It often costs the seller and/or the buyer a lot of money. Fortunately, better weaning methods are available compared to the abrupt removal of calves from their mothers. These better weaning alternatives are effective in reducing weaning stress in sold calves as well as putting more money in everybody’s pocketbook.

It’s no secret that the immunity/health status of truck-weaned calves is compromised compared to calves put through good weaning programs weeks ahead of the actual weaning. Reliable field data reports that many stressed-out calves never fully recover from truck weaning and suffer from significant rates of pneumonia and dysentery within weeks of being put in a feedlot. High mortality rates are also recorded.

Truck-weaned calves suffer more shrinkage than pre-conditioned calves once they reach the feedlot. In today’s market, where prices seem to hit new highs each week, a 650-pound truck-weaned calf that loses an extra six per cent — about 39 lb. — at $550 per cwt is worth about $200 less than a properly weaned pen mate.

Much of this stress in truck-weaned calves is due to breaking the instinctive maternal bond between cow and calf. The University of Saskatchewan demonstrated that when cow-calf pairs in a herd were split in half and each group of cows was given the other group’s calves following weaning, both cows and calves kept searching for their own partner. Before separation, many of these calves were spending little time nursing on their dams (at six months of age, calves receive less than 15 per cent of their nutrient requirements from their dam’s milk). But after separation, it was proved that the cow still provides comfort to her calf.

Slowly breaking this maternal bond between mother and calf during weaning can be employed in the following ways, which not only reduces stress but also gets calves familiar with a new diet and a foreign environment:

• Complete separation: Put cow-calf pairs in the same feedlot pen for a few days to a week. Once the calves get used to the feed bunks and waterers, move the cows out.
• Fence-line weaning: Separate cows and calves by a fence, which prevents them from touching one another but allows visual contact to reduce stress on both sides of the fence.
• Two-step weaning: A method developed by the University of Saskatchewan that outfits each nursing calf with a nose “anti-nursing” device for about seven to 10 days before calves and cows are separated.
• Early weaning: This is a method that can employ each one of the above methods in one way or another, where calves are weaned at four to five months of age (and as early as six weeks of age).

A friend of mine who runs about 400 cow-calf pairs takes a different approach when it comes to weaning his calves in late fall. He believes the key to good weaning is to fill up the calves’ bellies a few weeks before they are actually separated from the cows.

At this time, the carrying capacity of his pastures is low, and there might even be a little snow on the ground. So he makes up a brood-cow TMR, which contains a lot of barley silage, some grassy hay, no grain and a well-balanced trace mineral-vitamin pack.

Then, he dumps this load right on pasture in front of the cow-calf pairs. It takes only a couple weeks of doing this and then these filled-up calves are removed from pasture and put into my friend’s home feedlot to be backgrounded until late February. One or two calves may bawl for a day, but most of them have already nicely adjusted once the feedlot pen gates are closed.

My friend has gone through many successful weaning seasons. It is a great testimony of reducing autumn calf stress, not only when they are taken away from their mothers and weaned but it also helps them get onto new feeding programs in a usually strange new environment. Such challenges may never be eliminated, but using this or similar common-sense approaches goes a long way. And today’s saleable weaned calves, bid at more than $500 to $700 per cwt, are just too valuable to be truck-weaned.

The post Good weaning programs for valuable calves are worth it appeared first on Grainews.

There are three main challenges. First, the recent market behaviour has been unprecedented. There are no past examples to compare the current environment. For example, the United States weekly slaughter decreased from April through June. This was the first time in modern history that this occurred.

U.S. dressed weights are about 20 pounds higher than last year and 40 pounds heavier than the same period of 2023.

Secondly, economic theory has not held water. Retail beef prices are at historical highs. Higher prices usually result in less demand. In my recent discussions with an analyst from south of the border, he stated that there is a strong argument that consumer demand has actually increased.

Finally, cattle producers and analysts have been basing decisions on U.S. government policy. The problem is that U.S. government policy has been changing.

During the first week of July, Alberta packers were buying fed cattle in the range of $295-298 per hundredweight FOB feedlot in southern Alberta. Prices are steady to $3 per cwt. compared to 30 days earlier. In Kansas, fed cattle prices were quoted at US$224-225 per cwt., down US$7-8 per cwt. from the first week of June. U.S. wholesale choice beef was valued at US$395 per cwt., relatively unchanged from a month earlier. The rally in the fed cattle market and wholesale beef complex appears to be stalling.

Cattle on feed 150 days or more are above year-ago levels on both sides of the border. In the U.S., cattle on feed 150 days or more as of June 1 were 3.013 million head, up 253,000 head from 2024. U.S. cattle on feed 180 days or more as of June 1 were 1.430 million head, up 308,000 head or 27 per cent from last year. For the week ending June 28, U.S. dressed weights were averaging 865 lb., up 24 lb. from last year. Despite the larger fed cattle supplies and heavier weights, the U.S. weekly slaughter for the week ending June 28 was 560,000 head, down 50,000 head compared to the same week of 2024.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, cattle on feed 150 days or more as of June 1 were 359,177 head, up 2.9 per cent or 9,957 head from the June 1, 2024, number of 349,220. Dressed weights in Western Canada are similar to year-ago levels.

Feedlots appear to be current with production.

Beef demand appears to be significantly stronger than earlier anticipated. U.S. restaurant traffic during June was running eight to 12 per cent above year-ago levels. Canadian restaurant visits during June were up a whopping 20 to 24 per cent compared to June 2024. Restaurant spending in both Canada and the U.S. has been up five to seven per cent from year-ago levels. Consumer spending at grocery stores has been running three to four per cent above 2024.

In the U.S., there appears to be a change of tastes. There is a fad or trend to increase protein intake to trim the waistline. For example, in the U.S., Subway restaurants had an advertisement: “Come to Subway for your protein.” The “carnivore diet” is also taking hold amongst certain demographics.

Average U.S. ground beef prices are up 16 per cent from year-ago levels. Prices for boneless sirloin steaks are up five to six per cent compared to June 2024. Beef is often used as a loss leader for grocery chains. The beef counter is at the back of the store, similar to milk and eggs, and customers often have to wait for service. The longer a customer is in a grocery store, the more they spend. When I checked random flyers in the U.S. Midwest, there were significant discounts for steaks over special holidays such as Father’s Day. One flyer had steaks 30 to 50 per cent off regular price. The North American consumer may not be experiencing the full effect of the year-over-year increase in beef prices.

Feeder cattle prices have mirrored the fed market. Western Canadian auction markets generally take summer holidays during June and July. Cow-calf producers have sold a record number of calves and yearlings for fall delivery. At the time of writing, 1,000-lb. steers for September and October delivery were trading in the range of $395-400 per cwt. in central Alberta and Saskatchewan. Quality genetic steer calves averaging 650 lb. for October and November delivery have been quoted at $550 per cwt. FOB farm in Alberta. Angus-cross steers with a base weight of 550 lb. were valued at $585 per cwt FOB farm for early November delivery in southern Alberta.

A steer purchased for 1,000 lb. in August has a break-even fed cattle price for November or December delivery $332 per cwt. The break even for feed costs only is around $320 per cwt. The December live cattle futures were trading at US$208 per cwt., which equates to a Alberta live price of $282 per cwt. Replacement cattle purchased for August and September delivery are too high priced for the feedlot to be profitable. For this reason, I’ve been advising cow-calf producers to sell at least 50 per cent of their expected marketings for fall delivery.

The industry is expecting Canadian and U.S. cow-calf producers to retain heifers this summer and fall for herd expansion. The extent of heifer retention is a wild card. Some analysts in the U.S. don’t believe it will be as significant as earlier anticipated. In Canada, our straw-poll survey suggests that 30,000 to 40,000 heifers will be held back for herd building in the latter half of 2025.

Analyzing the cattle market and price forecasting have been very difficult this year. While hindsight is easy, we can all appreciate the task at hand.

The post Cattle rally stalls at historic highs appeared first on Grainews.

Tessa Thomas, a livestock and feed extension specialist with the Government of Saskatchewan, spoke about biosecurity at the Livestock Happy Hour at AIM on Tuesday, July 16. She said while biosecurity in the beef industry is not as thorough as in other livestock industries, it is just as important.

“Disease spread may not be on top of mind,” she said.

Follow all of our Ag in Motion coverage at the Western Producer.

“You get kind of used to your day-to-day routine, but you never know when disease can strike, and just some of our day-to-day actions can be improved to prevent that spread.”

When certain diseases spread, they can impact the state of Canada’s imports and exports, which means it is important to know what is going on when it comes to disease on an operation.

Thomas recommends having a biosecurity checklist. Many small things can be done, such as:

• Disinfect your boots and trailer.
• Keep animal movement and health records.
• Work with a vet.
• Have a herd health management program.
• Avoid bringing in dairy calves or calves from other farms.
• Isolate new animals.
• Isolate animals showing signs of illness.
• Avoid shared fence lines with other ranches (if possible).
• Have a disease response plan and a plan for disposing of dead livestock.
• Clean drinking facilities and feeders/bunks.
• Have a written biosecurity plan in place.

“There are a lot of small steps that we can take to make our farms just a little bit more biosecure,” Thomas said.

When disinfecting your boots and trailer, using household bleach is good enough, unless the disease is parasitic. She advised using a 1:32 ratio of water to bleach, but if you are concerned about disease, use a 1:10 ratio.

She also highlighted investigating deaths to figure out exactly what may be going on.

“Investigating deaths is something I know some people struggle with. I know there’s no way to save that animal, so sometimes it’s hard to put extra money out when they’re already dead, but it’s key to understand why that animal died, and it could save you a lot of money in the end,” Thomas said.

Though the checklist may seem like it consists of a lot of things, Thomas said the biggest thing with a biosecurity plan is that it doesn’t have to be complicated.

“You don’t have to go out of your way to make a really complicated thing. It’s easier to make something simple that you can follow and follow through with because small changes become habits. With big changes, sometimes it’s hard to follow through with things, so it’s always better to start small.”

The post Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations appeared first on Grainews.

In central Alberta, Simmental based steers weighing 900 pounds on barley and silage diet with full processing data were valued at $405/cwt fob farm. In east central Alberta, black wide frame Limousin based steers averaging 825 pounds supposedly sold for $460/cwt.

The Killarney market report in Manitoba had red heifers weighing just under 900 pounds selling for $391/cwt. At the Ste Rose sale, a smaller package of red heifers with a mean weight of 795 pounds were marked at $425/cwt.

The Ponoka market report had a handful of red mixed steers evaluated at 709 pounds on hay and silage diet with full preconditioning data moving through the ring at $500/cwt. At the same sale, tan heifers scaled at 700 pounds on a diet of silage and pellets with full processing data dropped the gavel at $486/cwt.

At the Westlock sale, a smaller package of Angus Simmental cross 650 pound heifers on hay and barley diet with full processing records sold for $467/cwt. At the Ste Rose sale, the market report had black heifers averaging 616 pounds trading for $512/cwt.  In the Calgary region, a smaller package of Charolais weaned steers weighing just over 600 pounds were quoted at $573/cwt.

The Ste Rose Auction market report had Charolais steers averaging 555 pounds moving through the ring at $610/cwt. A buyer in central Alberta reported that Angus cross weaned heifers on the card at 560 pounds sold for $530.

The USDA estimated U.S. fourth quarter beef production at 6.650 billion pounds, down from the 2024 final quarter output of 6.882 billion pounds. If the U.S. border stays closed to Mexican feeders for an extended period, U.S. fourth quarter beef production forecasts would likely drop to 6.400 billion pounds. This would drive the December live cattle futures higher and support the yearling market during July and August.

The post Klassen: Feeding margin uncertainty weighs on feeder cattle market appeared first on Grainews.

However, as with any farming practice, the results can vary based on location, weather and management strategies.

The practice of using polycrops — also known as cover crops, forage mixtures or cocktail crops — is intended to increase the diversity of plant species in a pasture. Increased plant diversity can enhance soil health, increase water infiltration, reduce fertilizer needs and provide higher quality forages for cattle.

One of the objectives of the Living Lab Central Prairies has been growing polycrops on producer operations and evaluating both the long- and short-term impacts.

The Living Labs program allows producers such as Erika Stewart, John Griffin and Carmen Jackson to use polycrops on their operations, and they have encountered both successes and challenges with the practice. Their experiences, combined with insights from agricultural research, highlight the complexity of adopting polycrops and offer valuable lessons for others considering this practice.

Choosing the right crop to meet your goals

Carmen Jackson, who operates a farm southeast of Regina, takes a measured approach to polycrops. “You can’t just jump in without understanding the risks,” she advises. Carmen and her family manage 3,500 acres, including 900 acres of rented land, most of which is native grass, with a small portion (about 400 acres) seeded to forages for winter feeding.

When it comes to polycrops, Carmen emphasizes the importance of making small, deliberate steps when implementing new practices. “Even if things don’t go perfectly, you have to keep moving forward,” she says.

Carmen and her family have been using polycrops for the last five years. They started after attending a workshop in Manitoba and have been experimenting with them since. “The most important thing I have learned, and that we did wrong the first year, is you need to understand the context that you are using polycrops for,” she says. She has seeded polycrops in multiple locations on her farm but points out that there are different goals, and each goal requires different grazing strategies.

For example, on one pasture the goal was to increase pasture biomass. Carmen notes it was a saline, low-yielding piece of ground they were trying to improve. For that pasture they seeded a polycrop blend and then did some late fall grazing, turning a group of cows out to allow them to both trample and graze the forage. The residual forage left behind was targeting added organic matter with the long-term goal of improving soil conditions.

In another pasture, the goal was a high-quality feed on which to background their bulls. This piece was cross-fenced, and bulls were moved through paddocks in late summer. This year Carmen hopes to be able to graze in both summer and regrowth in the fall.

Carmen works with a professional agrologist to build forage blends that meet the needs of operation, and chooses different blends based on the goals for the pasture and if they intend to graze or make silage.

“It’s probably more advantageous to come up with something that you think will work on the soil you have.”

Carmen notes she is more comfortable using a premade blend on good land, but on land that requires soil improvements, she finds value in choosing crops tailored to their specific goals.

When choosing forage blends for silage Carmen points out,“first and foremost, we have to feed our cows, so tonnage is my No. 1 priority. I try to add in something to help with soil health, but it can’t take too much away from the total volume – it’s a bit of a dance, and you just need to adjust as you go.”

Economics, and knowing how her land performs, also play a role in what Carmen chooses for a forage blend. In some of the poorer soil areas, yield is limited, and she needs to be conscious of what she spends on a mixture to make economic sense. With this mindset she points out that even in the saline or other problem areas they may be able to spend a bit more on polycrops than a monoculture, as they don’t use any fertilizer and there may be long-term benefits.

Carmen acknowledges polycrops may not always deliver immediate or dramatic results. However, oil health benefits accumulate over time. “Sometimes, you just have to adjust it as you go,” she notes, indicating experimentation is part of the learning process.

Adaptation and pivoting

Erika Stewart and her family farm near Morse, Sask., about 60 km east of Swift Current, and have recently started integrating polycrops as co-operators in the Living Lab Central Prairies. Their farm consists of primarily native grass with some cultivated land they use to put up winter feed for cattle.

She notes the challenges that come with unpredictable weather, especially when drought conditions persist. “If moisture doesn’t come, it’s really hard to make cover crops work,” Erika says, noting the trial-and-error nature of polycrops management.

Erika is still working out how polycrops fit into the operation. In 2021, they experimented by growing small amounts of two different blends marketed by separate companies. In late May they seeded a combined 230 acres side by side and found that both did well despite drought conditions.

With that success, the next year they seeded 240 acres to a polycrop blend for silage. Once again it performed well. “We had gotten two-and-a-half, maybe three, inches of rain and had enough silage to make it through, so we were thrilled,” Erika says.

Unfortunately, they were not as successful the following year, despite similar rainfall. “We had planned to swath graze it that year, but it wasn’t even worth driving the swather over. Instead, we fenced it into four paddocks, and I think we got about a week’s worth of grazing off it.”

Despite trying a drought-tolerant blend last year, they had similar results, as well as issues with weeds. “Weeds weren’t an issue when things were growing, but now, after two years of crop failure, it is a big problem,” she says.

For Erika, nitrates have also been an issue. “The brassicas that we used to improve soil health were great, but due to drought, when we did our feed test, the nitrates came back super high.” They were still able to salvage the feed by allowing the pasture to rest, then grazing in a small paddock with gates open to a perennial pasture with water.

“That way the cows could go in and graze, but they didn’t stay in there since there was no water, and it forced them to come out and eat something else as well.”

Even with the issues in the past couple of years, Erika thinks polycrops could still play a role in their operation. “We added some winter triticale to last year’s blend, so hopefully we will see that pop up for some early spring grazing to allow us to rest our perennials longer.”

She also wants to try grazing the polycrops earlier in the season and using them as a high-quality forage during the breeding season.

Erika remains committed to experimenting with polycrops, adding that understanding the local conditions and being flexible with the approach is key. “You have to tweak things as you go,” she reflects, acknowledging the learning curve associated with integrating new practices into an operation. “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s all part of the journey.”

Context and flexibility

John Griffin and his family have both irrigated and dryland near Central Butte and Bridgeford, Sask., northwest of Moose Jaw. Over the years they have transitioned from a purebred herd calving in winter to a commercial herd that calves in May. With the adjustment of their calving season, they have come to rely on swath grazing for winter feed. John has been experimenting with how to add polycrops into their system and has had both success and learning experiences.

Drought and grasshoppers resulted in complete crop failure the first year they tried polycrops, but being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies gave John the opportunity to try seeding them again.

John has been experimenting with both a commercially available complex mixture as well as a simple mixture with peas and a cereal. He uses a hoe drill with a two-sided gravity wagon to seed both mixtures.

“The two sides work great,” John says. “I put the peas in one side and the oats or barley in the other side, then just hand dribble in the complex mix on top of the barley for those fields.” He points out that the box drill is nice, as the seed cups can open to allow bigger seeds like the peas to get through.

Last year both grew well, but he noticed in the complex mixture most of the biomass was coming from the peas and oats. Based on that, and the higher cost of the complex mixture, John plans to proceed with a simple cereal-pea mix in the future.

Like Erika, John wants to use polycrops as a high-quality forage during the breeding season to improve his conception rates. “We have very productive spring pastures because we get snowmelt, but then it dries up and turns brown, so we don’t have a high-quality feed when we need it in August when the bulls go out.” This past year he turned the cows and bulls out onto the polycrops to graze during the breeding season.

In addition, John points out, research staff through the living lab are taking measurements on soil health which may have long-term benefits for his pastures. “Maybe over time we will see benefits that I am not noticing yet, but, from a beef production standpoint, if I can get a few more cows bred at that time of year then they would be benefiting us.”

Talking to other producers who have used polycrops has been helpful but John notes taking your own climate into account is important. For example, he knows other farmers who have had a lot of success including turnips and other brassicas in their polycrop blends — but on their place, flea beetles decimate those plants before they can get going.

John has appreciated being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies as it has given him an opportunity to test out research results on his own farm. While research provides valuable insights, it’s essential to understand the local context and conditions. What works well in one area may not necessarily be successful in another.

Starting small and choosing the right mix

Aklilu Alemu, a researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and research lead for the Living Lab Central Prairies, recommends producers looking to integrate polycrops into their operations should “start small and simple until you’re familiar with the practice.”

Selecting the right mix of polycrops is important, especially when moisture is limited. “If the moisture is not coming, the cereal component of the polycrop mix can still provide some biomass,” Aklilu says. This strategy helps ensure, even in dry conditions, producers can still benefit from the polycrop’s contribution to soil health and grazing.

Aklilu notes “field conditions are highly variable, and what works in one place may not work in another.” This aligns with the experiences shared by producers like John Griffin, who found what works in research trials doesn’t always translate directly to real-world farm conditions.

Aklilu says there are three things producers should think about when implementing polycrops:

• Moisture is the number one factor that will influence success.
• Start simple, and start small.
• Start with at least 40 per cent cereal in your first year, that way if other crops fail you should still have some biomass to salvage.

Trial, error, adaptation

The experiences of producers such as Carmen, Erika and John illustrate the unpredictable nature of integrating polycrops into a beef operation. While some years may yield impressive results, others may bring challenges such as pests, poor weather or suboptimal crop growth. The key to success lies in adaptability, local knowledge and a willingness to experiment.

The post Lessons learned growing forage mixtures for beef production appeared first on Grainews.

On the 17th our Jersey milk cow freshened. It was still very cold and she surprised us. We weren’t expecting her to calve for a week or so. Thankfully she had it in the heavily-bedded shed. He lost the tips of his ears but otherwise, he was a healthy calf and we got them moved into the barn as soon as we found him.

On the 18th we celebrated James’ fifth birthday. The kids had a bit of a cough and runny noses so we had a quiet supper with John and Barb. James asked for a yellow cake with green icing this year to remind him of spring and the seeding tractors.

On the 21st we had our first beef calf. It had warmed up quite a bit. After that, we had one or two calves every day and they were all healthy and the weather was very co-operative.

On the 24th we had a belated birthday supper for James and Ian with our neighbours and friends, the Sutherlands. The kids had fun playing outside and seeing all the new baby calves.

March came in like a lamb and we continued to enjoy the nice weather, as did all the baby calves. On the 8th we had an emotional day. Gregory found a four-day-old calf that was slightly bloated, weak and lethargic. We couldn’t quite figure out what was wrong but we got some fluids in him, gave him a shot of penicillin, and rubbed some DMSO on him. Within a short time, he died. It is always hard to lose animals, especially when you aren’t sure what happened.

Then a few hours later, Gregory found another calf in distress. He was very weak and wobbly and kicking violently at his slightly bloated stomach. I quickly called the vet because we had something going on that needed to be figured out. Before the vet arrived, the second calf died. The vet did a necropsy and it wasn’t what he was expecting. One calf died of an E. coli infection and the second was a clostridial bacteria.

Due to the great number of strains of each, vaccines are not always effective in cases such as these. The vet did leave us with an injectable antibiotic to try immediately if we noticed a calf that was a little off, slow or slightly bloated.

READ MORE: Tips on managing clostridial diseases in cattle

Good vets are hard to come by sometimes and it is especially hard to get someone to come out on a Saturday, but we are grateful that Dr. Colton of Eagle Creek Vet took the time to help us out. Later that same evening we found another calf that was slightly bloated and slow. We gave him a dose of the antibiotic and within four hours he was greatly improved, and by the next day, he was trying to bounce and play in the sunshine.

While we worked with the sick calves, we were also preparing for another birthday party. That evening we had John and Barb over for Barb’s 74th birthday. It turned out to be a very nice evening, and the cherry on top was when the antibiotic seemed to be working and the calf was improving.

After that, we kept an eagle eye on our calves but we saw no more sick ones. I’m not sure what caused the calves to be ill. We are suspicious that it was something in a bale, maybe a contaminated animal or something. It may be something we never will figure out, but we are very grateful it did not go through the whole herd.

Despite our hardship with the sick calves, we have been blessed with a wonderful calving season. On average, our calves were quite a bit bigger this year.

Thanks to our easy-calving bulls, the cows and heifers had no problems, and we haven’t had to pull or even help any of them yet. The drastic changes in the weather this winter did affect the growth of the calves. When the cows ate more to keep warm as the weather drastically dropped, the developing calves got more too.

We were quite excited because by the end of the first breeding cycle, we were over two-thirds calved out. The last few always seem to take their sweet time but soon we will be calved out and then will turn our attention to the foaling mares.

The post Three birthdays and calving begins appeared first on Grainews.

Yet on our farm the other day, we had a seven-person work crew that averaged 20.7 years old, all with a smile and a spring in their step, efficiently vaccinating and processing hundreds of cows and calves. (Although I suspect the two 40-somethings were nudging the average age up and likely dragging the agility down.)

My husband and I have entered a golden era in farm parenthood. Our kids are well past the diaper stage, are young enough to be at home under our roof, yet at a prime age to be excellent (ahem, crucial) ranch help. The automatic home-grown cattle handling system we started building 15 years ago is paying off!

There was a time when we would tackle big ranch jobs, such as sorting and trailing pairs out, when our children were not around. Now I find myself carefully navigating a calendar of school and external commitments to ensure the children are on hand for tasks big and small.

Another weird phenomenon is that the number of handy, capable kids around our camp seems to be increasing. There now appears to be an entire network of young friends ready to lend a hand in the calf pen, the show ring or the pasture. I’ve had a pitchfork pulled out of my hands by an unrelated young whippersnapper many times, and I’m not sad about it.

Outside of my in-house social experiment, I regularly observe enthusiastic young people who fuel my optimism about the future of food and farming.

I hear it in our local 4-H members casually discussing the price of cattle and feed. I saw it when I judged an agricultural video contest for our school division and was impressed by every creative, thought-provoking entry. I experienced it in our school when I hosted a class tour at our ranch, and the students asked insightful questions about why and how we do certain practices. I observe it at youth cattle shows when articulate, passionate young cattle producers take command of a show ring or a microphone.

We can’t ever stop considering how to retain and maintain youth in agriculture, but we should also recognize and value the generation of committed kids that we are building. But I have questions…

How do we continue to incorporate kids in a meaningful way? How do we help kids develop valuable skills and exert their independence while balancing the fact that they are still children? How do we foster an appreciation for non-farm hobbies and adventures? How do we avoid burnout? How do we encourage youth from diverse backgrounds to participate in agriculture? Above all, how do we keep our kids safe?

It’s hard to know how the future will play out for the next generation, but I have a lot of optimism.

For now, I’ll continue to invest in that cattle-handling infrastructure we started building so many years ago: I’ll locate the missing spurs, procure more phone-charging cables, wash the manure off the “town” boots and clothes, fill the fridge full of food, and set another few places at the table.

I’ll hop in the passenger seat of the pickup truck while I watch our children intuitively forge a path and fill gaps around our ranch I didn’t know existed, better than I ever could myself.

The post Helping hands on the ranch appeared first on Grainews.

There are various balance sheet ratios we can look at to assess our businesses, but the income/expense report is really about the operations piece and is where we will focus our efforts in this article.

Gross income

Gross income is the total income derived from product sales. For a cow-calf producer this includes calf sales and, importantly, cull marketing. There is no right or wrong gross number, but it’s important to realize it sets an upper theoretical limit on profit.

As a simple example, let’s say our cowherd is a single cow and we sold her calf for $1,000. Our gross income is $1,000. If everything else was free, our maximum theoretical profit is $1,000. We sometimes refer to this as gross product or the value of everything that is produced.

Gross margin

Gross margin (GM) is what we get when we take direct costs from our gross income (GI). Gross margin is the money left over to pay overhead costs and produce profit. I think the best description of direct costs for a cattle operation is anything/everything that goes into or through a cow. This includes feed, vaccine, mineral, ear tags, bull semen et cetera. The rough rule of thumb here is that gross margin should be 65 per cent of gross income.

If we go back to our single-cow herd, the cost of feed, vaccines et cetera is our direct cost (DC). Ideally, this would be less than $350 for the year, leaving us with a 65 per cent gross margin.

$1,000 GI – $350 DC = $650 GM

650 ÷ 1,000 = 65 per cent

A further guideline from Ranching for Profit is that feed should be less than 16 per cent of gross income, or roughly half of your direct costs. With our $1,000 income, that sets our feed bill at $160.

Overhead

Overhead is the “stuff” you use to run cows. This includes chutes, tractors, trucks, shops et cetera. Direct operating costs are the cost of running the “stuff.”

Contribution margin

Contribution margin is when we remove direct operating expenses (DOE) from gross margin. Direct operating costs are line items such as labour and fuel. It does not include capital items like the tractor. Basically, these are operational expenses. A guideline is that they should be 45 per cent of gross margin. In our cow example, our gross margin was $650, so our direct costs should be $293 or less.

$650 GM – $293 DOC = $357 DOE

293 ÷ 650 = 45 per cent

One of the reasons to look at contribution margin is to see if you are efficient and more importantly effective in your efforts. Another ratio I like to look at here is GI per full time equivalent (FTE). Your labour is a large component of cost whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Where I live in Alberta, the government says I am worth $15 per hour no matter what and I suspect most of us are worth a lot more than that. The other thing to realize is that an FTE does not equal 100 hours a week. The goal here is to produce at least $500,000 of gross revenue per FTE. This can vary a bit if margins are very high or very low, but it is a good target.

Total overhead

The guideline here is that total overhead should be less than 40 per cent of your gross income. “Total overhead” means we lump overhead and direct operating costs together.

If we use our single-cow example, this means we would have $400 worth of overheads total, or $107 for “stuff,” after our direct operating costs.

Currently, it is likely unrealistic that calves are only worth $1,000; however, this number was chosen as it works well for illustrative purposes. It also brings up another important consideration.

Given today’s calf prices, we may be working in a $3,000 per calf environment, but it is unlikely this number is sustainable in the long term. It is important to control our expenses — not just relative to our gross income, but in relation to realistic calf and cull prices moving forward. This is where planning versus reflection kicks in.

Additionally, these ratios may change as we move through various stages of business. Gross revenue per FTE may be lower in a startup, as an example.

For more information, a web search for “farm financial ratios” can provide great further insight.

For your reference

Information for this article was adapted from:

• Standardized Financial Benchmarks for Canadian Farm Financial Statements, by Larry Martin and Joerg Zimmerman

• Ranching For Profit

• Farm Management Canada

• Strategic Agribusiness Management Training — S.M.

The post Ratios help tell the financial story on beef farms appeared first on Grainews.

In central Alberta, larger frame Simmental cross steers carrying lighter butter on light grain and silage diet with full processing data averaging 900 pounds traded for $375. In the same region, medium to larger frame, black mixed heifers weighing 865 pounds with some fleshier types included, supposedly traded for $340.

North of Saskatoon, mixed steers carrying medium flesh levels weighing 875 pounds coming off backgrounding grain diet with full processing records supposedly traded for $377 fob farm. At the St Rose Auction in Manitoba, the market report had Charolais steers weighing 846 pounds selling for $385.

East of Edmonton, a small package of Angus blended heifers carrying medium flesh averaging 800 pounds sold for $355. South of Edmonton, black, wide frame Limousin based heifers evaluated at 800 pounds with lower flesh levels were last bid at $367.

Southeast of Calgary, Charolais cross steers weighing 680 pounds apparently traded for $455. At the Ponoka sale on March 12, red mixed steers with a mean weight just under 600 pounds notched the board at $506. North of Calgary, red mixed heifers averaging 630 pounds supposedly settled at $431.

At the Lloydminster sale, a smaller package of black steers weighing 516 pounds silenced the crowd at $571. In southern Manitoba, a smaller package of black mixed steers weighing 507 pounds reportedly moved through the ring at $505. Northwest of Winnipeg, red mixed steers weighing 460 pounds apparently dropped the gavel at $582.

Alberta packers were buying fed cattle on a dressed basis in the range of $450-$455/cwt delivered, up $5-$20/cwt from the week ending March 8. Feeding margins continue to hover in positive territory which is supportive for the feeder complex. In the short-term, feedlot operators have a bullish outlook for fed cattle. This is barring no U.S. tariffs of course.

The post Klassen: Feeder cattle market jumps back to historical highs appeared first on Grainews.

While traditionally the realm of the seedstock industry, commercial DNA testing and changes in the way we manage cattle have led to some big changes in how we think about genetic selection. DNA testing, in broad terms, means using a DNA sample from an animal and performing laboratory testing on that sample to identify parts of the genome that animal contains.

A brief outline of the process: DNA testing starts by collecting a tissue sample or hair follicles from an animal. This sample is then sent to a laboratory where the DNA is extracted and “read.”

New tests will typically read 50,000 to 100,000 pieces of an animal’s DNA. While we have the capability to read millions or even billions of DNA pieces, with 50,000 to 100,000 we can do a really good job of identifying important genetic characteristics of the animal at an affordable price point. Some of the DNA pieces we read are “associated” with specific traits. For example, if a calf carries two copies of the polled gene, specific pieces of DNA will “light up.”

For another example: we may know specific pieces of DNA that are associated with longevity. By looking directly to see if these variants of DNA are present, we can assess the genetic potential of the animal being tested for longevity.

DNA testing can range from sire verification at a roughly $20 price point, specific characteristic testing such as horned/polled or colour at additional cost, or broader trait evaluation at $40 and up. This broader spectrum can include measures of longevity, growth, hybrid vigour, feed efficiency or other traits. Additionally, these slightly higher cost tests can also be used in genetic evaluations (calculation of EPD).

There are various ways we can use this information and incorporate it into our commercial operations.

1 – Use DNA-tested sires

One of the easiest ways for a commercial producer to benefit from DNA testing is to purchase sires that have been DNA-tested prior to sale. This has several benefits. First, the pedigree on the bull being purchased is confirmed with DNA testing, meaning you are getting the DNA you expect when you purchase a sire.

Secondly, high-density DNA testing can be used in genetic evaluation to increase the accuracy of the EPD on the sire you are buying. The inclusion of high-density DNA in a genetic evaluation is roughly equivalent to the knowledge gained from a full calf crop. In other words, DNA can increase the accuracy of EPDs and reduce the risk to a commercial buyer of ending up with the wrong bull for their needs. Finally, when a sire is tested, those DNA results reside in a computer, and we may not need to retest the sire if we wish to start testing in our own cowherd and learning about factors such as sire efficiency and parentage.

2 – DNA-test replacement heifers

A way to get into DNA over time is to focus on testing replacement heifers. In a perfect world, we would test all candidate heifers, then use DNA-derived information to aid in our selection decisions; however, if we’re really constricted on budget, the next best choice might be to test the heifers we choose to breed. Testing heifers allows us over time to develop a fully tested cow herd.

3 – Test the cow herd

This is a full-on commitment, to collect DNA from every cow and begin using the resulting information to inform management decisions. Again, if budget is a concern, there may be groups of cows more valuable to test than others. For example, if you have a set of cows used to generate herd replacements, then these may be a priority for testing over a terminal type set of cows.

4 – Test the calf crop

This approach involves testing all calves (steers and heifers) and can be used for determining management or parentage verification to track cattle through to harvest with full individual data. This results in heifers entering the cowherd over time that are tested, and may also enable tracking of feeder calves on an individual basis with accurate pedigree.

The balance of investment in testing versus the potential return to management is going to vary tremendously across operations and will also impact the number of cattle tested, which cattle are tested, and the types of tests used.

Sire verification is an example. We may want to run multi-sire pastures and determine both which sires are working, but also only keep replacement heifers from specific bulls. Or we may want to step up an extra level and obtain DNA marker test results for various traits we can use to select replacements.

We may further refine our use of the technology to develop a total genetic management program, in which we pre-emptively mate specific sires and dams and match DNA with targeted end points in mind.

DNA testing is continually improving and accelerating the pace with which we can advance our operations, and is a technology that likely fits your operation today, although at varying degrees for individual farms, even if it’s simply through purchasing tested sires.

The post DNA testing can have value in commercial beef sector appeared first on Grainews.