NEWS for North Dakotans
Agriculture Communication, North Dakota State
University
7 Morrill Hall, Fargo, ND 58105-5665
June 25, 1998
Harlan Hughes, Extension Livestock Economist
NDSU Extension Service
Comparing your beef cow herd's production and economic facts to the averages from a set of benchmark herds is the single most powerful farm and ranch management tool available, bar none. Benchmarking helps identify where you should focus your management attention to increase your beef cow herd's profits.
Areas where your herd beats the benchmark herds' averages suggest potential strengths. Areas where your herd is beat by the benchmark herds' averages suggest potential weaknesses. A sure-fire formula for increasing your beef cow profits is to capitalize on your herd's strengths and to remove some or all of your herd's weaknesses.
The reason benchmarking is not used by more farmers and ranchers is that they generally do not have access to other beef producers' data. One of the components of North Dakota's Integrated Resource Management (IRM) program is the generation of benchmark data. The 1997 IRM-Benchmark Herd Set for McKenzie County, N.D., will be used in this Market Advisor. I am sharing this data to encourage all county agents in cow country to generate a similar benchmark for their counties.
The National Beef IRM-Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) Guidelines suggest a specific set of reproduction, production, and economic measures to be calculated for each IRM herd analyzed. Based on my recent participation in a western regional think-tank session sponsored by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, I will refer to these measures as the IRM Critical Control Points for profitability (IRM-CCP). These IRM-CCP for profitability will be discussed for my demonstration herd's 1997 calves compared to the 1997 McKenzie County benchmark herds.
I'll discuss critical control points for profitable reproduction first. Reproduction is measured from conception during breeding in one summer through weaning two falls ahead—an 18-month period. All reproduction measures, except one, are based on SPA adjusted females exposed.
SPA adjusted females exposed, in this case, represents the total number of the females exposed to bulls in 1996 adjusted by all cows culled in the fall of 1996. The open culled cows and those culled due to poor fertility are added back in. Bred females purchased and sold before calving also need to be taken into account. Cows that died are kept in the adjusted exposed number. SPA reproduction measures are then calculated from this SPA adjusted females exposed number.
The argument for subtracting out selected cull cows is that these cows were identified as culls early in the production year but were left in the herd to raise their current calves. They just happened to be exposed to the bull while raising that calf and management never planned to calve these culls again. My demo herd had 178 SPA adjusted females exposed compared to an average of 203 SPA adjusted females exposed for the McKenzie County benchmark herds.
Pregnancy percentage is either the number of females checked pregnant provided that the manager preg-checks his cows, or if he does not preg-check cows, the number of females held back to calve the next spring divided by the SPA adjusted females exposed. The demo herd held back 93 percent of the females exposed ( no preg-check) compared to the benchmark herds' average of 96 percent. Calving percentage is the number of calves born divided by SPA adjusted females exposed. The calving percentage for the demo herd was 87 percent while the average calving percentage of the benchmark herds was 94 percent. I wonder why this herd has a lower calving percentage? Could it relate to his not preg-checking his cows?
The demo herd lost 5 percent of its calves born while the benchmark herds lost an average of 7 percent. Percent calf crop is the number of live calves weaned divided by the SPA adjusted females exposed. The demo herd had an 82 percent calf crop while the benchmark herds averaged an 88 percent calf crop. The range in percent calf crop for the McKenzie County benchmark herds was 75 to 96 percent, so the demo herd was within reason.
Actual weaning weight is the unadjusted average weaning weight of the total calf crop. The demo herd's average weaning weight was 565 pounds while the benchmark herds averaged 570 pounds—almost a wash. The demo herd's calves averaged a month younger at weaning—interesting. Weight per day of age—a measure of the growthiness of the calves—is the average weaning weight divided by the average age of the calves in days. This demo herd's calves averaged 3.14 pounds weight per day of age compared to 2.74 pound per day for the benchmark herds. Clearly, the demo herd's calves were younger and more growthy calves—a strength.
Pounds weaned per female exposed is the total pounds of calf produced divided by the SPA adjusted females exposed. The demo herd averaged 464 pounds of calf per female exposed while the benchmark herds averaged 441 pounds. This herd produced just as heavy calves with nearly one less month of age, and produced 23 more pounds of calf to sell per female exposed than did the average benchmark herd.
In summary, this demo herd's primary reproduction strength was its low calf death loss. This herd's production strengths were in the young age of the calves produced, the growthiness of the calves produced, and the pounds of calf weaned per female exposed. This suggests that the manger has a strong genetics program in place.
The primary reproductive weaknesses uncovered was in the percent calf crop. This demo herd had a 6 percent lower percent calf crop than the average of the benchmark herds. The largest deviation measured for this demo herd was the "calving rate." Maybe this herd manager needs to pregnancy check his cow herd each fall. By holding back only pregnant cows each fall, he may reduce his winter feed bill.
Clearly, this manager needs to continue capitalizing on the production efficiency of his herd. Second, he needs to put more management attention on the reproductive efficiency of his beef cow herd. I wonder what his pounds weaned per female exposed could be with this potential increase in reproductive efficiency?
There is no hard and fast rule for identifying your herd's production strengths and weaknesses. The best procedure, of course, is to have a perpetual inventory of herd performance records that are compared to contemporary herds. North Dakota's Cow Herd Analysis Performance Systems (CHAPS) is one such perpetual inventory and contemporary system. CHAPS is available in 30 or more states, so many of you have access to it. But short of having your own production records, conducting a comparative analysis of your herd production facts to a set of benchmark herds' facts is probably your best alternative.
I challenge you to evaluate your herd's critical control points for profitability against these McKenzie County benchmark herds.
###
Source: Harlan Hughes (701) 231-7380
Editor: Tom Jirik (701) 231-9629
Click here for a pdf version of this graphic.