania, producers
feed cattle to higher degrees of
finish and higher weights, ac
cording to Harpster. Compared
to the Midwest, regional feeders
tend to place 100 pounds more
on the final weight at slaughter
and put the cattle on 20 days
longer than others in the U.S.
To remain competition, area
producers should look more at
the genetics of the cattle they are
buying. Producers may be “en
couraged, if not forced, to sell on
value in the future,” said Harp
ster. Already finishing opera-
Speakers at the Lancaster Cattle Feeders Day, from left, were Bryce
Schumann, assistant director, feeder-packer relations, with the Certified Angus
Beef Program; Jim Hogue, nutritional consultant, Agri-Basics, Inc.; J. Paul Slay
ton, executive director, Pennsylvania Beef Council; Carrie Bomgardner, promo
tions director, Pennsylvania Beef Council; and Harold Harpster, Penn State
ruminant nutrition specialist.
tions can be subject to
“tremendous discounts for
cattle not falling into correct
market category, having a lack
of quality or cutabiiity,” he said.
In the past, per animal, the
margin from feeder price to
finish was a positive amount per
head. These days the reverse is
true which puts increasing
demands on the skills of a
feedlot manager.
Feeders are doing better on
managing the cost of gain, a real
critical issue for the next couple
of years, noted the Penn State
specialist.
The key is to measure the ben
efits of putting more gain on,
with feed efficiency dropping,
when the animal begins to grade
beyond Low Choice. At ISO
pounds over Low Choice, pro
ducers need 12 percent more
feed per pound of gain. At 1,250
pounds, feeders need 20 percent
more feed per pound of gain. At
1,350 pounds, 30 percent more
feed per pound of gain is re
quired.
The way to success, noced
Harpster, is “buy low, feed
cheap, and sell high.” And
that’s tough to do in an era of
high calf prices, low slaughter
prices, high feed prices, and
high operating costs.
New technologies are coming
on all the time to help producers
market good stock. Harpster
noted that ultrasound measur
ing of calves, providing a picture
of the entire interior of the
animal, is not far from reality.
Pennsylvania feeds more
cattle than any state in the East,
having more than 150,000 fed
cattle on lots. There are two
major beef processors the area,
the Penn State nutrition special
ist noted, with cash cattle sales
in Pennsylvania alone at $360
million.
Jim Hogue, feedlot specialist
and nutritional consultant with
Agri-Basics, Inc., Manheim, re
viewed the strengths and weak
nesses facing feedlot owners and
operators.
Foremost, though, feedlot
managers “have to get out of the
paradigms that (say) you have
to own the cattle or you can’t get
any money out of them,” said
Hogue. Producers, however,
struggle with the realities of the
high price of feed, worries about
future prices, but “it’s better
than milking cows,” he said.
Hogue noted that the area is
an excellent source for quality
feeder cattle with premium
cattle markets and large packers
located near metropolitan areas.
The area has excellent crop
yields with some of the most
productive cropland in the U.S.,
has good facilities and stable,
predictable climate, and there
are many sources of less expen
sive, alternative feeds.
The downfalls: Pennsylvania
is a corn deficit state, using more
grain than it can produce, and
relying heavily on grain imports;
fewer packers, which could
mean a lack of good competi
tion; high overhead and low un
employment, which means
higher wages and operating ex
penses; tighter and costly envi
ronmental regulations; and the
ever-present risk.
The Certified Angus Beef
(CAB) program, a subsidiary of
the American Angus Associa
tion, has experienced rapid, dy
namic growth since it was
established 22 years ago, noted
Bryce Schumann, assistant di
rector, CAB Program feeder
packer relations, at the cattle
feeder’s day.
Schumann said in 1999 the
brand program marketed 493
million pounds of certified
Angus meat, and hopes to
eclipse half a billion pounds this
year.
The value-added beef produc
tion program, operated as a non
profit entity of the American
Angus Association, has several
goals. Through the licensing
program, feedlot operators can
not only get some superior field
genetics, but a database can
track what genetics work best
from field to plate.
The CAB Program owns no
cattle. They merely provide a li
censing and database effort,
which provides a logo and other
marketing tools, for a small cost,
to producers who sign up. Any
size producer can sign up for the
program, not just large feedlot
operators.
New director of certification programs for the Blue
print for Success from Penn State is Wendall Landis,
right. John Comerford, Penn State beef specialist, wel
comes Landis to the new position at the Cattle Feeder’s
Day.
The key: market hide color
that has a minimum of 51 per
cent solid black fed steers and
heifers.
The specifications: carcass
upper 2/3 choice, Modest 00 or
higher degree of marbling
(medium to fine marbling), and
an “A” grade in color, texture,
and firmness.
The licensing allows more ac
curate identification of quality
of the meat. Those who sign up
for the program must pass qual
ity assurance and other specifi
cations to meet the program
requirements.
Eighty percent of the packer
base is licensed to produce CAB.
In 1999, 1.9 million cattle were
CAB licensed. By 2004, the pro
gram hopes to have 4.73 million
cattle in the program,
Schumann noted.
In 1999, the program assistant
director noted that 44 percent,
or 9.5 million head, of cattle
were Angus or Angus-type
cattle. In 2000, 2.1 million head
will be CAB certified.
The program hopes to facili
tate the sharing of information
to make feedlots with CAB prof
itable. “If it’s not economical,
not many people are going to do
it,” Schumann said.
Cost for the license: SO cents
per head, which include tag
costs, carcass data, and access to
the CAB database. At 25 cents
per head, the cattle can still be
marketed CAB but no other
CAB programs are available.
The program seeks to further
refine what has already been an
accepted and successful “inte
grated information system” to
make feedlots more profitable,
according to Schumann.
The program can be fitted for
the small packer. Schumann
said there are a lot of opportuni
ties “for the small packer if they
work together with others to get
units in terms of sale.”
For 2000, the cattle market
production was predicted by the
USD A to decrease 4 percent in
terms of total number of pounds
of meat marketed. However, ac
cording to H. Louise Moore,
Penn State economist, the real
number will be down about two
percent.
Moore provided his cattle
forecast at the cattle feeder’s
day.
See related story
In 2000, 28 billion pounds of
cattle meat will be marketed. In
1999, the amount actually mar
keted, though it was projected to
decrease from 1998, was actu
ally up about 2.5 percent.
About 20 billion pounds of
hogs are expected to be mar
keted, down 4 percent; as for
broilers, they lead the meat
market, at 31.9 billion pounds
projected in 2000, up seven per
cent.
Total meat expected to be
marketed is 80.9 billion pounds,
before exports.
Moore noted that the U.S. has
just experienced its longest
growth ever in peacetime, a 10-
year period. Unemployment is
the lowest it can be, consumers
are confident in the future, and,
despite some recent fuel short
ages which will impact agricul
ture, in general the economy is
doing really well, he said.
Though many producers want
the government out of agricul
ture, 39 percent of the national
U.S. net farm income is from
government subsidies.
The real worries: a continuing
downturn in the Russian mar
kets, which are not doing as well
as expected, according to Moore.
The U.S. has stopped shipping
broiler parts to Russia simply
because Russia can’t afford to
pay.
Another worry is the over
valued stock market. Sooner or
later, there will be an “adjust
ment” to stock prices to bring us
closer to reality, noted the Penn
State economist.
Some financial advisers pre
dict that a recession, to adjust
for the overvalued market, has
to take place some time.
J. Paul Slayton, new executive
director of the Pennsylvania
Beef Council, spoke about the
work of the council as the
“clearinghouse for your
checkoff dollars.”
Carrie Bomgardner, promo
tions director for the council,
provided information on the
“meat case of the future,” which
includes special food prepara
tion labels and instructions for
the consumer. Also, a new bar
becue beef, from the freezer, pre
cooked for the consumer, was
presented at the cattle feeder’s
day.
page All,