The difference between an animal grading USDA


Choice or Select is another $60 to $80. Hale says a rancher cannot elevate all of the USDA


Select quality grade cattle to Choice quality grade through management. But by feeding the animals for a longer time, “the rancher might move 5 to 6 percent of the Select quality grade cattle into the Choice quality grade, and maybe move 1 to 2 percent into the High Choice or Prime quality grades.” That accounts for the remaining 30 percent of added


value, on top of the value added by the favorable aver- age daily gain.


Nutrition and health affect quality grade Hale says it’s important to keep the animal moving


forward nutritionally to achieve that higher quality grade. “When they go backwards it tends to impact marbling,” he says. “Cattle will deposit fat around the organs inside of


the body fi rst, and then they’ll put fat along the outside of the muscle, which is seam fat. And then fi nally, they will deposit marbling.” Marbling is one of the factors used to determine quality grade; USDA Prime, Choice or Select.


If cattle


lose weight, they lose marbling; therefore, he recom- mends that cattle be on a plane of nutrition that is, at the least, slightly above what the cattle need to main- tain their weight or body condition. The Ranch to Rail data showed that sick calves lost


more money than healthy calves that started gaining weight in the feedyard immediately. A study using the Ranch to Rail data found 20


percent of the cattle initially lost weight when they were placed on feed. Even 21 days later, a signifi cant percentage of the cattle still weighed less than when they fi rst entered the feedyard. Forty days later, all the sick cattle were fi nally back


to what they weighed when they entered the feedyard, meaning 40 days of potential weight gain and fi nan- cial gain were lost, but feed and veterinary bills were still incurred. “So,” Hale concludes, “if cattle can eat and grow


right off the bat, there’s going to be a higher average daily gain and a lower cost of gain in those cattle. Ul- timately, this will benefi t that rancher.”


Weaned on I-35 The cattle in the Ranch to Rail research groups most


likely to get sick were the ones that were “weaned on I-35,” Hale says.


tscra.org MORE September 2014 The Cattleman 79


©201 4 Texa s Rang eMinerals , Inc.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116