Alternative Cow Herd Investment Strategies: Constant Size and Constant Investment

Two heifer replacement strategies were compared over a 25-year period. One strategy retained the same number of heifers each year to maintain a constant herd size. The second strategy retained the same dollar value of heifer calves each year based on their opportunity cost as feeder calves. The constant investment strategy herd size varied throughout the period, but generated higher average profit and higher net worth than did the constant herd size strategy. Constant investment is a simple strategy to adjust the level of investment in beef cows and the resource base (pasture, labor, winter feed) in response to market signals driven by the cattle cycle. This strategy automatically increases heifer retention when the opportunity cost is low and reduces the number retained when cost is high. The effect is a lower average cost of cows in the herd, lower overall investment, and a higher net return on investment. Iowa producers, who often have greater flexibility in land use than producers in other major beef cow regions, can better utilize this strategy that generates greater profits and net worth growth.

Encore® Implant Use in Feedlot Steers

A feedlot demonstration utilizing Encore®, a new longterm implant product, was completed at the Allee Demonstration Farm at Newell, Iowa in 1999. Seventyone steers (697 lbs.) were allotted by weight and hide color and assigned to one of three treatments: 1) Encore® (43.9 mg estradiol = E) on day 0; 2) Encore® plus Component® TS (140 mg trenbolone acetate = ETS0) on day 0; or 3) Encore® on day 0 followed by Component® TS (ETS100) on day 100. Due to wide standard deviation in the weight of steers at the beginning of the demonstration, cattle were harvested in two groups. Approximately half of each treatment group was sorted by visual appraisal as to market readiness. Statistical interactions existed within treatment group between first and second harvest dates, therefore data were split and analyzed accordingly. In the first harvest group, ETS0 steers had higher marbling scores than ETS100 steers, and lower average daily gain than E steers and ETS100 steers. In the second harvest group, ETS0 steers had more fat at the 12th/13 rib than ETS100 steers, but did not differ from E steers. Marbling scores were also higher for ETS0 steers than either ETS100 or E steers in the second harvest group. Pooled data reveal that ETS0 steers had higher marbling scores than ETS100 steers and tended to have higher marbling scores than E steers. First harvest E and ETS100 steers had greater average daily gain than ETS0 steers. In the second harvest group, ETS0 steers had heavier final ending weights than E steers but did not differ from ETS100 steers. Final ending weights, rib eye area, fat thickness at the 12th/13th rib, KPH fat, and calculated yield grades did not differ among treatment groups in the pooled data.