Marketing strategy influences optimum marketing date of steers in relation to corn price and days on feed

Wilken, Mallorie F.; MacDonald, James C.; Erickson, Galen E.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Schneider, Cody; Luebbe, Kelsey M; Kachman, Stephen D.

doi:10.15232/pas.2014-01325

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They evaluated differing DOF with steers sold on a live or carcass basis not accounting for carcass-based premiums and discounts at 3 different feed prices (158.96, 249.79, and 340.63 $/907 kg DM). General findings from Wilken et al. (2015) were that net returns were similar when sold live or dressed at any feed price when marketing at 100% DOF.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When extending DOF, the importance of live feed efficiency and daily gain is of lesser consequence when marketing dressed (vs live). While these metrics have been shown to decrease with additional DOF ( Horton et al., 2022 ), the proportion of weight being deposited in carcass components increases while growth of non-carcass components (e.g., hide, internal organs, head) become more stagnant ( Berg and Butterfield, 1968 ; Buckley et al., 1990 ; Coleman et al., 1995 ; Owens et al., 1995 ; Wilken et al., 2015 ; Honig et al., 2022 ), thereby providing a mechanism for the distinction between live and dressed-sale basis net returns. Horton et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors limit some formal comparisons with the literature. Wilken et al. (2015) evaluated a similar research question for steers using differing methodology.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dissimilarities between study results could be due to biological differences between heifers and steers, the prices evaluated, and experimental design (i.e., use of a DOF treatment factor vs cattle performance predictions from regression equations). Additionally, it is unclear if Wilken et al. (2015) accounted for opportunity cost when extending DOF in their analyses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impacts of economic factors influencing net returns of beef feedlot heifers administered two implant programs and fed for differing days-on-feed from pooled randomized controlled trials

Horton,

Depenbusch,

Schroeder

et al. 2024

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of 2 implant programs and differing days-on-feed (DOF) on net returns of beef feedlot heifers using sensitivity analyses of key economic factors. Crossbred beef heifers [n = 10,583; initial weight 315 kg (± 20.1 SD)] were enrolled across 3 trials (1 Kansas, 2 Texas feedlot trials). Heifers were blocked by arrival and randomly allocated to 1 of 6 pens, resulting in a total of 144 pens and 24 blocks. Pen was randomly assigned to treatment as a 2 × 3 factorial. Implant programs were: IH+200 – Revalor-IH at initial processing, and a terminal implant after approximately 90 DOF (Revalor-200), or, XH – a single implant at initial processing (Revalor-XH). The DOF treatments were: heifers fed to a standard baseline endpoint (BASE) or heifers fed for an additional +21 or +42 d beyond BASE. Pen-level partial budgets were used for economic sensitivity analyses, which varied price points of single pricing components with all other components fixed. Variable components were live-fed cattle prices, base carcass prices (i.e. dressed), Choice-Select spread (CS-spread), and feed and yardage prices (FYP). For each, a Low, Mid-Low, Middle, Mid-High, and High price was chosen. Linear mixed models were fit for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). There were no significant 2-way interactions (P -values ≥ 0.14). Regardless of the variable component evaluated, XH heifers had poorer net returns than IH+200 at all prices (P ≤ 0.04). Selling live, the +21 and (or) +42 heifers had lower net returns than BASE at every fed cattle price point (P < 0.01). Selling dressed, the +21 and (or) +42 heifers had lower returns than BASE at Low, Mid-Low, and Middle fed cattle base prices (P < 0.01); there were no significant DOF differences at Mid-High, or High prices (P ≥ 0.24). Net returns were lower for +42 than BASE at all CS-spreads (P ≤ 0.03), while BASE and +21 did not differ significantly. Longer DOF had lower net returns than BASE when selling live at every FYP (P < 0.01) except at the Low price (P = 0.14). Selling dressed, there was no significant effect of DOF at Low or Mid-Low FYP (P ≥ 0.11); conversely, extended DOF had lower net returns than BASE at Middle, Mid-High, and High FYP (P < 0.01). Overall, there was minimal economic evidence to support extending feedlot heifer DOF beyond the BASE endpoint, and when feeding longer, larger reductions in return were observed when marketing live as opposed to dressed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors limit some formal comparisons with the literature. Wilken et al. (2015) evaluated a similar research question for steers using differing methodology.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impacts of economic factors influencing net returns of beef feedlot heifers administered two implant programs and fed for differing days-on-feed from pooled randomized controlled trials

Horton,

Depenbusch,

Schroeder

et al. 2024

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effect of placement weight and days on feed on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marketing Fed Cattle Based on Expectations of the Underlying Carcass Value Dynamics

Poss

Coatney

Rivera

et al. 2021

J. Agric. Appl. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fed cattle profitability is determined by complicated dynamic processes of body growth, carcass development, and seasonal prices. A structural model is constructed to contend with all these dynamic processes to predict optimal market timing. Informed simulations are conducted and compared to those observed in the data, as well as to a previous model ignoring the evolution of carcass value. The results indicate that significant improvements to profitability are attainable with the new method. The results also indicate the opportunity cost of not accounting for carcass value, even with error, is more severe than when these dynamics are ignored.

show abstract

Marketing strategy influences optimum marketing date of steers in relation to corn price and days on feed

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

Impacts of economic factors influencing net returns of beef feedlot heifers administered two implant programs and fed for differing days-on-feed from pooled randomized controlled trials

Impacts of economic factors influencing net returns of beef feedlot heifers administered two implant programs and fed for differing days-on-feed from pooled randomized controlled trials

Effect of placement weight and days on feed on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits

Marketing Fed Cattle Based on Expectations of the Underlying Carcass Value Dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About