A Comparison of Heifer Development Methods
and Synchronized Timed Artificial Insemination
|
|
Douglas Landblom
DREC Beef Cattle and Integrated Systems Specialist
Dickinson Research Extension Center
Office: 701-456-1109; Mobil: 701-690-8245
|
|
Recently, a video documentary of research comparing the economics of three replacement heifer development methods that included estrus synchronization and timed-artificial insemination was posted on YouTube https://youtu.be/Z_9Huau99rY?si=HosllF1GO5UJwTzG to provide ranchers and others interested in this type of beef cattle research with an introduction into the investigation. The three heifer development comparisons were as follows: 1) Control heifers (CTL) were managed conventionally in drylot, fed harvested feed (hay) and 3.0 lbs. of a 20% CP supplement on alternate days, 2) Heifers were managed unconventionally grazing a combination of native range and annual forages in an integrated annual forage system (IAF) that was previously established as a diverse multi-crop system at the Dickinson Research Extension Center, and 3) Heifers grazed native range pastures (NR) only. Upon completion of the Timed-AI procedures in the CTL group of heifers, clean-up bulls were put with the heifers to breed the remaining heifers that had not conceived to artificial insemination. However, clean-up bulls were not used in the IAF and NR grazing systems. The research objectives are to compare facilities (drylot vs grazing), clean-up bulls vs no clean-up bulls, bred heifers value vs the combination of bred heifer value plus finished carcass beef value. The rational for not using clean-up bulls and finishing all open heifers is predicated on the fact that heifers that calve early in the calving season with their first calf have greater herd longevity. Using synchronized Timed-AI, heifers can be scheduled to calve ahead of the main cow herd thereby allowing for focused time for calving heifers with their first calf.
This management and economic study was designed as a long-term four-year study to account for animal, environmental, grazing, finishing, and economic variations to arrive at a system net return for each of the three methods being evaluated. At this time, the first two years of the study have been completed and heifer performance and economic analysis have been summarized for Year-1 in Table 1, and Year-2 in Table 2. Expenses for the systems include: heifer calf cow production cost, hay, 20% CP supplement, pasture grazing cost, farming cost for annual forages, artificial insemination costs, clean-up bull expense, hauling freight cost for transporting heifers to the finishing yard in Wyoming and to the Cargill Meat Solutions beef packing plant, Ft. Morgan, Colorado. Income for the CTL group is the sum of bred heifer and open heifer salvage value. Income for the two grazing systems includes the value of bred heifers combined with the value of finished beef carcasses.
Reproductive performance was reduced in the grazing treatments; however, the systems were all profitable. In Year-1, net return to the systems were $485.48, $221.15, and $327.54/heifer for the CTL, IAF, and NR, respectively. For Year-2, due to increased cattle price, net return to the systems were $753.55, $370.17, and $429.66/heifer for the CTL, IAF, and NR, respectively.
Expenses associated with finishing the non-pregnant open heifers for feed, veterinary, yardage, and transportation to the feedlot and packing plant reduced net returns. In Year-2, higher cattle price and carcass value increased gross return for the IAF and NR comparisons; however, higher cost for feedlot finishing feed and yardage reduced net return from these two systems. Looking into the future, continued high cattle price, but lower cost/bushel for corn may in all likelihood narrow the margin between the CTL heifers and the grazing heifers baring death loss.
Here’s the link:
|
|
The NDSU Extension does not endorse commercial products or companies even though reference may be made to tradenames, trademarks or service names. NDSU encourages you to use and share this content, but please do so under the conditions of our Creative Commons license. You may copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work as long as you give full attribution, don’t use the work for commercial purposes and share your resulting work similarly. For more information, visit www.ag.ndsu.edu/agcomm/creative-commons.
County commissions, North Dakota State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. NDSU does not discriminate in its programs and activities on the basis of age, color, gender expression/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, participation in lawful off-campus activity, physical or mental disability, pregnancy, public assistance status, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, spousal relationship to current employee, or veteran status, as applicable. Direct inquiries to Vice Provost for Title IX/ADA Coordinator, Old Main 201, NDSU Main Campus, 701-231-7708, ndsu.eoaa@ndsu.edu. This publication will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities upon request, 701-231-7881.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
