News Update
Jan. 21, 2008

Canyon Creek Angus Purchases Heifer Package

Ronald and Myki Simek, owners of Canyon Creek Angus LLC, Cody, Wyo., bid $92,500 on Jan. 15 to purchase the 2009 Angus Foundation Heifer, donated by Chris McCutchen owner of Limestone LLC in Perkins, Okla. More than $1.3 million has been raised from this Angus Foundation fundraising activity since its inception in 1980.

The heifer package was auctioned during the National Western Stock Show (NWSS) in Denver, Colo., with all proceeds benefiting the Angus Foundation, the not-for-profit affiliate of the American Angus Association that funds and supports programs involving education, youth and research in the Angus breed and agricultural industry. David and Mary Ann McMahon of Belle Point Ranch, Fort Smith, Ark., were the contending bidders.

Limestone Rita T754 was chosen to represent the Limestone LLC program and is a daughter of the featured Limestone LLC and Express Ranches sire BC 7022 Raven 7965, the breed’s No. 8 young sire for ribeye area (REA).

In addition to the heifer, Canyon Creek Angus will receive 30 days of free insurance from American Live Stock Insurance Co., Geneva, Ill.; free transportation to the buyer’s ranch provided by Lathrop Livestock Transportation, Dundee, Ill.; and an Advanced Reproductive Technology Package from Trans Ova Genetics, Sioux Center, Iowa.

“We are honored by the generosity shown by both Limestone LLC and Canyon Creek in the donation and purchase of this outstanding female,” said Milford Jenkins, Angus Foundation president. “This purchase marks the second time that the Simeks have purchased the heifer package in the past four years. We are humbled by their continued charitable and unselfish endorsement of the importance of raising funds for education, youth and research for the benefit of the Angus breed. One can only be inspired by the generosity of these Angus breeders.”

He added, “I’d also like to extend a special thank you to American Live Stock Insurance, Lathrop Livestock Transportation and Trans Ova Genetics for the generous contributions they made to the successful sale of this year’s heifer package.”

Funds generated by the sale of the heifer package will help advance the Angus Foundation’s first capital campaign, Vision of Value: Campaign for Angus, which aims to raise $11 million by Dec. 31, 2011, to further support the Foundation’s education, youth and research efforts. To date, more than $5.3 million has been committed to the campaign through outright cash gifts, pledges and planned giving commitments.

For more information about the Angus Foundation, the sale of the heifer package or the campaign, contact Jenkins at 816-383-5100 or mjenkins@angusfoundation.org.

— Release provided by the Angus Foundation.

Meeting Challenges of 2009

Most cattle producers happily waved good-bye to 2008, crossing their fingers that 2009 would be much better. Many are wrestling with challenging management decisions as a result of the profitability challenges they are facing.

“Production costs were extremely high in 2008, and feeder-cattle prices fell dramatically from summer to winter,” said Kenny Burdine, University of Kentucky (UK) livestock marketing specialist. “However, it is difficult to make clear recommendations about strategies without good knowledge of the cost structure of the farm.”

Given the situation that cow-calf operators are facing, Burdine strongly encourages producers to spend some time this winter conducting a serious cost analysis.

“All producers know they are facing a challenge, but I don’t think that many have a good feel for exactly what it is costing to maintain each cow in their herd,” he said.

Winter is a good time to go through production and expense records to estimate costs.

While there are many ways to do this, Burdine likes to start with forage production since it is probably the biggest expense for most cow-calf operators. He said producers should allocate fertilizer and lime between hay and pasture ground to separate grazing costs from hay production costs. From there, he urged producers not to forget fuel, oil, repairs and labor for these forage programs.

“You should also charge depreciation and interest on forage equipment to get an accurate assessment of what your total feed costs truly are,” Burdine said.

UK’s agricultural economics department has budgeting tools available that may make this easier.

Once producers have assigned a cost to the hay that is produced, they can estimate how much hay is fed per cow. The best way to do this is by weighing representative bales and tracking how many bales are fed. However, a typical cow can easily consume two tons of hay or more per year, especially when storage and feeding losses are included. Grazing costs can be estimated by multiplying pasture maintenance costs per acre by stocking rate, Burdine explained.

“Next, move into things such as mineral, water, health, labor, breeding, marketing, fence and building repairs, and other variable expenses,” he said. “You will likely find that a lot of little purchases can really add up here. If you don’t keep good financial records throughout the year, this will likely require going through many farm store receipts and determining which expenses truly should be charged to your beef enterprise.”

Burdine also urges producers to consider fixed costs, like taxes, insurance and family labor, and opportunity costs like unpaid interest. This is also where depreciation on buildings and machinery that are not allocated to the hay enterprise will come in. Once producers consider all costs, Burdine said they will be in a much better position to determine their best strategy given the challenges they are facing today. UK also offers enterprise budget tools for cow-calf operations, which could guide producers through this process.

“Production costs are likely as high as they have ever been for cow-calf operators,” Burdine said. “For some, the best strategy may be to reduce cow numbers and decrease their dependence on stored feed. For others, it may be to add complementary enterprises like stockers to help spread overhead costs further. These possibilities go on and on. Regardless, without knowing something about the cost structure of the herd, these types of decisions are impossible to make.”

Burdine said the first of the year is an excellent time to begin a financial recordkeeping system, especially if a producer has never taken the time to set one up. Many tools are available, including record books, spreadsheets and specific computer applications like Quicken® or Quick Books®.

“The most important recordkeeping decision producers will make is just deciding to keep records,” he said. “It’s difficult to manage something that we never take time to measure.”

UK recordkeeping tools are available at www.ca.uky.edu/agecon/index.php?p=29.

— Article provided by the UK College of Agriculture.

DDGS Not Recommend for Horses

Distillers’ grains have become a staple in some bovine diets, but a Kansas State University (K-State) researcher recommends they not be used in horse rations.

“People have asked ‘can I feed dried or wet distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) to my horses?’ ” said Teresa Slough, equine nutrition specialist with K-State Research and Extension and an assistant professor in K-State’s Department of Animal Sciences and Industry. Given the information researchers have so far, Slough said she would not recommend feeding DDGS to horses.

There has been little research done in feeding DDGS — a byproduct of the ethanol production process — to horses, she said. So far, the studies that have been done examined feeding DDGS for only a short period of time.

“There is no information available so far on the long-term effects of feeding DDGS to working horses, mares or foals,” she said.

The upside of feeding DDGS to horses is that they will eat it and, in fact, they like it, Slough said. In addition, it is sometimes a less-expensive source of protein.

But Slough warns that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. “Horses are very susceptible to fumonisin poisoning from moldy corn. Fermentation during ethanol production doesn’t destroy the mold. Rather, it concentrates the mold.

“Feeding DDGS contaminated with fumonisin just once could cause death,” she said.

Another disadvantage, the researcher said, is that DDGS has a high phosphorous content.

“Unless the other feedstuffs in the horse’s diet are very high in calcium, the potential exists to create a diet inversed in its Ca-to-P (calcium-to-phosphorus) ratio and negatively affect bone development,” Slough added. “This is of particular concern with broodmares and foals.”

DDGS has a high sulfur content, which also makes it problematic for horses.

“Sulfur toxicity in horses, although rare, can result in colic, jaundiced mucous membranes, labored breathing, cyanosis and convulsions, followed by death,” she said.

“The bottom line is, feeding DDGS to horses is not recommended unless it’s been tested for fumonisin and contains less than 5 parts per million (ppm), and then it should only comprise a small percentage of the total diet.”

— Release provided by K-State Research and Extension.

— Compiled by Crystal Albers, associate editor, Angus Productions Inc.