8-1079
December ‘I968

it e Texas-Oklahoma
ttle Feeding Industry

Structure

and
Operational
Characteristics

TEXAS A8=M UNIVERSITY

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

H. O. Kunkel, Acting Director, College Station, Texas
In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

 

Contents

Summary 3
Introduction I 5
Structural Changes and Shifts in Cattle Feeding .... .. 6
Organizational Characteristics of the

Texas-Oklahoma Cattle Feeding Industry ............ .. 7
Longevity of Present Feedlots .............................. .. 7
Legal Form of Ownership .................................. .. 8
Principal Business of Feedlot Owner .................. ..l0
Type of Feeding Facilities 10
Source of Financing for Operating Capital ...... ..ll
Source of Financing for Fixed Investments ...... -.ll

Kind and Source of Cattle Placed on Feed .............. ..ll
Kinds of Cattle Placed on Feed .......................... .-ll
Geographic Origin of Feeder Cattle .................. "l3

Origin of Feeder Cattle by Type of Buyer; ..... "l3
Origin of Feeder Cattle by Type of Market ...... ..l4

Feeder Cattle Contracting 16
Weights, Quality and Sex of Cattle
Placed on Feed - 16
Weight of Cattle Placed on Feed ...................... ..l6
Grades of Cattle Placed on Feed ........ .. .... ... ..... -.l7
Placements by Sex 18
Length of Feeding Period, Placement Patterns
and Death Loss 19
Length of Feeding Period 19
Placement Patterns 20
Death Loss 21
Weights and Grades of Fed Cattle Marketed. ......... -.22
Weights of Fed Cattle Marketed. ...................... .-22
Grades of Fed Cattle Marketed 22

- Preferences of Feedlots Relative to Breed,

   
   

Geographic Area of Sales, Selling .
Arrangements and Shrinkage ....................... .. 

Geographic Area of Sales ........................ .. v
Selling Agenriee i‘
Selling Arrangement ................ .; ............. ... 
Cattle Sales Prior to Shipment ...............  
Shrinkage Assessments"... ....................... .. ' 

Ownership of Cattle on Feed and 
Custom Feeding Arrangements ................. .. 

Ownership of Cattle on Feed ................. .. 
Ownership of Custom Fed Cattle .......... .. =
Financing and Selling Custom Cattle.'.'..' 
Methods of Assessing Custom i‘

Feeding Charges

Weight, Age and Sex
Preferred Breeds
Preferred Weights
Preferred Age
Preferred Sex

Composition of Rations, Source of Feed and ‘
‘ Feed Purchase Arrangements ..................... .... Y;
Composition of Ratirms i‘
Source of Feed
Feed Purchase Arrangements ............. ....
Source of Price Information ....................... .. I
Implications of Future Research. .................. .... 7
Acknowledgment i’
Literature Cited
Appendix Tables

v
;
,-

   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  

 Cattle feeding in the Southern Plains (Texas and
_ ahoma) has been characterized by rapidly increas-
i numbers of large commercial feedlots and has
iergone some recent dramatic changes. Numbers
jcattle on feed and feedlots with a capacity of 1,000
d or more increased five-fold within the Southern
I ' s since the mid-l950’s. Texas currently occupies
 fourth position among cattle feeding states while
ijlahoma is ranked 17th. The Southern Plains’ cattle
Vding industry, similar to most other rapidly expand-
‘. industries, is faced with adjustments and major
y isions concerning management practices and cattle
vfding systems, costs, economies of size and optimum
l ation.

A study of cattle feeding in the Southern Plains
.  initiated with a random stratified sample survey

’ 1- 205 feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma in 1967. This
~ dy is concerned with a detailed analysis of manage-
‘  practices and cattle feeding systems in Texas
pd Oklahoma for the period July 1966 to June 1967.
p, ter publications will deal with costs, economies
'~i size and optimum location.

I Large, highly mechanized, commercial feedlots
e relatively new in the Southern Plains as two-thirds
 more of these lots were established during or after
60. Small feedlots, often integrated with farming
d ranching operations, generally represented a
_’='ghtly older type of feeding operation.

p Commercial banks were the single most impor-
' t source of operating capital for these rapidly
ganding feedlots. However, feedlots often relied
' more than one source for capital. This was es-
icially true for sources of capital relating to fixed
F vestmen ts.

a While 90 percent} of the feedlots in the Southern
lains had less than 1,000-head capacity on January
-, 1968, approximately 90 percent of the cattle were
,1 in lots with more than 1,000-head capacity. Forty
 cent of the cattle were finished in lots with more
l, 10,000-head capacity during 1966-67.

The Texas and Oklahoma Panhandle areas are
i’. leading cattle feeding areas within the Southern

Summary

Plains. These two areas accounted for about 40 per-
cent of the cattle fed during 1966-67. More recent
developments indicate that the Texas Panhandle
will be finishing 50 percent or more of the fed cattle
in Texas.

English breeds and English crosses accounted
for more than 50 percent of the cattle fed; Okies
accounted for 25 percent, Brahman and Brahman
crosses 17 percent and the remainder consisted of
dairy breeds, Santa Gertrudis, Charolais, Mexican
cattle and assorted crosses. No distinct patterns were
detected among size groups of feedlots relative to
kinds of cattle placed on feed. Brahman and Brah-
man crosses, however, were most prevalent in the
Rio Grande Plains of Texas.

Two-thirds of the cattle originated from sources
within Texas and Oklahoma. Texas imports origi-
nated primarily from states in the Southeast, New
Mexico and Oklahoma. Inshipments to Oklahoma
originated mostly in Texas and Louisiana-Arkansas.

Feeder cattle moving into Texas feedlots aver-
aged 509 pounds. Those going on feed in Oklahoma
averaged 597 pounds. The larger feedlots generally
placed relatively more emphasis on heavier feeder
cattle than did the smaller lots. Much variation
existed among feedlots and feeding areas in the
Southern Plains relative to grades of feeder cattle.
About 40 percent were estimated to be U. S. Choice,
48 percent U. S. Good and almost l2 percent U. S.
Standard.

Cattle marketed from Southern Plains feedlots
are relatively light compared to those from most other
feeding areas. Forty percent of the fed cattle mar-
keted weighed less than 800 pounds while about
one-third weighed more than 1,000 pounds. Slightly
more than 50 percent of these cattle were equal in
quality to U.S. Choice. Most of the remaining fed
cattle were U.S. Good.

Three-fourths of the fed cattle in Texas feed-
lots were sold to packing plants within Texas. Okla-
homa feedlots relied mostly on out-of-state packers.
Texas out-of-state shipments went primarily to the

Southeast, New Mexico, California and Oklahoma.
Outshipments from Oklahoma feedlots were destined
mostly for Texas, Kansas and states in the Southeast.

Almost 100 percent of the fed cattle were sold
on a direct basis to packers. Seventy-seven percent
were sold on a direct liveweight basis, ll percent on
a grade and carcass weight basis, and ll percent on
a carcass weight basis. There were practically no
shipments to public markets.

Length of feeding period varied by size of feed-
lot and feeding area. About 45 percent of the cattle
were marketed after feeding periods of less than 4
months. Common feeding periods in the Texas and
Oklahoma Panhandle areas were 120 to 150 days.

About two-thirds of the cattle in the Southern
Plains feedlots were finished on a custom basis dur-
ing 1966-67. The larger feedlots generally fed the
highest proportion of custom cattle. Custom feeding
was most prevalent in the Texas and Oklahoma Pan-
handle feeding areas. The majority of the custom
cattle in both states was owned by farmers and
ranchers.

Feeder cattle placements by sex varied with the
size of feedlots. Smaller feedlots were predominantly
heifer feeders while the large feedlots fed mostly
steers. Steers made up slightly more than fifty per-
cent of the feeder cattle in both states.

Feedlot operators expressed preferences regard-
ing breed, weight, age and sex’ of feeder cattle as
follows:

(l) Breed-approximately 9O percent of the feed-
lot operators expressed a preference for crossbred
feeder cattle. The most common preference was the
Hereford-Angus cross.

(2) Weight—approximately two-thirds of the feed-
lot operators in Texas preferred feeder cattle weigh-
ing less than 500 pounds, but approximately two-
thirds of the feeders in Oklahoma preferred cattle
weighing more than 500 pounds. Weight preference
appears to have a direct relationship to size of feed-
lot operations. Smaller feedlots generally expressed
a preference for lighter feeders than did the larger
lots. The most common weight range desired for

a conditions and especially price differentials I

factors by feeders without a preference relif

 
    
 
  
   
   
 
 
  
   
    
 
  
   
 
 
 
   
    
  
   
  

heifers was 400-500 pounds while the 600-700;;
range was most common for feedlots prefer 

(3) Age-more than one-third of thefe i
pressed a preference for feeder cattle betwe‘
8 months of age. Forty percent expressed an '6
erance ranging from l2 to 20 months. Fee A

a

preferred younger cattle were predominantl
feeders. Those feeding mostly steers gener

ferred an older type of feeder animal. ‘I

(4) Sex—about 45 percent of the feei
pressed a preference for steers, 38 percent HY,’
heifers and 17 percent had no preference. ,

steer and heifer feeder cattle were cited as p»?

steer or heifer feeding.

=

Considerable variation existed in the v
and kind of ingredients used in rations. 
trates made up three-fourths of the ration i’
and about two-thirds of the total in O f
Grain sorghum or milo, the single most u"
feed item, represented 60 percent of the 
Texas compared to about 50 percent in O 
Silage represented the bulk of the rough"
other important roughage items were cottonse
alfalfa hay and green chop. ‘

Sources of feed grain varied by size of‘.
and feeding area. Texas feedlots purchased
cent of their feed grain from sources within;
Oklahoma feedlots obtained most of their f -
from sources outside of Oklahoma, chiefly T
Kansas. - 

It appears that much potential exists for§
growth and expansion of cattle feeding wi 
Southern Plains. Realization of this potenti
ever, may require adjustments in current p“
and marketing practices by various segments;
livestock and meat industry to further au u’
growth of the feedlot industry. Future pro
gins, however, may decline. If so, an f’;
exacting and efficient enterprise may be” T
as feedlots increase in number and size in th
ern Plains.  A ' i 

 

The Texas-Oklahoma Cattle Feeding Industry

Structure and Operational Characteristics

Raymond A. Dietrich, assistant professor,

    
   
 
 
  
   
 
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
  
   
  
 
  
    
  

j Cattle feeding in the Southern Plains has become
s; business within the last decade. The cattle feed-
}; industry in Texas and Oklahoma is characterized
 an upsurge in numbers of large, highly mechan-
 , commercial feeding operations along with rapid
creases in numbers of cattle placed on feed.

a Texas and Oklahoma annually produce many
i the basic resources necessary for cattle feeding.

_ese include, among others, generally abundant
gpplies of feeder cattle, feed grains and forage. In
dition, feedlots in the Southern Plains enjoy a
tional advantage compared to Corn Belt feeders
y» shipping fed beef to the deficit fed-beef producing
has in the Southeast (5). Texas, the leading beef cat-
 producing state, accounted for l2 percent of the
ttle and calves on farms January 1, 1968. Oklahoma
 t and ranches held another 5 percent. Texas also
i ounts for 40 percent or more of the annual grain
‘rghum production in the United States.

v The emergence of a rapidly growing cattle feed-
‘ _g industry in the Southern Plains has raised numer-
_ questions concerning the competitive potential
 current systems of cattle feeding in Texas and
klahoma. Accordingly, a comprehensive analysis of
h. ttle feeding has been undertaken to provide detailed
ialyses concerning (1) cattle feeding systems and
1' agement practices, (2) costs and economies of
7 e and (3) optimum location of cattle feeding both
itionally and within the Southern Plains. This
i, dy is designed to provide a detailed descriptive
alysis of cattle feeding systems and management
i ctices employed by cattle feedlot operators in
‘exas and Oklahoma. Work is currently underway
i- a second manuscript dealing with costs and econo-
ies of size in cattle feeding.

  Data for this study were obtained through per-

nal interviews of feedlot operators in Texas and
klahoma for the period July l966-]une 1967. Re-

"j. ndents were selected on a stratified random sample
n is as shown in Table l.

_ The sampling rates were low for small feedlots
 the larger feedlots are feeding an increasingly larger

‘ pling a high percentage of the large lots, the
ruestionnaires completed in Texas represent 76 per-

l oportion of the cattle in the Southern Plains. By

Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology,
Texas A&M University

cent of the cattle fed in Texas from July 1966 through
June 1967. In Oklahoma, 61 percent of the cattle fed
were included. State and area totals, therefore, essen-
tially represent characteristics and operations of feed-
lots with a capacity of 1,000 head or more. Approxi-
mately one percent of the cattle included in the
Texas sample and less than one percent of those in

‘the Oklahoma sample represent feedlots with less

than 1,000-head capacity} Data, however, are pre-
sented by size of feedlot and feeding area to show
relevant characteristics of feedlot operations in the
Southern Plains.

The number of completed questionnaires by
feeding area in Texas and Oklahoma are presented
in Appendix Tables 1 and 2. The small numbers of
questionnaires completed in many of these cells are
a result of the small number of lots existing in the
cell. As shown by the sampling percentages, in many
cases nearly all of the large firms completed question-
naires.

Uncompleted questionnaires for a particular stra-
tum or feedlot were generally due to an expansion
of feedlot capacities and consequent movement into
a higher size classification, a complete shutdown of
existing facilities, one-time visits employed during
the survey, and noncooperation of three feedlot
operators.

‘The number of active feedlots, as indicated by the survey re-
sults, and the number of cattle fed by respondents in the survey
are shown in Appendix Tables 3 through 6.

TABLE 1. THE SAMPLING PERCENT, THE NUMBER OF FEEDLOTS IN
THE SAMPLE AND THE NUMBER OF COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES,
BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Texas Oklahoma
Com- Com-
Feedlot Feedlots pleted Feecllots pleted
capacity Sampling in question- Sampling in question-
lhead) percent sample naires percent sample naires
Percent Number Number Percent Number Number
Less than 1,000 4 46 32 4 28 13
1,000'-1,999 25 28 15 33 8 7
2,000-4,999 33 31 34 5O 9 8
5,000-9,999 50 21 17 100 5 4
10,000 and
over g 100 r 25 22 100 4 4

STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND
SHIFTS IN CATTLE FEEDING

Cattle feeding in the Southern Plains, especially
Texas, during the last decade is characterized by
large increases in numbers of cattle placed on feed
and a rapid growth and expansion of cattle feeding
facilities with a capacity of 1,000 head or more.
Feedlots with less than 1,000-head capacity have been
declining in the Southern Plains and most other
major feeding areas.

Numbers of cattle on feed in Texas increased
almost sixfold from January 1, 1958, to January 1,
1968, Figure 1. Cattle on feed in Oklahoma during
the same period tripled, while cattle on feed in the
United States almost doubled, Appendix Table 7.

Shifts in the location and importance of cattle
feeding are evident in most feeding areas of the
United States, Table 2. The North Central region
has been and is the leading cattle feeding region in
the United States, Appendix Table 7. Many changes,
however, are evident in the pattern of cattle feeding
in the North Central and Western regions. Table 2
demonstrates the relative importance of selected states
or regions to annual totals of U. S. cattle on feed
from 1955 to 1968. Although cattle on feed in the
North Central region increased from January 1, 1955
to 1968, the rate of growth in the North Central
region has been less than that of the United States.
The growth rate of cattle feeding in Texas was
three times greater than that for the United States
from 1955 to 1968. The growth rate in Oklahoma,
Nebraska, Arizona and Colorado was from 9 to 33
percent over the national rate during the same period.
Increases in cattle feeding in California lagged slight-
ly behind the U. S. rate during the 1955-68 period,
but the California decline is most noticeable since
1963.

TABLE 2.
ARY 1, 1955-68

CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED AS A PERCENT OF UNlTED STATES TOTALS, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA AND SELECTED AREAS,‘

1,000 -

aoo l-

600 '-
Texia /

my

  
  
  
   
  
  
    
 
    
 
  

400 '-

Thouaand head

"L/fl/

200 Lflixgxy/

Oklahoma

  

0 | | l n I | z n | l l
1955 1960 1965

Figure 1. Cattle and calves placed on feed, Texas and,
homa, January 1, 1955-68. 

The number, size and lot capacity have _
significantly in Texas and Oklahoma since  
Texas feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head or 
increased from 61 in 1955 to 275 in 1968, Ta,
The capacity of these lots increased from
head to 1,299,000 head in 1968. Complete d9
number and size of feedlots are not availabl‘
Oklahoma since 1955, but lots with a capaci
1,000 head or more increased from 6 in 1956 
in 1967. 

Size of feedlot and numbers of cattle on ,'
by size of lot, varied between the Southem 
the Midwest and the West, Table 4. Numl}
cattle per lot increased for both size categories, 
4, but they increased most rapidly for the lots
more than 1,000-head capacity. Small feedlo 
creased in all feeding areas except Nebraska
1964 to 1968. During the same time period, f a

Area 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 i

  

Southern Plains

Texas

Oklahoma
North Central‘

lowa

Nebraska

Illinois

Other North Central
Western Region’

Arizona

Colorado

California

Other Western states
Other states”
United States

i!

o ioro--i\>\|
P.“'9‘P°.*‘.'°.'°T°PPT‘NT'PF°
orso-wxwowomoomtsrowm
o row-- row
P.".\'P°:'*°’F*°I".°?°9T'T'!°?°
ozstnwouiwxsomww-tno
i

o row- row
9.“'9‘9°F*$°.'°9.“’I°.°!°T‘NP
otnowowoowarom-tno~
i

o mw- row
.°I"°‘?‘P$°9$'°T‘I°."‘$". .
owoowwrooooroooo\1—oo
i

o row row
9.“‘°°.\'$"$°?*I°I°2°T'9. P?’
O—-00O--to\J00\lO~mO~OOooO~

-o~

6 taro
Quiyootnpuioooooa

i...__...__ Pefcenf ._.._.__i.._.._____.._.i___._____li

00-h
ION —*0~
(db
taro -o~
taro -o~
:50":
i-‘IQ
row --0~
new —--o~
o_<n_\|_~o§.nw<.n\|\|-o~w--tno~

booobowtnLNl-boloinlobaio
o
<>$".\'9°°‘9°°*?°.°.°°°$".
bO~Ln~OMO~wM—'\1-—-Ot\J-
nul
o
Q9".°r°!*S*°.>P‘I°:°P°§‘~."F°P
‘Qaowwoxsowozsuooooo
o _.
OP‘?‘9$".°’?‘9‘9°Z°9°.'". .
buioooaao-utnoowooooui
6' row
OPP‘7°S"F*’!*P*P°F>P°PT“!>P"
b>~oo-oo~oww>roo~m~o-
o
9$"§'7°$"F°P'P“.\‘99°$°f!*9‘
otn--mwtn-o-owo~:>—-oo
o
brorooodnbbooiaohbl-L:

k)

9“

Q

‘Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, lowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas.
’Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada.

‘Data for Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi were not published until 1960.
Source= Cattle on Feed, U.S. Dept. Agri., Crop. Rpt. Bd., Stat. Rptg. Serv., Selected issues.

   
  
   
  
   
    
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
   
    
  
 
  

3. SIZE AND CAPACITY OF TEXAS CATTLE FEEDLOTS, JANU-
1, 1955-68

1,000 head or more Less than 1,000 head

Total Total
Feedlots capacity Feedlots capacity

1,000 1,000

I Number head Number head
55 61 16o 1400 NA
60 120 350 17501 NA
,5 234 805 1500 NA
as 275 1,229 1400 NA

imated by authorities in the livestock and cattle feeding industry.
a rce: Texas Cattle on Feed, U.S. Dept. Agr., Crop Rpt. Bd., Stat.
. Serv., selected issues and Cattle on Feed, U.S. Dept. Agr.,
p. Rptg. Bd., Stat. Rptg. Serv., selected issues.

Vth more-than-1,000-head capacity increased in all
l except Nebraska, California and Arizona. While
percent of the feedlots in the Southern Plains had
3 than 1,000-head capacity on January 1, 1968,
:1- 90 percent of the cattle were held in lots
i’ more than 1,000-head capacity. Farmer-feeders
p, less than 1,000-head capacity held almost 60
i ent of the cattle on feed in South Dakota, Ne-
V» ka and Kansas on January l, 1968. These small
..-~ers comprised 99 percent of the total feeders in
A... three states. Large commercial feedlots were
i_re prevalent in California and Arizona as they
p. unted for 62 percent of the feedlots and 98 per-
.1 of the cattle on feed.

.0 I ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
 or THE TEXAS-OKLAHOMA
CATTLE FEEDING INDUSTRY

A Texas and Oklahoma feeding areas for this study
1e shown in Figures 2 and 3. Cattle feeding within
l, state is concentrated most heavily in the Pan-
 dle areas. The Texas Panhandle, which produces
fut 20 percent of grain sorghum in the United
lites, accounted for more than 40 percent of the
ttle placed on feed in Texas feedlots during 1966-
.’? The Texas Panhandle and the Southern High
A ins areas account for about two-thirds of the grain
 ghum production in Texas. Recent feedlot growth
d expansion in Texas have been centered in the
a handle area where feedlots held more than one-
 lFof the Texas cattle on feed April 1, 1968. Cattle
l_ ing in Oklahoma is concentrated most heavily
_ the Oklahoma Panhandle, Southwestern Oklahoma
‘:1 Northern Oklahoma.

v Feedlots with IQOOO-head-or-more capacity ac-
unted for the largest proportion of cattle placed
v feed in both states during 1966-67, Table 5. Small
g er-feeders accounted for about 7 percent of the
Q». ttle on feed in Texas and more than 20 percent

 1 erences to "1966-67" in this study denote the period July 1,
i966, to June 30, 1967.

    
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

PANHANDLE
651,992
(40.61)

SOUTHERN HIGH
EAST TEXAS
174,816
(10.91)

GUI! COAST
255,124

Figure 2. Number of cattle placed on feed and percentage of
cattle fed, by feeding area, Texas, july l966-]une 1967.

of the cattle in Oklahoma feedlots during the same
period.

Longevity of Present Feedlots

Large, highly mechanized, commercial feedlots
are relatively new in Texas and Oklahoma. Fifty
percent or more of the current feeding facilities in
the Southern Plains were constructed during or after
1960, Table 6.3 Many feedlots with less than 1,000-
head capacity, or small/feedlots, are integrated with
farming or ranching operations. In general, more
of these small lots remain at original capacity or
technological levels than do feedlots with a capacity

“State totals in Tables 6 through ll represent the feedlot popu-
lation in Texas and Oklahoma as derived in Appendix Table 3.
State totals in all other tables are actual survey results.

Q

139,506

     
 

SOUTHHESTERN
OKLAHOMA

67,267
(21.5%)

  
   

Figure 3. Number of cattle placed on feed and percentage of
cattle fed, by feeding area, Oklahoma, July l966-]une 1967.

7

TABLE 4.

NUMBER OF FEEDLOTS AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CATTLE ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, A “.6 _
LECTED AREAS, JANUARY 1, 1964-68, AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES 1964-68 l

  

Under 1,000 head

Over 1,000 head

Percentage
Item 1964 1968 change 1964 1968
1964-68
Number Number Percent Number Number
Number of lots: '1:

Southern Plains 3,550 2,801 —21.1 238 324
Texas 1,550 1,400 — 9.7 203 275
Oklahoma 2,000 1,401 -29.9 35 49

South Dakota 11,184 9,380 —16.1 16 20

Nebraska 21,300 21,960 3.1 830 400

Kansas 14,441 11,900 —17.6 59 100

Western Region‘ 5,974 4,417 -—26.1 714 721
Colorado 1,200 1,172 — 2.3 80 94
Arizona 48 1 1 —77.1 77 65
California 296 203 -31.4 317 288
Other Western 4,430 3,031 —31.6 240 274

16 States’ 56,449 50,458 —10.6 1,857 1,565
Average cattle on feed per lot.

Southern Plains 29 30 3.4 2,063 2,802
Texas 37 36 —- 2.7 2,069 2,764
Oklahoma 22 24 9.1 2,029 3,020

South Dakota 26 39 50.0 1,688 2,050

Nebraska 19 34 78.9 488 1,532

Kansas 14 23 64.3 3,102 3,380

Western Region‘ 86 97 12.8 2,725 3,286
Colorado 157 154 — 1.9 4,025 4,862
Arizona 188 273 45.2 4,091 5,877
California 78 69 -11.5 2,912 3,083
Other Western 67 77 14.9 1,608 2,343

16 States’ 27 37 37.0 1,644 2,728

‘Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and California. _
zlncludes eleven Western States, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. I;
Source: Cattle on Feed, Mt. An. 2-1 (1-64 and 1-68), U.S. Dept. Agr., Crop Rptg. Bd., Stat. Rptg. Serv., January 1964 and January 

of 1,000 head or more since they are often a supple-
mentary enterprise. However, feedlots of all sizes,
have been and are expanding their feeding facilities
as their capital position and management practices
improve sufficiently for making decisions and accept-
ing the responsibilities associated with increasingly
larger feeding operations.

Texas feeding areas with the greatest proportion
of feedlot construction after 1964 include the Pan-
handle, the Southern High Plains and the Rio Grande
Plains. Nevertheless, feeding in the Rio Grande
Plains, as well as in East Texas, has been declining.
In Oklahoma, generally higher levels of recent feed-
lot construction were evidenced in the Panhandle and
Northern Oklahoma feeding areas.

  
   
   
     
    
  

1
<
4L

Legal Form of Ownership

Type of ownership among feedlots in Texas 
Oklahoma is related directly to the size of fee ~11
Table 7. The single proprietor form of own y’
is most common in the Southern Plains since a t‘
percentage of the feedlots in Texas and Oklah
are small commercial feedlots. Incorporated feedll
which accounted for about 45 percent of the 
fed in the Southern Plains during 1966-67, were fo 
mostly among feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 
or more. Partnerships were most common -n<»__“
feedlots with 1,000-9,999-head capacity. 

Legal forms of ownership among feeding . ‘l
exhibited no distinct patterns. In Texas, single 
prietorships were most common in the Gulf ‘

TABLE 5. CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, JULY 1966-JUNE 1967
Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
~ — — — ~ — — — — — —--—Percent-——--———---—---——----—
Texas 7.0 6.5 20.8 21.9 _ 43.8 100.0
Oklahoma 21.2 12.2 22.3 12.8 ’ 31.5 100.0
Total 9.9 7.7 21.1 20.1 41.2 100.0

‘From data reported by the Crop Reporting Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture at Austin, Texas, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

other data were developed from the feedlot survey data.
8

   

 

YEAR IN WHICH PRESENT TYPE OF FEEDING OPERATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA,

  
    

   
   
 
  
  
   
 

 
    
   
  

   
  

    
  

, Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-

gte and year 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
I capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

I OS:

Y — — — — — ~ — — — * — -—- — Percent — — — ~ — — — — — — — * -- -

~Before 1945 8.8 0 5.9 0 5.0 7.5

 1945-49 11.8 0 0 11.8 10.0 9.9

i '1 1950-54 5.9 0 0 11.7 5.0 5.2

-. 1955-59 20.6 40.0 32.3 29.4 15.0 23.1

’ 1960-64 44.1 46.7 50.0 29.4 45.0 44.4

~ ‘After 1964 8.8 13.3 11.8 17.7 20.0 9.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0

g Iahoma:
j Before 1945 7.7 14.3 12.5 0 0 8.0
‘11945-49 30.7 0 0 0 0 28.5
(1950-54 15.4 14.3 12.5 50.0 25.0 15.4
- 1955-59 15.4 14.3 25.0 0 O 15.6
1960-64 23.1 28.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 24.3
jAfter 1964 7.7 28.6 0 O 25.0 8.2
4 Total 100.0 10.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 7. LEGAL FORMS OF OWNERSHIP, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA 1966-67

V'- l Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-

iState and type 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total

~' of ownership capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

A — — — — — — — — — — — —- -- Percent — — — — — — * — — — ~ — — -

_XCIS:

L; Single proprietor 79.4 53.3 35.3 23.4 35.0 70.9

" Partnership 17.7 40.0 32.3 29.4 5.0 20.6

y. Corporation 2.9 6.7 32.4 47.2 60.0 8.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

l?» Iahoma:

'3 Single proprietor 84.6 28.6 25.0 50.0 0 80.6

 Partnership 15.4 42.8 50.0 50.0 0 17.3

‘i Corporation 0 28.6 25.0 0 100.0 2.1

I Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 8. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF FEEDLOT OWNERS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

I State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head

.principal 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total

i business capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

— * — — — — — — — — — ——-—- Percent -——-—-——————---——---—---
exas:

'~ Feedlot 5.9 20.0 50.0 41.2 60.0 13.1

I Farmer or rancher 55.9 40.0 2.9 11.8 5.0 47.9

‘ Meat packer 0 6.7 3.0 0 5.0 0.8

' Eeed company 2.9 6.7 8.8 11.7 0 3.9

,_- Feedlot-feed co. 5.9 6.6 0 0 0 5.1

" Other‘ 29.4 20.0 35.3 35.3 30.0 29.2

g Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma:

; Feedlot 0 28.6 75.0 100.0 75.0 3.7
Farmer or rancher 61.5 14.3 12.5 0 0 58.2
Meat packer O 14.2 0 0 0 0.4
Feed company 0 14.3 0 0 0 0.5
Feedlot-feed co. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other‘ 38.5 28.6 12.5 0 25.0 37.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily combinations of cattle feeding, farming and ranching.

 

TABLE 9. TYPE OF FEEDING FACILITIES USED BY TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA FEEDLOT, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, 1966-67

 

 

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
feeding 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
facilities capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ i Q _ Z _ _ _ _ i _ --- Percent ---------—-—--—--——--—-—--—i‘
Texas: a k
Fence line bunk or trough 41.2 53.4 73.5 70.6 80.0
Self-feeders 55.9 33.3 23.5 11.8 ~, 5.0
Other‘ 2.9 13.3 3.0 17.6 1 '15. 15.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Fence line bunk or trough 46.2 28.6 37.5 100.0 75.0
Self-feeders 53.8 71.4 50.0 0 25.0
Other‘ o o 12.5 o o
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily combinations of fence line bunk or trough and self-feeders.

and Rolling Plains feeding areas. Partnerships were
most prevalent in the Southern High Plains, while
corporations were of least importance in the Gulf
Coast and Rolling Plains. In Oklahoma, most of the
incorporated feedlots were in the Panhandle area
where more of that state's larger feedlots are located.

Principal Business of Feedlot Owner

Large commercial feedlots, which generally re-
quire large capital outlays and a high degree of
specialized management and labor, confined their
business activities primarily to feeding in the South-
ern Plains, Table 8. Small feeders, in contrast, often
depend on cattle feeding to supplement their farming
and ranching enterprises.

Since most feedlots in the Southern Plains are
relatively small, farming and ranching or combina-
tions of cattle feeding, farming and ranching were

TABLE 10. PRIMARY SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR OPERATING CAPITAL, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT AND NUMBER OF CATTLE PLACED s I

TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

iments of this type do exist within the ~f

r-

    
   
  
   
   
   
  

fairly common in Texas and Oklahoma duri
67, Table 8. However, when actual numbers y
placed on feed are considered, three-fourths 
of the cattle were finished in lots where cat '1
ing was considered the primary business en
Farming and ranching were considered of 
portance to feeding in lots which finished a I
third of the cattle. Commercial feed comp I f
also engaged in cattle feeding were more p vi _
in Texas than Oklahoma. Feeding by pa __
limited to only a few firms in both Texas - l»!
homa. Although none of the feedlots in 
were associated with retailing firms, several l ,

Plains.

Type of Feeding Facilities 
Fence line bunk and trough were the w;
portant type of feeding facilities among l ,1?

l.

e‘.

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
source of 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
financing capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent —-—--—-——-—-------
Texas:
Commercial banks 44.1 53.4 75.0 82.3 80.0
PCA 8.8 13.3 6.3 5.9 0
National Finance Credit Corp. 0 6.7 3.1 5.9 10.0
Insurance company 3.0 0 9.4 0 0
Individual 0 13.3 0 0 0
Private firm 0 0 3.1 0 0
Other‘ 44.1 13.3 3.1 5.9 10.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Commercial banks 23.1 57.1 12.5 25.0 75.0
PCA 7.7 0 75.0 25.0 25.0
National Finance Credit Corp. 0 0 O 0 0
Insurance company 7.7 28.6 0 25.0 0
Individual 0 0 0 O 0
Private firm 0 0 0 0 0
Other‘ 61.5 14.3 12.5 25.0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Includes financing by the feedlot owner and various combinations of the above sources.

l0

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  

' i- , Table 9. This type of feeding facility generally
ers economies and ease of distributing feed with
 anized equipment. Many smaller feeders find
i: f-feeders better adapted to their type of operation.
p- -feeders provide protection from the weather ele-
1 nts and often require less frequent distribution
Lfeed. Most of the cattle finished in the Southern
;"ns during 1966-67 were fed in fence line bunk
 trough facilities, Appendix Table 8.

. Fence line bunks or troughs were common in
p‘ Texas Panhandle, the Southern High Plains and
‘ est Texas among Texas feeding areas. Bunk or
Pugh facilities are more prevalent in these areas
_ use of a dry climate and, in addition, large com-
 cial lots are fairly common throughout the Texas
g handle and the Southern High Plains. Self-feeders
.- e most popular in all Oklahoma feeding areas with
é" exception of Southwestern Oklahoma.

i1 ce of Financing for Operating Capital

_j. Most feedlots are dependent on several sources
i_ operating capital. However, commercial banks
_' e cited as the primary source of capital for buy-
l; and finishing three-fourths of the cattle in Texas
‘- lots and more than two-fifths in Oklahoma during
j~ -67, Table l0. Commercial banks, who financed
~~ purchase of most of the feeder cattle and feed,
I usually staffed with personnel who are well in-
_ ed relative to feeding programs and market
a ditions for feeder cattle and fed cattle. The second
l. t important source in Oklahoma was the Produc-
3 Credit Association (PCA) as compared to various
binations of sources in Texas. Insurance com-
I ies and others were also cited as important sources,
_’ t they generally were not considered as primary
I ces by most feedlot operators.

Source of Financing for Fixed Investments

Commercial banks were the single most impor-
tant source of capital for purchasing land, milling
equipment and other necessary equipment and ma-
terials. But the majority of the capital requirements
for fixed investments were obtained from various
combinations of sources in both Texas and Oklahoma,
Table ll. Numerous feedlots who listed three or
four sources of capital for fixed investments stated
that no single source could be considered primary
for their method of operation.

KIND AND SOURCE OF CATTLE
PLACED ON FEED

Type of cattle placed on feed and sources of
feeder cattle, by geographic origin and type of buyer,
varied by size of feedlot and feeding area in Texas
and Oklahoma during 1966-67.

Kinds of Cattle Placed on Feed

English breeds and English crosses comprised/

about 50 percent of the cattle placed on feed i

Texas and Oklahoma feedlots during 1966-67, Table a

l2. “Okies” were the second most important type

of cattle placed on feed. Brahman and Brahman‘

crosses, which were more important in Texas than

J.
Oklahoma, ranked third in both states. Okies are]

often classified as number 1, 2 or 3 by cattle buyers
and feedlot operators. These cattle contain mixed
breeding consisting mostly of beef, dairy and Brah-
man bloodlines. Number 1 Okies, which generally
compare favorably to English crossbreds, are often
referred to as “black-baldies” by numerous feeders.
Mexican cattle, cattle originating from Mexico, were
relatively more important in Oklahoma than in Texas.
Many of these cattle are similar in appearance to
Herefords.

ABLE 11. PRIMARY SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR FIXED INVESTMENTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

I~y~ and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-

V- rce of 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
 ancing capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

v — — — — — — — — — — — —- -— Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — -— -—
 OS:

~ Commercial banks 32.3 40.0 65.6 62.5 60.0 37.3
 PCA 11.8 6.7 6.3 6.3 0 10.5
; National Finance Credit Corp. 0 0 3.1 0 5.0 0.3
I Insurance company 0 0 0 6.2 5.0 0.3
j Individual 0 13.3 0 0 0 1.0
‘ Private firm 0 0 6.2 6.3 10.0 0.9
A Other‘ 55.9 40.0 18.8 18.7 20.0 49.7
_ T0101 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
i" Iahoma:

Commercial banks 23.1 71.4 50.0 50.0 50.0 25.8
i_ PCA 5 7.7 0 37.5 25.0 25.0 8.4
; National Finance Credit Corp. 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Insurance company O 0 0 0 O 0
 Individual 0 0 0 0 0 0
' Private firm 0 0 0 0 0 0
I, Other‘ 69.2 28.6 12.5 25.0 25.0 65.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Iudes financing by the feedlot owner or various combinations of the above sources.

ll

 

TABLE 12. KIND OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

   

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State and breed 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more

capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

— — — — — — — — — —— Percent -—-——-———————-f
Texas:

English breeds and English crosses‘ 68.0 57.8 51.6 62.3 51.4
Brahman and Brahman crosses 21.5 27.4 28.4 21.4 ~_ 16.1
Okies 7.6 13.0 17.0 13.9 “,3 27.9
Dairy breeds and dairy crosses 1.5 1.8 1.5 .8 1.3
Santa Gertrudis, Charolais, and crosses 1.4 0 1.4 1.6 2.6
Mexican cattle 0 0 .1 0 .7

Total 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:

English breeds and English crosses‘ 75.2 54.0 56.1 22.6 53.6
Brahman and Brahman crosses 4.3 11.7 6.9 11.6 6.2
Okies 14.3 32.2 29.7 60.9 30.7
Dairy breeds and dairy crosses 6.2 0 4.4 4.9 4.3
Santa Gertrudis, Charolais, and crosses 0 2.1 2.9 0 1.4
Mexican cattle 0 0 0 0 3.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘Primarily Hereford-Angus or F1 crosses.

English breeds and English crosses were most represent a substantial portion of the cattle f"_
prevalent in all Texas feeding areas with the excep- in the Gulf Coast feeding area. 
tion of the Rio Grande Plains, Table l3. Brahman/ In Oklahoma, English breeds and crosses?
and Brahman crosses are well adapted to the Texas; most prominent in the Panhandle, Northern

coastal area and are the predominant type of cattle; homa and Southwestern Oklahoma feeding 
fed in the RioGrande Plains feeding area. They also; Table l4. Okies, however, were important 

TABLE 13. KIND OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding a rea

Southern Rio
Breed Panhandle High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — ——-— Percent -———--——------l.
English breed and English crosses‘ 48.8 68.5 50.6 69.8 60.1 54.1 14.7
Brahman and Brahman crosses 6.7 21.5 21.4 13.7 13.8 43.2 75.6
Okies 40.4 2.7 26.0 7.5 24.7 .4 9.0
Dairy breeds and dairy crosses 1.2 3.7 1.0 3 .6 .2 .1
Santa Gertrudis, Charolais and crosses 2.0 3.5 .3 8.7 .8 2.0 .6
Mexican cattle .9 .1 .7 0 0 1 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘Primarily Hereford-Angus or F1 crosses.
TABLE 14. KIND OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- p South-
Panhandle Northern eastern Central western
Breed Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — ~ — — — — ——-—— Percent -———-—--—-—--
English breeds and English crosses‘ 54.6 49.4 10.9 32.4 44.3
Brahman and Brahman crosses 6.3 1.8 5.7 9.0 14.0
Okies 32.3 47.6 83.4 54.1 24.5
Dairy breeds and dairy crosses 2.7 .2 0 1.6 13.0
Santa Gertrudis, Charolais, and crosses 0 1.0 0 2.9 4.2
Mexican cattle 4.1 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily Hereford-Angus or F1 crosses.

12

 

    
   

 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 

    
 
    
  
 
  
 
 
 
  

BLE 15. GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
 and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
' raphic 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
‘Q- source capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
. — — — — — — — — — — — —— —— Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — -—- —
X05:
Texas 95.2 76.0 85.2 70.7 59.7 66.5
- gOklahoma .6 12.4 1.7 7.5 9.5 7.8
 Louisiana-Arkansas 1.7 6.2 3.0 10.8 6.7 6.7
l j-Mississippi-Alabama 0 2.4 4.3 1.7 7.6 5.9
i‘ New Mexico 1.5 1.0 2.9 9.3 13.3 10.5
? Colorado 1.0 0 .3 O 0 .1
f Kansas 0 0 .6 0 .8 .6
TOther states 0 2.0 1.8 O 2.4 1.9
i Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘lahoma: '
‘ Texas 1 14.9 11.2 29.7 17.3 18.8
fl Oklahoma 73.7 63.4 81.9 28.0 66.9 60.6
j Louisiana-Arkansas 26.3 2.4 3.1 27.2 6.9 10.6
, Mississippi-Alabama 0 1.3 3.2 1.2 6.0 4.3
' New Mexico 1 2.5 0 0 .2 .2
 Colorado 0 2.5 0 0 .2 .2
t Kansas 1 10.1 1 7.0 .6 2.4
1 Other states 0 2.9 .6 6.9 1.9 2.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

  

~~ than .05 percent.

   
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  

 ding areas—especially in Southeastern Oklahoma.
airy breeds and crosses were found mostly in South-
stern Oklahoma.

Q ographic Origin of Feeder Cattle

i Approximately two-thirds of the cattle placed
 feed in the Southern Plains originated from sources
'thin Texas and Oklahoma, Table l5. Feedlots
 nd to reach out farther for supplies of feeder cattle
" , V» they increase in size. Several of the larger feedlots
“lied on order buyers in such states as Tennessee
.  d Georgia for supplies of feeder cattle.

a New Mexico was the most important out-of-state
‘Aurce for Texas feedlots, while Texas was the lead-
it supplier of feeder cattle shipped into Oklahoma.
tates in the Southeast supplied almost 15 percent
 the feeder cattle in both Texas and Oklahoma
uring 1966-67.

_ The Texas Panhandle, which is generally charac-
erized by large feedlots, relied heavily on out-of-state

sources for feeder cattle in contrast to other feeding
areas in Texas, Table 16. The Gulf Coast and Rio
Grande Plains, on the other hand, were dependent
almost predominantly on Texas feeder cattle. North-
ern Oklahoma, similar to the Texas Panhandle feed-
ing area, relied mostly on out-of-state sources for
feeder cattle, Table 17. That area received substantial
volumes of inshipments not only from Louisiana-
Arkansas and Kansas, but also from Nebraska, Mis-
souri, Georgia and Tennessee. Feeder cattle shipped
into other Oklahoma feeding areas originated pri-
marily in Texas and Louisiana-Arkansas.

Origin of Feeder Cattle by Type of Buyer

Feeder cattle in the Southern Plains feedlots
were purchased directly by the feedlot operator
through a salaried buyer or order buyers, Table 18.
Size of the feedlot was directly related to buying
practices and type of buyer used in securing feeder
cattle.

ABLE 16. GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area

    
 

 
    
 

 
 
 
  

_ V?
3. ‘é Southern Rio

High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total

Geographic source Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains

- — — — — — — — — — — — -— —— Percent — ~ — * — * — — — — — _- —
=p_Texas 1 47.1 76.4 68.8 66.7 79.5 91.8 88.2 66.5
f/Oklahoma 11.1 9.7 1.8 .9 12.0 .1 0 7.8
llouisiana-Arkansas 10.1 2.4 1 1.0 3.0 0 7.4 6.0 6.7
‘Mississippi-Alabama 8.9 3.4 1.4 25.9 2.1 .7 0 5.9
§ ew Mexico 20.7 2.3 15.6 0 4.3 0 0 10.5
‘Colorado .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1
1 ansas .2 1.5 O 0 2.1 0 0 .6
iOther states 1.7 4.3 1J4 3.5 0 O 5.8 1.9
i Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

 

TABLE 17. GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDlNG AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
South- South-
Geographic source Panhandle Northern eastern Central western
Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — ~ — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent -——---~—~——-—--—-—————-———---
Texas 28.4 0 ‘ 12.7 9.7
Oklahoma 60.1 39.9 69.7 55.5 74.4
Louisiana-Arkansas 6.7 20.4 30.3 28.1 0
Mississippi-Alabama 1.0 .6 0 3.7 15.9
New Mexico .5 0 0 0 0
Colorado 5 0 0 0 0
Kansas .7 20.8 0 0 0
Other states 2.1 18.3 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Less than .05 percent.

Order buyers were the most important type of
buyer used for obtaining feeder cattle—especially by
the larger feedlots. Order buyers will probably in-
crease in importance as the number and size of feed-
lots increase and feedlots begin reaching out farther
for supplies of feeder cattle. The smaller feedlots
are often able to purchase most of their requirements
from auctions or producers in local areas. Hence,
they are less dependent on order buyers than are
the large feedlots. Managers of some of the larger
feedlots prefer to select and purchase feeder cattle
whenever possible. Many operators believe they can
do a better job of selecting feeder cattle for their
types of operation than can other types of buyers.

Origin of Feeder Cattle by Type of Market

Auctions supplied two-thirds or more of the cattle
fed in Texas and Oklahoma feedlots during 1966-67,
Table l9. They were the major source for all size
groups and especially for the smaller feedlots where
the feedlot owner or manager purchased most of
the feeder cattle. Auctions are generally located near

or within concentrated production areas and, 
effect, serve as concentration points of many feedlot?
buyers. ~

Feedlots also bought about one-fourth of their}?
cattle directly from farmers and ranchers. Most
feedlot operators prefer to buy directly from pro-E
ducers because feeder cattle are handled less frequent- 
ly, off feed and water for shorter periods, subject?
to less bruising and tissue loss, exposed to less disease“!
and sickness, and because the feedlot operator is
able to assess and identify reputation producers.

 

Auctions were the predominant source of feeder
cattle for all feeding areas in the Southern Plains
except the Texas Panhandle area, Tables 20 and 2L
Feeders in the Texas Panhandle purchased slightly‘
more than 50 percent of their cattle directly front.
farms and ranches. Factors contributing to this buy-
ing pattern include the presence of numerous lar
feedlots which are dependent on order buyers at
purchasing agents for a substantial portion of their
feeder cattle and relatively large ranching operation:
both in and adjacent to the Panhandle area. 1

TABLE 18. SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY TYPE OF BUYER AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

 

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head- _
type 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
of buyer capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — * — — — — — — Percent
Texas:
Operator‘ 60.6 53.3 30.8 42.8 25.9
Salaried buyer 0 0 15.0 2.4 26.8
Order buyer 39.4 46.7 54.2 54.8 42.2
Other 0 0 0 0 5 1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Operator‘ 73.7 36.9 39.7 7.6 30.9
Salaried buyer 0 0 0 27.8 0
Order buyer 26.3 63.1 60.3 64.6 69.1
Other 0 O 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Owner or manager.

14

ABLE 19. SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY TYPE OF MARKET AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

. State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
 type 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
iof market capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
 — — — — — — — — — — — —— —+ -— Percent — — — — — — — — — — — —- --
tfi exas: '
I Farm or ranch 20.1 14.1 21.9 26.6 33.5 29.8
' Terminal market 4.3 '0 3.5 3.8 5.1 4.5
Auction 75.6 85.9 74.6 69.6 60.6 65.2
Other 0 0 0 0 .8 .5
 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘ Oklahoma.
- Farm or ranch 29.1 10.2 11.9 26.8 28.4 24.6
Terminal market 0 12.7 1.8 0 7.6 5.2
- Auction 70.9 77.1 86.3 73.2 64.0 70.2
5 Other 0 0 O 0 0 _ 0
 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
 BLE 20. SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY TYPE OF MARKET AND FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
I Feeding area
Southern Rio
‘t Panhandle High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
. Type of market Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
 i _ _ _ * i _ * O M _ -_ -- Pemenf _ _ i i _ i _ _ _ _ ; __ ._.
1r‘- or ranch 50.5 23.0 32.3 15.7 7.1 10.9 14.6 29.8
erminal market .2 .7 3.3 0 22.5 5.5 0 4.5
7 uction 49.3 76.3 57.3 84.3 70.4 83.6 85.4 65.2
g her o o 7.1 0 o 0 o .5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100 0 100.0 100 0 100.0
I ; ABLE 21. SOURCE OF FEEDER CATTLE, BY TYPE OF MARKET AND FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
_ Sauth- South-
? Panhandle Northern eastern Central western Total
Type of market Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
. — — — — — — — — — — — —-- — Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — —- -—
Farm or ranch 37.1 14.2 29.5 2 13.4 246
Terminal market 2.3 2.1 0 4 7 16.0 5 2
yAuction 60.6 83.7 70.5 95.1 70.6 70 2
Other 0 0 0 0 0 O
- Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TAHE 22. PERCENT OF FEEDER CATTLE CONTRACTED MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE AND SOURCE OF CONTRACTS BY SIZE OF FEED-
LOTS, TEXAS 1966-67

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
ltem 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
.1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — —— —- Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
jFeeder cattle contracted 2.1 1.5 4.8 4.7 12.2 9.4
Source of contracts:
Ranchers 100.0 100.0 96.9 63.1 84.8 84.7
Order buyers and dealers 0 0 3.1 36.9 15.2 15.3
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1,5

TABLE 23. PERCENT OF FEEDER CATTLE CONTRACTED MORE THAN 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE AND SOURCE OF CONTRACTS, BY SIZE OF

LOT, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head- 
Item 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more T
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity 
— — — ~ ~ — — ~ —— Percent ———————----—-—_;
Feeder cattle contracted 0 2.1 1 3 22.1 2 2 6i
Source of contracts: T i}! 
Ranchers 0 100.0 100.0 27.6 100.0 45f
Order buyers and dealers 0 0 0 72.4 O 54g I
Other 0 0 0 0 0 
Total 0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 10'

Feeder Cattle Contracting

Less than l0 percent of the feeder cattle were
contracted for more than 30 days in advance by
Texas and Oklahoma feedlots during 1966-67, Tables
22 and 23. The larger feedlots, generally, used con-
tracting to a greater extent than did the smaller
feedlots. Ranchers were the major source of contracts
in Texas as compared to order buyers and dealers
in Oklahoma. Contracting may become more preva-
lent in the Southern Plains as large feedlots increase
in number and size.

WVEIGHTS, QUALITY AND SEX
OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED

Much variation existed among size groups of
feedlots and among feeding areas relative to weight,
grade and sex of cattle placed on feed. The larger
feedlots, in general, placed a higher percentage of
steers on feed than did the smaller feedlots. More
of these feeder cattle, in turn, were equivalent to
U. S. Choice and represented slightly heavier weights
going on feed.

TABLE 24. WEIGHT OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

7%.
~ t

Weight of Cattle Placed on Feed

The average weights of cattle placed on feed -
the Southern Plains are relatively light as comp ;
to those in most other major cattle feeding 
During 1966-67, feeder cattle moving into 
feedlots averaged 509 pounds as compared to 5
pounds in Oklahoma, Table 24. In compar' 
cattle placed on feed in Colorado feedlots avera
in excess of 650 pounds during 1964  Almost 
percent of the Texas placements weighed less ti]
500 pounds in contrast to Oklahoma where appro,
mately 80 percent averaged over 500 pounds. ”

In both Texas and Oklahoma, feeder 
going on feed in the larger lots were substantia
heavier than those going on feed in the small

_ feedlots, Table 24. Placement cattle in Oklahog

feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 head or N]
average 643 pounds as compared to 488 pounds 
the smaller farmer-feeders. In Texas, they avera
533 pounds in the large lots and 461 pounds in t’?
farmer-feeder lots.

  
 
 

In the Texas Panhandle feeding area, 80 r
cent of the feeder cattle weighed in excess of 5 ,_

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
weight 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
(pounds) capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — * -——— Percent --—-------_-_—---_
Texas:
Under 300 1.9 4.1 6.4 11.7 2.7
300-399 , 34.2 22.2 26.9 25.9 13.8
400-499 32.3 18.3 40.6 17.9 22.0
500-599 16.9 38.4 15.3 16.0 29.4
600-699 12.3 15.7 8.9 23.2 24.3
700-799 2.4 1.3 1.9 5.3 7.8
800 and over 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Under 300 4.1 1.5 0 0 0
300-399 3.6 19.1 6.7 3.5 1.5
400-499 46.5 36.5 32.6 26.1 8.5
500-599 44.8 17.4 31.4 53.4 23.0
600-699 0 19.4 23.3 11.4 31.2
700-799 0 6.1 6.0 5.6 33.9
800 and over 1.0 0 0 0 1.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

16

 
   
 
 
   

‘TABLE 25. WEIGHT OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

 
  
  
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
     
  

Feeding area
Southern Rio
Pounds High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains

"t — — — — — — — — — — — — — - —— Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — —- --
 nder 300 1.2 .6 8.1 5.2 3.2 12.5 26.5 4.8

I j 00-399 7.4 13.5 18.3 29.9 25.3 41.3 31.7 18.4
400-499 11.3 30.0 41.0 24.6 32.6 39.4 27.4 24.5

’ 500-599 35.6 39.6 21.4 16.1 6.2 6.8 10.0 24.9
14600-699 37.2 13.8 10.4 24.0 13.1 0 4.4 21.2
700-799 7.3 2.5 .8 .2 19.6 0 0 6.2
00 and over O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
i Total 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100 O 100.0 100.0 100.0
unds. This contrasts with the Gulf Coast and Rio often English breeds or English crosses which average
 rande Plains areas where more than 50 percent of from 8 to 14 months of age.

e cattle average under 400 pounds, Table 25.
he prevalence of light weight feeder cattle in
 uth and Southeast Texas can generally be attributed
4 several factors. Many of the feedlots in the Gulf
f, oast and Rio Grande Plains feeding areas feed
ttle for the baby beef market in the major con-
umption centers along the Gulf Coast. In addition,
"is" of the placement cattle in the Gulf Coast and Gfades 0f Cattle Plaflfd 0n F6911

 Grande Plains are from 5 to 8 months of age During 1966-67, feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma
» 'th substantial amounts of Brahman bloodlines. placed on feed a higher proportion of cattle equiva-
 eeder cattle in most other Texas feeding areas are lent to U. S. Good than any other grade, Table 27.

s

Feedlots in the Oklahoma Panhandle and Cen-
tral Oklahoma placed more emphasis on heavier
weight feeder cattle than did feedlots in other Okla-
lhoma feeding areas, Table 26. Feedlots in South-
eastern Oklahoma concentrated their feeding pro-
grams primarily on lighter weight Okie feeder cattle.

aTABLE 26. WEIGHT OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

    

Feeding area
South- South-
Northern eastern Central western Total
Pounds Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma

" — — — — — — — — — — — -— —- Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — —- -—
‘ Under 300 0 .2 2.4 O 0 .1
300-399 1.0 2.2 21.6 1.8 9.8 3.6
5400-499 12.2 27.5 62.4 8.3 26.7 17.6
1500-599 38.6 39.8 13.6 22.5 14.0 30.8
1600-699 29.0 13.6 0 7.5 36.6 24.9
700-799 19.2 16.7 0 52.4 12.8 21.9
i800 and over 0 0 0 7.5 .1 1.1
l Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 O 100 0

TABLE 27. U. S. GRADE EQUIVALENTS OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
v and 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
U. S. grade capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

~ M»? ? i _ i ? > ? Z — l _ -- -- Pergenf _ _ _ _ Z _ _ ? i Q _ i .._ __

_.Te'xas=
U.S. Choice 26.4 32.3 24.4 35.6 50.1 42.8
U.S. Good 52.7 38.2 56.6 53.4 41.2 45.8
U.S. Standard 20.9 27.6 19.0 10.6 8.5 11.2
U.S. Utility  0 - 1.9 0 .4 .2 .2

Total if 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

i Oklahoma:

‘ u.s. Choice 21.2 15.5 30.9 8.4 37.7 29.1
U.S. Good 63.6 39.7 61.7 71.9 53.4 58.1
U.S. Standard 15.2 43.1 7.4 19.7 8.9 12.7
U.S. Utility 0 1.7 0 0 0 .1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0" 100.0 100.0

 

TABLE 28. U.S. GRADE-EQUAVALENTS OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
Southern Rio
U.S. grade High Plateau Rolling East Gulf Grande
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
_ _ _ * Q _ — — — — — — — —-— Percent —--—--——-—---——--—-———
U.S. Choice 50.5 59.8 35.3 47.2 44.9 12.8 ‘ 10.7
U.S. Good 40.3 33.4 52.8 49.1 42.5 74.2 .  46.0
U.S. Standard 8.8 6.8 11.9 3.7 12.6 13.0 ' " 42.4
U.S. Utility .4 0 0 0 0 0 .9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100 0

However, feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 head or
more placed on feed more cattle grading U. S. Choice
than did other size groups. Table 24 also shows that
large feedlots generally place more emphasis on
heavier weight feeder cattle than do smaller feedlots.
Smaller feedlot operators can often be fairly selective
in their buying since their operations are better
suited for buying in small lots. They are often able
to take advantage of bargains and, consequently,
place relatively more cattle on feed grading U. S.
Standard than do the large feedlots.

Since feedlots in the Texas Gulf Coast and Rio
Grande Plains feed a high proportion of relatively
light Brahman _or Brahman crosses, placements in
these areas graded predominantly U. S. Good or U. S.
Standard during 1966-67, Table 28. Feeder cattle in
other areas of Texas are mostly English breeds and
crosses or better quality Okies which are equivalent
primarily to U. S. Choice or U. S. Good.

  
  
    
   
   
  
    
 

y.

Variations existed among Oklahoma fee ' 
relative to the proportion of feeder cattle 1V
U. S. Choice or U. S. Good. But 80 percent -.
of the cattle moving into Oklahoma feedl
equivalent to U. S. Good or higher grades, T‘
Feeder cattle grading U. S. Utility were I
nonexistent in Oklahoma as well as in Texas -7_

Placements by Sex

Although steers accounted for more than,“
cent of the cattle in Texas and Oklahoma ,-
during 1966-67, much variation existed among.»
sizes of feedlots relative to steer and heifer 1. y
Table 30. Steers made up almost two-thirf
cattle fed by feedlots with a capacity of l0, 
or more while heifers made up almost two- 3
the cattle finished by lots with less than l,
capacity. The proportion of steers to heifersq
to increase as feedlots increased in size. '

TABLE 29. U.S. GRADE EQUIVALENTS OF CATTLE PLACED ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- South-
U.S. grade Northern eastern Central western
Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— * — — — — — — — — — ————— Percent ————————-----,
U.S. Choice 19.2 10.5 33 4 39.4 56 8
U.S. Good 68.6 69.1 62 1 45.6 32 9
U.S. Standard 12.2 20.4 4 5 14.4 l0 3
U.S. Utility 0 0 0 .6 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100 0
TABLE 30. PLACEMENTS, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
type 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
of cattle capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
i Z i _ i i i i i i i -_-_. Pemenf ._.....:_._._i__.i___._._._.
Texas:
Steers 38.4 38.1 30.9 42.4 61.0
Heifers 61.6 61.9 69.1 57.6 39.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Steers 35.2 22.6 39.9 52.0 68.3
Heifers 64.8 77.4 60.1 48.0 31.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

18

 

  
   
    

   
 

‘TABLE 31. PLACEMENTS, BY SEX AND FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
l Feeding area
1 Southern Rio
jSex and type High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
~ of cattle Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
p, — — — — — — — — — — — — — -— -— Percent — — * — — — — — — — — — —- ~—
Steers 71.7 46.0 40.1 57.4 46.3 18.3 31.3 52.2
. I Heifers 28.3 54.0 59.9 42.6 53.7 81.7 68.7 47.8
 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
l TABLE 32. PLACEMENTS BY SEX AND FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
Feeding area
é. South- South- '
» x and type Northern eastern Central western Total
 of cattle Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
_ — — — — — — — — — — — —- —- Percent — ~ — — — — — — — — ~ — -— —
ieers 62.6 26.9 40.1 67.5 56.5 58.0
Heifers 37.4 73.1 59.9 32.5 43.5 42.0
l Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

 
   
   
   
 
  
   
  
  
  

v Placements by sex among Texas and Oklahoma
feeding areas reflect the prominence of large feedlots
lin various feeding areas, Tables 31 and 32. Both
 e Texas and Oklahoma Panhandle areas, as well
v the Central Oklahoma feeding area, represent areas
’ here large feedlots account for much of the cattle
feeding activity. These areas also contained the
highest proportion of steers.‘

b ,__ LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD,
f PLACEMENT PATTERNS AND DEATH LOSS

Although feedlots attempt to utilize available
capacities whenever feasible, placement patterns tend
 vary with seasonality of feeder cattle production.

_Z‘Preferences of feedlots relative to grade, weight and sex will be
1 discussed in a later section.

Feeding programs in the Southern Plains are gov-
erned by various factors among which steer versus
heifer feeding is one of the more important. Heifers
ordinarily require fewer days on feed than do steers
to reach a comparable finish. ’

Length of Feeding Period

Feeding programs generally averaged a little less
than 120 days in the Southern Plains during 196667,
Table 33. Eighty percent or more of the cattle were
marketed after feeding periods of 90 or more days.
Feeding periods ordinarily vary from 90 to 120 days
for heifers and from 115 to 135 days for most steers.
Fed cattle which are marketed with fewer than 90
days on feed are often finished for baby beef markets
or are cattle with prior backgrounding.

TABLE 33. LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

 State and

  

    

 

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
days on 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
feed capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
 — — — — — — — — — — — — -- Percent — — — — — — — — — — _ _ - -
Texas:
’ Under 60 0 .6 0 1.0 .1 .2
. 60 - 90 5.9 9.8 16.6 10.7 7.3 9.5
j 91 - 120 44.5 36.5 49.6 37.5 26.8 32.8
“121 - 150 42.4 44.8 24.8 35.9 57.5 48.0
151 - 180 5.3 4.6 8.5 13.0 6.6 7.9
Over 180 1.9 3.7 .5 1.9 1.7 1.6
g Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
. Under 60 0 .8 0 0 0 ,'l
60 - 90 12.8 24.6 4.7 8.3 4.7 6.4
91 - 120 42.9 60.3 58.7 50.7 41.1 46.8
121 - 150 41.5 14.3 34.0 41.0 49.5 43.6
151 -180 2.8 0 2.6 0 4.1 2.8
Over 180 0 0 0 0 .6 .3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

0-
(D

TABLE 34. LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
Southern Rio
Days on feed High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -——— Percent
Under 60 .2 0 .2 0 .3 .9 0 I
60 - 90 1.0 2.4 17.4 39.2 26.3 11.5 6.8
91 - 120 15.5 25.0 52.1 29.6 44.9 54.8 76.0
121 - 15o 55.9 54.1 21.9 30.5 25.4 32.1 17.2
151 - 180 14.3 8.0 5.7 .6 3.0 .7 0
Over 180 3.1 .5 2.7 .1 .1 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma with capacities
of 10,000 or more head generally relied on feeding
periods of more than 120 days in contrast to other
size groups, Table 33. These large lots were also
predominantly steer feeders, Table 30. Feedlots with
the shortest feeding period in Texas were the 2,000-
4,999-head capacity lots. In Oklahoma, they were
the l,000-l,999-head capacity lots. These size groups
also finished the highest proportion of heifers.

The Texas and Oklahoma Panhandle feeding
areas, which encompass most of the large commercial
feedlots in the Southern Plains, are predominantly
steer feeders as evidenced by the longer feeding
periods in these areas, Tables 34 and 35. Since the

TABLE 35. LENGTH OF FEEDING PERIOD, BY FEEDING. AREA, OKLAHOMA" FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 

Rio Grande Plains, Gulf Coast and East Te ,
ing areas produce much of the lighter wei
beef consumed in nearby Gulf Coast cons “
centers, common feeding periods in these - I
from 90 to 120 days. Relatively short feeding l‘
were also common in the Plateau-Pecos area. 1
ern and Southeastern Oklahoma feedlots fed.
proportion of heifers and consequently utilizle
feeding periods. ~

Placement Patterns

October and March were the most mj
months for placing cattle on feed in Texas
during 1966-67, Table 36. Placement pat

Feeding area
South- South-
Days on feed Northern eastern Central western
Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
_ — — — — — — — — — -—— Percent -—-—-------__-____

Under 60 0 0 .7 0 0
60-90 .6 21.0 21.9 21.6 .1
91 - 120 26.3 74.7 55.7 67.1 72.6
121 - 150 69.1 4.1 20.6 4.5 27.3
151-180 4.0 .2 1.1 4.5 0
Over 180 0 0 0 2.3 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TABLE 36. PLACEMENTS BY MONTH AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
and . 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
month capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent —-———-__---__.__

January 5.1 5.8 7.2 7.1 7,0
February 9.1 5.9 7.5 7.0 7.9
March 9.5 8.5 10.1 8.9 11.9
April 9.2 8.5 7.9 8.2 7.0
May 4.4 8.3 7.5 7.8 6.8
June 5.2 6.1 6.8 6.4 6,8
July 6.5 6.4 6.4 7.4 7.4
August 4.8 10.7 7.5 7.6 6.6
September 10.2 11.2 8.6 10.1 8,8
October 16.9 11.1 11.3 10.6 13.1
November 11.5 11.1 10.0 10.8 8,7
December 7.6 6.4 9.2 8.1 8,0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

20

l TABLE 37. PLACEMENTS BY MONTH AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

j Oklahoma tended to peak in September, October
and November, Table 37.

Since most feedlots in Texas with a capacity of

 10,000 head and over are located in or adjacent to

the Panhandle wheat producing area, these lots fed

substantial numbers of cattle which were wintered
f on wheat pastures. These cattle are often preferred
a by feedlots since they generally received supplemental
‘feeding and tend to go on full feed faster than do
j other types of feeder cattle. In addition, cattle which
I are backgrounded or preconditioned require shorter
Y feeding periods to achieve a desired grade and finish.

The smaller feedlots in both Texas and Oklahoma

. tended to place most emphasis on placements during
'  the September-November period. This placement
‘ _"e pattern generally complements the farming or ranch-
j ing operations of many smaller feedlot owners.

Placement patterns in the Texas Panhandle

i5 and Rolling Plains reflect the importance of nearby
r winter wheat pastures, Table 38. This was also true

for the Southwestern Oklahoma feeding area, Table

i 39. Placements were considerably higher in fall for
g all feeding areas in Texas except the Rio Grande

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
Month 1 ,00O-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999~head and-more Total
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent -——-——————----—--------—--

T January 6.1 6.9 7.1 6.5 6.7 6.7
a February 3.1 6.9 7.0 6.4 6.6 6.6
J March 3.3 5.4 8.4 6.4 9.5 8.4
April 3.1 5.3 8.6 6.3 9.6 8.5

-» May 3.2 5.2 8.5 8.1 9.4 8.8
1 June 3.2 6.7 6.7 7.9 6.4 6.8
July 5.9 6.6 6.6 8.2 6.5 6.9
M August 7.3 6.3 7.3 10.8 6.7 7.7
. September 21.5 13.1 10.0 11.9 10.2 10.8
October 33.0 16.1 11.7 9.3 10.4 10.7
November 3.7 13.0 10.7 9.2 10.4 10.2

; December 6.6 8.5 7.4 9.0 7.6 7.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Plains and Gulf Coast areas. Feedlots in these two
areas purchase feeder cattle primarily from nearby
Texas sources. The Rio Grande Plains and Gulf
Coast areas ordinarily enjoy relatively long growing
periods and favorable grazing conditions throughout
the year.

Feedlots in the Oklahoma Panhandle and Cen-
tral Oklahoma areas also placed fewer cattle on feed
in the fall than did other Oklahoma feeding areas.
One of the larger feeder cattle markets in the United
States is located in Central Oklahoma where adequate
supplies of feeder cattle are generally available on
a year-round basis. Feedlots in the Oklahoma Pan-
handle stressed the importance of utilizing capacities
at fairly high and even levels throughout the year.
Whether these feedlots can maintain this placement
pattern in the face of competition for feeder cattle
from other rapidly expanding feedlots remains to
be seen.

Death Loss

Feedlots in both Texas and Oklahoma reported
death losses equivalent to about one percent during
1966-67, Table 40. While small variations in death

A TABLE 38. PLACEMENTS BY MONTH AND FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
Southern Rio
Month High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
7

_  — ~ — — — — — — — — — — — —- —— Percent — — — — — — — ~ — _ _ _ _- —-
January 6.2 7.6 9.7 3.3 7.4 7.8 7.9 7.0

' February 7.1 7.8 6.0 13.8 7.6 7.8 8.3 7.6
_ March 14.6 8.1 7.9 15.7 7.4 7.9 8.3 11.0
‘ April 7.7 8.1 5.4 4.2 7.4 7.9 7.9 7.4
y May ._. 6.9 7.8 5.8 3.9 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.1
l June If 6.2 7.5 5.3 2.6 7.9 7.6 7.9 6.7
. July 7.6 7.6 5.3 2.5 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.2
August 6.4 7.8 7.2 2.6 7.6 8.1 8.1 7.0

' September 8.7 12.1 7.3 2.8 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.1
. October 13.0 9.7 17.5 24.7 10.6 9.6 9.0 12.4
' November 8.3 8.1 11.9 16.2 10.3 9.4 8.9 9.4
December 7.3 7.8 10.7 7.7 8.8 9.2 8.8 8.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N
n-I

TABLE 39. PLACEMENTS BY MONTH AND FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- South-
Northern eastern Central western
Month Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— _ ~ — — — — * — — — ---— Percent -—---—--—--i----—-----

January 7.5 6.6 6.0 7.8 3.7
February 7.6 6.4 6.0 7.9 
March 7.4 6.4 6.1 7.9 l3;2
April 7.4 7.0 6.1 7.8 13.1
May 8.2 6.3 6.0 7.8 13.0
June 7.9 6.4 5.2 7.7 3.5
July 7.9 7.1 5.7 7.7 3.4
August 8.3 12.1 7.5 7.8 3.8
September 9.5 15.4 13.5 9.1 12.8
October 9.8 11.6 14.1 9.8 12.6
November 9.7 8.1 13.6 9.6 12.7
December 8.8 6.6 10.2 9.1 4.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

loss existed among various sizes of feedlots, slightly
higher death losses existed among lots in the inter-
mediate size group. Small feedlots are often able
to detect sick cattle faster than are larger feedlots
since their feeding pens are usually somewhat ‘smaller.
However, large feedlots have personnel available
who are constantly inspecting cattle for sickness or
disease. The larger feedlots often retain personnel,
such as trained or practical veterinarians, who are
capable of providing immediate medication and other
necessary aid.

Death loss among feeding areas in the Southern
Plains was generally lowest in feeding areas which
placed both heavier and more mature cattle on feed.
Losses were below average in the Panhandle feeding
areas and Southwestern Oklahoma.

WEIGHTS AND GRADES OF
FED CATTLE MARKETED

Weights of Fed Cattle Marketed

Fed cattle marketed from Southern Plains feed-
lots are considerably lighter than those marketed
from feedlots in most other major feeding areas.
During 1966-67, cattle marketed out of Oklahoma
feedlots averaged 935 pounds while those sold by
Texas feedlots averaged 860 pounds, Table 41. Ap-
proximately 40 percent of the cattle sold from Ok-
lahoma feedlots weighed in excess of 1,000 pounds
as compared to 33 percent of the total from Texas
feedlots.

Feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 head Q
which also fed the highest proportion of 
each state, finished cattle at heavier weip
did any of the other size groups, Table 
example, more than 50 percent of the cattle. 
in large feedlots in Oklahoma weighed in V»
1,000 pounds compared to more than 40 .3‘
in Texas. Feedlots with the highest will
heifers-—the 2,000-4,999 size group in Texas f
1,000-l,999 size group in Oklahoma-also i;
fed cattle at lighter weights than did other size

The Gulf Coast and Rio Grande Plains“
areas, which usually place a relatively high?
tion of light weight heifers on feed, mar. M‘
cattle averaging less than 700 pounds during
Table 42. While a small proportion of th
received additional feeding in other lots, . 
of these light weight cattle went directly to a
to satisfy the baby beef market. Fed cattle l
from the Texas Panhandle area feedlots ,
about 975 pounds. They averaged sli i i‘
1,000 pounds in the Oklahoma Panhan 
43. Finished cattle in all other Texas and i» 
feeding areas averaged at least 100 pounds l__
in the Panhandle areas. 

Grades of Fed Cattle Marketed 

Oklahoma feedlots, which fed cattle to i
heavier weights than Texas feedlots, also H,
a higher proportion of fed cattle equivalentxl
Choice, Table 44. Two-thirds of the cattle » ,
Oklahoma feedlots were estimated to be U. S.

  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
  
 
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 

TABLE 40. DEATH LOSS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — ~ * ~ --—- Percent -—--—--—----_---_-
Texas 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0
Oklahoma .6 1.7 1.3 1.2 .9

22

 



TABLE 41. WEIGHT GROUPS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
. and 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
Pounds capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ — — — — — — — — — — — —- —- Percent — — — — — — — — — — — — —- --
l Texas:
Under 600 9.2 9.0 7.6 20.8 6.6 9.2
600 - 699 42.8 23.3 40.5 24.4 11.4 19.1
700 - 799 12.3 14.3 27.8 11.5 14.1 15.9
800 - 899 6.3 19.8 6.0 7.7 12.0 10.4
900 - 999 4.6 13.9 4.1 14.6 12.7 11.5
1,000 - 1,099 7.4 15.4 11.4 9.1 37.2 27.4
1,100 - 1,199 17.3 4.3 2.4 9.6 5.5 5.8
1,200 and over .1 0 2 2.3 .5 .7
Total 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
j Oklahoma:
Under 600 5.9 3.3 0 0 1.5 1.1
600 - 699 11.4 31.7 13.6 8.3 2.2 6.7
700 - 799 43.8 26.2 36.7 33.4 3.2 16.3
800 - 899 13.8 14.8 12.5 7.1 15.2 13.0
900 - 999 21.5 6.5 17.7 10.7 27.0 21.0
1,000 - 1,099 2.5 11.5 18.5 26.1 38.7 31.4
1,100-1,199 1.1 4.3 1.0 13.0 11.2 9.6
1,200 and over 0 1.7 0 1.4 1.0 .9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
I TABLE 42. WEIGHT GROUPS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
Southern Rio
Pounds High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
1 — * — — — — — — — — — — — —— — Percent — — — — — * — — — — — — - -—-
- l_ Under 600 1.2 3.7 6.8 26.5 23.1 18.1 13.6 9.2
" 600 - 699 5.3 7.9 13.4 12.5 28.4 53.0 57.7 19.1
I 700 - 799 8.6 29.1 30.5 17.7 5.8 24.4 20.5 15.9
.. 800 - 899 10.5 17.0 33.7 13.6 .2 3.0 2.1 10.4
_5 900 - 999 16.4 9.4 9.9 11.6 14.3 .9 2.1 11.5
" 1,000 - 1,099 46.1 29.7 4.9 7.1 23.9 .6 2.9 27.4
 1,100 -1,199 10.2 3.2 .8 11.0 4.3 0 .8 5.8
1,200 and over 1.7 0 0 1 0 0 .3 .7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
l ‘Less than .05 percent.
l TABLE 43. WEIGHT GROUPS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
j South- South-
Northern eastern Central western Total
Pounds Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
~ — — — — — — — — — — — —- —- Percent ~ — — ~ — — — — — — — — -— --
I Under 600 0 0 3.1 .6 4.5 1.1
5 600 - 699 2.5 6.4 22.6 6.5 15.6 6.7
‘ 700 - 799 3.4 59.0 52.3 17.6 23.7 16.3
800 - 899 14.7 5.0 11.0 16.9 9.6 13.0
l‘ 900 - 999 16.0 2.9 11.0 44.9 27.3 21.0
l 1,000 - 1,099 46.9 7.7 0 13.5 19.2 31.4
_- 1,100 -1,199 15.5 14.9 0 0 .1 9.6
i 1,200 and over 1.0 4.1 0 0 0 .9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N
9°

TABLE 44. U.S. GRADE EQUIVALENTS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

 
  

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
U.S. . 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999~head 9,999-head and-more
grade capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -——— Percent ——---—-—--——----—

Texas:

U.S. Prime 0 .2 1.0 1.1 .1

U.S. Choice 37.8 47.9 31.5 38.8 5.7.2

U.S. Good 55.8 45.7 56.6 55.7 -_. 36.7

U.S. Standard 6.4 6.2 10.9 4.4 5.9

U.S. Commercial and lower 0 0 0 0 1 .

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1v
Oklahoma:

U.S. Prime 0 1.8 .1 0 .8

U.S. Choice 43.9 39.4 50.7 66.8 72.0

U.S. Good 52.8 55.5 44.7 33.0 20.8

U.S. Standard 3.3 3.3 4.5 .2 6.4

U.S. Commercial and lower 0 0 0 0 0 I

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1!
compared to fifty percent of the fed cattle sold from Two-thirds of the cattle in all Oklahoma f- 
Texas lots. Most of the remaining fed cattle graded areas were estimated to be U. S. Choice wi l;
U. S. Good. A small percentage of the cattle market- excePtlon °l Smlllleaslem Oklahoma Whffre W9"

ed from Southern Plains feedlots graded U. S. Stan- of ll“? led Cattle gTaded U- 3- Good» Table 45-

  

dard, but less than one percent qualified for U. S. Texas feflllng areas» the Panhandle and so“,

High Plains areas finished the highest pro

  
   
  
   

Prime" of cattle grading U. s. Choice, Table 4s. This f

The smaller feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma trasts with the Gulf Coast and Rio Grande -.‘
genemll)’ $°ld a higher PTOPQTllOII 0f ¢al1l¢ grading feeding areas where about 90 percent of 
U. S. Good than U. S. Choice, while the reverse was eattle graded U_$_ good or lQWer_ Almes; 40.
true for the large feedlots. Feedlots with the highest gent of the eattle finished in the Rig Grande 
percent of heifers also sold the highest proportion were equivalent in quality to U. S. Standard d I

of cattle grading U. S. Good and lower. 1966-67.

TABLE 45. U.S. GRADE EQUIVALENTS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
South- South-
U.S. grade Northern eastern Central western
Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — ——- Percent —-—--—————---—-——-—-
U.S. Prime .9 .9 0 0 0
U.S. Choice 72.0 61.4 31.0 59.7 61.7
U.S. Good 24.4 37.3 67.4 31.3 29.1
U.S. Standard 2.7 .4 1.6 9.0 9.2
U.S. Commercial and lower 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1*

TABLE 46. U.S. GRADE EQUIVALENTS OF FED CATTLE MARKETED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

 

Feeding area
Southern Rio
High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
U.S. grade Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — — ——— Percent——-———————————————_-f
U.S. Prime .7 .1 2.0 .3 1 0 "
U.S. Choice 68.9 60.9 50.2 42.3 35.3 11.1 7.9
U.S. Good 25.1 35.5 42.9 52.5 60.1 82.1 54.9
U.S. Standard 5.1 2.5 4.9 4.9 4.6 6 7 37.2
U.S. Commercial
and lower .2 0 0 0 O 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

24

TABLE 47. GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF FED CATTLE SALES, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
and 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
sales area capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

~ — — — — — — — — — — — -- ——- Percent — * — — — — — — — ~ — — —- —

Texas:

Texas 86.5 82.4 91.4 65.6 74.6 76.2
Oklahoma 2.8 6.6 1.2 6.5 4.0 4.0
New Mexico 0 .3 1.5 5.0 3.5 3.3
Arkansas - Louisiana .7 1.5 1.9 6.6 2.2 2.9
Mississippi - Alabama-

Georgia - Florida 1.7 3.0 2.3 3.5 7.3 5.7
Colorado 2.6 1.1 0 6.8 .4 1.4
California 0 O .2 2.9 5.3 3.9
Other states 5.7 5.1 1.5 3.1 2.7 2.6

i Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

" Oklahoma;

i Texas 0 4.9 31.7 13.6 18.3 18.6
Oklahoma 75 4 78.2 50.1 42.2 31.7 39 2
New Mexico 0 O 0 O O 0
Arkansas - Louisiana 0 0 .5 6.4 6.9 5 4
Mississippi - Alabama -

‘Georgia - Florida 0 0 4.0 13.0 17.3 13.4
Colorado 0 0 0 1.2 0 3
California 0 0 0 .7 0 .2
Other states‘ 24.6 16.9 13 7 22 9 25.8 22.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

j ‘Primarily Kansas.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF SALES, SELLING
ARRANGEMENTS AND SHRINKAGE

Fed cattle were sold predominantly to slaughter-
ing plants within the Southern Plains, but substantial

. volumes were also shipped to states that were deficit

i in fed beef production. Types of selling agencies
~ and selling arrangements generally varied by size
' 1 of feedlot and feeding area.

 Geographic Area of Sales

Three-fourths of the cattle sold by Texas feed-

lots during 1966-67 went to packing plants within
 Texas, Table 47 . However, nearly two-thirds of the

fed cattle in Oklahoma were shipped to slaughter

 plants in other states. Most of the Texas out-of-state
1 shipments went to the deficit fed beef states in the
‘ Southeast and to New Mexico, California and Okla-

homa. Texas, Kansas and states in the Southeast

received most of the fed cattle shipped out of
Oklahoma.

The larger feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma
generally sold higher proportions of their fed cattle
to out-of-state buyers than did the smaller feedlots,
Table 47. The most important out-of-state markets
for Texas feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 head or
more were the Southeastern states and California.
Important out-of-state markets for the large feedlots
in Oklahoma were Texas, the Southeast and Kansas.

Texas feeding areas which sold 90 percent or
more of their fed cattle to Texas outlets during
1966-67 included East Texas, Rio Grande Plains,
Rolling Plains and the Gulf Coast, Table 48. Texas
Panhandle area feedlots, consisting mostly of large
lots, sold almost one-half of their cattle to out-of-state
buyers during the same period. Southeastern states-

. TABLE 48. GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF FED CATTLE SALES, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
I Southern Rio
= High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Sales area Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
i‘ — — — ~ * — * — — — — — — ——- -— Percent — ~ — — — — — — — — — — -- -

v Texas 56.2 84.7 75.8 92.8 99.3 90.5 94.4 76.2
Oklahoma l. 9.6 .3 0 1.2 0 0 0 4.0
New Mexico ‘ 61 4.7 2.2 0 0 0 0 3.3
Arkansas - Louisiana 2 5 0 5.3 5.5 0 6.8 5.6 2.9

Mississippi - Alabama
Georgia - Florida 11 3 6.6 1.7 .5 0 0 0 5.7
Colorado 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4
California 5.3 3.1 15.0 0 0 1.2 0 3.9
Other 5 5 .6 0 0 .7 1.5 0 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N
U‘!

TABLE 49.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF FED CATTLE SALES, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
500111- South-
Sales area Northern eastern Central western
Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — —--— Percent ——-——------———---
Texas 23.5 0 0 2.1 29.6
Oklahoma 24.0 83.3 31.9 91.9 21.5
New Mexico 0 0 0 0 6
Arkansas - Louisiana 2 3 3.2 34.1 1.5 13.2
Mississippi - Alabama
Georgia - Florida 8.3 6.4 34.0 4.5 33.9
Colorado .5 0 0 0 0
California .3 0 0 0 0
Other‘ 41.1 7.1 O O 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily Kansas.

l including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida—

were the most important out-of-state market for Pan-
handle area feedlots. Other important markets were
Oklahoma, New Mexico and California. Feedlots in
the Plateau-Pecos area shipped a substantial portion
of their cattle to California.

Oklahoma feedlots in the Central and Northern
Oklahoma feeding areas sold predominantly to Okla-
homa outlets during 1966-67 in contrast to other
Oklahoma feeding areas, Table 49. Major out-of-state
markets for fed cattle in the Oklahoma Panhandle
included Texas and Kansas. Southeastern Oklahoma
feeders shipped cattle primarily to Arkansas-Louisiana
and other states in the Southeast. Feedlots in South-
western Oklahoma shipped mostly to states in the
Southeast and Texas.

Selling Agencies
In Oklahoma, the feedlot owners and managers

~~accounted for all the fed cattle sales during 1966-67,

Table 50. In Texas, however, feedlot owners and

   
    
     
    
  
  
  
   
  
 

managers sold about two-thirds of the f Y‘
while most of the remaining were sold i‘
salaried salesmen. Since the feedlot owner or}
in the large feedlot is generally faced with;
tude of daily problems and decisions, sa . 7 f
men were the primary selling agency in '
However, the feedlot owners or managers 
prescribe or adjust the selling policies 
weight and grade in accordance with ~
expected market conditions. Numerous f '-" 
“shape" cattle into uniform groups with p
size or weight, grade, general appearance r,
factors in an attempt to attract higher - 
_ I".

The importance of feedlot salaried
generally declined as feedlots decreased in l
ers and commission men accounted for a i- "if
tion of the Texas sales, but commission sel ' 
1966-67 was used to a very limited ext
only a few lots. In contrast, 54 percent 
cattle in Colorado were sold on a co “.1”
in 1964 (3). Auctions were used only 
3

r

TABLE 50. TYPE OF SELLING AGENCY USED FOR MARKETING FED CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 19 
State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
selling 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more

agency capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ _ _ ~ _ _ — — — * — ——- Percent ——————----——-——-——
Texas:
Owner or operator’ 93.3 97.7 87.3 91.1 43.2
Feedlot salaried salesman 0 2.3 11.4 8.9 52.8
Auction 6.7 O 0 0 0
Terminal market 0 O O O O
Other‘ 0 0 1.3 0 4.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Owner or operator 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Feedlot salaried salesman 0 0 0 0 0
Auction 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal market 0 0 0 0 0
Other O 0 0 O 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily dealers or commission men.

26

v/TABLE 51. TYPE OF SELLING AGENCY USED FOR MARKETING FED

CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966--67

Feeding area

‘Primarily dealers or commission men.

_. farmer-feeders. However, all feedlots occasionally dis-
1 pose of chronic bloaters or poor performers through
auctions or other available outlets.

The feedlot owner or manager accounted for

1 the majority of the fed cattle sales in all Texas feed-
~ ing areas with the exception of the Texas Panhandle,
f Table 51. Although salaried salesmen were the pre-
dominant sales agency in the Panhandle, they were
I also important in the Southern High Plains, the
I Plateau-Pecos and Rolling Plains feeding areas. Deal-
, er or commission selling was of most importance in
‘ the El Paso area in the Plateau-Pecos feeding area.

A Selling Arrangement

Approximately three-fourths of the fed cattle

. were sold direct to packers on a liveweight basis dur-
1 ing 1966-67, Table 52. Most of the remaining cattle
 were also sold direct on either a grade and carcass
. weight or carcass weight basis. The predominant
" method of selling on a carcass basis in Oklahoma
; was grade and carcass weight compared to the carcass
‘. weight method in Texas. Consignment selling was
* not used by any of the feedlots interviewed.

Southern Rio
High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Selling agency Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— _ _ — ~ — — _ — — — — — —-— Percent ----—-——-—--—---——-—--—--—--—--
1 Owner or operator 34.0 61.2 60.9 80.1 99.2 100.0 100.0 61.4
Feedlot salaried
g salesman 62.4 38.7 24.6 19.9 O O O 35.8
- Auction 0 .1 0 O 8 O O .1
Terminal market 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0
Other‘ 3.6 0 14.5 0 0 0 0 2.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Carcass weight selling refers to the method of
sale whereby buyer and seller negotiate on live
animals and agree to settle on the basis of carcass
weights and prices without regard to grade. In grade
and carcass weight selling, grades also become an
important negotiating factor. Most feedlots agreed
that carcass grade and weight selling is an equitable
method of selling fat cattle, but many feedlots who
sold cattle through this method expressed consider-
able dissatisfaction with carcass identification, grad-
ing, shrinkage assessments and methods of payment
at the packer level.

Larger feedlots in both Texas and Oklahoma
sold a considerably higher proportion of their fed
cattle on a direct liveweight basis than did the smaller
feedlots, Table 52. Smaller feedlots, who sold cattle
on a carcass basis, were generally dependent on local
packers and locker plants. Numerous smaller feed-
lots preferred the carcass method of selling, provided
they restricted this method of selling to local packers
who had won the confidence of local feedlots. Feed-
lot operators often prefer to inspect the carcasses
from their cattle to gain a better insight of their

 TABLE 52. TYPE OF SELLING ARRANGEMENT USED FOR MARKETING FED CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to l0,000-head-
selling 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999 head and-more Total
arrangement capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — —--— Percent ——---—-—----—-—----—-_-
Texas:

Direct-liveweight 63.9 51.7 71.6 80.0 80.1 77.8
Grade and carcass weight 13.4 17.3 16.9 2.2 7.8 8.7
-.Carcass weight 4.9 19.8 9.8 17.6 12.0 12.6

Consignment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal or auction 13.6 11.2 1.7 .2 .1 .8
Other 4.2 0 0 O O .1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma: 

Direct-liveweight 44.8 34.4 54.2 74.3 80.3 72.7
Grade and carcass weight 0 39.2 7.1 25.7 19.7 19.8
Carcass weight 39.4 13.4 38.1 0 0 6,7

Consignment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal or auction 15.8 13.0 .6 0 O .8

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 53. TYPE OF SELLING ARRANGEMENT USED FOR MARKETING FED CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67 ‘l

  

Feeding area
Southern Rio
Selling High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
arrangement Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — ~ — — —-—-—— Percent
Direct-liveweight 90.2 90.8 66.3 75 0 32.3 81 0 83 4 i
Grade and carcass
weight 6.8 6.7 17.2 24.4 8.4 9.3 2 0
Carcass weight 2.8 2.2 15.0 5 58.7 5.9 14 6
Consignment O 0 0 0 O 0 0
Terminal or auction .2 0 1.5 1 6 3.8 O
Other 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

feeding program relative to grade, yield, marbling
and so forth. Feedlots with less than 2,000-head ca-
pacity sold slightly less than l5 percent of their cattle
through auctions or terminals during 1966-67. Auc-
tions or terminals were used only occasionally by the
larger feedlots.

Direct liveweight selling was of greatest im-
portance in the Texas Panhandle and Southern High
Plains, Table 53. The method of selling fed cattle
in the Panhandle and surrounding areas may change
with the recent construction of several large shipper-
type beef slaughtering plants in or adjacent to these
areas. Carcass methods of selling were relatively more
important in the East Texas, Plateau-Pecos and Roll-

TABLE 54. TYPE OF SELLING ARRANGEMENT USED FOR MARKETING FED CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966i

  
  
  
  
 
  
 

ing Plains feeding areas than in other areas.
methods of selling were most important in 
since several of the larger feedlots in that;
affiliated with slaughtering plants. 5

Direct-liveweight selling was the pr‘
method of selling fed cattle in all Oklaho».
areas, Table 54. However, sales on a 
were also important in all Oklahoma fee l‘
especially in Southeastern and Southwest
homa. i

Cattle Sales Prior to Shipment

Almost all fed cattle in the Southern 
sold within l0 days prior to shipment, Tablet -

Feeding area

South- South-
Selling Northern eastern Central western
arrangement Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
_ — — — — — — — — — — -———- Percent -—-————-———-—--—-—_--—--
Direct-liveweight 76.8 76.8 56.9 75.5 59.9
Gralde and carcass weight 21.2 11.4 22.7 7.0 29.3
Carcass weight 2.0 4.2 19.4 17.4 10.7
Consignment 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal or auction 0 7.6 1.0 .1 .1
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 55. NUMBER OF DAYS CATTLE SOLD PRlOR TO SHIPMENT, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
and 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
days capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -—-— Percent -——--——--——---—-—
Texas.
0 - 1O 81.3 87.1 80.2 89.7 90.2
11 - 20 4.1 5.9 7.6 8.0 6.1
2i - 30 11.4 4.7 7.5 2.2 2.0
31 and 3.2 2.3 4.7 .1 1.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
0 - 10 100.0 89.1 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 1 - 2O 0 10.9 0 0 0
21 - 30 0 0 O 0 0
31 and 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

28

i‘ TABLE 5s.

NUMBER OF DAYS CATTLE SOLD PRIOR TO SHIPMENT, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area

 

   
  
  
  

' was especially true in Oklahoma. In Texas, approxi-
f mately l0 percent of the cattle were held for more
_than l0 days after sales were negotiated. In the
absence of prior arrangements by the buyer for cattle
. left in feedlots more than 7 to 10 days past the
' specified sales or delivery date, feedlots either weighed
_ the cattle and assessed the buyer the customary custom
» feeding charges or simply required the buyer to pay
, for the additional gain at the original sales price.
-Feedlots which sold cattle more than l0 days prior
to shipment generally entered into an oral agreement
i” with the buyer relative to price, delivery date and
A other conditions.

Texas feeding areas with the highest proportion
a of sales more than 10 days prior to shipment included
i‘ the Plateau-Pecos, the Rolling Plains and the Rio
_ Grande Plains feeding areas, Table 56. These sales,
' for the most part, were negotiated on the basis of an
- agreed price and future delivery date. '

i Shrinkage Assessments

Cattle sold on a direct liveweight basis are ordi-
 narily assessed a standard ll-percent shrink FOB the
l’, feedlot when weighed at 7:00 a.m. after an overnight
stand. The live shrink assessment varied occasionally

Southern Rio
Days High Plateau Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — — ——-—- Percent—-—--———-—-—-—-—--—----—--
0 - 10 92.5 87.2 75.0 53.3 96.2 92.1 71.9 88.3
11 - 20 6.2 6.5 19.5 12.6 .5 6.7 4.7 6.6
. 21 - 30 .9 .8 5.5 12.0 3.0 1.2 23.4 3.1
p 31 and over 4 5.5 0 22.1 .3 0 0 2.0
i Total 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

depending on weighing conditions, the distance to
scales if cattle were not weighed at the feedlot, length
of time off feed and water, time of weighing and
sorting privileges. Cattle weighed during the after-
noon or evening are often assessed more than a 4-
percent shrink. If sorting privileges are granted by
the seller or if cattle are weighed on non-feedlot
scales, shrinkage assessments on a live basis are ordi-
narily less than 4 percent.

The most common shrink assessment for selling
on a carcass basis was 2 to 21/2 percent during 1966-67,
Table 57. Prior to the current USDA regulations
governing packer buying of livestock on a carcass
basis, methods of assessing shrink varied considerably
among packersfi These regulations are designed to
provide, among other things, standard carcass weigh-
ing and payment procedures. With the establishment
of uniform weighing procedures, wide variations in
carcass shrinkage assessments as shown in Table 57
may lessen.

“Section 201.99 of the Packers and Stockyards Act regulates the
buying of livestock by packers on a carcass basis. Copies of this
regulation are available upon request from the Livestock Pro-
curement Branch, Packer and Poultry Division, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, South Agriculture Building, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20250.

TABLE 57. SHRINKAGE ASSESSMENTS BY PACKERS FOR FED CATTLE SOLD ON A CARCASS BASIS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLA-
HOMA, 1966-67
State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
carcass shrinkage 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
assessment (percent) capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— _ — — — — — — — — — —--— Percent -—-——------——--_-_-_---..-.
Texas:
?0 - 1.49 9.1 12.5 0 0 0 3.1
" 1.50 - 1.99 18.2 O 5.0 30.0 12.5 12.3
2.00 - 2.49 27.3 12.5 35.0 10.0 50.0 30.8
2.50 - 2.99 9.1 25.0 25.0 40.0 18.7 23.1
3.00 and up 36.3 50.0 35.0 20.0 18.8 30.7
Total u 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma: I
0 - 1.49 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.50 - 1.99 0 O 14.2 33.3 0 9.1
2.00 - 2.49 100.0 50.0 42.9 66.7 33.3 54.6
2.50 - 2.99 0 16.7 28.6 0 66.7 22.7
3.00 and up 0 33.3 14.3 0 0 13.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 58. OWNERSHIP-OF CATTLE ON FEED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
State and Less than 1,000 to ‘ 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
type 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
of ownership capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — --—-— Percent -——-—----~—--—--—--—-—--
Texas:
Feedlot 94.3 84.0 78.6 45.2 32.2
Members of feedlot
corporation 0 0 3.4 8.0 V} 10.3
Not feedlot owned 5.7 16.0 18.0 46.8 7 1157.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 l 100.0
Oklahoma:
Feedlot 100.0 87.3 86.1 43.6 21.1
Members of feedlot
corporation 0 0 0 0 3.0
Not feedlot owned 0 12.7 13.9 56.4 75.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OWNERSHIP OF CATTLE ON FEED AND
CUSTOM FEEDING ARRANGEMENTS

Custom feeding is becoming more prevalent in
the Southern Plains as large commercial feedlots
increase in number and size (6). The increasing im-
portance of custom feeding directly affects the owner-
ship patterns of cattle on feed and requires daily
decision making concerning the financing and selling
of custom cattle as well as the methods of assessing
custom feeding charges.

Ownership of Cattle on Feed

During 1966-67, almost 60 percent of the cattle
in Southern Plains feedlots were finished on a custom

basis, Table 58. Cattle fed on a custom basis were Plains.

owned predominantly by individuals or f' 
affiliated with the feedlots. However, 15 
the custom cattle in Texas were owned by m‘
of feedlot corporations. These members were . 7;
the usual custom feeding charges. '1

The proportion of cattle fed on a custom
varied directly with the size of feedlots with the. 
feedlots generally feeding the highest H;
of custom cattle, Table 58. Numerous feedlotg A
a capacity of 10,000 head or more fed almost A , ,
on a custom basis during 1966-67. Many 
operators stated that as large feedlots incrg

size and number, the proportion of cattle fe 
custom basis will tend to increase in the Soul

   
    
   

‘,4

‘It

~

TABLE 59. OWNERSHIP OF CATTLE ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
Southern Rio
Type of High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
ownership Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -—-— Percent —-—-——-—-————--——-—--—-
Feedlot 25.4 27.7 53.7 12.7 86.3 64.3 82.5
Members of feedlot
corporation 14.7 5.1 6.6 18.8 1.3 1 1.9
Not feedlot owned 59.9 67.2 39.7 68.5 12.4 35.7 15.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘Less than .05 percent.
TABLE 60. OWNERSHIP OF CATTLE ON FEED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- South-
Type of Northern eastern Central western
ownership Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — -—-— Percent
Feedlot 41.7 55.6 69.7 22.4 34.3
Members of feedlot
corporation .8 0 0 0 6.4
Not feedlot owned 57.5 44.4 30.3 77.6 59.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

30

; TABLE s1.

The pattern of ownership varied greatly among
feeding areas in Texas, Table 59. Approximately 75

_ percent of the cattle in the Panhandle, Southern High
i Plains and Rolling Plains feedlots were fed on a
custom basis during 1966-67. The Panhandle area

alone accounted for about one-half of the custom

i feeding in Texas. Cattle owned by members of feed-
. lot corporations were most prominent in the Pan-
= handle and Rolling Plains feeding areas. Custom
§ feeding was of least importance in East Texas and

the Rio Grande Plains.

Although feedlots in Central Oklahoma fed the
highest proportion of custom cattle in that state, the
most important custom feeding area in Oklahoma
was the Panhandle area, Table 60. The Oklahoma
Panhandle area, similar to the Texas Panhandle area,
accounted for more than 50 percent of the cattle fed
on a custom basis in Oklahoma. Most of the cattle
in Northern and Southeastern Oklahoma feedlots
were fed on a non-custom basis.

Ownership of Custom Fed Cattle

The majority of the cattle fed on a custom basis
in the Southern Plains were owned by farmers or
ranchers, Table 61. A substantial proportion of the
custom cattle were also owned by cattle buyers, cattle
dealers and other types of investors. More than l0

OWNERSHIP OF CUSTOM FED CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67
State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
type of 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
owner capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
'_ — — — — — — — — — — — -— —— Percent — — — — — — _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ --
' Texas:
Packer 0 0 27.5 22.3 9.6 12.7
Retailer 0 0 2.2 .3 ,1 _2
Rancher 9.5 98.1 46.4 35.6 63.5 58.1
Other‘ 90.5 1.9 23.9 41.8 26.8 29.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
. Oklahoma:
Packer  6.6 0 32.9 5.5 11.1
Retailer 0 0 0 O 0 Q
Rancher 0 33.3 83.6 57.2 49.1 51.9
Other‘ 0 60.1 16.4 9.9 45.4 37.0
Total 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

i ‘Including cattle buyers and dealers and various speculators such as doctors and lawyers.

percent of the cattle fed on a custom basis were owned
by packers. However, this understates the number
of cattle fed by packers since several packers also
owned feedlots (4).

Among feeding areas in Texas, ranchers owned
the highest proportion of custom cattle in the Roll-
ing Plains, Panhandle and Southern High Plains
feedlots, Table 62. Although packers owned the high-
est proportion of the custom cattle in the Rio Grande
Plains and East Texas feeding areas, feedlots in the
Panhandle accounted for almost 40 percent of the
cattle fed by packers on a custom basis.

In Oklahoma, ownership of cattle in feedlots by
ranchers was most prevalent in the Central, Northern
and Panhandle feeding areas, Table 63. Three-fourths
of the cattle fed on a custom basis in Southeastern
Oklahoma were owned by packers during 1966-67.
But, almost two-thirds of the packer-owned cattle in
commercial feedlots were fed in the Panhandle feed-
lots.

Financing and Selling Custom Cattle

Feedlots in Texas and Oklahoma who practiced
custom feeding during 1966-67 generally did not
finance the purchase of feeder cattle for their clients.

Two of the large feedlots in Texas financed the pur- A

TABLE 62. OWNERSHIP OF CUSTOM FED CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
Southern Rio
Type of High Plateau Rolling East Gulf Grande Tomi
owner Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
--'- — — — — — — — — — — — — —- Percent — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.

Packer l‘ 9.3 2.9 12.2 11.2 53.5 27.0 72.6 12.7
Retailer .1 .3 0 1.2 0 0 0 .2
Rancher 69.8 61.1 21.5 80.0 18.7 21.8 14.6 58.1
Other‘ 20.8 35.7 66.3 7.6 27.8 51.2 12.8 29.0
. Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘including cattle buyers and dealers and various speculators such as doctors and lawyers.

TABLE 63. OWNERSHIP OF CUSTOM FED CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
South- South-
Type of Northern eastern Central western
owner Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — ———- Percent -——-—-—--—-------
Packer 13.1 9.5 75.0 2.3 9.7
Retailer 0 0 0 0 a 0
Rancher 55.3 61.9 25.0 94.5 “.10
Other‘ 31.6 28.6 0 3.2 90.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Including cattle buyers and dealers and various speculators such as doctors and lawyers.

chasing of custom cattle, but these represented only
a small proportion of the custom cattle in each lot.
However, feedlots carry their customers’ feed bills
for varying lengths of time.

Most feedlots bill their clients for feed costs
either on the first and 15th of each month, at the
end of the month or at the ending of the feeding
period. Customary billing dates, however, are the
first and 15th of each month or at the end of the
month. Custom feeders using these more frequent
billing methods generally require relatively smaller
volumes of short-term capital.

Comercial banks were the primary source of
financing for cattle fed on a custom basis. Banks
generally require a margin equivalent to or ranging
from 0 to 30 percent of the value of the feeder cattle.
In addition, banks also make loans to cover feeding
charges. Depending on the reputation of the client
or buyer of the feeder cattle, banks and other lending
institutions may secure only the cattle as collateral
for the loan. Banks and other lending institutions
may also specify that feeder cattle be hedged on the
futures market before negotiating loans. This, how-

-- ever, has not been a general practice. Although most

custom feeders were not certain about the hedging
practices of their clients, less than 5 percent of the
cattle owned by feedlots were hedged during 1966-67.
Unfamiliarity with the futures market was the pri-
mary reason given for the small volume of hedging.

Selling arrangements for custom fed cattle are
generally supervised by the feedlot manager. Most
feedlots used the same general selling guidelines and
policies for custom cattle as for those owned by the
feedlot. Feedlot managers or their representatives
are usually in a better position to estimate the weights
and grades of cattle on feed than are their clients.
They are also more familiar with the type and quality
of fed cattle desired by various packer buyers.

Payments for custom cattle are made either di-
rectly to the owner of the cattle or to the feedlots
depending on prior arrangements between the feed-
lot and the client. Commercial banks and other lend-
ing institutions, however, retain a first lien on the
client's cattle. Since finance agencies generally also
provide the necessary financing for feed bills and

32

  
    
 
    
 
  
   
   
    
  
   
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
   
   
   
   

other expenses, the custom feeder ordinarily is 
of receiving full payment for feed bills ands
services rendered. In the event clients have ou
ing bills with the custom feeder, feedlots h'
payments for their clients are permitted to re 
necessary or available funds after satisfying 
mortgage holder. -,;

Methods of Assessing Custom Feeding Ch 

Custom feeding charges generally varied 
Texas and Oklahoma feedlots. In Texas, 
feeding charges were generally assessed as 
( 1) a basic feed charge varying from $42.00 to :
per ton, (2) a markup above feed cost rangin
$4.00 to $8.00 per ton to cover handling, ;5j
and labor costs, and (3) an assessment of $1.50 
per head to cover vaccination, medication, br}
dehorning and dipping. Specific charges for it
tion and vaccination depended on the ty
amount of drugs or vaccinations required. lg
feeding charges were $44.00-$46.00 per ton r:
with a markup of $650-$750 per ton. Speci 
charges varied by feeding area and type of
Custom feeding charges on the basis of p011}
gain were used by only a few of the feedlots.

Custom feeding charges in Oklahoma w
erally based on a basic feed charge per ton r
plus an additional charge of 5 to 6 cents r-a
per day to cover handling, yardage, feed 
and similar expenses. Some custom feeders in.
homa were using methods of assessing feed P
similar to those used by Texas feedlots: j
charges were based on a basic charge per
feed with a markup above the basic feed t;
cover handling, labor and other expenses. f
for medication, vaccination, branding, dehornif
dipping were similar to those assessed by Tex a
lots. A few of the feedlots in Oklahoma also;
custom feeding charges on pounds of gain. 5
feedlots in the Southern Plains were not 
with this method since considerable variation;-
in the ability of feeder cattle to convert -,
pounds of gain.
“A detailed analysis of feeding costs by feeding area 5i
feedlots will be available in a forthcoming publication’
with costs and economies of size.

w

TABLE 64. BREED PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
breed or LOOO-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
cross capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ _ _ — _ _ — — — — — -——- Percent -—-—-———-——--—-——————————-
Texas:
Hereford 14.7 8.3 5.9 0 5.0 7.8
Angus 5.9 16.7 O 6.2 0 4.3
Hereford X Angus 17.7 25.0 44.1 43.8 45.0 34.5
Hereford X Brahman 8.8 16.7 8.8 0 0 6.9
Hereford X Charolais 0 O 2.9 0 5.0 1.7
Angus X Brahman 14.7 0 5.9 6.3 0 6.9
Cross-breed‘ 38.2 33.3 32.4 43.7 45.0 37.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:

Hereford 8.3 16.7 0 0 0 5.9

Angus 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Angus 41.7 33.3 75.0 75.0 100.0 58.8

Hereford X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 12.5 0 0 2.9

Angus X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross-breed‘ 50.0 50.0 12.5 25.0 0 32.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

" » "‘Okie" or any unspecified cross or crosses.

PREFERENCES OF FEEDLOTS RELATIVE
TO BREED, WEIGHT, AGE AND SEX

A general knowledge of specific feeder cattle
characteristics preferred by feedlots is of great im-
portance to the producer who attempts to produce
feeder cattle with these desired characteristics. Al-
though feedlots in the Southern Plains often feed
cattle which exhibit many different types of charac-
teristics, most feedlot owners or managers expressed
definite preferences relative to breed, weight, age and
sex. Only those preferences ranked first are con-
sidered in this study.

Preferred Breeds

Approximately 90 percent of the feedlot operators
in the Southern Plains expressed a preference for
crossbred feeder cattle, with the most popular being
the Hereford-Angus cross, Table 64. Numerous feed-
lot operators who stated a preference for the Hereford-
Angus cross also indicated that a Hereford-Angus cross

with 1/8 to 1/16 Brahman bloodlines would be de-
sirable. According to feedlot operators, combining
the Hereford-Angus cross with a small amount of
Brahman breeding tends to lessen the incidence of
uneven fat deposits and also increases the heat toler-
ance of feeder animals. A substantial number of
feedlots did not indicate a preferred breed; instead
they stated that any good cross or “Okie” type of
feeder cattle was acceptable. Although variations
existed in the specific cross desired by size of feedlot,
crossbreeds again were the overwhelming preference
of all size groups.

Because of the wide area differences in such
factors as climatic conditions and feeding programs,
specific breed preferences varied greatly between
Texas feeding areas, Table 65. Feedlots in the Gulf
Coast and Rio Grande Plains expressed a preference
for a higher proportion of feeder cattle possessing
Brahman bloodlines or crosses than did other feeding
areas. Much of the baby beef consumed in the Gulf

TABLE 65. BREED PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area

r Breed Southern Rio
a or High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
cross Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— ~ — — — — — — — — — — -———- Percent -—-—--——---—--——-----—-—-—

Hereford 3.2 20.0 20.0 12.5 12.5 0 0 7.8
Angus ;= 6.5 0 10.0 0 0 4.3 10.0 4.3
Hereford X Angus 1“ 54.8 20.0 30.0 37.5 20.8 21.7 50.0 34.5
Hereford X Brahman 0 0 0 0 4.2 26.1 10.0 6.9
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 0 O 0 4.4 10.0 1.7
Angus X Brahman 6.5 10.0 0 0 4.2 8.7 20.0 6.9
Cross-breed‘ 29.0 50.0 40.0 50.0 58.3 34.8 0 37.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0

“‘Okie" or any unspecified cross or crosses.

O9
b)

TABLE 66. BREED PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
Breed South- South-
or Northern eastern Central western
cross Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent -——-—---——------—-L

Hereford 0 1 1.1 0 1 6.7 _ 0 l
Angus 0 0 0 0 Q 0
Hereford x Angus 77.8 22.2 1000 33.3 "'"ss.s
Hereford X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 0 0 16.7
Angus X Brahman t0 0 0 0 0
Cross-breed‘ 22.2 66.7 O 50.0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

"‘Okie" or any unspecified cross or crosses.

Coast consumption centers is produced in these two
areas. Two-thirds of the Panhandle area feedlots,
who finish cattle at relatively heavier weights and
higher grades, expressed a predominant preference
for the Hereford-Angus cross. Feeders in the Plateau-
Pecos area also expressed a preference for a higher
proportion of English breeds or English crosses than
did most other feeding areas.

With the exception of Northern and Central
Oklahoma, feedlots in Oklahoma preferred the
Hereford-Angus cross, Table 66. The most common
preference in Northern and Central Oklahoma were
crossbreeds, but no specific preference was indicated
relative to breed or cross.

Breed preferences, by sex and size of feedlot for
Texas and Oklahoma, are shown in Appendix Tables
9 and l0. Feedlots who preferred steers also preferred
a considerably higher proportion of English crosses
or English breeds than did those preferring heifers.

TABLE 67. WEIGHT PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

   
    
  
    
    
 

Preferred Weights 
Approximately two-thirds of the feedlots in 1
preferred feeder cattle weighing less than 500 ~ 
in contrast to Oklahoma where approximate __
thirds perferred feeder cattle in excess of 500 i w‘
Table 67. Weight preferences appear to have a ;_
relationship to size of feedlot operations. The 
feedlots preferred heavier weights in contrast 
smaller feedlots which preferred lighter wei 

In both states, however, the commonly pr _
weight range for feeder cattle under 500 pou w:
the 400-500 pound range. The most common
preference in the 500-pound-and-over catego 
the 600-700-pound weight range. Weight pref - i
of course, are strongly influenced by the sex M;
ence. The most common weight range desirl
heifers was 400-500 pounds while the 600-700
range was most common for feedlots preferring
Appendix Tables ll and 12.

g

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
and weight 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
preference capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity

— — — — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent ----—-——-—-—---—-----
Texas.

Under 300 0 O 2 9 12.4 Q
300-399 27.3 15.4 17 6 25.0 15 0
400-499 48.5 38.5 47 1 12.5 25 0
500-599 12.1 23.1 14 7 6.3 20 0
600-699 6.1 15.3 11 8 43.8 35 0
700-799 6.0 7.7 5 9 0 5 0
800 and over 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma:

Under 300 8.3 0 0 0 0
300-399 16.7 14.2 0 0 0
400-499 25.0 42.9 25.0 25.0 0
500-599 25.0 14.3 12.5 25.0 0
600-699 8.4 28.6 37.5 50.0 50.0
700-799 8.3 O 25.0 O 50.0
800 and over 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

34

_ TABLE 68. WEIGHT PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeder cattle weight preferences among Texas

, feeding areas varied from a high of 600-700 pounds
in the Panhandle to a low of 300-400 pounds in the
l’ Rio Grande Plains, Table 68. Weights preferred by
Texas feeding areas follow a definite pattern and
j; tend to decrease rather consistently along a south-
. easterly line from the Panhandle to the Rio Grande
Plains.

Weight preferences among Oklahoma feeding

_ areas varied considerably more than in Texas, Table
' 69. Feedlots in the Panhandle, Northern Oklahoma

and Southwestern Oklahoma feeding areas preferred

' feeder cattle in excess of 500 pounds. Most South-

eastern and Central Oklahoma feedlots expressed a

l preference for feeder cattle weighing less than 500
l pounds. Weight preferences are also affected to a
. A large extent by the type of feeding program employed
 and market outlets. Cattle produced by feedlots in
 the Oklahoma Panhandle ordinarily weighed in ex-
f cess of 1,000 pounds while those produced by South-
eastern Oklahoma feedlots were marketed at about
i) 750 pounds. Area differences in weight preferences
~ generally also parallel area marketing weight differ-
a ences in the Southern Plains.

' Preferred Age

Age preferences for feeder cattle by Texas and

9- Oklahoma feedlots were generally related directly
. to weight preferences. Approximately 50 percent of

Feeding area
Southern Rio
Weight High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
_ V, preference Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains

- Q — — ~ — ~ — — — — ~ — — -— —— Percent — — — — — — — — — ~ — — — —
Under 300 0 0 0 0 0 13.0 0 2.6

- 300-399 0 0 10.0 14.3 28.0 43.5 50.0 20.7
400-499 16.1 40.0 50.0 28.6 56.0 43.5 40.0 37.9

_ 500-599 9.7 40.0 30.0 57.1 8.0 0 10.0 14.6
l 600-699 54.8 20.0 10.0 0 8.0 0 O 19.0
r 700-799 19.4 0 O 0 0 0 0 5.2

j 800 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

the feedlots expressed a preference for feeder cattle
under 8 months of age, Table 70. At the same time,
about one-half of the feedlots preferred feeder cattle
weighing less than 500 pounds, Table 67.

Smaller feedlots, which ordinarily market cattle
at weights under those of the large feedlots, also pre-
ferred a younger type of feeder animal, Table 70.
In general, feedlots with a capacity of 10,000 head and
more expressed a preference for feeder cattle ranging
from l2 to 20 months of age. Medium-size feedlot
operators expressed a wide range of age preferences.
These feedlots often organize their feeding program
to service nearby as well as more distant market
outlets.

The pattern of age preferences for feeder cattle
among Texas and Oklahoma feeding areas is similar
to previously expressed weight preferences. In Texas
80 percent of the Panhandle area feedlots expressed
a preference for feeder cattle ranging from l2 to 20
months of age, Table 71. Seventy-five percent of
these feedlots also gave a preference for feeder cattle
in excess of 600 pounds. The East Texas, Gulf Coast
and Rio Grande Plains feedlots who finish cattle at
relatively light weights, prefer feeder cattle predomi-
nantly in the 6 to 8~month age category.

Oklahoma feedlots in the Panhandle, similar to
those in the Texas Panhandle, finish cattle at relative-

ly heavy weights and consequently prefer feeder cattle v

- TABLE 69. WEIGHT PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

? Feeding area
South- South-
Weight Northern eastern Central western Total
preference Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — ——-— Percent -———-————-—--———-——--—----

Under 300 0 10.0 0 0 0 2.9
300-399 0 0 50.0 16.7 0 8.6
400-499 0 20.0 50.0 50.0 33.3 25.7
500-599 22.2 20.0 0 16.7 16.7 17.1
600-699 66.7 30.0 0 0 16.7 28.6
700-799 11.1 20.0 0 16.6 16.7 14.3
800 and over 0 0 0 0 16.6 2.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(n?
U‘!

TABLE 70. AGE PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
age 1,000'-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
(months) capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -—--— Percent ---———-—---——-—--——-——-—
Texas:
Under 3 0 0 0 0 0
3 - 5 0 0 8.8 20.0 ‘.- 0
6 - 8 65.6 41 7 50.0 20.0  25.0
9 - 11 18.8 25 0 8.8 13.3 15.0
12 - 14 9.4 16 7 17.7 13.3 35.0
15 - 17 . 0 16 6 5.9 26.7 20.0
18 - 2O 6.2 0 8.8 6.7 5.0
Over 20 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Under 3 0 0 0 0 0
3 - 5 0 0 0 0 0
6 - 8 41.7 42.9 0 0 0
9 - 11 25.0 14.3 37.5 25.0 0
12 - 14 8.3 28.6 12.5 50.0 75.0
15 - 17 0 0 25.0 25.0 25.0
18 - 20 8.3 14.2 12.5 0 0
Over 20 16.7 0 12.5 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
mostly between 12 and 20 months of age, Table 72. Preferred Sex 
Feedlots in Southeastern Oklahoma, which place More than one-half of the Oklahoma 
lighter cattle on feed, prefer cattle under 12 months preferred to feed steers during 1966-67, Ta 
of age. In Texas, less than 40 percent of the feedlots
TABLE 71. AGE PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
Southern Rio
Age High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
(months) Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — —-— Percent —————-——--—-——--——-—
Under 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 - 5 0 0 10.0 0 4.2 18.2 0
6 - 8 3.2 33.3 10.0 28.6 70.8 77.3 100.0
9 - 11 16.1 33.4 20.0 42.9 12.5 4.5 0
12 - 14 35.5 22.2 40.0 14.3 8.3 0 0
15-17 29.0 11.1 10.0 14.2 0 O 0
18 - 20 16.2 0 10.0 0 4.2 0 0
Over 20 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TABLE 72. AGE PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- South-
Age Northern eastern Central 1 western
(months) Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — —— Percent -—--------——--—-————
Under 3 0 0 0 0 0
3 - 5 0 0 0 0 0
6 - 8 11.1 r 20.0 75.0 33.3 0
9 - 11 0 20.0 25.0 50.0 33.3
12 - 14 44.4 20.0 0 16.7 33.3
15 - 17 22.3 10.0 0 0 16.7
18 - 20 22.2 10.0 0 0 0
Over 20 0 20.0 0 0 16.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

36

TABLE 73. PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
and sex 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
preference capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
~ * ~ ~ — — — — — — — ———- Percent -———-—-———--—-——-—--—--—-
Texas:

Steers 44.1 38.5 23.5 31.3 45.0 35.9
Heifers 32.4 46.1 52.9 37.5 30.0 40.2
No preference 23.5 15.4 23.6 31.2 25.0 23.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma:

Steers 66.7 16.7 62.5 25.0 100.0 55.9
Heifers 25.0 83.3 37.5 25.0 0 35.3
No preference 8.3 0 0 50.0 0 8.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0

a definite preference for steers. Almost one-fourth
of the Texas feedlots did not list a definite preference
for steers or heifers. These feedlots stated that market
conditions and especially price differentials between
steer and heifer feeder cattle were the determining
factors. Numerous feedlots stated that a price dif-
ferential of at least $3454 per hundredweight between
steer and heifer feeder cattle was considered an
inducement toward feeding additional heifers. This
is especially true if the price differential between
steer and heifer feeder cattle is $4 or more per
hundredweight.

Only feedlots in the Texas and Oklahoma Pan-
handle and Southwestern Oklahoma expressed a
definite preference for steer over heifer feeder cattle,
Tables 74 and 75. Feedlots in most other feeding areas
preferred heifers, but a substantial portion of the
feedlots in the East Texas, Gulf Coast, Rio Grande
Plains and Southeastern Oklahoma feeding areas said
that price was the determining factor.

COMPOSITION OF RATIONS, SOURCE
OF FEED AND FEED PURCHASE
ARRANGEMENTS

The type and source of feed used by the South-
ern Plains feedlots varied by feeding area and size
of feedlot. Feed purchase arrangements also tend
to vary with the size of feedlot operations 

Composition of Rations

Concentrates made up about three-fourths of
the total feed ration in Texas and about two-thirds
of the total in Oklahoma during 1966-67, Tables 76
and 77. In Texas, grain sorghum or milo represented
60 percent of the total ration and more than 80 per-
cent of the concentrates. Milo made up slightly more
than 50 percent of the feed ration in Oklahoma, but
barley and corn accounted for another 6 percent.
Barley and corn were relatively unimportant in Texas.
Pre-mix or a commercially prepared batch supple-
ment containing protein, minerals, vitamins, feed

TABLE 74. PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
Southern l » Rio
Sex High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
preference Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
* _ _ _ — _ — — — — ~ — — —-— Percent ——-—-—--———--——-_h__-_
Steers 64.5 20.0 30.0 37.5 32.0 17.4 20.0 35.9
Heifers 19.4 60.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 52.2 30.0 40.2
No preference 16.1 20.0 10.0 12.5 28.0 30.4 50.0 23.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
7
TAELE 75. PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67
Feeding area
South- South-
Sex  Northern eastern Central western Total
preference Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — -—-— Percent —————--——------—----------_
Steers 88.9 40.0 33.4 33.3 66.7 55.9
Heifers 11.1 50.0 33.3 50.0 33.3 35.3
No preference 0 10.0 33.3 16.7 0 8.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

additives and urea was the second most important
concentrate and represented about 5 percent of the
ration in both states. Molasses was relatively more
important in Oklahoma than in Texas, but most
rations in Texas contained higher proportions of
animal or vegetable fat.

Silage, either corn or grain sorghum, represented
the bulk of the roughage fed in Texas and Oklahoma.
Most of the remaining roughage in Texas consisted
of cottonseed hulls and alfalfa hay, compared to green
chop and cottonseed hulls in Oklahoma. Cottonseed
hulls were often substituted for alfalfa hay and vice
versa depending on relative prices of these roughage
items. Most feedlots are able to substitute various
types of roughage in their rations as represented by
the wide range of roughage items fed.

In Texas, the larger feedlots generally fed higher
proportions of concentrates than did the smaller feed-
lots during 1966-67, Table 76. The opposite trend
existed in Oklahoma, Table 77. Several of the larger
feedlots in Oklahoma produced much of their rough-
age requirements.

Among Texas feeding areas, the Southern High
Plains, the Rolling Plains and East Texas fed the
highest proportion of concentrates, Table 78. The

  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 

Gulf Coast and Rio Grande Plains feedingf
which enjoy relatively long growing se ‘
relatively more silage and green chop than y
feeding areas. The highest levels of concen
Oklahoma were fed in the Southwestern and 1
Oklahoma feedlots, Table 79. Southeast
homa feedlots, which also marketed the 31f
cattle in Oklahoma, included relatively high 
tions of roughage in their rations. Feeding "
Texas and Oklahoma which fed the highest,
tion of roughage have several things in y‘
They are located relatively long distances I
major milo producing areas and are gener 
with a relatively high grain transportation p
pared to most other feeding areas in -»<
Oklahoma. f

While the rations previously discussed '_
total rations for 1966-67, most feedlots employ;
programs consisting of starting rations, int:
or growing rations and finishing rations.
starting rations often include about 35 If
or grain. The total level of concentrates 
rations is generally around 55 percent. The:
trate level in intermediate rations varies fr
70 percent while concentrates in finishing?
often exceed 90 percent. “

TABLE 76. FEED INGREDIENTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS, 1966-67
Less-than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
Type of feed 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
Capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
* — — — — — — — — — — —---— Percent —-—-—-———-—-——---—-
Concentrates:
Grain sorghum 53.5 56.8 62.6 60.7 59.6
Barley‘ .3 .5 .8 .5 1.1
Corn 1.9 0 .1 0 .4
Bran 0 0 O 0 .2
Pre-mix’ 4.8 10.8 6.7 4.4 5.1
Additives and
other supplements’ 8.9 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.4
Molasses 1.0 .4 1.9 2.3 3.3
Fat 0 .1 .6 1.0 2.0
Urea‘ l‘ 0 ‘ 0 '
Total 70.4 70.5 74.2 70.7 73 1
Roughage=
Silage 20.7 20.6 13.3 15.9 10.7
Green chop 0 0 3.0 2.4 .7
Beet pulp 0 0 .1 0 2.2
Cottonseed hulls ' 3 2 4.4 5.5 3.5 6.7
Rice hulls 0 1.2 .2 2.1 1.1
Peanut hulls .5 0 .4 .3 0
Alfalfa hay .6 2.9 .9 4.0 4.6
Alfalfa dehy .6 .2 .8 .9 .9
Other‘ 4.0 .2 1.6 .2 0
Total 29.6 29.5 25.8 29.3 26.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Includes small quantities of wheat.

‘A commercially prepared "batch" supplement which contains protein, minerals, vitamins, feed additives and urea.
‘Protein supplements, mineral vitamins and feed additives fed in addition to the pre-mix.

‘Fed in addition to the urea in the pre-mix.
‘Less than .05 percent.
‘Primarily Johnson grass of prairie hay.

38

 Source of Feed

With the exception of the smaller feedlots, the

feeding industry in Texas and Oklahoma was de-
‘ pendent almost entirely on commercial sources for
feed grain supplies during 1966-67, Table 80. Texas
I feedlots purchased 95 percent of their feed grain
I from sources within Texas. Oklahoma feedlots, in
contrast, bought more than one-half of their feed
» grain from sources outside of Oklahoma, chiefly Texas
' and Kansas.

Although Southern Plains feedlots purchased

_ most of their roughage requirements, feedlots in both
I states produced a substantial amount of the roughage
' fed, Table 81. Roughage items purchased from out-
I of-state sources consisted mostly of alfalfa hay, alfalfa
dehy and cottonseed hulls. Smaller feedlots are often
also engaged in farming and ranching operations
. as evidenced by the relatively large volumes of rough-
5 ages produced by these feedlots. Roughage items
g produced by feedlots consisted mostly of silage and
a green chop. In Texas, the Rio Grande Plains and
‘ Gulf "Coast feedlots produced two-thirds or more of
the roughage fed in their feedlots, Appendix Table
, l3. This was also true for feedlots in Northern and
Southeastern Oklahoma, Appendix Table l4.

Feed Purchase Arrangements

As large commercial feedlots increase in number
and size, and depending upon potential supplies of
feed in a given area, competition for adequate quan-
tities and quality of feed tends to increase. More than
one-half of the feed grain in Texas and about three-
fourths of the roughage in Texas and Oklahoma
were obtained on a contract basis during 1966-67,
Tables 82 and 83. However, most of the feed grain
in Oklahoma was purchased on a cash basis.

While most contracts were for periods of 6
months or less, some feedlots entered into agreements
for feed supplies as much as a year in advance of
delivery date. Purchase contracts for roughage items
were generally made with producers. Contracts for
feed grains were generally entered into with pro-
ducers, grain elevators or other commercial feed
companies.

SOURCE OF PRICE INFORMATION

Most feedlots stated that their primary sources
of price information were federal-state live cattle
quotations from various major markets, Table 84.
Other important sources were U. S. Department of

TABLE 77. FEED INGREDIENTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

  

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
Type of feed 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — ———- Percent -—-—-—------------------_
; Concentrates:
Grain sorghum 58.3 31.6 59.1 44.1 56.6 53.1
Barley’ 6.9 18.7 12.1 .7 O 2.5
Corn 4.9 6.6 .4 14.3 .1 3.6
Bran O .3 .2 O 0 2
Pre-mix” 7.1 5.2 6.2 4.5 4.6 4.8
Additives and
other supplements‘ .4 1.2 1.0 .9 .7 .7
Molasses .3 2.0 1.3 2.4 4.2 3.3
Fat 0 .4 .4 .4 .6 .5
Urea‘ 0 0 .2 0 0 ’
_ Total 77.9 66.0 80.9 67 3 66.8 68 5
A Roughage:
Silage 11.6 17.3 7.6 15.8 25.7 20.9
Green chop 0 O 1.6 6.4 1.5 2.5
Beet pulp 0 0 .5 0 0 ,1
Cottonseed hulls 1.3 5.4 3.9 2.9 2.8 3,1
Rice hulls 0 0 1.4 1.3 0 .5
, ;Peanut hulls 0 0 2.5 0 0 ,3
i a Alfalfa hay 4.4 4.8 .8 1.0 1.5 1.5
Alfalfa dehy 0 0 0 .8 1.7 1.2
Other‘ 4.8 6.5 .8 4.5 ' i ,4
Total 22.1 34.0 19 1 32.7 33 2 31.5
Total  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘ ‘Includes small quantities of wheat.

. ‘Less than .05 percent.

‘A commercially prepared "batch" supplement which contains protein, minerals, vitamins, feed additives and urea.
‘Protein supplements, mineral vitamins and feed additives fed in addition to the pre-mix.

~ ‘Fed in addition to the urea in the pre-mix.

'Primarily Johnson grass or prairie hay.

39

Agriculture carcass quotations and price information
from the National Provisioner yellow sheet. Although
feedlots generally relied on two to four sources for
price information, only a few feedlots listed the live
cattle futures market or selling and buying agents
as primary sources. Feedlots relying primarily on
carcass price quotations or price information from
the National Provisioner yellow sheet were generally
the larger feedlots.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Although cattle feeding has increased dramatical-
ly within the Southern Plains since the mid-l950’s,
much potential apparently exists for additional in-
creases in cattle feeding within the area. Generally
abundant supplies of feeder cattle and feed,

an increasing demand for fed beef and a growing

population in the South and Southeast with rising
per capita incomes are factors which tend to en-
courage further feedlot expansion. Large quantities
of grain sorghum and roughage items are currently
being produced in the Southern Plains. During 1965-
67, for example, cattle in Texas feedlots consumed
1,529,500 tons of grain sorghum. Estimated quantities
of Texas-produced grain sorghum available for ship-
ment to other states and export to foreign countries

TABLE 78. FEED INGREDIENTS, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

 
    
   
   
   
   
  
  
 
  
 
    
  
  

during this period were approximately 6 millio
The recent construction of large, specialized, t.’
type beef slaughtering plants within and in I
adjacent to the Texas Panhandle area is ano 0.0
ducement to further feedlot expansion. i

However, the Southern Plains feeding 
like any industry undergoing rapid growth 
justment, is often faced with the flproblem of ,
intelligent decisions in the absence of much pu»
information and research. With improved 1
ledge, decision-makers often can avoid some 
costs and risks associated with adjustments r ' g
realize potentials more quickly and effectiv a;

Problems facing the feeding industry tend 
with the introduction of new technology, adjus i
required to adapt to new technology, size of;
operations, and customary management - .
which often lag behind current innovations an P
able levels of technology. General problems . ~ 
with the feeding industry in the Southern 
include those relating to costs and economies-i
as well as to optimum location of cattle feedi
the relevant raw material supplies and costs, s 
facilities and slaughter costs, transportation ~ l
market outlets. 

Feeding area

Southern Rio
Type of feed High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— _ _ ~ _ — _ _ — — ~ — — -—— Percent ————-———---—-———
Concentrates:
Grain sorghum 59.0 66.1 53.3 65.2 64.7 55 5 58.6
Barley‘ .9 1.0 3.4 .4 1.0 O 0
Corn 2 2 0 0 2.3 .1 0
Bran 0 0 0 0 2 1.1 0
Pre-mixa 4.7 5.6 3.6 7.9 5.8 7.1 7.2
Additives and
other supplements‘ 1.8 1.3 2.9 .8 1.7 .6 .2
Molasses 3.0 2.7 4.7 3.0 2.6 2.5 0
Fat 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.8 1.9 .8 0
Urea‘ 0 0 .3 0 2 0 0
Total 71.2 78.4 69.2 9 1 80 0 67.7 66.0
Roughage.
Silage 14.4 2.7 14.2 1.8 4.3 23.8 15.9
Green chop .1 0 3.1 0 0 4.0 14.2
Beet pulp 1.4 1.9 0 0 4.4 0 0
Cottonseed hulls 4.9 9.8 7.4 14.2 6.8 2.0 2.6
Rice hulls 1.7 O 0 .5 1.9 .8 0
Peanut hulls 0 0 0 0 .3 .8 0
Alfalfa hay 5.3 5.5 4.2 3.7 .3 .2 0
Alfalfa dehy .9 .9 1.6 .2 1.8 0 0
Other‘ .1 .8 .3 .5 .2 .7 1.3
Total 28.8 21.6 30.8 20.9 20.0 32.3 34.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Includes small quantities of wheat.
zless than .05 percent.

“A commercially prepared "batch" supplement which contains protein, minerals, vitamins, feed additives and urea.
‘Protein supplements, mineral vitamins and feed additives fed in addition to the pre-mix.

‘Fed in addition to the urea in the pre-mix.
°Primarily Johnson grass or prairie hay.

40

Problems or questions posed by feedlot operators
include the following:

(1) Pollution. Several states have specific regula-
tions and policies regarding feedlot waste disposal and
runoff into streams, lakes and other areas. Legislation
concerned with water and air pollution is currently
pending in both the Texas and Oklahoma legislatures.
Further research was generally deemed necessary
concerning economic systems of waste disposal and
control of feedlot runoff in relation to state and
federal regulations governing air and water pollution.

(2) Buying practices. Feedlots generally follow
established customs and traditions in buying feeder
cattle and selling fat cattle. Although feedlots ob-
tained about one-fourth of their feeder cattle directly
from farms and ranches, the majority of the feeder
cattle were purchased in odd lots consisting of as-
sorted sizes and grades at auctions. This presents
problems in terms of both exposure to sickness and
disease and acquisition of cattle with diverse back-
grounds and breeding which directly affect per-
formance in feedlots. Possibilities could be explored
for establishing more specialized feeder cattle sales

- where animals are sorted relative to breed, age, sex

and weight. Feeder cattle with symptoms of disease

or sickness could be excluded from such sales. Other
possibilities include sales of feeder cattle at concen-
tration yards specifically organized to fit requirements
of feedlot operators.

(3) Marketing practices. Approximately 80 per-
cent of the fed cattle in Southern Plains feedlots were
sold on a direct liveweight basis during 1966-67 with
a standard shrinkage assessment. Risk and uncertain-
ty are difficult to minimize under the traditional
system of selling on a liveweight basis. Further re-
search is required concerning the pricing of fed cattle
given various shrink assessments, sorting privileges
and weighing conditions. Although weighing pro-
cedures and payment schedules are specified by the
U. S. Department of Agriculture for cattle sold on
a carcass basis, questions remain concerning the
effects of sorting privileges, varying carcass shrink
and distance to slaughter plants on prices. Important
also is the ability of the buyer or seller to accurately
judge the carcass grade on a live basis.

(4) Preconditioning feeder calves after weaning.
Numerous producers and feedlot operators were con-
cerned with the economics of conditioning feeder
calves at the ranch or in specialized feeder calf con-
ditioning lots to minimize death loss and to minimize

TABLE 79. FEED INGREDIENTS, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
South- South-
Type of feed Northern eastern Central western Total
Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — ——- Percent -—-———-——--—-——-—-—-———
Concentrates:
Grain sorghum 52.4 24.4 30.7 63.7 64.1 53.1
Barley‘ .2 7.9 .2 3.0 7.8 2.5
Corn 1.1 27.8 12.6 .8 0 3.6
Bran .1 .1 0 0 0 2
Pre-mixa 4.5 6.0 2.4 2.7 6.3 4.8
Additives and
other supplements‘ .2 .6 3.5 3.9 7 .7
Molasses 4.3 .3 4.7 2.2 .5 3.3
Fat .2 0 O 1.5 1.4 .5
Urea‘ 0 0 0 .2 0 2
Total 63.0 67.1 54.1 78.0 80.8 68.5
Roughage:

Silage 29.4 14.8 27.7 .7 3.4 20.9
Green chop 3.3 2.9 0 O 2.2 2.5
Beet pulp O O O O .7 .1
Cottonseed hulls 8 5.4 1.2 15.8 5.1 3.1
Rice hulls 7 0 O 0 0 .5
“Peanut hulls .1 0 O 0 2.4 .3
Alfalfa hay .1 1.3 10.2 4.7 5.2 1.5
Alfalfa dehy 2.0 0 0 O 0 1.2
Other‘ .6 8 5 6.8 8 .2 1.4
Total 37.0 32.9 45.9 22.0 19.2 31.5
Total  100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 i 100.0 100.0

‘includes small quantities of wheat.

zless than .05 percent.

3A commercially prepared "batch" supplement which contains protein, minerals, vitamins, feed additives and urea.
‘Protein supplements, mineral vitamins and feed additives fed in addition to the pre-mix.

“Fed in addition to the urea in the pre-mix.

‘Primarily Johnson grass or prairie hay.

41

TABLE 80. SOURCE OF TOTAL FEED GRAIN, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head ' 9,999-head and-more
and Source capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -—— Percent -——-—-———————--
Texas=
Own production 28.8 14.4 6.0 5.7 .6‘
Purchased feed= 3,
Texas 71.2 85.6 93.3 91.0 97.4 ‘,3
Oklahoma 0 0 .3 3.1 0
Kansas 0 0 0 0 1.0
Other 0 0 .4 .2 1.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Own production 12.1 4.8 2.1 1.7 0
Purchased feed:
Texas 0, 0 34.7 36.0 27.2
Oklahoma 56.9 75.4 45.0 17.2 48.9
Kansas 0 19.8 18.2 33.5 23.9
Other 31 .0 0 0 1 1.6 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
the period required for feeder calves to adapt to a demand for preconditioned feeder calves.
feedlot ration. Additional research is necessary to formation is currently available at most ma"
determine the least-cost preconditioning rations, speci- for feeder calves moving directly from .
fied medication and vaccination levels and the feedlot ranches without any prior preconditionin

TABLE 81. SOURCE OF ROUGHAGE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to l0,000-head-
and 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
source capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ — — — — — — — — — — -—-—— Percent --—-——------------
Texas:
Own production 84.7 74.6 60.7 38.1 18.1
Purchased:
Texas 14.4 25.4 39.0 59.0 59.6
Oklahoma 0 O 0 0 0
Kansas 0 0 0 0 2.0
Other .9 0 .3 2.9 20.3
‘Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Own production 90.6 73.6 52.6 58.9 37.2
Purchased:
Texas 0 0 2.4 14.6 7.5
Oklahoma 9.4 23.8 43.6 19.9 49.9
Kansas 0 2.6 1.4 l.l 5.4
Other 0 0 0 5.5 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 82. TYPE OF PURCHASE ARRANGEMENT FOR FEED GRAIN, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
type of purchase 1,000~head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
arrangement capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -—--— Percent -——--—----—__--_._
Texas:
Cash 63.8 64.3 46.3 36.4 44.5
Contract 36.2 35.7 53.7 63.6 55.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Cash 100.0 36.8 43.5 39.7 76.0
Contract 0 63.2 56.5 60.3 24.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

42

TABLE 83. TYPE OF PURCHASE ARRANGEMENT FOR ROUGHAGE, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
type of purchase 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
arrangement capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — ~ — —--— Percent -———-—----—-—---—-—-—--
Texas:
Cash 88.1 100.0 81.2 37.4 20.7 29.6
Contract 11.9 0 18.8 62.6 79.3 70.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Oklahoma:
Cash 100.0 100.0 65.3 29.6 20.6 27.0
Contract 0 0 34.7 70.4 79.4 73.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

not generally true for preconditioned feeder calves.
Contractual arrangements or agreements between
preconditioning lots and feedlots may be desirable.

(5) Backgrounding feeder cattle. Several feedlot
operators expressed a preference for feeder cattle
with prior backgrounding. Feeding areas which possess
a locational disadvantage with respect to major grain
sorghum producing areas may find it advantageous
to specialize in warmup rather than finishing oper-
ations. Requirements for successful warmup oper-
ations include, among others, generally abundant
supplies of low cost roughage. Data concerning least-
cost rations for warmup operations and the type of
feeder cattle best adapted for this type of operation
are generally inadequate.

(6) Least-cost finishing rations. Computer pro-
grams are available which specify least-cost rations
consistent with the minimum daily TDN and protein
levels to achieve specified minimum gains per day.
Most feedlots are not currently using computer pro-
grams to develop least-cost rations. Associated with
the problems of developing least-cost rations are
questions concerning the storage and utilization of
high moisture grain sorghum. Computer programs
can also be developed for supplying detailed statistics
on feeder cattle moving onto feed, cattle currently

I on feed and fed cattle sold by feedlots.

(7) Performance of specific types and breeds of
feeder cattle. Data were generally not available con-

TASLE 84. PRIMARY SOURCE OF PRICE INFORMATION USED BY
TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Sou rce of price

cerning the performance of specific types and breeds
of feeder cattle in Southern Plains feedlots. Numerous
questions were raised by feedlot operators concern-
ing anticipated daily gains and costs associated with
feeding specified weights, types, age and breeds or
crosses of feeder cattle.

(8) Optimum feedlot size within a given size
range. Feedlot operators also expressed a need for
detailed engineering specifications and costs for typi-
cal feedlots within specified size ranges. Additional
questions were concerned with the minimum and
maximum sizes of feedlot operations for specified
feed milling equipment and capacities.

(9) Financing. Sources of financing were con-
sidered generally adequate for construction, expan-
sion and operation of current feedlot facilities. How-
ever, additional research may be required with re-
spect to sources and supplies of operating capital.
Such studies could include a detailed analysis of
available credit by type of lending agency and geo-
graphic source, the effect of varying interest rate
structures, various payment rates or schedules and
the preparation of adequate portfolios to service
the rapidly expanding and growing feedlot industry.

Future research requirements for the Southern
Plains cattle feeding industry, as well as for other
segments of the livestock and meat industry, will
greatly exceed previous research requirements.

Changes in the organization, structure and location '

of cattle feeding, livestock production and slaughter-
ing firms are inevitable. The speed and ease with
which opportunities are realized and adjustments
occur are dependent to a large extent upon the close
cooperation of public agencies and all sectors of the
livestock and meat industry.

information Texas Oklahoma
" - — — Fame" — — — ACKNOWLEDGMENT

USDA live cattle quotation 81.4 66.7
USDA °°'°°“ q"°"°“°“ 7'1 l“ This research was conducted by the Texas
National Provisioner yellow sheet 6.2 13.9 , . .
Fume, market _9 Q Agricultural Experiment Station of Texas A8cM
Selling or buying user" 9 0 University under a cooperative agreement with
Olhe’ 3'5 o Marketing Economics Division, ERS, U. S. Depart-

Total 100.0 100.0

ment of Agriculture.

43

LITERATURE CITED

    
   
  
  
 

l. Dietrich, R. A., Williams, W. F. and Miller, j. E., “The 4. Uvacek, Edward, “Economic Trends of 
Texas-Oklahoma Meat Industry,” U. S. Department of Agricul- ing,” B-l055, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta., College Station, 
ture, Agr. Econ. Rpt. 39, July 1963. 1966. 

5. Williams, W. F. and Dietrich, R. A., “An _
Analysis of the Fed Beef Economy,” U. S. Depa --- 
culture, Agr. Econ. Rpt. 88, April 1966. 

6. Williams, W. F., “Structure and Conduct of the I
3. Madsen, A. G., Hummels, K. and Capener, W. N., “Colorado's Cattle Feeding Industry,” Supplement No. 1 to T
Cattle Feeding Industry,” ColoradoAgr. Exp. Sta., Popular Bul- No. 1, Organization and Competition in the Lives
letin 5288, April 1967. Industry, National Commission on Food Marketing, A

2. McDowell, James and Williams, Willard F., “Feed Use in
Oklahoma Commercial Feedlots,” Processed Series P-433, Dept.
of Agr. Econ., Oklahoma State University, December 1962.

APPENDIX TABLES

APPENDIX TABLE 1. COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES, BY FEEDING AREA AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS, 1966-67

Feeding area

Southern Rio ~
Size (one-time) High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande‘
capacity) Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plalns
— — — ~ — — — — — — Q —--—- Number ———-—-—-—————--———-
Less than 1,000 6 1 3 13 8 3
1,000 - 1,999 2 2 3 1 31 3‘ 1
2,000 - 4,999 6 5 3 2 7‘ 6 5
5,000 - 9,999 9 1 2 5
10,000 and over 8 2 3 2 2 1
Total 31 10 10 27 24 10

‘Includes one feedlot also feeding cows or bulls. Data from these feedlots were not included in this study.

APPENDIX TABLE 2. COMPLETED. QUESTIONNAIRES, BY FEEDING AREA AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Feeding area
W, South- South-
Size lone-time) Northern eastern Central western ~
capacity) Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma ' Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — —-—- Number —--——-—-——---—---
Less than 1,000 1 4 2 4‘ 2
1,000 - 1,999 1 4 1 1
2,000 - 4,999 3 l l 3
5,000 - 9,999 2 l l
10,000 and over 2 1 1
Total 9 10 4 7 6

‘Includes one feedlot also feeding bulls. Data from this feedlot were not included in this study.

w; ‘

APPENDIX TABLE 3. NUMBER OF ACTIVE FEEDLOTS, AS INDICATED BY SURVEY RESULTS, BY SIZE, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, l, ‘I

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
capacity, capacity capacity capacity capacity

— — — ~ — — — — — — — ———- Number —-—-—--——-—-——--—-i-
Texas 774 73 76 35 22
Oklahoma 700 . 25 19 4 4

‘The feedlot population was derived by adiusting feedlot numbers as indicated in the survey for (1) movement into a higher
classification, or (2) exits from cattle feeding-prior to or during 1966-67. . , . v l‘

44

 

APPENDIX TABLE 4. NUMBER OF CATTLE FED BY FEEDLOTS SURVEYED, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
State 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -——— Head —-—-—-——————--—---——-—--
Texas 14,559 27,250 203,550 202,857 782,035 1,230,251
Oklahoma 1,238 11,800 38,400 54,000 142,000 247,438

APPENDIX TABLE 5. NUMBER OF CATTLE FED BY FEEDLOTS SURVEYED, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS, 1966-67

Southern Rio
High PIateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande Total
Item Panhandle Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —--— Head ————-———-—-———--—————
Cattle ted 504,469 178,250 90,700 57,750 174,429 168,353 56,300 1,230,251

APPENDIX TABLE 6. NUMBER OF CATTLE FED BY FEEDLOTS SURVEYED, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Northern Southeastern Central Southwestern Total
Item Panhandle Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — — ——-—Head---—-——-—-———-——---—-
Cattle ted 131,212 17,511 ’ 7,917 36,061 48,487 241,188

APPENDIX TABLE 7. CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, AND SELECTED AREAS, JANUARY 1, 1955-68

Area 1955 1955 1957 1958 1959 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1955 1957 1958
~ — — — — — — — — — — — — —-—-1,000head -——-—--—-————--__--_

Southern Plains 200 214 21 s 153 237 317 328 409 537 597 503 557 844 991
Texas 132 148 154 122 184 248 254 323 45o 478 488 538 574 s10
Oklahoma 5s 55 54 41 53 59 74 85 87 119 115 129 170 181
North Central‘ 4,1 s9 4,215 4,375 4,419 4,577 4,887 5,241 5,487 5,073 5,255 5,325 5,587 7,142 7,137
Iowa 1,225 1,188 1,259 1,284 1,425 1,510 1,540 1,571 1,744 1,795 1,850 1,775 2,025 1,924
Nebraska 525 544 550 543 537 555 599 s45 898 1,022 1,027 1,227 1,308 1,354
Illinois 509 539 590 549 543 588 729 780 858 815 791 807 791 715
prher North Central 1,730 1,845 1,855 1,943 1,972 2,024 2,273 2,291 2,573 2,532 2,557 2,877 3,018 3,144
Western Region’ 1,313 1,358 1,384 1,234 1,535 1,925 2,028 2,081 2,552 2,455 2,504 2,577 2,753 2,798
Arizona 159 204 222 190 210 255 293 310 377 324 34s 354 373 385
Colorado 275 235 245 251 338 404 414 397 525 508 534 595 509 537
California 457 489 495 393 504 555 715 782 1,000 945 915 952 984 902
Other Western States 402 440 420 400 584 591 505 592 550 577 707 755 797 874
Other States’  84 82 90 7s 77 445 451 543 530 528 547 551 519 525
United States 5,785 5,880 5,057 5,894 5,527 7,574 8,048 8,520 9,702 9,845 9,979 10,582 11,258 11,451

‘Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas.
zMontana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada.

“Data for Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi were not published until 1960.
Source: Cattle on Feed, U.S. Dept. Agri., Crop. Rpt. Bd., Stat. Rptg. Serv., Selected issues.

45

APPENDIX TABLE 8. TYPE OF FEEDING FACILITIES USED BY TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, BY SIZE OF FEEDLOT AND NUMBER i;

TLE PLACED ON FEED, 1966-67

 
 

f»

State and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
feeding 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
facilities capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
_ _ — — — — — — * — — ---—- Percent ——————-----————
Texas:

Fence line bunk or trough 41.2 53.4 73.5 70.6 ‘z- 80.0
Self-feeders 55.9 33.3 23.5 ~11.8 "s: 5.0
Other‘ 2.9 13.3 3.0 17.6 15.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma:

Fence line bunk or trough 46.2 28.6 37.5 100.0 75.0
Self-feeders 53.8 71.4 50.0 0 25.0
Other‘ 0 0 12.5 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘Primarily combinations of fence line bunk or trough and self-feeders.

APPENDIX TABLE 9. BREED PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOTS, TEXAS, 1966-67

Sex and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
preferred 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
breed capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity ,
— — — — — — — — — — — -——— Percent ——--—--——----———---~
Heifers:
Hereford 0 20.0 11.1 0 16.6
Angus 9.1 O 0 16.7 O
Hereford X Angus 18.2 0 27.8 50.0 66.7
Hereford X Brahman 18.2 20.0 11.1 0 0
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 5.6 0 0
Angus X Brahman 27.2 0 11.1 0 0
Cross-bred‘ 27.3 60.0 33.3 33.3 16.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Steers:
Hereford 26.7 0 0 0 0
Angus 6.7 40.0 0 0 0
Hereford X Angus 20.0 40.0 87.5 60.0 55.6
Hereford X Brahman 6.7 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 0 0 0
Angus X Brahman 6.6 0 0 O 0
Cross-bred‘ , 33.3 20.0 12.5 40.0 44.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

"'Okie" or any unspecified cross or crosses.

46

APPENDIX TABLE 10. BREED PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Sex and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
breed 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
preference capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— ~ — — — ~ — — — ~ — -—--—- Percent -—-—-—----——-—--—----——-——-—
Heifers:

Hereford 0 25.0 0 0 0 9.1

Angus 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Angus 66.7 0 66.7 1000 0 45.5

Hereford X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Charolais 0 0 33.3 0 0 9.1

Angus X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross-bred‘ 33.3 75.0 0 0 0 36.3
H Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 100.0

Steers: -

Hereford 0 0 0 0 0 0

"Angus 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hereford X Angus 37.5 100.0 80.0 0 100.0 63.2

Hereford X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hereford X Charolais 0 0 0 0 0 0

Angus X Brahman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cross-bred‘ 62.5 0 20.0 100.0 0 36.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

"‘Okie" or any unspecified cross or crosses.
APPENDIX TABLE 11. WEIGHT PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOT, TEXAS 1966-67
Sex and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
preferred 1 ,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more Total
weight capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — —-—— Percent —-—-—-—-——-—-—-——————-—-———
Heifers:

Under 300 0 0 5.6 16.7 0 r 4.3
300 - 399 45.4 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.6 23.4
400 - 499 36.4 66.7 66.6 16.6 66.7 53.2
500 - 599 9.1 16.6 11.1 16.7 16.7 12.8
600 - 699 0 0 0 33.3 0 4.2
700 - 799 9.1 0 0 0 0 2.1

800 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 10.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Steers:

Under 300 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 - 399 14.3 20.0 0 20.0 11 1 12.2
400 - 499 42.9 0 12.5 0 0 17.1
500 - 599 21.4 20.0 12.5 0 - 11.1 14.6
600 - 699 14.3 40.0 50.0 80.0 66.7 43.9
700 - 799 7.1 20.0 25.0 0 11.1 12.2

“800 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

47

APPENDIX TABLE 12. WEIGHT PREFERENCE FOR FEEDER CATTLE, BY SEX AND SIZE OF FEEDLOTS, OKLAHOMA, 1966-67

Sex and Less than 1,000 to 2,000 to 5,000 to 10,000-head-
preferred _ 1,000-head 1,999-head 4,999-head 9,999-head and-more
weight capacity capacity capacity capacity capacity
— — — — — — — — — — — -—--— Percent -----—-——---————
Heifers:

Under 300 0 0 0 0 0

300 - 399 0 0 0 0 0

400 - 499 66.7 60.0 66.7 0 0

500 - 599 33.3 20.0 33.3 100.0 0

600 - 699 0 20.0 0 0 0

700 - 799 0 0 0 0 0

800 and over 0 0 O 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0

Steers:

Under 300 12.5 0 0 0 0

300 - 399 25.0 0 0 0 0

400 - 499 0 O 0 0 0

500 - 599 25.0 0 _ 0 0 0

600 - 699 12.5 100.0 60.0 100.0 50.0

700 - 799 12.5 0 40.0 0 50.0

800 and over 12.5 0 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX TABLE 13. SOURCE OF ROUGHAGE, BY FEEDING AREA, TEXAS FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
Southern ' Rio
Source Panhandle High Plateau- Rolling East Gulf Grande
Plains Pecos Plains Texas Coast Plains
— — — — — — — — — — — —-—- Percent -—-———-—-—-———-
Own production 17.1 19.7 45.2 2.1 25.6 67.7 86.0
Purchased: '
Texas 63.7 55.7 54.8 97.9 49.7 32.3 14.0
Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kansas 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 6.9 24.6 0 0 24.7 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ' 100.0 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX TABLE 14. SOURCE OF ROUGHAGE, BY FEEDING AREA, OKLAHOMA FEEDLOTS, 1966-67

Feeding area
South- South-
source Northern eastern Central western
Panhandle .- Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
— — — — — — — — — — — -—-— Percent -—-—-—-—---—-----—--
Own production 42.8 85.9 63 0 2.9 29 2
Purchased:
Texas 2.5 0 30 4 48.7 28 1
Oklahoma 49.1 3.5 6 6 48.4 40 2
Kansas 5.2 1.0 0 O 2 5
Other .4 9.6 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0
48