CALF_News_June_July_2018

13 CALF News • June | July 2018 • www.calfnews.net Creative:Clients:Micronutrients:1500-25115 Micronutrients Beef Ads:1500-25115 Micronutrients Beef Ads_Calf News_v07.indd Jan 10, 2018 11:58 AM IntelliBond ® is a registered trademark of Micronutrients, a Nutreco company. © 2018 Micronutrients USA, LLC. All rights reserved. Don’t antagonize me. Antagonists are impossible to avoid in your operation— from water, to feed, to forages—and your trace mineral program could be making it worse. Sulfate trace minerals easily separate and bind to antagonists, reducing the amount of minerals available for absorption, interfering with digestion and even reacting with other feed ingredients. IntelliBond ® hydroxy trace minerals work differently, dissolving more slowly in the digestive process for minimal binding with antagonists and absorption at the optimal point in digestion. www.micro.net (317) 486-5880 Smart minerals, smart nutrition... smart decision Discover the benefits of switching your trace minerals to IntelliBond ® at www.micro.net SULFATE FREE N o C o p p e r S u l f a t e • N o Z i n c S u l f a t e • N o M a n g a n e s e S u l f a t e • TraceMineral MADE IN USA would production be maximized, but the animals would be fed at their most efficient level. The system failed due to complexity at the operational level as well as a failure to control expenses. Today, new techniques that optimize outcomes in cattle feeding are finding their way into the industry. A handful of companies have begun sorting cattle at multiple points in the feeding period. They’ve found that the improvements in total pounds produced by having a narrower weight distribution at harvest have more than offset the disruption in pen hierarchy through the sorting pro- cess. The resulting increase in pounds produced has been rewarded based on the current grid structures – especially in the case where the grid has been negotiated to minimize the negative impact of Yield Grade 4’s and 5’s. The reality of most grids today is that more pounds of high Choice and Prime quality beef is rewarded even though discounts for heavies and YG 4’s and 5’s take a portion of it back. The careful balance of “carrot and stick” causes feed- ers to sacrifice efficiency, give up part of their premium opportunity and flood the market with extra pounds of fat. It all becomes a balancing act for the feedlot manager who is attempting to maximize pen utilization while maxi- mizing profits for the feeder. We need to recognize that the goals of managing the “hotel” sometimes conflict with the goals of the cattle feeder. When the owner- ship of both sides of that equation is the same, the results can vary greatly from when the feedlot and the cattle are under different ownership. This is another area where we may need to reevaluate agreements so that the rewards for one function are complementary to the other. Let’s consider the “hotel” role that the feedyard plays. In an effort to improve efficiency, many yards have moved to uniform pen sizes. Surely, there’s an optimal pen size that makes mill, truck and manpower utilization perform at the optimum. What does it sacrifice in the way of beef production? Some managers refuse to “top” a pen of cattle due to the impact on pen utili- zation. After all, it’s mill throughput that pays the bills. All cattle are instead fed to the pen average and shipped together. This causes a percentage of the animals to be fed beyond their point of profit maximization and others to fall well short of that point. It is well known that animals grow apart over time. We sort for uniformity based primar- ily on weight for incoming cattle, yet when they are ready for harvest, there’s wide variation of weight within the pen. This can be resolved either by sorting based on expected weight at out date, or by “topping” the pen and selling truck- loads as they become ready for harvest. “Topping” leaves us short of a full pen unless we move the remaining animals to a smaller pen. This concept is contrary to the idea of uniform pen sizes. Tools are becoming available that are designed to aid the feeder in sorting cattle based on expected finish time or weight. Techniques have been around since that expensive attempt previously referenced. The new tools however, promise to be much less expensive and CONNECTING THE DOTS Continued from page 8 Continued on page 17 