seam 240 $0M” /956 - Fitting Beef Cattle into - Central Texas Farming a ( _ r kl i '53.‘ F‘. l}; egg‘; \ Mum 5140mm NARTLEY Moon: rrufcum- noacnrs 50a 01.0w»: POTTER mason our an: 5mm ‘m’ DONLEV ‘Th’? a} smom _"._. PAIDIR CASTRO SWISNEI 8579591 MALL BAILEY LAMB up: FLOYD mun WtCNIYA GER DAVLDR ARCJII CROSBY DKZKEIS NOCILEV GARZA KENT YOUNG YER?! LYNN I“; MORTON I000 DAWSON BURDEN SCUUV H5013 JONES GAMES “W” oumnsou VAN ZANDT SIIYN noun nvtm “WU HOWARD ILRTIN ANDREWS NE NDCRSON RUSK EASYLANO CNS!- OKEE SflELBY ECTOR euss- stea- w“ a coca t. m us“. CULBERSON NUDSFETN WARD CRIME REAGAN TOM GREEN CONCNO IfllQN . ./ V‘ PECOS ./\_ \. BREWSTER SAN SABA sow; ICnER M“, NEWTON /. HENLRD °"°C"ETT mason LLANO uuuuu vl SUYTON NMBLE CILLESPIE LIBERTY TEIRELL IERF‘. NARRIS VAL VERDE EDWARDS RE AL ‘\ I roar I scua 2/‘ \_ ,_ - wanton emlonu .\_ ./ '\ "\ BANDCRA ' UVALDE MEDWA xmutv Z AVLLI MIVERICK E F. Figure 1. The heavy black lines show the approximate boundaries of the Blackland and Grand Prairies of Texas. The shaded part shows the locations oi the tour counties in which the study was made. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH A SUCCESSFUL BEEF ENTERPRISE Sound planning was important. For best results, the land-use program and cattle I’ ; operations were planned to supplement each other. An adequate supply of stock Wat-er was essential. Ample feed reserves reduced costs. Farmers with the lowest costs used grazing most of .3 the year. Silage fed to stocker cattle produced economical gains. Larger herds showed more efficiency. For instance, one bull was needed whether the herd consisted of 10 cows or 30 cows. Also, it took almost as much time to feed and care for 12 cows as it did for 24. Successful operators maintained healthy herds, kept death losses low and obtained a high a ‘ percentage calf crop. Sheds and barns used for beef cattle operations were functional but inexpensive. Price trends were important factors in buying and selling. Prices of stocker and feeder ' cattle usually are at or near the year’s low during September, October and November. The local demand for butcher cattle was strong during the late winter and spring. Calves on feed usually were market-ed when they would grade Good or Low Choice. The demand for this quality of beef prevailed at the markets where most farm cattle were sold. Fall calves (October, November an-d even December) were old enough to utilize consider- l. able grazing during the lush spring season and were ready for market when prices for butcher calves usually were relatively high. Research has shown that the use of high-gaining sires and the selection of high-gaining i heifers for replacements would greatly increase calf weights at weaning and gains in the I‘ feedlot. Fitting Beet Cattle into Central Texas Farming TTLE AS A PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE REP- t a relatively recent adjustment on many the Blackland Prairie and also on the ore productive soils of the Grand Prai- th instances, agriculture has been de- inly to cash crop production, primarily d corn. For years, cotton accounted for percent of the cash farm income. ng recent years, more and more atten- een focused on problems of land use and :gement, and particularly on the control :1 water as a means of reducing soil losses sgerosion. To provide orderly disposal of ater, most farmers have had to devote } t0 sodded waterways. y farms include some low-yielding land ‘ not be cultivated profitably. In some ' this is low-lying or over-flow land. In tances sloping and severely eroded land ded. In either case, such land can be i‘ best from further deterioration by being ‘ent grassland. Research also has shown I management of much Central Texas j; has been improved by including close- 3 ains, legumes and grasses in the crop- tem. "vsodding of waterways, reseeding of land ‘nent grasses and use of close-seeded been a sizable land-use adjustment on ,_ s. These changes have resulted in a ease in the amount of forage available or grazing. At the same time, the -.' recent shift from horse to tractor power i‘ with an important outlet for hay and ' ng. ' beef prices which prevailed during and .ly following World War II encouraged Fto market grazing and forage through le. In many instances, these forage re- luld not have been used except by graz- i ock. I bulletin reports the results of a study I tion, production requirements and costs “ractices associated with beef cattle on ? exas farms. This study has been on ‘ibut where a beef cattle enterprise has ed recently or where increased emphasis i} placed on beef cattle production. The ndied were in McLennan, Bell, Coryell ue counties (Figure 1). Data were ob- A. C. MAGEE, Professor Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology tained on 40 farms during 1952-54. Additional information was obtained from 16 other farmer- stockmen in 1953 and 1954 concerning particular practices. Of the 40 farms studied, 18 had less than 50 acres of permanent pasture, including both native and seeded grassland. With one exception, these farms were on Blackland Prairie soils and-here- after will be referred to as Blackland farms. The remaining 22 farms averaged 173 acres of permanent grassland. All but one were on Grand Prairie soils and the group will be referred to as Grand Prairie farms. CAPITAL ITEMS ADDED FOR THE BEEF ENTERPRISE On the Blackland farms studied, relatively recent adjustments and additional improvements were made as a result of adding beef cattle to the system of farming. Shed and barns were left over from the recent days of horsepower farming which could be remodeled to serve "for beef cattle. ' ere cash crops were the main source of ' CONTENTS Practices Associated with a Successful Beef Enterprise, . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Capital Items Added for the Beef Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Land Use on Farms with Beef Cattle . . . . . 4 Grazing Production and Yields . . . . . . . . . 4 Cow and Calf Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Production and Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Production Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Returns Above Costs for Cow He-rds . . . 8 Stocker and Feeder Cali Enterprise . . . . . 9 Steers Kept ior a Short Grazing Period. . 10 Steers Kept for an Intermediate Grazing Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Steers Kept for a Long Grazing Period. . 11 Steers Fed in Drylot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . 12 Management Practices that . Influenced Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 -. the farm investment. Remodeling costs averaged approximately $135 per farm. Each Blackland farmer had some stock water before the beef enterprise was added. How- ever, in each instance, water facilities had been expanded recently. The usual practice was to build an earth tank at costs averaging about $185 per farm. Government assistance often helped reduce costs t0 the farmer. Some new fence was added and much of the existing fence was repaired in preparation for cattle. The expenditure for barbed wire fence averaged about $125 per farm. Most men also added some electric fence. The average for Black- land farms was about a third of a mile purchased at a cost of $70. In several instances, the size of the beef herd I had been expanded recently on Grand Prairie farms, but in all cases cattle had been run for a number of years previous to the study. There had been little remodeling of buildings to make them serve the cattle enterprise better, and in only afew cases had new buildings been added. However, fence improvements had been made re- cently at an average cost of about $240 per farm. The cost of increased water facilities amounted to approximately $175 per farm. ' Farmers on both types of soils who practiced creep or drylot feeding of calves had the added investment for facilities in which to feed. The cost of a creep varied greatly. Some were made largely of materials already on hand at very little additional cost except the operator’s labor. Other operators paid as much as $120 for a creep. The extra cost for feed troughs and racks needed for feeding calves in the lot ranged from $65 to $100 per farm. A beef cattle enterprise added materially to Cattle prices were high when the greatest expansion of beef cattle num- TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF LAND-USE WHERE THE SYSTEM CF FARMING INCLUDED BOTH CASH CROPS AND BEEF CATTLE, 1952-54 Average land use on: Item Blackland Grand Prairie farms farms Farms studied (no.) 18 22 Permanent pasture: Native ( ac.) 23 160 Seeded (ac.) 12 _ 13 Cropland (ac.) 189 202 Farmsteads. roads. etc. (ac.) 3 5 Total (ac.) 227 380 Percent Percent Cropland use Acres of total Acres of total cropland cropland Cotton 65 34.4 4U 19.8 Corn 18 9.5 21 10.4 Sorghum grain 26 13.8 25 12.4 Oats and oats-clover 46 24.3 56 27.7 Wheat‘ 9 4.8 ll 5.5 Sorghum forage 6 3.2 14 6.9 Other hay crops 6 3.2 8 3.9 Sudangrass 5 2.6 11 5.5 Idle and miscellaneous 8 4.2 16 7.9 ‘Includes a small acreage oi barley. 4 bers occurred on Central Texas farms. A c0 practice among farmers of limited capital buy a few cows and keep heifers to add 1 herd. Regardless of how the herd was acq' there was an increase in farm inventory u‘ portion to the number of animals added. I LAND USE ON FARMS WITH BEEF CA A summary of land use for both Bla and Grand Prairie farms is shown in Ta Although the acreage of native pasture d’ greatly, the two groups averaged 12 and 13 .' respectively, of seeded pastures, most of . consisted of grassed waterways. ». Cotton was the most important cash prise on both groups of farms, particularly Blackland farms. Here the average cottoi age ranged from 40 percent of the crop _ 1952 to approximately 30 percent in 1954+ allotments were in effect. : During the S-year period, cotton ac, for an average of nearly 60 percent of th on Blackland farms. Cattle sales were ne ‘j; est, averaging 15 percent of the total. Cotton was relatively less important on, Prairie soils where more small grains and.’ were grown. During 1952 and 1954, sal cotton and from beef cattle averaged a, same for most of the Grand Prairie farmf GRAZING PRODUCTION AND Y Grazing was obtained from four " sources: permanent pasture grasses, Sud 5 small grains (largely oats) either alone or? bination with clover, and stalk fields or 0t , residue. The days of grazing obtained ~- from the first three of these sources ar, in Table 2. In each instance, grazing d” acre are shown for cow herds and for ‘ cattle. Grazing days per acre are not sh stalk fields because of widely varying i practices and because of difficulties in as grazing time with specific acreages. ’ Cooperating farmers reported that i much of the study grazing conditions we, average because of unfavorable moistur tions. For this reason, it is believed that r are conservative and that higher grazi" often may be obtained. The amount of. obtained varied greatly from year to y, relatively high grazing yields reported" 1953. ‘ Even though grazing was for a sho p of time, permanent Blackland pastures " about 40 percent more days of grazing; than did Grand Prairie pastures. Alth differences were not as pronounced, '_ other types of grazing also were higher f‘ land than on Grand Prairie soils. On the average, an acre of Sudan nished 3 to 4 times the number of days g as did an acre of permanent grasses. ’ r mall grains were seeded primarily for grain st on the farms studied. Under these con- q s, grazing was incidental and not the major deration. It is the general opinion of farm- 1' these areas that grain fields can be pastured rately until about March 1 without affecting y, yields. Grazed in this Way, an acre of small p furnished about 20 days of grazing for a 'I,and about twice that number of days for er cattle. Where large fields of small grain ng were available, the farmer usually bought rather than cows and calves. This is a e of feed that must be grazed as it is pro- ’ or the grazing potential is lost. equently, some of the oats or oats-clover was utilized entirely for pasture. A few Q high grazing yields were reported in 1953 this practice. An acre of oats or oats-clover lackland that was used entirely as a pasture e cow. Less than two-thirds of an acre was c- to graze a stocker yearling for a similar Grazing yields on Grand Prairie soils were 'ximately 85 percent of Blackland yields. Thirty-six of the 40 farmers kept a small 10f cows. Calves were either sold at weaning r weaned and put in the feedlot for more and finish or were wintered as stockers old off of pasture the following spring or , summer. The four remaining cooperating ‘frs depended on buying stocker calves to uti- azing or to put in the feedlot. esults obtained with beef cow herds are sed separately from those obtained with fr and feeder cattle. COW AND CALF ENTERPRISE 1 ' teen Blackland and 21 Grand Prairie farm- ' ept cows (Table 3). Blackland farms aver- .12 cows, or a cow to 3 acres of permanent t e. A bull and 1 or 2 replacement heifers were kept. ‘ rand Prairie farmers averaged 22 cows, or '~ to 8 acres of permanent grassland. A bull to 4 replacement heifers rounded out the cge breeding herd. e cow herds studied were made up of good I grade animals. Registered bulls were used g entirely. Most of the bulls were Hereford, een-Angus or Shorthorn. j en available, cattle on both types of soil [grazed on small grains during the winter rly spring. Sometimes a small acreage of {I oats-clover was fenced off and used en- for pasture. Normally, permanent pasture 's came on about the time cattle needed to en off of grain fields. Grain stubble usually azed when clover was present to come out harvest. Without clover, some farmers pas- . grain stubble; others did not. Fields with Ingrass frequently furnished considerable page. Other grazing was largely from Su- furnished about 3 months grazing for a ' dangrass and from fields following harvest of crops such as corn and grain sorghums. When moisture was favorable, some Sudan- grass was planted on land following oats harvest. However, the acreage double-cropped in this way was small and was not included in the Sudangrass acreage shown in Table 1. Blackland farms provided grazing for about 8.5 months of the year; with a larger amount of grassland, Grand Prairie farms furnished approxi- mately 10.5 months of pasturage annually. Hay was fed as needed to supplement pas- tures. The amount needed varied from year to year. A supply of 1.75 to 2 tons of hay per cow was a desirable reserve for the worst drouth years. Farmers with this reserve were able to avoid expensive winter feed bills. Normally, all forage used with beef cattle was homegrown, but during recent drouth years some of the men failed to provide sufficient hay reserve and found it necessary to purchase hay or cottonseed hulls. Because of proportionately less grazing from per- manent pasture and greaterneed for hay, more Blackland farmers bought forage than did Grand Prairie farmers. In each instance, some concentrates were fed to breeding animals during the winter. Some farmers depended entirely on cottonseed cake or commercial cubes; others fed homegrown corn and a few fed a combination of corn and cake. During much of the year, beef cows required little attention and the enterprise seldom inter- fered with crop work. It often was arranged so that the herd watered near the farmstead. Under these conditions, a few minutes a day was suffi- TABLE 2. GRAZING YIELDS OBTAINED WITH BEEF CATTLE ON BLACKLAND AND GRAND PRAIRIE FARMS. . 1952-54 Grand Item Blglgllilasnd Prairie farms Farms studied (no.) 18 22 Permanent pastures Acres per farm ( av.) 35 173 Days of grazing per acre: When used with beef cows 45 32 When used with stocker cattle 71 5U Sudangrass Acres per farm (av.) 5 11 Days of grazing per acre: When used with beef cows 91 82 When used with stocker cattle 146 131 Oats-clover grazed prior to about March 1 Acres per iarm (av.)‘ 55 67 Days of grazing per acre: When used with beef cows 23 18 When used with stocker cattle 45 36 Oats-clover utilized entirely for grazing Farms studied (av. no.) 12 9 Acres per farm (av.) 8 16 Days of grazing per acre: When used with beef cows 89 78 When used with stocker cattle 148 132 ‘Includes a small acreage of wheat and barley. V be most in demand as stockers. cient for the attention needed. Supplemental feeding was done during the Winter when crop Work was slack. Throughout the year, Blackland farmers averaged about 35 minutes per day look- ing after the beef enterprise. With larger herds, Grand Prairie farmers averaged about 50 minutes daily caring for beef cattle. Calves fat at weaning usually were sold, but thin calves often were kept for more growth and finish. Three Blackland and four Grand Prairie farmers made a practice of creep feeding calves before weaning. Creep-fed calves were in good condition when weaned. Otherwise, there usually were some calves on each farm not carrying enough finish at weaning time t0 meet butcher demands. Often such calves were too heavy to The number of calves lacking finish when weaned greatly in- creased during drouth years. In most cases, thin calves were carried over the winter and sold later. Most of the calvesthat had access to a creep were fed a relatively long time. Oats made up about 50 percent of the ration (Table 4). When oats were fed alone, no cottonseed meal was used. Ground corn usually was supplemented with cot- tonseed meal. ' Five farmers put all of their calves in the feedlot to fatten on homegrown feeds. The calves usually were started on feed before weaning in order to reduce shrinkage. The length of time calves were in the feedlot varied since the fattest calves were topped out as soon as they had the desired finish. A summary of the drylot feeds used is shown in the last two columns of Table 4. TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF FEED AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR BEEF COWS ON CENTRAL TEXAS FARMS. '1 Cooperating farmers usually marketed ’ at local livestock auctions and seldom knew market grade of the animals sold. Howev large proportion of the calves going into the lot on these five farms sold at about the 1* price as was being paid for animals grading t and for those grading Choice on markets W livestock grading was practiced. ~ PRODUCTION AND SALES A summary of beef production and sales i the cow-calf enterprise is shown in Table 5.’ » duction figures are for the 3 years, 1952-54. , ever, prices on which sales are based are #1 level which prevailed during the last part of i and the first part of 1954 to facilitate a com son with other types of beef cattle ente p. which will be discussed later. L About half of the calves (above those fr for replacements) which were not fed, -\ through a creep or in a drylot, were sold at ing time. The selling weight of these calves.‘ aged 423 and 399 pounds, respectively, on i‘ land and on Grand Prairie farms. Some v‘ went for slaughter. The remainder of th crop usually was sold the following sp f early summer, averaging 570 to 600 w} Yearlings handled in this way usually b l from 0.5 to 1 cent per pound more than did é from the same herds that were sold in th Creep-fed calves usually were sold p weighing 500 pounds or more. Complete C were not kept, but available records indicat __ creep-fed calves were sold at a younger age Average requirements per cow on: Item Blackland farms Grand Prairie tarml. Farms studied (no.) 15 21 Cropland per farm (ac.) 184 201 Permanent pasture per iarm ' (ac.) 36 181 Beef cows per farm. av. (no.) 12 22 Labor per cow annually v (hrs.) 18 14 g _ Total Feed purchased Total Feed purch“ Feed fed annually per cow‘ pounds Pounds D pounds Pounds i Concentrates: Ground ear corn 120 — -— 60 — Cottonseed meal 100 100 3.40 135 135 Breeder cubes 13 13 .60 50 50 Miscellaneous concentrates 13 6 .18 5 5 Salt and minerals 24 24 .89 22 22 Total per cow 270 143 5.07 272 212 Forages: _ Carbonaceous hay 2,181 200 3.00 1,338 120 Cottonseed hulls 51 51 .67 17 17 Clover hay 100 — — 88 — Alfalfa hay 9B 96 1.92 28 28 Total per cow 2.428 347 5.59 1.471 165 . Grazing per cow: Days oi grazing Days of grazing F Permanent pasture 84 228 r Oats or oats-clover 72 ‘ 37 Sudangrass 31 15 Field residue 65 42 Total grazing days 252 322 ~ Creep feeding i4. SUMMARY OF FEEDING PRACTICES USED IN CREEP AND DRYLOT FEEDING OF FARM-RAISED CALVES, 1952-54 Drylot feeding Hem Blackland Grand Prairie Blackland Grand Prairie farms farms farms farms ~ltudied (no.) 3 4 3 2 h, led per farm (no.) 11 17 10 23 ~ per calf: Cost feed Cost feed Cost feed Cost feed I’ entrates: Lb’ purchased Lb‘ purchased Lb’ purchased Lb" purchased i ; 200 220 — 70 und ear corn 160 185 1,600 1,200 und sorghum grain — _ _- 830 onseed meal 30 $1.02 40 $1.36 250 $8.50 300 $10.20 ; 390 $1.02 445 $1.36 1,850 $8.50 2,400 $10.20 es: T- -clover hay — — — 435 g hum hay —- — 540 435 i forage — — 540 - 870 ithe calves sold off the cows without supple- ; feeding. Of these two groups, creep-fed _; sold at about 4 cents more per pound. ost of the calves weaned and put in the j were marketed during the winter and '1 When sold, lot-fed calves weighed between H 700 pounds. During this study, there was tively strong demand at this time of year Vldlot calves of this weight. g w and bull sales represent a normal turn- _ or breeding herds of the size studied. Culled “were either old, had failed to raise a calf i e not of desired quality. Most culled cows fin fair to good flesh when sold. Item Young bulls, usually registered, were pur- chased weighing 7 00 to 800 pounds and old enough for service. Normally, a bull was used 3 or 4 years and sold, weighing 1,100 to 1,200 pounds. In some cases, farmers exchanged bulls with a neighbor after 2 years service. PRODUCTION COSTS A summary of the cost of-input items used with beef cows is shown in Table 4. These include cas.h costs, the value of homegrown feeds and overhead costs directly associated with the cattle enterprise. Items of feed include both the concentrates and forage used to maintain the breeding herd LLE 5. SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION, SALES AND COSTS FOR BEEF COW HERDS ON CENTRAL TEXAS FARMS Supplemental feeding of calves Blackland farms No Creep - feeding feeding ' studied (no.) 9 3 ws per farm (no.) 12 13 i raised annually per farm (no.) 11.5 12.5 i sold annually per farm (no.) 5 11 ves sold. av. (lb.) 423 515 i. calves sold (lb.) 2,115 5,665 * _ (dol.) 331.84 1,127.34 -! sold, av. (no.) 5 arlings sold, av. (lb.) 570 .1 yearlings sold (lb.) 2,820 ‘Y ' (dol.) 454.87 cows and bulls sold (lb.) 1,370 1,480 ,1 (dol.) 143.49 154.00 ve wt. sold (lb.) 6,305 7,145 ‘ - tle sales (dol.) 930.20 1,281.34 ms, cow-calf enterprise _ _ _ _ _ annually per farm ; hased concentrates 66.00 81.00 megrown concentrates 34.00 117.00 I chased forages 73.00 58.00 egrown forages 219.00 236.00 used entirely for grazing 98.00 126.00 a- and veterinary expenses 12.00 13.00 _ ting expense 27.00 20.00 st-added investment 93.00 102.00 ; llaneous expenses 90.00 85.00 costs 712.00 338.00 above costs, total 218.20 443.34 5 w in herd 18.18 34.10 Grand Prairie farms Drylot No Creep Drylot feeding feeding feeding feeding 3 15 4 2 11 22 20 26 11 21 19 25 10 9 17 23 672 399 503 685 6,720 3,590 8,550 15,755 1,142.92 561.12 1,692.90 3,387.32 9 597 5,375 878.81 1,210 2,410 2,000 2,090 127.38 249.72 210.10 219.76 7,930 11,375 10,550 17,845 . 1,545.30 1,689.65 1,903.00 3,607.08 — — — Dollars — —— — — — — — — 122.00 182.00 189.00 389.00 331.00 28.00 215.00 852.00 17.00 59.00 54.00 21.00 320.00 244.00 223.00 449.00 127.00 304.00 233.00 201.00 13.00 18.00 17.00 23.00 30.00 46.00 45.00 52.00 102.00 155.00 138.00 228.00 91.00 133.00 126.00 172.00 1,153.00 1,169.00 1,240.00 2,387.00 392.30 520.65 663.00 1,220.08 35.66 - 23.67 33.15 46.92 (Table 3) and that used by the calves on farms Where creep and drylot feeding (Table 4) Were practiced. Feed expense included grinding. Only purchased feeds and custom grinding represented a cash expense. Certain lands were devoted to beef cattle which could have been used for some other pur- pose to produce income. For instance, the acreage of Sudangrass could have been in a cash grain or feed crop. Without the cattle enterprise, grain could have been harvested from the oats that some farmers utilized entirely for grazing, and the permanent grassland used by cattle could have been leased to other farmers. As figured for Tables 5 and 6, the item “cost of crops used entirely for grazing” includes a rental charge for cropland used and for perma- nent pasture at $6 and $1 per acre, respectively. Prices current at the time of the study were used to estimate costs for seed and other materials used in growing such crops. Also includedwas a charge for the labor and power required with each TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF CATTLE WEIGHTS. CATTLE SALES, FEED REQUIREMENTS AND PRODUCTION COSTS FOR‘ ENTERPRISES ON INDIVIDUAL CENTRAL TEXAS FARMS l: Stocker cattle utilizing grazing for a relatively crop. A large proportion of these costs Wer cash costs. = Farmers usually vaccinated calves for b» leg and kept medicine for screwworms. Ve nary services were used sparingly, with =- farmers reporting no expense for this purpoi Marketing expenses included the selling mission and hauling expense. In some inst t’ cattle were sold at the farm with no selling =‘ Interest was charged on the investme cattle, in feed for cattle and in facilities (su electric fence or earth tanks) which were a to care for the cattle enterprise. ' Included among miscellaneous costs we ' pairs and depreciation of improvements and ' facilities added especially for the cattle ente Bull replacement also was included. ' 1' RETURNS ABOVE COSTS FOR COW HERDS At prices prevailing at the time of the I even a small beef cow herd was profitable. ,». Feeder '1 Item Short Intermediate Long fed ‘l. period period period Farm studied A B C Cropland per farm (ac.) 202 190 206 Permanent pasture per farm (ac.) 20 43 104 Steers purchased, date 1/2/54 10/1/53 9/15-25/53 Number purchased 42 30 48 Average weight (lb.) 330 381 312 Steers sold, date 4/5/54 4/4/54 8/1-10/54 Number sold 41 30 46 Average weight (lb.) 451 578 725 Total weight sold (lb.) 18,810 17,335 33,350 Gross cattle sales (dol.) 2,934.00 2,807.00 5,507.00 Labor with steers, total’ (hrs.) 90 120 Z93 Per steer (hrs.) 2.1 4.0 6.1 Feed used per steer: Lb. gfrithilesii Lb. Isufilieszi Lb. gsrsghifseeil Lb. Ground ear corn ' 38 40 — 680 Ground grain sorghum s — — — 600 Threshed oats 11 -— — — Cottonseed meal — 8 $ .33 170 Minerals 3 $ .04 3 .04 10 $ .13 9 Hay ' 85 60 410 580 g Pasture, grazing per steer: —- — — — — — — Days — — — — -- I Field (crop residue) — 41 55 Permanent, iall and winter — 40 52 Oats or oats-clover 74 39 90 Permanent, spring and summer 16 35 56 Sudangrass ' — — 51 Total 90 155 324 Cost items, steer enterprise: '-—- — —— — — —— — Dollars — — — — Steers purchased 1,880.00 1,630.00 2,245.00 Feed fed per iarm: ' Purchased concentrates 2.00 31.00 6.00 Homegrown concentrates 45.00 24.00 — Homegrown hays 36.00 18.00 198.00 Crops used entirely ior grazing 20.00 48.00 471.00 Vaccine and veterinary 5.00 12.00 25.00 Marketing expense 83.00 75.00 134.00 Interest on added investment 41.00 52.00 135.00 Miscellaneous expense 51.00 51.00 ' 83.00 Total 2,163.00 1,941.00 3,297.00 Returns above costs, total 771.00 866.00 2,210.00 Per steer purchased 18.37 28.85 46.04 4;‘ ed the grazing available from small grain {crop residues, in addition to providing a mar- gor farm-grown feeds. he beef cow enterprise increased farm earn- .f<>r each group of farms by $200 to $1,200 ' arm. The utilization of farm labor was im- ed when beef cattle were added since most of ttle work came during the slack period for fl‘: farm Work. This was particularly true when ,,s were fed in drylot. t was profitable for farmers to practice creep g or to feed calves in a drylot after wean- Although both cash and noncash expenses .; increased, larger sales volume and higher ‘rices gave considerable advantage to market- lves carrying a good finish. 7 1953 prices, 12-cow Blackland herds Where = were marketed without additional feeding {the operator $1 per hour for labor in addition "ying all costs, including 5 percent interest on p, ded investment required by the beef enter- . Larger Grand Prairie herds (averaging 22 ) handled similarly, paid all costs and paid erator $1 per hour for labor plus 12 percent added investment. mall Blackland herds, where calves were fed fgh a creep or in a drylot, returned approxi- y 15 percent on the added investment for enterprise in addition to paying all costs i; $1 per hour labor charge. Returns on the 'onal investment on Grand Prairie farms a calves were creep-fed or were lot-fed ged 19 and 24 percent, respectively. OCKER AND FEEDER CALF ENTERPRISE few farmers ran some steers during part year in addition to keeping a herd of cows. I usually were kept separate from the cows jere handled as a separate enterprise. Farms cattle are operated in this way usually are average in size. any Central Texas farmers prefer steers , than cows because of the flexibility of the enterprise. The number of stockers pur- id can be governed by feed supplies, and the re 2. Good quality calves being wintered in Bell count perwise would have been lost. number kept usually can be adjusted readily to changing conditions with a minimum dangerof loss. Farmers whose main interest is in cash crops prefer to spend very little time with live- stock except when crop work is not urgent. For this reason, they prefer stocker cattle which can be kept for any desired length of time. Most Blackland farmers prefer to purchase lightweight calves through local livestock auc- tions. Some stockers were bought entirely to utilize grazing, others to utilize grazing prior to going into the feedlot and some feeders were purchased to go directly into the feedlot. Although stocker and feeder calves are fitted into cash crop farming in numerous ways, four systems were the most common on Blackland farms. Lightweight calves were purchased to: (1) graze small grains during the winter and early spring; (2) graze crop aftermath and native pastures in the fall, graze small grains in the winter and utilize the spring flush of grazing from permanent grassland; (3) utilize grazing most of the year; and (4) feed out in a drylot. Because of drouth and short feed supplies, relatively few cooperating farmers bought stocker or feeder cattle during 1952. Improved grazing prospects late in .1958 encouraged fall and winter buying of stocker cattle. Because of variations in practices followed in the period during which stockers were kept and in the kinds of grazing utilized, the data obtained were not well suited to group analysis. Consequently, case studies were made of the four most common systems by which stocker and feeder cattle were fitted into the farming program on Central Texas farms. These are designated as farms A, B, C" and D. Improvements made on most Central Texas farms to accommodate a steer grazing enterprise consisted of additional water facilities, about a half-mile of electric fencing and some remodeling of lots. For lot feeding, there usually was remodeling of sheds or barns and the addition of new feed troughs. y. These calves utilized field grazing and small grain pasture 9 Summaries of feed requirements, production, sales and production costs for four systems where steers were purchased to utilize grazing and farm- grown feeds are shown in Table 6. STEERS KEPT FOR A SHORT GRAZING PERIOD When moisture conditions are favorable for early seeding and growth, grain fields may be ready to turn on in November. More often it is December or January before grazing is plentiful. Livestock are taken off of grain that is to be har- vested about March 1. The amount of grazing and the length of the grazing period are affected largely by moisture and temperature. These conditions vary from year to year. With favor- able conditions, grazing will be abundant over a relatively long period, but with unfavorable condi- * tions, relatively little grazing may be produced. Farmer A had only a small acreage of perma- nent grassland (Table 6, Column 1) and had not maintained a year-round beef enterprise. How- ever, a substantial acreage of small grains, mostly oats, was seeded each year, and stocker calves were purchased as needed to utilize the available grazing. To handle the cattle enterprise, farmer A had remodeled his lots and a shed previously used for work stock, put in an earth tank and purchased material for a .half-mile of electric fence. He bought 42 calves averaging 330 pounds in January 1954 for approximately $13.50 per hundredweight. These were late calves, thin and lighter in weight than usually are purchased at that time. The calves were put on good oats grazing and, except during wet weather, remained on small grain pasture until March 2. The re- mainder of the grazing period was about equally “ divided between a small block of volunteer oats that was not kept for grain harvest and the spring growth of permanent pasture. The calves were fed 56 bales of hay, 1,600 pounds of ground ear corn and 15 bushels of oats. Figure 3. Beef cows on the farms studied were good quality grade animals. Registered bulls were used almost entirely. A l0 The corn and oats were fed during bad weat as was most of the hay. One calf died. The remaining 41 head, av, aging 451 pounds, brought $15.60 per hund weight. The calves gained approximately p pounds per head daily for the 3-month graz' period. A total of 4,950 pounds of liveweight produced. Cost items for the steer enterprises figured by the same method as previously g scribed in connection with beef cow herds. A After allowing for both cash and non f cost items for livestock, materials and facili. used with the beef grazing enterprise, farme added $770 to the farm earnings. This little more than $18 per calf grazed, or appr mately the same as the returns per cow on si Blackland farms (Table 5) where calves were g without supplemental feeding. The larger ber of steers grazed on farm A gave total ret ; considerably larger than the average realized =. 12 cows. l The investment on farm A was increa little more than $2,000 because of the cattle e . prise. The largest part was for cattle and : for only 3 months. At 1953-54 prices, the f enterprise on farm A paid for all costs ass0c' A with it, plus 35 percent interest on the $ increase in investment. r In this instance, there was a little more l ’ 2 cents per pound increase» between the r‘ and selling price of the cattle. Sometimes A kept for a short grazing period will not set any more than the purchase price. Had fa f sold his steers for $13.50 per hundredweig still would have made a profit of $376, or A 19 percent on the additional money invest the steer grazing enterprise. STEERS KEPT FOR AN INTERMEDIATE GRAZING 153i Farmer B had 48 acres of permanent :3 land and a sizable acreage of small grain with a stocker cattle enterprise. No culti crops were grown specifically for pasture. He bought 30 calves in 1953 soon aft main part of the cotton was harvested. The g weighed 381 pounds and cost $14 per weight, plus $30 for hauling. The calves were run on sorghum any, stalks and on dry permanent pasture un. cember 20. Oats were grazed from Dece to March 1_. The calves were then shifted spring growth of permanent pasture until 4, when they were marketed. l Throughout the grazing period, the. had access to a straw stack. During bad w, they were fed 1,200 pounds of ground ear c’ 250 pounds of cottonseed meal. t. Thirty calves gained nearly 1.3 pout head daily and weighed 578 pounds Wh Some variation occurred in the selling p » t averaged approximately $15.10 per hun- eight. _ this instance, steers were carried a little than 5 months and gained nearly 200 pounds lad, almost entirely from grazing. A total .00 pounds of liveweight was produced. This as much liveweight as Wasmarketed ly from 12 cows on Blackland farms where lves were sold without being fed grain. ith the longer grazing period, 30 steers omewhat higher returns than did 42 steers or 90 days, or the short grazing period just a sly discussed. Stated differently, it took cent more steers as handled on farm A to ‘imilar returns above costs compared with wbtained with the steer grazing enterprise 1 B. , eluding the cost of the cattle, farmer B additional investment of nearly $1,900 f; of the steer grazing. At 1953-54 prices, p ed over 40 percent return on this invest- ‘alafter all costs associated with the grazing rise, including a labor charge, were deduct- m cattle sales. ad farmer B sold these steers for only $14 gndredweight (the price he paid), the steer g enterprise would have returned a profit pf... or $16 per head grazed. KEPT FOR A LONG GRAZING PERIOD armer C normally bought steer calves in rly fall and pastured them until grazing gut the following summer. The farm in- about 100 acres of permanent grassland. to 100 acres of small grain, largely oats 1 in combination with clover, were planted h. all. When needed, some oats were used for grazing. Twenty or more acres of ‘grass were planted yearly for summer 2'- , uring the latter part of September 1953, jr C bought 48 steer calves. The calves nusually light, averaging only 312 pounds, ,re purchased over a 10-day period through local livestock auctions at prices averaging ap- proximately $15 per hundredweight. The calves were first turned in on sorghum stalks. Later the cotton field was opened up and, with volunteer oats and native pasture, was grazed until January 1. During much of this time, 3 bales of hay were fed daily. Two calves died prior to January 1. Oats and some wheat furnished grazing until April 10. Fifteen acres of oats were fenced off 3nd used entirely for grazing during the last 40 ays. Permanent grassland was then pastured until early in June when Sudangrass was ready. Sudan- grass furnished most of the grazing until the steers were sold in August. After a grazing period of nearly 11 months, the 46 steers weighed 725 pounds and had gained more than a pound per day. They were sold over a 10-day period and averaged a little more than $16.50 per hundred- weight. From the standpoint of cattle numbers, the steer enterprise on farm C was the largest of the stocker and feeder cattle programs herein de- scribed. It also was the most profitable in total returns above costs and in returns per animal. In 1953-54, farmer C produced and sold over 18,000 pounds of steer gain. This compares with cattle sales averaging 11,375 pounds for 15 Grand Prairie farms where 22 cows were maintained and calves were sold without grain feeding (Table 4). In preparation for grazing steers, farmer C added a large dirt tank, rebuilt barbed wire fenc- ing, added electric fence and enlarged the corrals. The cost of these new improvements added about $800 to the farm investment. The cost of the cattle ran the added investment to nearly $3,000. In 1953-54, the steer grazing enterprise on farm C returned approximately $1,900 after all expenses plus a charge for labor were deducted. The steers on farm C were sold for 1.5 cents more per pound than the price paid. Had the Figure 4. Blackland farmers get good summer gains when steers are pastured on Sudangrass. ll selling price per pound been the same as the purchase price, the cattle enterprise would have shown a profit of $37 per head grazed. STEERS FED IN DRYLOT Farmer D used steers as a market for grain and hay rather than to utilize grazing. However, he did not market all of his grain in this way. Consequently, When the outlook was favorable, grain supplies usually were sufficient for cattle feeding, even though current, crop yields were below average. He remodeled a shed, enlarged his lots and added water facilities and feed troughs to provide for cattle feeding. The total cost of these im- provements amounted to about $750. In late September 1953, farmer D bought 33 good quality calves for the feedlot. They averaged 450 pounds and cost $17 per hundredweight. For the first 20 days, the calves were given a limited amount of ground corn, a pound of cottonseed meal daily and all the hay they would eat. During the next 100 days, hay was limited to about 4 pounds per head daily, cottonseed meal was increased to 1.5 pounds per head daily and they were given as much ground ear corn and ground sorghum grain as they would clean up. After 120 days on feed, the steers had gained 2 pounds per head daily. They were sold weigh- ing 690 pounds at $21.50 per hundredweight. Thirty-three calves handled in this way in 1954 gave about the same returns above feed costs as did the 30 lighter weight calves purchased by farmer B for use in a 5-month grazing pro- gram. However, much of the success of the beef enterprise on farm B depended on small grain grazing, whereas the lot feeding program on farm D was entirely independent of grazing. A number of farmers vary somewhat from the system used by farmer D, in that calves are grazed in stalk fields or on volunteer oats for 30 to 40 days before going into the feedlot. Figure 5. These 38U-pound calves were purchased in the fall and given 30 days field grazing followed by feeding in a drylot. l2 Including the purchase price of the e, farmer D increased his farm investment b proximately $3,500. After all costs ass with the drylot feeding enterprise were ded from sales, the remainder amounted to a 1 cent return on the $3,500 added investment $1 per hour for the labor used with cattle. Fat calves, lot-fed as were those on fa ,; usually sell for more per pound than feeder However, the amount of this price spread greatly from year to year or from time t0‘ during a particular year. Farmer D got ax margin of 4.5 cents per pound. Had this ~ been only half this amount, returns above would have dropped to $308, or $9.33 per c, MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. THAT INFLUENCED RETURNS The combination of higher operatin", and lower beef prices gives added impor -, management practices that cut costs, reduc increase output, improve quality and sale value of cattle. A brief discussion of = the practices which were observed to in, returns from beef cattle follows: Y 1. Sound planning was important. most successful farms, the land-use prog g the beef cattle project were planned to sup each other. Here beef cattle, in addition, lizing permanent grassland, made use of a, from small grains and crop residues Whi" no use other than for grazing. Crop en interfered very little with beef cattle a versa. The successful operator gave thf necessary attention, even during the busy " the crop season. 2. Water facilities in the area stu quently are limited. The farms studied one time, been operated with workstock ,1 sufficient stock water for that need. v! water facilities usually were provided to p, cattle needs. Serious difficulties were n rienced during the study by cooperating ,1 because of lack of water. Numerous were observed of other farmers sufferi cial loss because of having to sell anim, unfavorable time when water supplies Earth tanks are not always a dependabj source in either the Blackland or th” Prairie. No farmer should attempt to add ca out plenty of water for their needs. 3. Adequate feed supplies are w important as adequate water. The if, farms studied averaged 3 acres of cf pasture per cow. Here a great deal of dill was put on small grains for winter on field aftermath and Sudangrass at 0 1 Considerable hay was fed during the " Grand Prairie farmers stocked of 1 cow for 8 acres of permanent grass manent pastures were expected to furnis ree-fourths of the year. Small grain and {grazing were other important pasture ‘serve hay supplies were sufficient during ather or when grazing did not develop as d. Farmers with the lowest cost used '5: most of the year. Ame of the cooperating farmers found their iserves insufficient for a prolonged period __t grazing, such as occurred on many farms p the winter of 1951-52. at year, seven farmers with pasture fed u pounds of hay per cow, all of which was [ own. Others without pasture fed an aver- 3,300 pounds per cow. Farmers with no S, but with ample hay reserves, wintered .= a cost of $20 per head less than did farm- 31 started the winter with a hay reserve of .3000 pounds per cow. I reserve of 1.75 to 2 tons of dry forage is J per cow for winters when there is little 1 azing available. .= operated on Central Texas farms, a steer }Was more flexible than a cow herd and was ely easy to adjust to variations in feed Ies. .~ A few farmers got very good results from fr»; silage. In all cases observed, cow herds _'ch silage was fed were larger than those sed in this bulletin. Some economical gains reported from silage fed to stocker cattle. p. Some advantages were observed in favor y! er herds. For instance, one bull was needed F farms, whether the herd consisted of 10 or cs. In each case, the total cost was approxi- ' the same, but the cost of keeping a bull uch lower per cow with the larger herds. Jit took more than half as much time to feed ~: e for 12 cows as it did for 24. he investment per cow in improvements : fence, shelter and water facilities usually i: ed as the size of herd increased. . Death losses among cows averaged 2 to 3 t. Daily, or almost daily, attention helped losses low. That herds were generally in 1 health was reflected in a 95 percent calf 7 Veterinary expenses averaged only about r cow for breeding animals, including the i. vaccinating calves for blackleg. Veteri- expenses were somewhat less for stocker Qeeder calves. . Sheds and barns used on most farms were 'onal but inexpensive. When needed, pole- buildings provided relatively inexpensive e for hay and shelter "for animals. In all few cases studied, overhead expenses were ‘ely low. Although the mainline fences were i» wire, most of the cross fencing used in , g small grain or other field crops was elec- tric. This practice helped greatly in keeping down investment and overhead costs. 8. It was important that cattle be “well sold” and that stocker and feeder cattle be “well bought.” Most animals were bought at relatively light weights, a popular practice among many experienced feeders. Purchases usually were made in September, October, November or December when prices generally are at or near the ye~ar’s low. A high proportion of the calves fed for slaughter were marketed during the late winter and spring when there was a strong local demand for butcher cattle. 9. On the farms studied, calves usually were not kept on feed after they would grade Good or Low Choice. This quality of young beef was in demand at the markets where most animals were sold. 10. Many farmers let the bull run with the cows all year. This practice is the easiest to manage. As a result, the calving season often is scattered over several months if not the entire year. The farmer should watch for calving trouble at all times and especially for screwworm infestation. I Spring calves were sold off cows in the fall or were weaned and put on feed. Calves that came late in the spring or summer were too young and too light to bring much when marketed in the fall. Such calves often were held over the winter. An alternative plan which is gaining popu- larity is the practice of fall calving. A calf eats little grass before it is 3 months old. An April 1 calf is ready to eat grass about July when grass growth is checked because of hot, dry weather. Calves coming in October, November and even December will be eating grass by or before March 1, and will be able to consume considerable grazing during the lush season. Fall calves are fat and ready for market by or before June and at a time when prices for butcher calves usually are relatively high. Wintering is more of a problem with cows suckling small calves than with cows due to calve in the spring. Fall calving should not be under- taken without a good supply of forage, either grazing or hay. 11. There was no opportunity in this study to evaluate farmer results from the use of bulls that are known to be high-gaining animals. Other research has shown that the use of high-gaining sires and the selection of high-gaining heifers for replacements will greatly increase calf weights at weaning time and gain in the feedlot (see TAES Bulletin 809). As a rule, these practices are not followed systematically with small farm herds such as were included in this study. However, the results that can be obtained justify wide adoption of this method of herd improvement. 13 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges the assistance of H. O. Hill, superintendent of Substation N0. 23 at McGregor, who helped in the initial planning of the study and has given many helpful suggestions. Appreciation also is expressed to the county agents who were helpful in planning and getting the study under Way. Margaret Machos and Mary Edna McDonald, members of the clerical staff, rendered valuable assistance in the tabulation of the data and in the preparation of the manuscript. This study was made possible by the coopera- tion of the farmers who furnished the information here reported and analyzed. ....s,ents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation; State-wide Reseaze The Texas Lgricultur'ot1 Experiment Stcttii is the public ctgriculturcai EGCECIICiE czgen oi the State oi Teztcts, and is one of n5 Location of field research units in Texas main- t'db-thT A'ltlE't ... ~ Sig?” ind Eoopeettczziinggliiiglenldigs xpenmen Paris ef the lexas AéKM College Syst IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matte: departments, 2i departments, 3 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultur of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are l4 coop ~raéting stations v by other agencies, including the Texas Forest Service, the Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technological College and the King Ranch. experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. REsEARcH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of resear search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 350 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs ~ i clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: ~ conservation and improvement of w servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conserve. improvement of soils; grain crops; cotton and other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other _ cal fruits, fruits and nuts; oil seed.crops—other than cotton; ornamental plants——including turf; - I weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and mal diseases and parasites fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural if Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. REsEARCH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. a