Replacements Are Best Bought
Now If Planning To Restock

By Colleen Schreiber

SAN ANGELO — Ranchers contemplating restocking in the coming months should consider doing so now.

That was part of the message delivered by Extension specialists and nutritionists at the recent West Texas Rancher's Conference here.

"Right now we're probably at the lowest place in the cycle for replacement heifers, either open or bred," Extension economist Dr. Ernie Davis told listeners.

Cargill animal nutritionist Dr. Bryan McMurry agreed. He also told listeners that he believes there's potential to put some cheap wheat pasture gains on inexpensive replacement heifers.

"Wheat pasture prices should be pretty good from a grazing perspective, because we have fewer calves and some may have a little more trouble this year finding calves to run on their wheat," he said.

"You can buy some four-weight heifers right now for about $250 a head. If you put 300 pounds of gain on her for, say, 35 cents, you won't be able to buy that same heifer ready to breed for that kind of money."

Uvalde-based Extension livestock specialist Dr. Rick Machen told listeners that there will likely be opportunities to sell breeding stock, particularly to producers in South Texas.

"Many producers east of San Antonio and south of Highway 90 got out of the cow business in the drouth of 1996 because they ran out of water. They grew some grass in 1997 and they have some surface water, so they're beginning to restock," Machen said.

"And when the heart of the calf country comes back after the floods, they’ll be looking for some heifers as well. So I believe the cow market, at least on a regional basis, will be good in the coming year if we have any kind of moisture at all."

Cow slaughter in Texas, Davis said, was 16 percent above a year ago while in the rest of the U.S. it was down six percent. During June through August, the toughest months, cow slaughter was 45 percent higher in Texas than it was the previous year.

"So just like in 1996, in 1998 Texas was impacted the most by the drouth. I, too, expect some pretty good demand starting in spring 1999 for replacement cows and heifers."

Davis' livestock market outlook held few surprises for producers. Beef production, he said, will go down in 1999 and fed prices and feeder prices are expected to be higher. He added, however, that prices will be capped somewhat because of competing meat supplies.

"Pork producers will produce 18.7 billion pounds of pork this year," Davis pointed out. "Next year they'll probably top 19 billion pounds. So when we talk to retailers about pushing up beef prices, they simply switch over."

Broiler production, he added, will come in with its usual four to six percent increase in production.

In terms of the export market, Davis said the strong U.S. dollar affects the export market in a negative way.

"Overproduction in the livestock and meat industries, along with a strong dollar, means that we can’t export that meat. It also means that we'll import more."

As for calf prices, Davis expects things to begin looking up. The calf crop is forecast to be around 38 million head, the smallest calf crop since 1952.

Feed grain supplies this year, he added, shouldn't affect calf prices like they did in 1996. Then, he noted, corn prices of well over $2 a bushel cost producers $20 to $25 a hundredweight off the price of their calves.

"You can figure for every $1 per bushel increase in corn prices you get about a $10 decrease in calf prices, and corn prices were well over $2 a bushel in 1995-96. We won’t have that impact this year or the next because we have large grain supplies."

Cheap grain prices, a lower calf crop and fewer heifers going to slaughter, Davis said, should improve feeder prices as well in the coming year.

"We've seen red ink on feeder cattle for the past 18 straight months," Davis said. "In September, losses averaged $94.25. Some lost less, some lost more. This past week when cattle were trading for $64-64.50 we finally began to see some breaking even."

"We thought at the beginning of 1998 that we would be some $5 to $6 higher than we were in 1997," he continued, "but that didn’t happen, primarily because of the overfinished cattle we were turning out. Weights were averaging about 29 pounds heavier than they were a year ago. So even though we'll see slaughter out of the feedlots three percent less than a year ago, meat production will actually be up one to two percent because of the heavier weights."

Davis also predicted that the tendency to overfinish cattle will likely continue this coming year because of the cheap feed grains and higher feeder cattle prices. He doesn't consider $70 fats likely this year or the next.

Finally, the economist predicted that it would be at least 2001 before the industry sees any real expansion in numbers.

Producers attending the seminar had an opportunity to test their skills in body condition scoring. Body condition scoring, Extension beef cattle specialist Dr. Steve Hammack noted, is a tool that has been around for years for determining the nutritional status of a set of cows.

The system ranges from one to nine with one being the thinnest. Each condition score amounts to about seven to eight percent of a cow's weight. Hammack told listeners the best time to do body condition scoring is right after calving.

Machen told listeners to adjust the system to their individual operation.

"You know how your genetics perform in your country," he said. "This particular cow in some people’s operation may be equivalent to a six and in another it might be a four. As you go into the hill country, with greater English influence, you might have to shift it up a little. As you go to South Texas to the brush country where you have greater Brahman influence, you could possibly shift down."

McMurry reminded listeners again to match their cows to their environment. Milking ability, for example, he said, can become a double-edged sword.

"The cows raising the biggest calves are usually the best milkers," he noted, "and the best milkers usually end up in the worst body condition. You can have too much milking ability for your environment and end up supplementing yourself into some red ink."

McMurry encouraged producers to identify a few cows in the herd that are the "hardest keeping cows" and use them as a benchmark.

"They’ll be the first ones to fall apart, so if you start supplementing them, you’ll be ahead of the game with the others," he explained.

McMurry discussed a strategic approach to supplemental feeding.

"There’s a lot of dollars made on supplemental feeding and lot of dollars wasted," he told listeners.

The first step in this strategic approach is to know your forage.

"This time of the year, we're dealing mostly with dormant forage. Depending on timeliness of rains, that dormancy may begin sometime in the summer," McMurry said. "Then, depending on the rains and the temperatures, we may get back into a growing spurt until a frost comes."

He illustrated the range in nutritional quality of typical native pasture that a rancher deals with throughout the year. On the lower end, much of the dormant native range averages around 2.7 percent crude protein and 45 percent total digestible nutrients, more simply referred to as energy. That same forage in its green and growing state might have CP levels up around 11 to 12 percent and energy at 55 percent.

"That's a pretty significant range," McMurry noted. "If you try to treat them the same, I promise you you’ve made a mistake. And if you try to split the difference and go to the average, you've made two mistakes.

"The better plan, he continued, "is to look at the individual forages that you have to deal with at that point in time and supplement them accordingly."

He encouraged producers to take forage samples a couple of times a year from several different pastures so they can get an idea of the range they're dealing within pastures and from pasture to pasture.

Another piece of the puzzle that ranchers must have to supplement properly is to know the nutritional requirements of their livestock and then match up forage with where their cattle are in the production cycle. For example, a dry cow would match up best on dry dormant forage, he explained, but a wet cow on that same forage would lose condition rapidly.

McMurry focused his attention on cows and the four periods in the reproductive cycle. Right after calving, a cow needs about 12.5 pounds of energy a day and 2.2 pounds of protein just for maintenance. During late lactation, nutritional requirements drop off a little. A dry cow, as might be expected, has the lowest nutritional requirements.

McMurry said the best time to put weight back on a cow and improve body condition is at weaning.

"That will be the most economical time, and you'll get the most bang for your buck in terms of supplementation during this period."

He also reminded listeners of the importance of supplying the right kinds of minerals in proper amounts.

"We tend to forget about the trace minerals, and lots of times they’re the ones really robbing us. They cause the cows to lose efficiency in energy metabolism and productivity."

Those who keep replacement heifers or run a stocker program are faced with similar kinds of decisions.

"My first-calf heifers are going on the best pasture I’ve got," McMurry remarked, "but I will know which pasture is best; I’m not just going to guess."

He also recommended running heifers separately from other classes of livestock and supplementing them accordingly.

Assuming a 500-pound steer consumes 12.5 pounds of forage a day, on green growing forage he'll get about pound and a half of protein a day and about 6.8 pounds of energy a day. To keeping him gaining about a pound and a half a day, his protein level is about right, McMurry said, but usually he'll be a little short of energy. If forage quality drops off, he recommended including a protein supplement as well.

"Here's another area where you'll get a lot of bang for your buck," McMurry remarked.

He used steers waiting to go on wheat pasture as an example.

"You might give up 30, even 40 pounds of gain if you just throw those steers out there on dormant forage," McMurry said. "You might think you'll gain it all back when the wheat comes, but you won’t. If you keep them gaining along by feeding them, say, about two pounds of a dense high protein with an ionophore you can at least keep him maintaining, maybe even gaining a half a pound a day. It may not look like you're making much, but you're keeping yourself from losing a lot."

In conclusion, McMurry reiterated several key points. First he reminded listeners that they must know the seasonal quality of their forages. The next step is to match forage quality with cattle class or the brood cow's stage of production.

Graze higher quality forages when that cow's requirements are the highest, he said, and recover lost body condition when cows are dry.

"This is the best time to make up ground. There’s about a 60-day period that we can really do all the good, and sometimes that’s where we drop the ball," McMurry said.

He also reminded listeners of the importance of incorporating a good mineral program.

"I cannot express that enough. I always have significant trace minerals that are short in the diet. I’m not talking about 30 to 40 percent salt minerals and 20 percent calcium. I don’t need calcium and I don’t need that much salt. What I need is phosphorus, copper, manganese, magnesium, selenium, zinc, etc."

McMurry cautioned that ranchers must understand the difference between a feeding program and a supplementation program.

"If you don’t have enough forage, then you have a feeding program, not a supplementation program. You need to differentiate between the two," McMurry stressed. "You supplement to maximize the utilization of the forage you have available."

He said high dense proteins like 38 percent protein cubes or 32 percent liquid feed do not work well if ample supplies of forages are not available.

"If you don’t have ample forage, you’re going to have to go to something that is more protein and higher energy and feed a higher level. Because, in fact, you are not supplementing a diet, you are replacing a diet that is not available."

Replacing the diet, he reminded, gets very expensive. For those in that situation, he recommended staying away from corn and milo-based products that are high in starch. He recommended grain byproducts instead, because they are lower in starch and have higher levels of digestible fibers.