Cost Of Beef Production Research Articles

ASAS Centennial Paper: Development of a corn-based beef industry

The development of a beef industry, heavily dependent on corn utilization, began to occur in the 1940s. Begun as a means to add value to the grain while improving consumer acceptance of beef, corn has become an integral part of beef production. Developments in the 21st century including unprecedented cattle prices, changes in beef demand, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, surge in energy costs, pricing differentiation of cattle prices based on quality, and industry consolidation have dramatically changed the price of corn and cost of beef production. The future of the beef industry will be dependent on our ability to continue producing high-quality beef for a global market through effective use of genetics, new technologies, and economic management strategies.

An Evaluation of the Federal Grazing Fee Formula

The federal grazing fee is currently set using the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) fee formula established in 1978 and modified in 1986. The formula is adjusted annually using indices of private land grazing lease rates (Forage Value Index, FVI), prices received for beef cattle (Beef Cattle Price Index, BCPI), and costs of beef production (Prices Paid Index, PPI). The FVI tracks price movement in the private forage market and was the only index originally proposed to be included in the fee formula. Public land ranchers and the Interdepartmental Grazing Fee Technical Committee assigned to study grazing fee alternatives in the 1960s questioned the ability of the FVI to account for short-term demand, supply, and price equilibrium, and, for this reason, the BCPI and PPI were added to the fee formula. Nearly 40 years of data are now available to evaluate whether adding the BCPI and PPI did, in fact, help explain short-term market fluctuations. Analysis shows that if tracking the private forage market is the primary objective, the fee formula should have included only the FVI. Including the BCPI and the PPI has caused calculated grazing fees to fall further and further behind private land lease rates. Had the $1.23 base fee in the PRIA formula been indexed by only the FVI, the federal grazing fee would have been $4.36 AUM-1 instead of $1.43 AUM-1 in 2002. It is time to consider the feasibility of a competitive bid system for public lands, or, at the very least, drop the BCPI and PPI indices and adopt a new fee formula that generates more equitable grazing fees. DOI:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i6_torell

An evaluation of the federal grazing fee formula

The federal grazing fee is currently set using the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) fee formula established in 1978 and modified in 1986. The formula is adjusted annually using indices of private land grazing lease rates (Forage Value Index, FVI), prices received for beef cattle (Beef Cattle Price Index, BCPI), and costs of beef production (Prices Paid Index, PPI). The FVI tracks price movement in the private forage market and was the only index originally proposed to be included in the fee formula. Public land ranchers and the Interdepartmental Grazing Fee Technical Committee assigned to study grazing fee alternatives in the 1960s questioned the ability of the FVI to account for short-term demand, supply, and price equilibrium, and, for this reason, the BCPI and PPI were added to the fee formula. Nearly 40 years of data are now available to evaluate whether adding the BCPI and PPI did, in fact, help explain short-term market fluctuations. Analysis shows that if tracking the private forage market is the primary objective, the fee formula should have included only the FVI. Including the BCPI and the PPI has caused calculated grazing fees to fall further and further behind private land lease rates. Had the 1.23 base fee in the PRIA formula been indexed by only the FVI, the federal grazing fee would have been 4.36 AUM-1 instead of 1.43 AUM-1 in 2002. It is time to consider the feasibility of a competitive bid system for public lands, or, at the very least, drop the BCPI and PPI indices and adopt a new fee formula that generates more equitable grazing fees.

Reducing the cost of beef production through genetic improvement in residual feed intake: Opportunity and challenges to application 1

There is considerable individual animal variation in feed intake above and below that expected or predicted on the basis of size and growth rate. This difference in intake is calculated as residual (or net) feed intake (RFI). Genetic variation in RFI of beef cattle exists both during growth (slaughter generation and replacement females; heritability estimates since 1996 range from 0.16 to 0.43) and in adult cattle (the breeding herd; the one published heritability estimate is 0.23). Evidence shows that selection for lower RFI measured postweaning will lead to a decrease in feed intake by young cattle and by cows, with no compromise in growth performance or increase in cow size. Results from a single generation of divergent selection on postweaning RFI between 8 to 12 mo of age demonstrated favorable correlated changes in average daily feed intake (9.2 ± 0.2 vs. 9.8 ± 0.2 kg/d), RFI (−0.20 ± 0.11 vs. 0.17 ± 0.10 kg/d), and feed:gain ratio (F:G; 7.0 ± 0.2 vs. 7.6 ± 0.2 kg/kg) in Angus feedlot steers. In Angus cattle, the genetic correlation between postweaning RFI with av- erage daily feed intake by the cow is high (0.64), and

Processed urea treated whole-crop wheat (Alkalage) for finishing beef cattle

Since feed accounts for 75-85% of the variable costs of beef production, the use of alternative feeds and high-energy forages that have a lower cost per unit of energy are worthy of investigation. The technique of harvesting cereals where the whole-crop is harvested at a dry matter (DM) content of 650-750g/kg with the harvester fitted with a grain processor has recently been developed. The objective of this trial was to determine the effect of feeding either adlibitum processed urea treated whole-crop wheat (Alkalage) or cereals on the performance of Continental cross beef cattle since there is no data on the performance of beef cattle fed Alkalage.