Weaning Calves Involves More
Than Just Proper Vaccination

By Colleen Schreiber

SAN SABA — Proper vaccination and nutrition, risk management and a sharp pencil are all necessary tools for the success of a preconditioning program.

That was the message delivered by a variety of speakers at a recent county-wide cattle conference here. Because of increased publicity in recent months on the use of special sales for marketing preconditioned calves, the focus of the seminar was on stocker cattle.

Cattle producers heard about the importance of proper vaccination techniques, including proper handling and use of such prescribed vaccines and how such protocols impact the overall bottom line in preconditioning programs. The importance of nutrition was also highlighted.

Steve Sappington, nutritionist with Livengood Feeds Inc., stressed the overall importance of incorporating good nutrition in a preconditioning program.

"Without proper nutrition, preconditioning will not work. That is an absolute statement," Sappington told listeners.

Proper nutrition, he noted, does not mean a full feed program.

"Everything you feed that animal doesn't have to come from a feed company or grain company. I’m talking about a completely balanced program that involves pasture, hay, feed, supplement, minerals, whatever best fits your operation."

Prior to weaning, he said, producers should first evaluate their intentions, where are they going with their calves, for example. Being able to estimate average weaning weight is critical, he added.

"Cattle less than 450 pounds are going to require higher quality nutrition. Those over that require less quality but more quantity," he explained.

That means producers must also recognize the quantity and quality of available forage under pasture situations. Knowing what's available in the pasture in terms of nutrients is critical so the proper balance of crude protein, energy, fiber, trace minerals, etc. can be achieved. Also, he noted, properly feeding roughage, if required, is important.

"Just a round bale won’t provide the proper nutrition for that animal."

He encouraged listeners to evaluate their facilities and/or method of feeding which will best provide proper and adequate nutrition for their program.

"Should I use pellets versus cubes or textured feeds? Will I use self-feeders versus hand-fed feeds or self-limiting feeds?"

Economics of such a program should be figured, the nutritionist said.

"Run your costs. Feed and labor are definite costs. Other possible costs include pasture costs and hay cost."

Price per ton of feed should not be used to evaluate a nutrition program. Performance, instead, is key, and judging performance by some type of standard measurement is critical. Such a measurement, be it weighing or body condition score, he said, should be applied at the beginning and at completion of a predetermined time period. Sappington encouraged producers to evaluate progress throughout the preconditioning period and make adjustments when necessary.

"Determine reasonable and achievable performance given the evaluation and economics," Sappington said.

"Average daily gain and cost of gain are measurement tools for evaluation of your own program and not for comparison to the last pen of steers you fed," he said. "Don’t expect calves to gain three pounds per head per day. And, it may take 10 to 14 days for your calf to regain its weaning weight."

Finally, the nutritionist said producers must customize their preconditioning program to fit their own individual operations.

"Markets change, the environment changes, availability of resources change, and one should evaluate these changes each and every time.

"Preconditioning can pay," Sappington concluded, "if you evaluate your program and put a pencil to your costs."

Justin Gifford, assistant manager at Champion Feeders at Hereford, followed up by reiterating some of Sappington's remarks.

"A sick calf won't eat and a calf that won’t eat gets sick," Gifford told listeners.

The 32,000-head yard, once privately held in partnership, was bought out several years ago by California-based Tejon Ranch Corporation. The feedyard is a member of an alliance between ranchers, feedyards, a packer and several end-user types, both retail and food service. That alliance, Gifford told listeners, has provided the feedyard with a great deal of opportunity in terms of growth, and in their ability to keep the yard full when other independent yards have struggled.

Gifford gave a feedlot's point of view of the importance of "managed" calves. He defined "managed" calves as those that are weaned and preconditioned for at least 45 days. He gave price comparisons at the feedyard level for "managed" calves versus "high-risk" calves, which he defined as weaner calves straight off their mothers.

Weaner calves, Gifford told listeners, are considered high-risk, because they are highly stressed. They have little immunity; they lose their paternal immunity after about three months of age and they're not yet developed enough to have gained any immunity of their own, he explained. That and the fact that these calves are often uneven causes feedlot buyers to significantly dock them at the time of purchase.

Sale barn calves, Gifford said, are similar to weaner calves bought direct off ranches, in that they too are highly stressed.

"They’ve been yanked off their mamas, co-mingled, exposed to disease, and once again they have very little immunity. So even though the market might say they’re worth, say, $88, they’re worth much less to me. I don’t want these animals," Gifford reiterated.

Preconditioning at the ranch, the speaker said, costs in the neighborhood of $12 to $25 per head. The $12, he added, is definitely on the low end and would likely not include such expenses as labor and the cost of grazing.

"If I were to buy these calves straight off the cow and send them to a grow yard, it’s going to cost me $40 to $60 a head," Gifford said.

He presented a breakeven example for weaner calves versus preconditioned calves. Projections were based on 550-pound steers with an out weight of 1150 pounds. The cost of railers and non-doers was not figured in, but a 2.5 percent death loss and a $25 per head medicine bill were included.

"Weaner calves will be on feed 230 days rather than 208 days and will convert about six-tenths higher and will gain three to four-tenths less than preconditioned cattle, even though they're on feed longer," Gifford told listeners.

"More importantly, they will have a cost of gain with interest of $55.90 versus $46.82 for preconditioned calves.

"The net effect of that is a $40 per head higher cost of gain or $40 higher breakeven," he continued, "and that doesn't even include the poor doers which would make the cost even higher."

The manager presented another example of why feedyards don't want bawling calves by focusing specifically on labor cost.

"Say 30 percent of all cattle on feed are not preconditioned. Labor is 40 percent of our total cost, and cowboy labor makes up 24 percent of that total. Purchasing only three loads of weaner calves a month increases our cowboy labor by 30 percent," Gifford remarked. "That increases our total cost of production by almost three percent or $70,000 a year. Add on performance costs at $40 a head and that makes those three loads per month cost us right at $214,000. That is a cost I don’t want."

Finally, Gifford presented a breakeven cost on a set of calves that he currently has in a grow yard.

The calves weren't weaned and the only vaccination given was blackleg while they were still on their mothers. They came to the grow yard weighing 550 pounds at a cost of $83 delivered.

"These cattle will gain, maybe, a pound and a half in 45 days," he said. "Consumption will only be, on average, eight pounds per head per day; death loss is figured at 1.5 percent."

Based on those figures he calculated a breakeven of $65.99.

"That's all it is, a breakeven. It's a gamble, one I would rather not take."

In summary, Gifford stressed that preconditioned cattle are the best option for feedlots.

"Feedlots don't want weaner calves unless they’re dirt cheap. They cost too much, not only actual cost in the animal but the production cost, i.e. labor.

"We operate on margins," he reminded listeners. "Those margins are getting tougher and tougher. I’ve got to trim out all the costs I can. When you operate on margins with uncertainty like that you might hit a home run one in 10 times, but chances are it won’t happen. I prefer to operate on a consistent, smooth market."

Those attending the seminar also heard from Travis Booher, Extension risk management specialist based in San Angelo. Booher spoke from past experience as a buyer for a corporate cattle feeder. He repeated many of the points mentioned by Gifford.

More than anything, Booher said, cattle buyers are looking for value.

"They want a greater benefit than the cost of the cattle they’re procuring."

The benefits, he added, are subjective with respect to sex, kind, quality and condition.

"There’s a point at which every group of cattle has a price, a value to someone. Someone will buy them at a price. It may be a very low price, but someone will buy them because in their mind they think they can generate revenue above their costs and get a benefit."

Like Gifford, Booher stressed that cattle buyers focus a great deal on cattle history.

"They want to know what shots they've had. They want to know about forage consumption. Have they been turned out? Or have they been in a grow yard?"

Buyers are also interested in the specifics of a weaning program, Booher told participants. If weaned, for how long, for example.

"Calves that have been on a truck for 24 hours don't qualify as weaned. That is not a weaning program," he stressed. "A lot of people trade cattle like that, but when they say weaned, I recommend that you clarify what they mean by weaned."

Buyers, he said, will also pay up for uniform truckload lots. After that, a fair weighup is all a buyer asks for, Booher added.

Past performance such as feedyard performance or grow yard performance and carcass performance, can also be helpful information to a buyer. That kind of information, however, also gives producers the advantage, Booher pointed out.

"The toughest trades for a cattle buyer on ranch direct trades are when the rancher has information on his cattle, when he has a DTN machine in his office and he knows what the market is."

Finally, a buyer is interested in repeatability of a trade.

"If I pay up and buy your cattle this year, am I going to be able to come back and buy them next year? If you have a proven, reputable program, if the cattle perform, I guarantee that buyer will be back next year trying to buy your cattle."

He touched on the growing popularity of special sales offering preconditioned cattle.

"These sales give a buyer the opportunity to stay away from cattle that he does not want. Buyers who were traditionally not at the regular sales week in and week out come to these special sales," he insisted, "and consequently the market tends to be higher."

Producers also heard about risk management tools available for marketing cattle.

San Angelo-based Extension economist Dr. Jason Johnson gave an example of how producers can use the new stocker cattle contract to minimize their risk.

Stocker operators, Johnson noted, face risk on both ends. They risk that the price of stocker cattle they're going to buy is going to go up and the price of feeder cattle they're going to sell is going down. The stocker contract, he told listeners, can protect against that risk.

"A dollar per hundredweight increase in the price of stockers coupled with a dollar per hundredweight decrease in the price of those same cattle sold as feeders reduces revenue by 11 percent and profits from that grazing operation by 20 percent. That’s a pretty significant price risk," Johnson said.

Explained another way, the economist developed an example using the CME's November stocker contract price, trading at the time at $88 cwt. and March or April's contract price, trading at $79.40.

"But what happens if I lock in a stocker purchase price at $88 cwt. and a feeder selling price at $79.40 cwt.?"

"If I do, I am ensured of locking in gross revenues of roughly $74 per head, if I get a pound of gain per day, and $104 per head if I get a pound and a half of gain per day, subject only to basis risk. Therefore, I eliminate market risk altogether and I can manage my costs with those revenues in mind."

The economist discussed the contract specifications and went over some of the basics of hedging. He reminded producers that the Extension Service has a risk management curriculum guide available and encouraged those interested in learning more to contact their county Extension office.