As with the failure to use good calf management


practices, low percentage adoption of these reproduc- tive management practices will cost beef producers. This is especially true with the smaller producers who use them the least. Young and his colleagues again used the FARM


Assistance strategic planning model to illustrate the individual fi nancial impacts of using reproductive management practices by South Texas ranchers. A different set of scenarios (Table 1) was evaluated, but the general assumptions were the same as used in the calf management practices study. Results of the second study show that all 4 evaluated


reproductive management practices offer the potential to signifi cantly increase the profi tability of an operation. With no reproductive management practices (Scenario 1), average NCFI was $46,650 per year, or $233 per cow per year and $348 per calf per year. Average cash reserves, at the end of the 10-year period projections, were $3,761 per cow. Pregnancy testing cows (Scenario 2) offers a signifi -


cant potential for improving profi tability and fi nancial performance of a cow-calf operation. NCFI averaged $101,110 per year over the ten-year


projection, 116.8 percent more than Scenario 1. The returns equated to $506 per cow, which is $273


more than Scenario 1. Returns per calf were $532, an increase of $184 per calf. These increases were due to an increased calving rate,


especially after the fi rst few years of implementation. This reproductive management practice has its largest effect in herds with the lowest pregnancy rates, because it allows beef producers to identify the cows with poor reproductive performance and replace them. Average cash reserves at the end of the 10-year period


increased to $5,372 per cow on average. Breeding soundness exams (Scenario 3) also increased


profi tability based on the case study assumptions. NCFI averaged $94,410 per year, 102.4 percent more


than Scenario 1. This amounted to a $239 per cow and $177 per calf increase over no reproductive manage- ment practices. For the 81.5 percent of U.S. beef producers not em-


ploying breeding soundness exams, this would be a signifi cant fi nancial gain even at half the expected amount. Average cash reserves at the end of the year improved by $1,421 per cow. Vaccinations for reproductive diseases (Scenario 4)


offer potential gains to the bottom line as well. NCFI averaged $82,380, 76.6 percent more than


tscra.org


Scenario 1. This is a net increase of $179 per cow and $137 per calf. Ending cash reserves were 28.5 percent higher than


the no reproductive management practices scenario. Not all producers need to have the same vaccina-


tion program, but some reproductive diseases are common across the U.S. As this example shows, the 60.4 percent of beef producers who do not vaccinate for any reproductive diseases are missing a signifi cant amount of income.


Higher cattle and input prices increase


fi nancial risks in beef cattle production. Optimize weaning rates and calf weights to help mitigate those risks.


All reproductive management practices (Scenario


5) combine the benefi ts of cow pregnancy testing, BSE of bulls and vaccinations for reproductive diseases. NCFI averaged $102,540, representing $513 per cow


and $540 per calf per year. This refl ects a 119.8 percent or $55,890 increase over


Scenario 1 ($280 per cow and $192 per calf). Ending cash reserves were 44.1 percent higher than the no reproductive management practices scenario. With only 1 out of 6 producers pregnancy testing,


1 out of 5 doing breeding soundness exams on bulls and 1 out of 2.5 vaccinating for reproductive diseases, a lot of ranchers are missing opportunities to improve overall profi tability. “Higher cattle prices result in higher potential net


profi ts; but they also result in higher values per head, higher investment costs and higher risks,” said Young. “Calf management practices can improve weaning weights, reduce calf death losses and increase profi tabil- ity while reducing potential risk exposure. Reproduc- tive management practices can improve calving rates, reduce calf death losses and increase profi tability, and also reduce potential risk exposure.”


Learn more from Mac Young at the 2016 Cattle Raisers Convention, April 8-10, 2016. April 2016 The Cattleman 77


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