‘TDOC ZZZZZ 5. ECONQMIC [PACT of Alternative Grovyth - Promotant Strategies on the United States Beef Industry The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station J. Charles Lee, Interim Di rrrr or TheTexas A&M Universi wwwww em College Stati oooooo as [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] ~ Y é.“ ' Economic Impact of Alternative Growth Promotant Strategies on the United States Beef Industry R. Lynn Williams, R.A. Dietrich, and F.M. Byers* Q * The authors, respectively, Graduate Research Assistant and Associate Professor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, (Department of Agricultural Economics) and Professor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, (Depart- P~ ment of Animal Science), all at Texas A&M University. PREFACE This bulletin analyzes economic impacts 0f alternative growth promotant strategies on tlhe United States (U.S.) beef industry at the cow/ calf, stocker, feedlot, wholesale, and retail levels. Production scenarios included implanting at each production level, never implanting, implantingQ at the cow / calf level only, implanting at the cow/ calf and stocker levels, implanting at the feedlot level only, and implanting at the stocker and feedlot levels. The production scenarios were evaluated for the same number of days on feed and feeding to the same slaughter weight. Estimates of the physical effects of alternative implant strategies were obtained by use of the Beef Cattle Growth Model developed at Texas A&M University. Information developed by the model included live, carcass, and retail product weights, carcass fat percentages, feed consumed, and estimated U.S. yield and quality grades by alternative implant scenarios. The study also provides estimates of changes in net returns to producers and cattle feeders and in wholesale and retail gross revenues as implant strategies undergo change. Acknowledgment The authors wish to express appreciation to Dr. I. Rod Martin, retired Professor of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, and Dr. Gerald Schelling, Professor and Head of the Depart- ment of Animal Science, at the University of Idaho for assistance in the organization and contributions to this project. is CONTENTS Preface ...................................... .................................................................................................................................... .. ii Acknowledgment ......................................................................................................................................................... .. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... .. 1 Problem .................................................................. ...................................................................................................... .. 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. .. 1 Impact of Alternative Implant Strategies on Weight and Carcass Grades ............................................................ .. 3 Cattle Weights ......................................................................................................................................................... .. 3 Carcass Weights ...................................................................................................................................................... .. 4 Retail Weights ......................................................................................................................................................... .. 4 U.S. Quality and Yield Grades ..................................................................................... .., ....................................... .. 5 Days on Feed ........................................................................................................................................................... .. 6 Feed Consumed ......................................... ........................................................................................................... .. 9 Economic Impact of Alternative Implant Strategies ................................................................................................ .. 9 Cow / Calf Producer ................................................................................................................................................ .. 9 Stocker Operator ................................................................................................................................................... .. 1O Implications: Cow/ Calf and Stocker .................................................................................................................. .. 11 m Cattle Feeding ....................................................................................................................................................... .. 11 Feeding to a Common Slaughter Weight ....................................................................................................... .. 11 Feeding for the Same Number of Days .......................................................................................................... .. 12 Implications: Cattle Feeding ............................................................................................................................... .. 12 Wholesale Sector ................................................................................................................................................... .. 13 Feeding to the Same Slaughter Weight ..... .................................................................................................... .. 14 Feeding for the Same Number of Days .......................................................................................................... .. 14 Retail Sector ..................................................... .................................................................................................... .. 16 Feeding to the Same Slaughter Weight .................................................... .. 16 Feeding for the Same Number of Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Implications: Wholesale and Retail Sectors ....................................... .. 17 Summary ....... ............................. .. 18 Beef Cattle Growth Model Estimates ....................................... .. 18 Economic Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 4.. Appendix A - Supplementary Tables ............................................................................................ ......................... .. 19 References ................................................................................................................................................................... .. 21 %_ iii [Blank Page in Orignal Bulletin] ' 454%‘ Q.» w» INTRODUCTION 0 The beef and meat industry in the United States is undergoing rapid change in response to consumer health and diet concerns, and technological advances in a production, processing, and marketing. Closer fat trimming, vertical and horizontal integration, hybrid- ization and restructuring of the grading system are examples of recent industry changes. Removing fat to 1/4 inch or less and decoupling United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) qual- ity and yield grades to accommodate hot fat trimming have created a more acceptable product for the con- suming public. Further, increased vertical integration and advancements in genetics have aided in the devel- opment and selection of cattle that yield leaner car- casses and require less feed to reach slaughter weight. Another means to this end has been the development and usage of anabolic implants. In the thirty years since Food and Drug Adminis- tration (FDA) approval, use of anabolic agents in beef production has expanded to include approximately 90 percent of fed cattle in the United States (Koch and Algeo, 1983). Growth promoting agents in beef produc- tion improve feed efficiency and increase the rate of gain (Honeyfield et al., 1985). Such cattle require less feed and fewer days on feed to achieve slaughter weight compared with cattle produced without growth promotants. This is accomplished by repartitioning ‘nutrients from fat to lean deposition (Byers, 1988). Carcasses from such cattle yield more retail product with less trimmable waste. These factors increase output per unit of input, thereby enabling beef to remain competitive with alternative protein sources (Byers and Schelling, 1985). PROBLEM Per capita beef consumption was at a 22 year low in the United States in 1988 (Knutson and Schuck, 1988). A more health conscious consumer is generating ques- tions about cholesterol, antibiotic, and implant resi- dues. The public perception of a health safety problem persists in light of scientific findings to the contrary (Food Chemical News (28), 1987). Animals implanted with anabolic implants yield leaner carcasses. Alternative implant strategies may affect the fat content of beef. This could cause consum- ers to weigh potential harm, if any, from the higher fat content against the perceived reduction in risk from residues of implants. To put the content of residues in ‘F perspective, it has been shown that a three ounce serving of meat from implanted cattle contains 1.9 nanograms of the natural occurring hormone, estrogen. A comparable serving of meat from animals fed with- outimplants contains 1.2 nanograms of estrogen (TCFA, 1990). These statistics are given further meaning when 't is considered that the average adult man produces 136,000 nanograms of estrogen daily and a single birth control pill contains 35,000 nanograms of estrogen (TCFA, 1990). Drs. Gerald B. Guest and Suzanne C. Fitzpatrick of the Center for Veterinary Medicine state that the FDA "has concluded that, although regulatory analytical methods for monitoring the residues of animal drugs, considered to be carcinogenic, are normally required, in the unique case of these endogenous hormones a regulatory method is not needed for an assurance of safety because the maximum increased exposure to hormones, even considering misuse of the drug, is demonstrated to be far below those concentrations considered unsafe," (Food Chemical News (29), 1987). The beef industry is becoming more dependent upon the export market. Recent developments in the European Economic Community (EEC) concerning implant usage suggests that foreign markets may ”use" implants to impose artificial trade barriers to impede competition from major suppliers, such as the U.S. This potential action could cost the beef industry $100 mil- lion in exports to the EEC. The possibility of this type of action spreading to other markets exists and poses a financial risk to U.S. agricultural industries. This study is designed to evaluate economic effects of alternativelevels of growthimplants within the cattle industry on U.S. consumers, producers, and allied industries. The analysis examines potential quantity, quality and price level changes of beef, changes in production costs and returns to producers, and retail price adjustments. The analysis was designed to focus on the cow/ calf, stocker/ background, and cattle feed- lot production phases under alternative production scenarios. METHODOLOGY Evaluation of the physical effects of various im- plant strategies for steers and heifers was accomplished by using the Beef Cattle Growth Model developed at Texas A&M University. The Beef Cattle Growth Model is designed to estimate various parameters including body composition (yield and quality grades, retail product, carcass characteristics, fatlevels),live weights, feed utilization, and the number of days on feed for given alternative implant scenarios and feeding strate- gies. Major emphasis in this study was placed on such factors as initial and ending live weights, carcass fat percent, carcass weight, pounds of retail product, yield and quality grades, days on feed, and feed consumed per head. A base scenario was developed to reflect cattle implanted at all levels of production including the cow / calf, stocker, and feedlot levels. Subsequent sce- narios were designed to systematically determine the physical and economic effects for comparison with the base scenario as implant usage levels were altered. Five alternative production scenarios were designed and evaluated by use of the Beef Cattle Growth Model. The five scenarios included: Production Scenario 1: Implanting at the cow/ calf level only. Implanting at the cow/ calf and stocker levels. Production Scenario 2: Production Scenario 3: Implantingat the stocker and feedlot levels. Production Scenario 4: Implanting at the feedlot level only. Production Scenario 5: No implants used at any level. The five scenarios were evaluated over a range of mature sizes. Mature size, in the Beef Cattle Growth Model, is used to account for breed and frame size effects on the estimated parameters and is not reflective of slaughter weights. The mature sizes used in this study were: Designation Mature Size (lbs.) Steers I 1050 Steers II 1100 Steers III 1150 Heifers I 900 Heifers II 950 Heifers III 1000 For purposes of discovering the effects of these implant strategies at the cow / calf and stocker levels, it was assumed that calves are weaned at 205 days and are then in the stocker phase for 180 days. At the feedlot phase, the scenarios were designed to measure differ- ences in performance at both a common number of days on feed and at a common slaughter weight. The number of days on feed were varied to include 120, 140, 160, and 180 for steers and heifers. The heifer program also included a 100 day feeding period. In an alternative management practice of feeding to a common slaughter weight, steers and heifers were evaluated at 1 075 pounds and 975 pounds, respectively. The economic analysis utilized 1989-90 prices for calves, stocker and live cattle, carcasses, and retaij product as a base for analyzing economic impacts alternative implant strategies, Table 1. Partial budget- ing techniques were used to estimate the changes in net returns associated with the various implant strategies; at the cow / calf, stocker, and feedlot levels. Texas Livestock Enterprise Budgets for 1989, developed by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, were used to obtain production costs for cow/ calf and stocker op- erations. Production costs at the feedlot level were obtained from the Great Plains cattle feeding budgets generated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The analysis of the wholesale and retail levels reflect gross returns because of the difficulty of establishing reliable and consistent production cost figures. Calf and stocker price changes only reflect weight changes. The price changes of slaughter cattle and wholesale and retail product contain a value-added component reflective of yield and quality grade differ- ences,as well as changes caused by weightdifferentials. Price quotations as reported by the Texas Cattle Feed- ers Association for the first full sale week of each month from July 1989 through June 1990 were used to establish the base cattle prices. Weight brackets that were estab- lished included: Steer Calves Medium 1 400-500 lbs. Heifer Calves Medium 1 300-400 lbs. Stocker Steers Medium 1 600-700 lbs. Stocker Heifers Medium 1 500-600 lbs. The price change per 100 pounds was determined for each weight bracket and then converted to price Table 1. Prices and costs by production level, sex, quality grade, and implant practice, 1989-90. Production Prices Production Level Steers Heifers Costs — —— —- ——($/cwt)—- -— —- — ($/ 1188(1) Cow\Calf (a) ~ 98.95 94.00 Implanted 440.32 " Not Implanted 439.32 Stocker (b) 87.27 81.97 Implanted 492.85 - Not Implanted 491 .85 Slaughter (c) Choice 74.31 74.68 Implanted 840.66 Select 71.96 71.07 Not Implanted 839.66 a Wholesale (d) Choice 108.82 108.86 Select 101 .82 101.86 — — — — (cents/lb.)-— — — — Retail (e) Choice 272.05 272.15 Sources: (a) 8: (b) Prices, Texas Cattle Feeders Assn.; Costs, Texas Agricultural Extension Service 1989 Livestock Enterprise Budgets. (c) Prices, USDA Livestock and Poultry Situation and Outlook Report, July 1990; Costs, USDA Great Plains Cattle Feeding‘ Budgets, July 1989-June 1990. (d) Prices, National Provisioner, various 1989-1990 issues. (e) Prices, USDA Livestock and Poultry Situation and Outlook Report, July 1990. change per pound of live weight for that particular category. These figures were then applied to the Beef i) Cattle Growth Model estimates. The estimated price changes for live cattle and for wholesale and retail product reflect the value-added by implants through improved yield and quality grades, as well as weight changes. Slaughter plants, feedlot managers, and cattle buyers were interviewed to deter- mine premiums and discounts for cattle and carcasses on a yield/ quality grade basis. Using Choice, Yield Grade three as a base, the following premiums/ dis- counts were established: IMPACT or ALTERNATIVE IMPLANT Snumacnzs ON WEIGHTS AND GRADES Cattle Weights Analyses of selected implant strategies revealed that implanted cattle were heavier than cattle without implants at the cow/ calf, stocker, and feedlot levels, respectively, Tables 2 and 3, Figure 1. For example, implanted steers at the cow/ calf level were 34 pounds heavier than non-implanted steers while implanted heifers were 33 pounds heavier than their counterparts, Table 2. These results suggest that ranchers not im- planting have less total product to sell. Producers may Cattle have difficulty overcoming such weight differences Yield Grade 3-21 $ 2-00 Premium since pasture acreage, range conditions, and rebreeding Yield Grade 3-41 $ 7-00 diSCOIIRi schedules dictate the timing of weaning and sale of Yield Grade 3-51 $12-00 diSCOUHi calves. Costs of gain may prohibit producers from keeping calves longer to recoup this lost gain. Carcasses Differences in gains are even more dramatic for Yield Grade 3-2: $ 1.00 premium implants versus non-implants at the stockerlevel, Table Yield Grade 3-4: $ 9.25 discount 3. The biggest loss of gain occurred when implants were Yield Grade 3-5: $14.25 discount not used in either the cow/ calf or stocker phases. Not Quality Grade discounts were estimated using slaughter cattle prices for the 1989-90 period. The U.S. Choice to Select discount was estimated as $2.35 and $3.61 for steers and heifers, respectively. A $7.00 Choice-Select discount was estimated for carcasses. . Retail prices were estimated using a regression model . (ordinary least squares) to be 2.5 times the wholesale/ carcass price. implanting in either the stocker or cow/ calf level re- sulted in a loss of 65 pounds of gain in steers and a 56 pound loss in heifers compared with implanting at all production levels. Implanting only at the cow/ calf level resulted in a 31 pound loss while implanting at the stocker level only showed a loss of 34 pounds. This suggests that a residual or carry-over effect exists between levels of production. Implanted calves were heavier going into the stocker operation and also heavier coming out of the stocker program. Table 2.Comparison of implanted and non-implanted calf weaning weights by sex, evaluated at 205 days of age. Type of Growth Promotant Program Sex IMPLAN TED NON -IMPLAN TED IMPLANT WEIGHT WEIGHT EFFECT (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) STEERS 438.0 404.0 34.0 HEIFERS 430.0 397.0 33.0 Table 3. Comparison of stocker out-weights by sex and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common age (385 days). T Alternative Implant Strategy Sex BASE NEVER COW / CALF STOCKER SCENARIO‘ IMPLAN TED ONLY ONLY (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) ‘fif-TEERS 670.0 4.5.0 -31.0 04.0 HEIFERS 632.0 -56.0 -23.0 -33.0 ‘Base Scenario is defined as implanting at each production level. 3 Pounds(Thousands) 25 1.15 1.1 1.05 Figure 1. Comparison of steer slaughter weights by type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. 1i 1 1 .9 120 140 160 180 Days on Feed + Cow/Calf Only -"" l-‘eedlot. Only “F Cow/Call l: Stocker "9" Never Implanted _‘- Bale Scenario '9“ Stocker I: Feedlot The greatest variation in live weights was at the feedlot level, Figure 1 (for detailed weight data, see Appendix A, Table A-1). When cattle were evaluated at the same number of days on feed, differences in steer market weights ranged from 34 to 124 pounds less for alternative implant strategies compared with the base scenario where implanting was performed at all pro- duction phases. Similarly, differences in weight gains for heifers ranged from 24 to 99 pounds less for alterna- tive implant strategies compared to the base scenario. The feedlot results suggest that implanting at two production levels is better than only implanting at one, or none. Cattle fed the same number of days, but implanted only at the cow / calf level or only at the feedlot level, weighed substantially less than those receiving implants at more than one production phase. While feedlots may be able to recoup such differences in weight gain by feeding cattle longer, such practices tend to reduce turnover rates and increase costs of gain. Carcass Weights The Beef Cattle Growth Model was designed to estimate carcass weight as a constant percent of live weight. Therefore, the practice of feeding to a common slaughter weight revealed no difference in the carcass weights. However, when evaluated at a common number of days on feed, the differences may be sizeable as seen in Figure 2 (Table A-2). Base scenario steer carcass weights were estimated to be 645, 683.1 , 720 and 758.8 pounds at 120, 140, 160, and 180 days on feed, respectively. Carcasses of steers not implanted at one or more growth stages were from 20.6 to 77.5 pounds lighter compared with carcasses from steers implanted at all production levels. Heifer carcass weights ranged from 560.6 pounds at 100 days on feed to 692.5 pounds at 180 days on feed in the base scenario. Heifers subjected to the alternative implant strategies were estimated to produce carcasses that were 15 to 61.9 pounds lighter compared with those fed under the implant strategy posited in the base scenario. Figure 2. Comparison of steer carcass weights by type of feed. Pounds growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on 750 700 s50 ‘ ‘ 12o 14o 16o Days on Feed —t— Cow/Calf Only “*‘ Feedlot Only Retail Weights Figure 3 (Table A-3) presents the estimated changes in retail weight per carcass by implant strategy when cattle are fed to a common slaughter weight on a retail weight basis. Steers that were implanted at each phase (base scenario) and fed to 1075 pounds produced from 478.4 to 506.7 pounds of retail product at mature sizes I, II, and III. Fed steers, under the alternative implant strategies, produced from 3.6 to 55.5 pounds less retail "_ Base Scenario —B— Stocker a Feedlot + Never Implanted 4- Cow/Calf l: Slacker 1B0 product on a per carcass basis compared with those iw the base scenario where implanting was conducted a all levels. Similarly, heifers fed under the base scenario to slaughter weights of 975 pounds were projected to produce from 419.9 to 450.1 pounds of retail product at mature sizes I, II, and III. Estimates indicate that alternative heifer implant strategies would yield 6 to 51.3 fewer pounds of retail product per head compared with the base scenario. Feeding cattle to a common number of days under alternative implant strategies provided similar results as feeding to a common slaughter weight. Retail prod- uct weights varied from 472.3 for the lightest weight, Figure 3. Comparison of retail product by mature size and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Pounds I 500 48o - . I f‘ 460 440* 420 Mature Size —l_' Cow/Call Only a‘- Feedlot Only _°_ Base Scenario ‘a’ Stacker k Feedlot “'6” "4"" lmPlim-"l p. “ll- Cow/Calf k Stocker shortest fed steer to 527.5 for the heaviest weight, ongest fed steer in the base model, Figure 4 (Table A- ). Compared with alternative implant strategies, the base scenario cattle produced from 5.3 to 68.8 more pounds of retail product when fed for a common number of days. The results in Figure 3 (Table A-3) provide an important observation. In terms of retail product, it was more beneficial to implant only at the feedlot rather than only at the cow/ calf and stocker phases for steers. Similar results were noted for heifers of mature sizes II and III. Research shows that anabolic implants aid in re- ducing trimmable fat. The Beef Cattle Growth Model was also designed to estimate the percentage of carcass fat. When cattle are fed to a common slaughter weight, the base scenario produced a carcass with the lowest fat percent, Table 4. As expected, these findings indicate that cattle implanted on a continuous basis will produce Figure 4. Comparison of retail product (Steers II) by type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Pounds 520 460 440 420 I20 I40 160 Days on Feed —*" Cow/Calf Only “*“ Feedlot Only —‘_‘ Base Scenario “k Cow/Calf k Slocker "9' Stacker k Feedlot T9‘ Never Implanted leaner carcasses, thus creating a product with less trimmable fat. However, when steers and heifers were fed for a common number of days, cattle implanted only at the stocker and feedlot, as well as those implanted only at the feedlot phase, produced lower fat percentages than those in the base scenario, Table 5. Although the majority of fat deposition occurs at the feedlot phase, cattle implanted at each phase, as opposed to being implanted at only the feedlot phase, are heavier at each level compared with non-implants and, therefore, be- gin producing fat earlier in the feeding period. U.S. Quality and Yield Grades U.S. yield grades are indicators of cutability and refer to the pounds of boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts. Yield grades are the product of four criteria: amount of fat over the ribeye, kidney-pelvic-heart fat, area of ribeye muscle, and hot carcass weight. Yield grades are ranked from 1 to 5 with 1 representing the highest percent of boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts. U.S. Quality grades are used to measure the tender- ness, juiciness and flavor of beef (Taylor, 1984). Quality grades are also dependent upon four criteria: bone maturity, marbling, lean color, and firmness of the lean. Bone maturity and lean color are indicators of age while marbling and firmness of the lean are used to evaluate tenderness. Typically, an inverse relationship exits between age and tenderness. The Beef Cattle Growth Model was designed to estimate U.S. Yield and Quality grades based primarily upon estimated carcass fat percentages. Tables 6 and 7 present the estimated U.S. yield and quality grades when cattle are fed to a common slaugh- ter weight and a common number of days on feed, respectively. When a common slaughter weight was used, continuous implanting (base scenario) resulted in lower quality and yield grades compared to other programs analyzed. In terms of yield grades, these results were likely caused by the production of leaner Table 4. Comparison of carcass fat percentages by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a ‘common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW/CALF STOCKER 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER & Mature Size SCENARIO‘ IMPLAN TED ONLY COW/CALF ONLY FEEDLOT (percent) Variation from Base Scenario (percent) 1- Steers @1075 I 34.1 7.6 6.7 5.2 1.9 0.6 II 32.0 7.2 6.3 4.9 1.8 0.6 III 30.2 6.8 6.0 4.6 1.6 0.5 Heifers @ 975 36.2 7.8 6.7 5.1 2.4 1.1 " ‘I 33.8 7.3 6.3 4.8 2.2 1.0 III 31.6 6.8 5.9 4.5 2.0 0.9 ‘Base Scenario defined as implanting at each production level. 5 Table 5. Comparison of carcass fat percentages by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. ‘ Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF FEEDLOT COW/CALF 8: STOCKER & Dayes of Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY ONLY STOCKER FEEDLOT P‘: (percent) Variation from Base Scenario (percent) STEERS I 120 32.2 2.0 2.7 -0.6 2.6 -0.8 140 34.8 2.1 2.9 -0.8 2.9 -0.8 160 37.5 2.2 3.0 -1.0 3.1 -0.9 180 40.3 2.2 3.1 -1.2 3.3 -1.1 STEERS II 120 30.3 1.9 2.6 -0.5 2.5 -0.8 140 32.7 2.1 2.8 -0.8 2.8 -0.8 160 35.2 2.2 2.9 -0.9 3.0 -0.9 180 37.9 2.1 2.9 -1.2 3.2 -1.0 STEERS III 120 28.5 1.9 2.5 -0.5 2.4 -0.8 140 30.8 2.0 2.7 -0.7 2.6 -0.8 160 33.2 2.1 2.8 -0.8 2.8 -0.9 180 35.6 2.0 2.8 -1.1 3.0 -1.0 HEIFERS I 100 32.2 2.3 2.8 -0.1 2.5 -0.4 120 34.9 2.3 3.1 -0.3 2.9 -0.6 140 37.6 2.6 3.5 -0.4 3.4 -0.6 160 40.4 2.7 3.6 -0.8 3.6 -0.8 180 43.2 (a) (b) -0.8 (c) -0.7 HEIFERS II 100 30.1 2.2 2.7 -0.1 2.4 -0.4 120 32.6 2.2 2.9 -0.3 2.7 -0.5 140 35.1 2.5 3.3 -0.4 3.2 -0.5 160 37.7 2.5 3.4 -0.7 3.4 -0.7 180 40.3 2.7 3.7 -0.7 3.8 -0.7 HEIFERS III 100 28.2 2.1 2.6 0.0 2.3 -0.4 120 30.5 2.1 2.8 -0.2 2.6 -0.5 140 32.8 2.4 3.2 -0.3 3.0 -0.5 160 35.2 2.4 3.2 -0.7 3.2 -0.7 180 37.6 2.6 3.5 -0.7 3.6 -0.7 (a), (b) and (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. carcasses, which yielded more retail cuts with less fat cover in the continuous implanting program compared to alternative implant programs. The relatively lower amount of marbling generally results in lowering the quality grades of implanted animals. However, all cattle in the base scenario were estimated to grade high U.S.D.A. Select to Low Choice. When cattle were fed for a common number of days, cattle implanted only at the stocker and feedlot phases, as well as those only implanted at the feedlot phase, exhibited the lowest yield and quality grades. The cattle in these scenarios were lighter when they entered the feedlot and, therefore, consumed less feed. This also resulted in the base model cattle being nearer slaughter composition at an earlier point in time com- pared to cattle not implanted at all production phases. Over-all the yield and quality grades were less varied between models in this scenario than in the case of a common slaughter weight. Days on Feed By feeding cattle to a common slaughter weight while allowing the number of days on feed to vary, it was possible to evaluate the effects of implanting on the " length of the feeding period. Table 8 is a comparison of days on feed required for the base scenario and cattle fed under alternative implant strategies to reach a Table 6. Comparison of U.S. Yield and Quality Grades by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated ‘ at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER 8: e. Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (grade) Variation from Base Scenario (grade) STEERS @ 1075 I 3.4‘ 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 10.3’ 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.2 ll 3.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 9.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.1 III 2.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 9.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.2 HEIFERS @ 975 l 3.7 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 10.8 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.3 ll 3.4 s ‘1.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 10.3 1.6 1.4 1.1 i 0.5 0.2 Ill 3.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.2 ‘U.S. Yield Grade. ZU.S. Quality Grade: 8=Select, 9=Select+, 10=Choice-, 11=Choice, 12=Choice+. Table 7. Comparison of U.S. Yield and Quality Grades by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Q Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW / CALF COW/CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (grade) Variation from Base Scenario (grade) STEERS I - 120 3.1‘ 0.3 , 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 9.92 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.1 -0.2 140 3.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 10.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 -0.2 -0.2 160 3.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 11.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 -0.2 -0.2 180 4.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 -0.2 -0.2 11.8 0.5 0.7 0.8 —0.3 -0.2 STEERS II 120 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 ' 9.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 -O.1 -0.2 140 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 10.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.2 -0.2 160 3.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 10.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 -0.2 -0.2 180 4.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.2 -0.1 “O 11.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 41.3 41.2 STEERS Ill 120 2.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 9.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 140 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 ‘a 9.6 A 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.2 -0.2 ' ' 160 3.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 10.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.2 -0.2 180 3.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.2 -0.1 10.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 -0.3 -0.2 7 Table 7. Continued Alternative Implant Strategy f Mature Size / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (grade) Variation from Base Scenario (grade) j ’ HEIFERS I 100 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0.1 9.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.0 -0.1 120 3.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 10.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 140 3.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 11.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 160 4.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 11.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 ' -0.2 -0.2 180 4.8 (a) (b) (c) -0.1 -0.1 12.5 — — — -O.2 -0.2 HEIFERS II 100 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 ~0.1 9.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 -0.1 120 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0.1 10.0 0.5 0.7 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 140 3.6 0.4 0.5 I 0.5 -O.1 -0.1 10.6 0.6 0.8 ‘ 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 160 4.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 11.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 -0.2 -0.2 180 4.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 11.8 0.6 0.9 0.9 -0.2 -0.2 6 HEIFERS III 100 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 -0.1 9.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 -0.1 120 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0.1 9.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 -0.1 -0.1 140 3.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 10.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 160 3.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 10.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 -0.2 -O.2 180 3.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 11.2- 0.6 0.8 0.8 -0.2 -0.2 (a), (b) and (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. ‘U.S. Yield Grade. A 2U.S. Quality Grade: 8=Select, 9=Select+, 10=Ch0ice-, 11=Choice, 12=Choice+. Table 8. Comparison of days on feed by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. A‘ Alternative Implant Strategy »_ BASE NEVER COW / CALF COW / CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER 8: Slaughter Weight SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (days) Variation from Base Scenario (days) i‘? STEERS @ 1075 134 40 28 16 22 11 HEIFERS @ 975 130 36 22 13 21 12 slaughter weight of 1075 and 975 pounds for steers and heifers, respectively. Cattle that are never implanted may require an additional month to reach the pre- scribed slaughter weight compared to the base sce- nario. These figures become critical in the turnover rate of feedlots. At 134 days on feed, base scenario cattle could be moved through the feedlot at turnover rates of 2.7 and 2.8 animals per year for steers and heifers, respectively. In contrast, cattle which are never im- planted turnover at a rate of only 2.1 and 2.2 annually for steers and heifers, respectively. In this scenario, a loss of six-tenths of a steer is equivalent to losing 645 pounds of product. A similar loss on heifers would equate to 585 pounds of live weight per year. This reduction in output couldincrease costs per unit of output, as well as creating the need for additional facilities in order to maintain similar annual numbers of cattle on feed as depicted in the base scenario. Cattle remaining in feedlots longer, other things equal, con- sume more feed. Feed Consumed The greatest cost in cattle feeding, with the excep- tion of the cattle themselves, is feed. Therefore, the amount of feed consumed by cattle is of paramount importance. The evaluation of feed consumed, on an as-fed basis, was done at a common slaughter weight and at common days on feed. The results between the two management practices were vastly different. In the case of feeding cattle to a common slaughter weight, base scenario cattle consumed from 237 to 1145 pounds less feed than cattle fed under the alternative implant strategies, Table 9. This additional feed re- uirement could result in greater feed storage capacity igquirements, higher feeding costs, higher interest costs, etc. The alternative practice, feeding for a common number of days, produced contrasting results. Table 10 shows, with the exception of Production Scenario 2, base scenario cattle requiring a greater amount of feed. Cattle implanted at each phase would consume from 98 pounds less feed, in the case of 900-pound heifers fed 140 days, to 370 pounds more feed for 1050-pound steers fed 180 days. The differences between the two results may be explained by the size of the cattle entering the feedlot. Large cattle consume more feed than small cattle. Therefore, when cattle are fed to a common slaughter weight, the base scenario cattle are heavier going into the feedlot and, thereby, reach a predetermined weight quicker, consuming less feed. However, when live weight is allowed to vary, the base scenario cattle are still larger and, therefore, tend to consume more feed at any point in time. The exception to this was cattle implanted only at the cow/ calf and stocker levels. These animals enter the feedlot at the same weight as base scenario cattle but were not implanted in the feedlot phase resulting in poorer feed utilization. This loss in efficiency results in cattle implanted only at the cow/ calf and stocker phases weighing from 24 to 59 pounds less than base scenario cattle after the same number of days on feed. ECONOMIC IMPACT o1= ALTERNATIVE IMPLANT STRATEGIES Implanted cattle, in general, are heavier, leaner, and produce heavier, leaner carcasses that yield more pounds of retail product. Thus, scenarios with lower levels of implant usage imply higher prices caused by lower sale weights, but such cattle may also receive price discounts due to being fatter and poorer yielding. The magnitude of this price change is of paramount importance to producers as they make production decisions. Cow/Calf Producer At the cow/ calf level, the decision to N OTimplant would decrease weaning weights of calves, resulting in estimated price increases of $3.26 / hundred weight and $2 .36 / hundredweight for steers and heifers, respec- tively, when based on 1 989-90 prices, Table 1 1 . It should Table 9. Comparison of as-fed feed consumed by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER 8r Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERS @ 1075 I _ 3799 1145 857 .599 473 253 II 3669 1106 831 579 462 247 III 3556 1069 800 555 444 237 I-IEIFERS @ 975 I 3485 988 709 514 433 260 II 3351 946 679 487 416 251 III 3231 907 649 467 400 239 Table 10.Comparison of as-fed feed consumed by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERSI _ 120 3312 -189 -65 34' -212 -123 140 4006 -237 -97 24 -267 -135 160 4719 -274 -129 15 -286 -155 180 5511 -370 -186 -6 -359 -196 STEERS II 120 3200 -180 -64 33 -202 -116 140 3871 -227 -95 23 -254 -132 160 4560 -266 -125 11 -277 -150 180 5320 -354 -179 -4 -342 -185 STEERS I I I 120 3099 -173 -60 31 -191 -112 140 3748 -221 -93 22 -246 -123 160 4415 -259 -122 10 -262 -140 180 5152 -346 -176 -11 -332 -180 HEIFERS I 100 2568 -129 -21 66 -186 -111 120 3186 -172 -33 71 -222 -133 140 3818 -185 -23 98 -247 -144 160 4509 -243 -62 88 -320 -177 180 5227 (a) (b) (c) ,-324 -191 HEIFERS ll 100 2467 -124 -21 64 -175 -103 120 3062 -163 -33 65 -209 -127 140 3670 -179 -24 88 -236 -136 160 4332 -235 -62 80 -307 -170 180 5022 -259 -60 87 -314 -186 HEIFERS lll 100 2380 -122 -23 57 -167 -101 120 2954 -162 -35 60 -203 -124 140 3537 -174 -25 82 -225 -133 160 4175 -227 -62 75 -293 -161 180 4836 -250 -60 83 -295 -171 (a), (b) and (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. be noted that this adjustment to price only reflects fluctuation caused by changes in weanin weights and not any allowance for quality discounts premiums. f Of importance to cow / calf producers is the impact on net revenue associated with price and weaning weight changes. Table 11 reveals that while prices increase as weaning weights declined, such price in- creases were not large enough to offset weaning weight decreases resulting in reduced net revenue. For ex- ample, ranchers could lose $19.47 per steer and $20.65 per heifer by not implanting. Stocker Operator There are four potential implant strategies at the stocker level. Cattle are either implanted at the cow / 10 calf and stocker levels, (base scenario), the cow / calf level only, the stocker level only, or are not implanted at either level. The effects of these strategies on the price received for stocker cattle are shown in Table 12. The greatest change in price, as compared with implanting at the cow / calf and stocker levels, is when implants are not used in either phase. Not usin implants resulted in $3.52 / hundredweightand $3.60 hundredweightin- creases in price for steers and heifers, respectively. The same caveat as before applies, such estimated changes in price only reflected changes due to weight decreases. Table 12 shows that even with the increased prices, net revenue declined in each of the alternative sce- narios. Not implanting at all, reduced the net revenue of stocker operators by $34.43 and $24.17 per steer and heifer, respectively. Table 11. Comparison of net calf returns and calf prices by sex and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common a‘ age (205 days). Type of Growth Promotant Program Sex IMPLANTED NON-IMPLANTED COMPARISON ,5‘ STEERS Net Rt.‘ -6.92 -26.39 -19.47 Price’ 98.95 102.21 +3.26 HEIFERS Net Rt. -36.12 -56.77 -20.65 Price 94.00 96.36 +2.36 ‘Net returns are dollars per head. ‘Prices are dollars per hundredweight. Table 12. Comparison of net stocker returns and stocker prices by sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common age (385 days). Alternative Implant Strategy BASE NEVER COW/CALF STOCKER Sex SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY ONLY Variation from Base Scenario STEERS Net Rt.‘ 91.86 -34.43 -15.32 -17.97 Price 2 87.27 +3.52 +1.68 +1.84 HEIFERS Net Rt. 25.20 -24.17 -8.84 44.35 Price 81.97 +3.60 +1.48 +2.12 '1 ‘Net returns are dollars per head. zPrices are dollars per hundredweight. Implications: Cow/Calf and Stocker The use of implants results in increased muscle and bone growth withless fat deposition. Thus,unimplanted cattle from good milking cows and/ or cattle in good grazing conditions may have a propensity to carry a larger amount of fleshiness than implanted cattle. Typi- cally, this extra fleshiness is discounted in the pricing process. This discount could lower producer returns to an even greater degree than shown in Tables 11 and 12. If implants were not available to, or used by, producers, it is possible that some producers may leave the industry because of lower or negative returns. With much of the acreage used in cattle ranching/ grazing being unsuitable for alternative uses, the potential ex- ists for a concentration at the cow/ calf and stocker levels into fewer and larger operations. Cattle Feeding The feedlot analysis was performed to account for quantity changes and also to quantify the premiums/ discounts resulting from quality differences as implant strategies were varied. Thus, the value-added scheme of pricing cattle according to weight, quality grade, and yield grade was used. 11 Feeding to a Common Slaughter Weight The comparison of the price fluctuations when cattle are fed to a common slaughter weight is shown in Table 13. With four exceptions, prices declined for cattle fed under alternative implant strategies by as much as $6.93 / hundredweight, compared to the base scenario. The four price increases are noteworthy. In these four cases, the Choice/ Select premium was able to compensate for the discount on poorer yielding animals. The cattle in these categories, Steers IIand Heifers III, which were implanted at the feedlot and stocker levels and at the feedlot only, graded Choice while the base scenario cattle graded Select. The base scenario cattle have lower, more desirable yield grades but that premium was not enough to offset the Choice / Select differential. In each of the other cases, the increased cutability of the base scenario was more than adequate to offset the associated lower quality grade. These price fluctuations manifest themselves when net returns are analyzed. The four cases of increased prices discussed in the previous paragraph resulted in increased net returns while net returns declined for all other implant strategies, Table 14. Cattle which are never implanted could, in the extreme, reduce returns by as much as 100 percent compared to the base sce- nario. Table 13. Comparison of slaughter cattle price differences by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight, 1989-90. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER 8: Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars/cwt) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars / cwt) STEERS @ 1075 _ I 71.51 -7.20 -6.20 -3.20 -2.10 -O.70 II 71.26 -4.95 -4.45 -2.55 0.25 1.65 III 72.36 -4.35 -2.95 -1.55 -1.10 -0.20 HEIFERS @ 975 I 69.78 -6.60 -5.60 -4.6O -2.60 -1.40 II 71.88 -6.70 -5.70 -4.70 -2.10 -0.70 III 71.07 -3.89 -2.69 -1.29 1.51 2.21 Table 14. Comparison of net returns to cattle feeders by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW / CALF COW / CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / head) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars / head) STEERS @ 1075 I -71.93 -76.40 -65.65 -33.40 -22.58 -7.53 II -74.62 -52.21 -46.84 -26.41 2.69 17.74 III -62.79 -45.76 "-30.71 -15.66 -.11.83 -2.15 HEIFERS @ 975 I A -160.30 -63.35 -53.60 43.85 -25.35 -13.65 II -1 39.83 -64.32 -54.57 -44.82 -20.48 -6.82 Ill -147.73 -36.93 -25.23 -11.58 14.72 21 .55 Feeding for the Same Number of Days Table 15 exhibits price level changes when cattle are fed for the same number of days under alternative implant strategies. Typically, cattle implanted at the stocker and feedlot or only at the feedlot are projected to command higher prices. The exceptions in these two production scenarios are attributable to cattle that, compared with the base scenario, were discounted for quality grade to such an extent that their advantage in yield grade could not compensate for the quality dis- count. Price changes in all other models were predomi- ,nately negative except for those cattle whose quality - grade premium exceeded discounts for yield grade. When these price fluctuations are translated into net returns, compared with the base scenario, all alter- native models have lower net revenues, Table 16. Gen- erally, when the qestimated price was higher than the base scenario price, it was not enough of an increase to offset the reduction in live weight. The results also showed that the longer cattle were on feed, up to 180 days, the greater were net returns. These results may be attributable, in part, to cattle having improved quality grades with yield grades not offsetting the gains in quality grades. 12 Implications: Cattle Feeding Results from the two cattle feeding practices, fed to the same slaughter weight and fed for the same number of days, tend to indicate that removal of implants would result in the feeding of cattle with larger mature sizes for longer periods of time to minimize losses. Three potential implications of feeding larger cattle are packaging concerns, consumer demands, and the ad- justment of breeding practices. larger framed, heavier cattle will produce larger cuts of meat that may not ”fit in the box." Conventional boxed beef systems are susceptible to limitations concerning the size and amount of the product that may be packed and shipped. Thus, increasing the size of cuts could ultimately stress or render present handling systems inadequate. Further, present consumption trends indicate American consumers are demanding smaller, leaner, more convenient cuts of meat. The production of larger cuts of meat could further erode consumer acceptance of beef in their diets. Bigger cattle do tend to be leaner than small or medium framed cattle of similar age. I-Iowever, the longer large cattle are on feed the greater will be their fat deposition, violating another consumer demand for a leaner product. Table 15. Comparison of slaughter cattle price differences by mature size, sex, and type of grow evaluated at common days on feed, 1989-90. Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars/cwt) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars/cwt) STEERS I 120 71.26 0.25 -0.45 -0.45 0.70 0.70 140 70.81 -2.80 -3.50 -3.50 0.70 0.70 160 68.01 -2.20 -2.70 -2.70 0.70 0.70 180 65.31 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 1.00 1.00 STEERS II 120 72.36 -1.10 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.20 140 72.91 -2.10 -2.80 -2.80 -1.65 -1.65 160 70.11 -2.10 -2.85 -2.95 0.70 0.70 180 67.31 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 1.40 A 1.40 STEERS III 120 72.76 -0.60 -0.80 —0.60 0.20 0.20 140 72.16 0.75 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.20 160 72.21 -2.10 -2.80 -2.80 -1.65 -1.65 180 70.1 1 -2.8U -3.30 -3.30 0.70 0.70 HEIFERS I 100 70.37 0.81 0.1 1 0.81 0.00 0.00 120 71.18 -2.80 -8.50 -3.50 0.00 0.00 140 68.38 -2.20 -3.20 -2.70 0.00 0.00 160 65.68 -2.00 -2.50 -2.50 0.50 0.50 180 63.68 (a) (b) (c) 0.50 - 0.50 HEIFERS Il g 100 71.47 -1.10 1.81 -1.80 0.00 0.00 120 73.28 -2.10 -2.80 -2.80 -3.61 -2.91 140 70.48 -2.10 -3.30 -2.80 0.70 0.70 160 67.68 -1.50 -2.50 -2.50 1.40 1.40 180 66.18 42.50 -3.00 -3.00 0.50 0.50 HEIFERS III 100 72.07 -0.60 -0.80 -0.80 0.00 0.00 120 71.27 2.01 1.31 1.31 0.20 0.20 140 73.28 -2.80 -3.50 -3.50 -3.61 -2.91 160 70.48 -2.10 -3.30 -3.30 0.70 0.70 180 68.38 -2.20 -3.20 -3.20 0.70 0.70 (a), (b) & (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded" 100%. At the producer level, cowmen could face adjust- ment towards breeding for large framed calves. Breed- ing for increased frame size could, ultimately, result in a larger framed cow herd. These bigger cows would increase production costs due to increased feed re- quirements. > Feeding such cattle for longer periods would reduce the tum-over rate of feedlots. With fewer cattle being moved through the feedlots feeding costs could increase resulting in even lower net returns than previously estimated. 13 Wholesale Sector As with slaughter cattle, the effects at the wholesale or carcass level were analyzed from the perspectives of feeding to the same slaughter weight (live basis) and feeding for the same number of days. While these two alternatives represent quite different production prac- tices, their economic effects upon wholesale price levels and gross revenues are similar. The wholesale analysis was performed using the value-added approach, based on estimated yield and quality grades and estimated carcass weight. th promotant program, Table 16. Comparison of net returns to cattle feeders b at common days on feed. y mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / head) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars / head) STEERS I _ 120 -105.26 -70.08 -52.50 -31.26 -38.83 -1 7.24 140 -66.71 -104.41 -88.41 -68.22 -38.83 -16.66 160 -57.18 -100.03 -83.66 -64.07 -35.22 -14.61 180 -47.80 -96.33 -80.26 -66.41 -30.96 -10.41 STEERS II 120 -93.90 -83.75 -43.63 -21.76 -46.31 -22.61 140 -43.75 -99.84 -82.89 -61.85 -64.35 -42.26 160 -32.99 -101.40 -86.99 -67.91 -36.55 -15.30 180 -23.52 -98.81 -82.06 -67.59 -27.67 -6.37 STEERS III 120 -89.78 -79.52 -56.91 -33.33 -44.63 -22.74 140 -51.95 -71.00 -53.33 -31.67 -44.85 -22.42 160 -8.80 -103.82 -88.1 7 -67.35 -63.46 -42.29 180 10.48 -116.46 -99.19 -78.48 -37.53 -15.58 HEIFERS I 100 -209.44 -48.68 -31.14 -8.82 -39.41 -23.22 120 -164.45 -83.72 -112.34 -51.88 -39.86 -23.49 140 -155.49 -79.94 -67.56 -47.73 -38.29 -22.57 160 -147.74 -80.60 -64.55 -49.38 -33.11 -16.56 180 -135.09 (a) (b) (c) .-30.40 -15.64 HEIFERS II 100 ‘ -199.57 -65.16 -17.21 -31.87 -40.02 -23.59 120 -144.50 -79.45 -62.25 -46.04 -73.31 -50.87 140 -134.45 -80.90 -69.69 -49.39 -32.85 -16.48 160 -126.64 -77.70 -65.79 -50.14 -25.30 -8.03 180 -107.39 -89.74 -73.94 -59.41 -31.80 -16.46 HEIFERS Ill 100 -194.19 -61.56 -39.67 -23.28 -40.36 -23.78 120 -163.60 -42.19 -24.30 -7.60 -38.12 -21.69 140 -106.39 -89.78 -73.15 -57.10 -75.19 -52.38 160 -97.10 -86.12 -75.47 -59.34 -33.90 -16.10 180 -83.01 -88.89 -77.47 -62.48 -30.93 -15.04 (a), (b) & (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. Feeding to the Same Slaughter Weight _ The Beef Cattle Growth Model estimates carcass weight as a constant percentage of live weight. There- fore, carcass weights are equal at 671.9 lbs. and 609.4 lbs. for steers and heifers, respectively. As a result of these common weights, all estimated value differences are solely attributed to variations in yield and quality grades. 5 Table 17 presents the comparison, with the base scenario, of changes in wholesale gross revenues of the alternative implant strategies. Typically, the highest gross revenues were associated with the base scenario. The exceptions were reflective 0f the alternative im- plant strategies generating higher quality grades with- out substantially decreasing their cutability. Also, these higher gross revenues were generated by cattle of larger mature sizes. Feeding for the Same Number of Days Carcass weight fluctuated along with estimated yield and quality grades when cattle were fed for the same number of days. The comparison of wholesale gross revenues for alternative implant strategies with ' the base scenario is shown in Table 18. With five 14 exceptions, wholesale gross revenues for the alterna- tive implant strategies were lower than the gross rev- enues generated by the base scenario. The exceptions, all involving carcasses from cattle that were implanted £1 Table 17. Comparison of wholesale gross revenue by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER & Mature Weight / SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / head) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars / head) STEERS @ 1075 I 706.30 -57.45 -50.73 -44.01 -18.65 -6.22 II 677.91 -15.62 -12.26 3.53 28.39 40.82 lII . 685.47 -10.25 2.18 14.61 -7.56 -0.67 HEIFERS @ 975 l 623.93 -44.33 -38.24 -32.15 -19.96 -11.27 ll 640.85 -49.06 -42.96 -36.87 -16.91 -5.64 III 620.73 -16.76 -8.07 3.20 25.75 31.38 Table 18. Comparison of wholesale gross revenue by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER 8: Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / carcass) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars/ carcass) STEERS I 120 650.77 -40.45 -23.62 -4.14 -34.76 -15.62 140 711.76 -94.31 -78.89 -60.17 -36.36 -15.97 160 723.56 -87.97 -71.02 -52.77 -33.30 _ -14.23 180 740.36 -85.84 -68.98 -54.05 -32.53 -13.41 STEERS II ' 120 658.03 -72.23 -14.18 5.83 -40.81 -21.00 140 730.71 -90.54 -74.33 -54.91 -82.46 -62.89 160 743.54 -92.24 -77.62 -59.00 -34.39 -14.80 180 755.54 g -87.39 -70.11 -54.79 -27.24 -7.56 STEERS Ill 120 659.32 -67.57 -46.46 -26.80 -40.28 -21.05 140 696.22 -38.99 -22.19 -2.26 -40.74 -20.95 160 763.52 -94.23 -79.04 -59.90 -83.13 -64.33 180 783.61 -105.24 -87.65 -68.43 -35.39 -15.17 HEIFERS I 100 565.84 -33.62 . -16.96 2.86 -35.33 -20.79 120 618.95 -75.46 -59.84 -45.59 -36.48 -21 .58 140 629.65 -69.84 -55.44 -38.52 -35.19 -20.81 160 643.64 -69.98 -53.39 -39.12 -32.32 -16.91 180 662.10 (a) (b) (c) -30.18 -16.34 HEIFERS ll 100 572.15 -21 .03 -3.60 1 1 .70 -35.72 -21 .02 120 ' 635.43 -71.93 -55.55 -40.77 -76.57 -56.97 140 647.03 -73.38 -60.99 -45.00 -30.69 -15.78 160 656.83 -68.17 -54.16 '-39.60 -24.63 -8.70 180 679.41 -76.50 -59.96 46.36 -31.05 -16.85 HEIFERS III 100 573.83 -52.71 -32.12 -17.54 -35.83 -21.09 120 605.44 -26.94 -9.98 5.19 -35.13 -20.53 140 670.20 _ -80.72 -64.80 -50.16 -78.84 -58.94 160 681.23 -78.02 -66.15 -51.28 -31.74 -15.37 180 696.20 -77.52 -63.73 -49.84 -29.11 -14.50 (a), (b) & (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. 15 at the cow/ calf and stocker levels only, occurred when the base scenario carcasses graded Select while their counterparts graded Choice. The base scenario car- casses, although higher yielding, could not compensate for grading Select, which resulted in lower gross rev- enues. Estimated wholesale gross revenues were maxi- mized by feeding to the 180 day level. Retail Sector The retail projections of price and gross revenues were accomplished under the practices of feeding to the same slaughter weight and feeding for the same num- ber of days. Retail prices were based on a percent mark- up of wholesale price. Estimated yield and quality grades, which varied by implant strategy, impact retail price and gross revenue by their effects at the wholesale level. Feeding to the Same Slaughter Weight Retail prices in the alternative implant strategies ranged from 22.25 cents/ pound lower to 10.56 cents/ pound higher as compared with the base scenario, Table 19. The higher retail prices, as in the wholesale sector, are reflective of the premium for Choice product being greater than the associated discount for being fatter. Meanwhile, the lower retail prices, in the alter- native implant strategies, are an indication that the cutability premium offsets lower quality grades in the base scenario. These price fluctuations manifested themselves to a lesser degree when retail gross revenues were ana- lyzed. In all but four of the cases of increased prices, the lower retail poundage offset the higher price, resulting in lower gross revenues, Table 20. The four cases involve mature size II steers and mature size III heifers, which were either implanted at the stocker and feedlot phases only or were implanted at the feedlot only. Each of the other alternative implant strategies and mature sizes resulted in decreased gross revenues as compared with the base scenario. Feeding for the Same Number of Days Retail price results are multiples of the estimated wholesale prices with similar interpretations. There- fore, emphasis was placed on evaluating the effects of Table 19. Comparison of retail price level changes by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight, 1989-90. Alternative Implant Strategy STOCKER 8r 0 Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW/ CALF COW / CALF & FEEDLOT Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (cents/pound) Variation from Base Scenario (cents/pound) STEERS @ 1075 I 262.80 -21.37 -18.87 -16.37 -6.94 -2.31 II 252.24 -5.81 -4.56 1.31 10.56 15.19 III 255.05 -3.81 0.81 5.44 -2.81 -0.25 I-IEIFERS @ 975 I 255.96 -18.19 -15.69 -13.19 -8.19 -4.62 II 262.90 -20.12 -17.62 -15.12 -6.94 -2.31 Ill 254.65 -6.88 -3.31 1.31 10.56 1 2.87 Table 20. Comparison of retail gross revenue by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy i . Slaughter Weight / BASE NEVER COW /CALF COW / CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / head) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars / head) R STEERS @ 1075 I * 1 257.24 -236.25 -208.36 -170.75 -68.50 -22.52 II 1244.29 -157.80 -136.19 -83.54 18.20 63.96 III 1292.34 -143.43 -107.18 -60.23 -44.52 -10.44 I-IEIFERS @ 975 XS. I 1074.79 -198.35 -1 71.35 -137.43 -73.28 -38.02 ll 1 145.98 -204.01 -177.88 -144.47 -67.10 -27.54 III 1146.18 -141.70 -112.18 -66.53 12.27 41.90 16 those prices on retail gross revenues rather than on the prices themselves. As opposed to the wholesale analy- sis, the retail base scenario gross revenues exceed gross revenues of the alternative implant strategies with one exception. The exception is a steer of mature size II, fed for 180 days and implanted at the stocker and feedlot levels. This product was slightly better yielding with only a small decrease in pounds of retail product, which produced a slightly higher gross revenue than the base scenario. The range of gains to losses were from +$7. 76 to -$225.34 per head, Table 21. Retail gross revenues were maximum at 120-140 days on feed for cattle implanted at the cow/ calf level only, at the cow/ calf and stocker levels only, or not implanted at all. Maxi- mum gross revenues occurred between 140-160 days on feed for the base scenario, and for cattle implanted at the stocker plus feedlot levels, or for cattle implanted at the feedlot only. Implications: Wholesale and Retail Sectors As compared with the base scenario, carcasses and retail product produced under altema tive implant strat- egies, in most cases, commanded a lower price and generated lower gross revenues. This, in the value- added pricing scheme, was attributable to a poorer yielding, fatter product. Also, in the case of feeding for the same number of days, it was estimated that fewer total pounds of beef would be produced. These two factors could result in higher wholesale and retail production costs with possible beef supply shortages. With the potential for increasing costs and shortages of Table ZLComparison of retail gross revenue by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER 8: Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (dollars / head) Variation from Base Scenario (dollars/ head) STEERS I 120 1219.91 -109.57 -91 .60 -53.99 -55.02 -14.62 140 1282.22 -206.32 -192.27 -160.40 -49.70 -12.84 160 1250.58 -191.36 -1 77.02 -149.05 -39.38 -6.66 180 1221.67 -181 .10 -170.37 -152.51 -29.62 -0.85 STEERS II _ 120 1268.51 -170.77 -74.28 -34.30 -69.47 -26.73 140 1358.81 -204.90 -188.17 -153.54 -139.16 -102.48 160 1331.90 -204.04 -192.25 -162.1 7 -44.09 -8.88 180 1298.20 -189.02 -175.94 -155.85 -23.65 7.76 STEERS III 120 1302.66 -164.29 -134.91 -94.36 -71.02 -28.32 140 1331.19 -110.94 -91.91 -54.98 -64.51 -25.86 160 1411.13 -212.73 -198.84 -166.09 -137.91 -102.59 180 1394.56 -225.34 -210.16 -182.00 -40.32 -6.45 HEIFERS I 100 1060.96 -96.60 -74.74 -34.16 -65.12 -32.30 120 1113.53 -1 70.79 -155.23 -127.69 -60.84 -29.62 140 1086.36 -160.83 -150.62 -121.56 -53.79 -26.25 160 1059.75 -157.07 -145.72 -124.54 -39.53 -14.66 180 1039.01 (a) (c) -33.93 -12.53 HEIFERS II 100 1105.97 -73.66 -49.36 -15.67 -68.19 -34.23 120 1183.99 -168.66 -150.43 -120.81 -138.64 -97.71 140 1161 .83 -171.22 -162.93 -133.69 -48.57 -18.95 160 1131.70 -158.45 -149.47 -126.35 -29.63 -2.10 180 1121.94 -172.02 -162.62 -142.90 -38.21 -14.98 HEIFERS III 100 1139.09 -134.76 -102.59 -69.44 -70.75 -35.90 120 1162.83 -85.95 -65.39 -33.61 -63.66 -31.26 ‘ 140 1245.36 -188.78 -173.08 -144.78 -140.86 -100.67 160 1 220.02 -179.73 -173.16 -148.04 -44.58 -14.96 180 1200.89 -178.41 -1 71.92 -150.30 -38.04 -12.59 (a), (b)& (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. product to be fabricated, additional concentration, par- ticularly at the wholesale level, would be possible. SUMMARY Thebeef industry has undergone significant changes over the past 30 years. Improved technology has altered the way beef is processed, packaged and, in the case of anabolic implants, has affected the metabolic processes of cattle. Implanted cattle are typically heavier, leaner, and more efficient converters of feed to pounds of gain. These factors result in more saleable product at the retail level. In spite of these benefits, some Ameri- can consumers remain skeptical of the merits of implant usage. Changing U.S. consumer preferences are affecting the beef market. As consumers become more active and sophisticated in expressing these new preferences, so must the beef industry be more aware in marketing its product to meet consumer preferences. One area of consumer concern is the perceived problem of implant residues in beef. The potential losses from regulatory control could change the structure of the beef industry. This study analyzes the economic and physical impact of alternative implant strategies on various sectors of the beef industry. Beef Cattle Growth Model Estimates 0 Live weights in the base scenario, implanting at each production phase, were higher as com- pared with the alternative implant strategies. Calves, stockers, and slaughter cattle were from 33 to 124 pounds heavier under the base sce- nario. v Base scenario carcass and retail weights were also greater than those in alternative implant strategies. Estimated carcass weights were from 15 to 77 pounds heavier when evaluated with the base scenario assumptions. 18 When cattle were fed to the same slaughter weight, estimated U.S. yield and quality grades were lowest in the base scenario because of lower carcass fat levels. _ Feeding for the same number of days resulted in lower quality and yield grades when cattle were implanted at the stocker and feedlot levels and only at the feedlot level, as compared with the base scenario. Cattle fed under the base scenario required from 11 to 4O fewer days on feed to reach designated slaughter weights than cattle fed under the alter- native implant strategies. Cattle implanted at all production phases re- quired from 237 to 1 145 fewer pounds of feed to reach designated slaughter weights as compared with alternative implant strategies. Economic Summary Net returns to cow/ calf producers, stocker op- erations, and feedlots declined for alternative implant strategies as compared with the base scenario. The reduction in net returns was from $2 to $209 per head. Wholesale gross revenues for the same slaugh- ter weight and same days on feed scenarios were from $0.67 to $105 per head greater in the base scenario when compared with alternative im- plant strategies. Base scenario retail gross revenues were $0.85 to $236 per head higher when compared with alter- native implant strategies. If implants were not used and cattle were fed for the same number of days, an additional 3.9 million head of cattle could be required to main- tain retail supplies of beef, as compared with the base model. These 3.9 million head could cost the feeding sector $3.2 billion to produce. ‘*2, APPENDIX A Supplementary Tables Table A-1. Comparison of slaughter cattle weights by sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Alternative Implant Strategy Sex / BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF & FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO‘ IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERS 120 1032.0 -103.0 -69.0 -39.0 -64.0 -34.0 140 1093.0 -110.0 -76.0 -46.0 -65.0 -34.0 160 1 152.0 -115.0 -82.0 -52.0 -63.0 -33.0 180 1214.0 -124.0 -90.0 -59.0 -65.0 -34.0 HEIFERS _ 100 897.0 -80.0 -47.0 -24.0 -56.0 -33.0 120 950.0 -85.0 -52.0 -29.0 -56.0 -33.0 140 1002.0 -89.0 -56.0 -33.0 -56.0 -33.0 160 1055.0 -95.0 -62.0 -38.0 -58.0 -33.0 180 1108.0 -99.0 -66.0 -43.0 -56.0 -33.0 ‘Base Scenario is defined as implanting at each production level. Table A-2. Comparison of carcass weight differences by sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at common days on feed. Alternative Implant Strategy Sex f BASE NEVER COW / CALF COW / CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERS ' 120 645.0 -64.4 -43.1 -24.4 -40.0 -21.2 140 683.1 -68.7 -47.5 -28.7 -40.6 -21.2 160 720.0 -71.9 -51.2 -32.5 -39.4 -20.6 180 758.8 -77.5 -56.3 -36.9 -40.7 -21.3 HEIFERS 100 560.6 -50.0 -29.3 -15.0 -35.0 -20.6 120 593.8 -53.2 -32.5 -18.2 -35.0 -20.7 140 626.3 -55.7 -35.0 -20.7 -35.0 -20.7 160 659.4 -59.4 -38.8 -23.8 -36.3 -20.6 180 692.5 -61.9 -41.2 -26.9 -35.0 -20.6 Table A-3. Comparison of retail product by mature size, sex, and type of growth promotant program, evaluated at a common slaughter weight. Alternative Implant Strategy Slaughter Weight/ BASE NEVER COW/CALF COW/CALF 8: FEEDLOT STOCKER & Mature Size SCENARIO IMPLANTED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERS@1075 ' I 478.4 -55.5 -48.4 -37.5 -13.8 -4.4 II 493.3 -52.4 -45.9 -35.5 -12.9 -4.1 III 506.7 -49.4 -43.5 -33.7 -12.0 -3.6 I HEIFERS a 97s I 419.9 -51.3 -43.9 -33.8 -15.7 -7.4 II 435.9 -47.9 -41.2 -3l.7 -l4.4 -6.7 III 450.1 -44.7 -38.7 -28.3 -13.3 -6.0 l9 XAS AluM UNIVERSIT TE y all IIWHI II WW Alfl-IBHB 2511175‘? A Table A-4. Comparison of retail product differences by mature size,wsex, and type of growth promctant program, evaluated at common days on feed. ' Alternative Implant Strategy Mature Size / BASE NEVER COW / CALF COW/CALF & EEEDLOT STOCKER & Days on Feed SCENARIO IMPLAN TED ONLY STOCKER ONLY FEEDLOT (pounds) Variation from Base Scenario (pounds) STEERS l 120 472.3 -59.7 -49.3 -35.2 -25.4 -9.9 140 480.7 -62.5 -53.1 -40.6 -22.7 -9.0 160 486.1 -64.2 -56.3 -45.1 -19.6 -7.0 180 489.1 -66.0 -59.4 -49.8 -16.7 -5.3 STEERS ll 120 485.7 -60.7 -49.6 -35.0 -26.6 -10.7 140 496.2 -63.6 -53.4 -40.3 -24.0 -9.8 160 503.8 -65.4 -56.7 -44.9 -21.0 -7.8 180 509.3 -67.5 -60.0 -49.6 -18.4 -6.3 STEERS lll 120 497.8 -61.5 -49.8 -34.7 -27.6 -11.3 140 510.2 -64.6 -53.7 -40.1 -25.2 -10.4 160 519.8 -66.5 -57.1 -44.6 -22.3 -8.5 180 527.5 -68.8 -60.5 -49.4 -19.8 -7.1 HEIFERS l 100 410.6 -49.2 -37.7 -25.8 -25.2 -12.5 120 417.3 -51.0 -41.5 -30.7 -22.8 -11.1 140 422.1 -53.6 -45.7 -36.0 -20.9 -10.2 160 424.1 -55.3 -48.7 -40.0 -17.9 -8.0 180 424.5 (a) (b) (o 46.0 -7.3 HEIFERS ll 100 423.3 -49.7 -37.6 -25.3 -26.1 -13.1 120 432.2 -51.7 -41 .4 -30.2 -23.9 -11.8 140 439.3 -54.4 45.6 -35.3 -22.1 -11.0 160 443.8 -56.3 -48.7 -39.4 -19.5 -8.9 180 446.7 -58.6 -52.7 -44.6 -17.4 -8.2 HEIFERS lll 100 434.7 -50.3 -37.6 -24.9 -27.0 -13.7 120 445.5 -52.4 -41.4 -29.7 -24.8 -12.4 140 454.6 -55.1 -45.5 -34.7 -23.2 -11.6 160 461.3 -57.1 -48.7 -38.8 -20.8 -9.7 180 466.6 -59.5 -52.7 -44.0 -18.9 -9.1 (a), (b) and (c) The percentage of fat in gain exceeded 100%. 2t) REFERENCES Byers, F.M. ‘Determining effects of monensin on energy value of corn silage diets for beef cattle by linear of semi- log methods." J. Anim. Sci., 51(1980): 158. Byers, F.M. and G.T. Schelling. Use of ionophores to increase meat production by ruminants: a workshop report. ”Influence of ionophores on energy utilization and main- tenance energy requirements." In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Nutrition. T.G. Taylor and N .l(. Jenkins, eds. London: John Libbey, 1985. ”Codex Committee is Proper Forum for Hormone Issue: Guest." Food Chemical News 29, 23 March 1987: p. 23. ”EC Hormone Ban Is Technical Barrier, U.S. Says in Com- plaint." Food Chemical News 28, (16 February 1987): p. 54. Honeyfield, K.C., J.R. Carlson, M.R. N ocerini and R.G. Breeze. ”Duration of inhibition of 3-methyindole production by monensin." l. Anim. Sci. 60(1985): 226. Knutson, J. and H. Christensen. Meat Facts '90. American Meat Institute. Washington, D.C. 21 Koch, R.M. and J.W. Algeo. ”The beef cattle industry: changes and challenges.” J. Anim. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2) (1983): 28. Taylor, R.E. ”Beef Production and the Beef Industry A Beef Producers Perspective." Minneapolis: Burgess Publish- ing Co., 1984. The National Provisioner. 1989-90, Various issues. Texas Cattle Feeders Association. Amarillo, TX. 1989-90, Various Newsletters. Texas Livestock Enterprise Budgets. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station, TX, 1989. Various Districts. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. ”Economic Impact of the European Economic Community’ s ban on anabolic implants.” Prepared by The Policy and Planning Staff. Washington, D.C., Octo- ber 1987. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Livestock and Poultry Situation and Outlook Report. Washington D.C., July 1990. . .- < , writ???» Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station are available to everyone without regard to race, i color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.