Information and Resources
The cow-calf budget was developed to assist Tennessee cattle producers in estimating the cost of production and net return to land and management. This budget should be considered a template or guide to estimating expenses and revenues, and it should not be considered representative of all circumstances. Users of this budget are encouraged to enter information into the budget that reflects their individual situation and production practices. Using information most closely related to a particular operation will improve the decision-making process.
The stocker/backgrounding budget was developed to assist Tennessee cattle producers in estimating the cost of production and net return to land and management. This budget should be considered a template or guide to estimating expenses and revenues, and it should not be considered representative of all circumstances. Users of this budget are encouraged to enter information into the budget that reflects their individual situation and production practices. Using information most closely related to a particular operation will improve the decision-making process.
Historical profitability of U.S. beef cattle slaughtering facilities is not easy to accurately measure since production costs and revenue data are not publicly available. However, for decades, several groups have been interested in knowing this information for various reasons including entrepreneurial purposes. The point of this article is to present national data and discussion around profitability of U.S. beef cattle slaughter facilities.
Beef cattle and dairy farmers seek local markets for their culled livestock. Livestock processing facilities offer such opportunities and also assist rural communities in need of economic growth. Provided here is an analysis regarding the feasibility of a cull cattle processing facility in one of the 15 economically distressed counties in Tennessee. Initially examined is the cost of obtaining cows for processing at the facility, followed by a facility location analysis.
The decision to cut a male could be based upon age of the calf and/or the method that the producer chooses to utilize for castration. The decision leaves producers with a common question, “Does cutting calves increase revenue?” This publication aims to help producers answer that question.
When purchasing a bull through an auction, bull buyers generally determine the value of the bull by evaluating phenotypic traits (age, structure, frame, birthweight, breed, etc.), performance measurements (average daily gain, weaning weight, yearling weight), and expected progeny differences (EPDs) (birth weight, calving ease, weaning weight, yearling weight, carcass quality, etc.), which are estimates of how future progeny will perform, on average, for a given trait. A producer’s willingness to pay for a bull will vary based on these value-determining factors and how the bull fits the producer’s breeding program.
This study evaluated the impacts of calving season length (45-, 60- and 90-day calving season) on net returns for spring- and fall-calving herds in Tennessee. Two additional scenarios evaluated a 45- and 60-day calving season length that assumed the use of an IRM practice to increase the calving rate. The profit and weaning weight maximizing calving date for the spring-calving herd was February 15, and the profit and weaning weight maximizing calving date for the fall-calving herd was September 11.
The lifeblood of most cow-calf operations is the females that make up the herd. Cow-calf producers make culling and retention decisions on a regular basis that influence profitability. The decision to cull a cow, or to add a female to the herd, is largely based on the animal’s structural integrity (i.e., feet, udder), disposition, expected reproductive success, and expected profitability. Thus, there is a certain risk related to cattle prices, cow reproductive efficiency, and calf performance.
Many livestock producers and their tax preparers may be incorrectly reporting income from sales of breeding, draft and milking animals. Incorrect reporting could significantly impact the tax burden. The publication provides a reasonably simple explanation of the issue and provides examples for better understanding. It explains the importance of reporting sales of breeding animals separately from market livestock. Correct reporting may utilize capital gains tax rates and avoid self-employment taxes on sales of breeding livestock. Please share with producers and others as appropriate.
Though few cattle are finished and harvested in Tennessee, consumer demand for local foods has expanded. Thus, the expansion of the local foods movement brings to question, if Tennessee cattle producers can expand marketing opportunities, as well as improve profitability, by producing finished cattle and marketing them via a Tennessee Certified Beef (TCB) program.
With an understanding of the costs associated with managing horn flies in cattle and that some animals carry low populations of horn flies, we examined the question of whether cattle producers would be willing to adopt a horn fly-resistant (HFR) bull into their herds. Thus, seedstock producers can use this information to determine if it is worth breeding for the HFR characteristic, while commercial cow-calf producers can use the information to make informed purchasing decisions, if the trait becomes available.
The focus of this publication is educating cattle producers concerning cooperative marketing of feeder cattle. Our purpose is to 1) define cooperative marketing for feeder cattle and discuss factors to consider when establishing a cooperative marketing effort and the different forms it may take; 2) outline the benefits and potential challenges of cooperatively marketing feeder cattle; and 3) quantify the added value cooperative marketing generates utilizing sale results.
This publication contains definitions of terms commonly used when marketing cattle and beef as feeder cattle, finished cattle, and at the packer level. The publication stems from requests from Extension Agents and producers who were not familiar with all the terminology used in the weekly Market Highlights column.
This publication contains definitions of terms commonly used when marketing cattle and beef as feeder cattle, finished cattle, and at the packer level. The publication stems from requests from Extension Agents and producers who were not familiar with all the terminology used in the weekly Market Highlights column.
The purpose of this report is to present summary statistics of cost reimbursement eligibility through TAEP for bulls sold in the University of Tennessee bull test sale from 2011-2016. Specifically, we show the percentage of bulls that qualified for cost reimbursement by bull type, which include balanced bull, terminal bull and calving ease bull.
As more consumers demand locally produced beef and cattle producers in Tennessee evaluate finsihing cattle in-state, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate opportunities for producers.
Recognizing this consumer interest, several livestock producers across Tennessee have delved into direct marketing finished cattle and/or beef products to consumers.Thus, evaluating opportunities to expand cattle marketing alternatives is merited to help meet the governor’s challenge.
Most cow-calf producers using a defined calving season in the United States follow a spring calving season, while fall calving is the second-most common calving season.
Cow-calf producers have several alternatives when it comes to selecting a breeding and subsequent calving season. The most common alternatives for calving seasons include spring, fall, winter and year-round calving.
The majority of beef cattle producers in Tennessee who operate with a defined calving season choose to follow a spring calving season. However, the fall calving season is more profitable than the spring calving season.
Updated versions of the budgets for Tennessee producers available through the UTIA Agricultural and Resource Economics Department.
Summary of Retained Ownership:Tennessee Beef Evaluation
Cattle producers have several methods to market cattle. Methods commonly used include live auction market, private treaty, graded sale, marketing alliance, video auction, internet auction, and retained ownership through the feedlot.
Three focus group meetings were hosted in December 2013 and January 2014 to explore Tennessee beef producers' experiences with marketing value-added beef. The purpose of these focus groups was to gather information about market opportunities and constraints faced by value-added beef producers in order to develop educational materials for interested farmers and industry partners.
Producers interested in adding value to cattle and directly marketing meat face many challenges such as developing business and marketing plans and starting and expanding operations. A survey of Tennessee consumers was conducted to gather information to learn about customers interested in purchasing local beef and to understand their tastes and preferences for products, shopping behaviors and willingness to pay for local beef.
Each marketing method carries risks, and one of the most prevalent risks for cattle producers is price risk that is present throughout all stages of production and marketing. Price risk is often thought of as declining cattle prices for sellers, increasing cattle prices for buyers or increasing feed prices for feed users.
Livestock producers, when selling products or purchasing inputs, can either accept the market price at delivery, or point of purchase, or reduce input and product price risks by using pricerisk management tools. One price-risk management opportunity is available through futures market contracts. This publication explains how livestock producers can use futures markets to manage price risk.
Understanding the concept of basis is a key element in developing a sound marketing plan. Basis refers to the relationship between the cash price in a local market and the futures market price. Basis is the difference between the cash price and the futures price for the time, place and quality where delivery actually occurs (Basis = Cash Price – Futures Price).
Beef producers have a limited number of tools to manage price risk associated with marketing cattle. The tools available include futures contracts, options, forward contracting and livestock risk protection insurance (LRP). Each tool brings with it a list of advantages and disadvantages, but each can be used effectively under different circumstances.
Ten Suggestions for Improved Feeder Cattle Production and Marketing
Production of feeder calves is the primary beef production system in Tennessee and the Southeast and the greatest source of agricultural income.
Following are proven ways Tennessee cow-calf producers can add value to their feeder cattle if they are carried out from a "total management" standpoint. This means that the practices are part of the management package and all need to be done.