Continuous Calving: Are Economic Incentives Large Enough to Eliminate the Traditional Practice?

1. Table 2.Profit Maximizing Solutions to Model Runs on 40 Acres Bermuda/Fescue and 20 Acres of Sod-seeded Pasture with Equal Total Labor Requirements and Calving Rate but Different Calving Season Management and Calf Price Premiums. Figure 1. Forage Dry Matter (DM) Production, Crude Protein (CP) And Total Digestible Nutrient (TDN) Characteristics for The Two Types Of Pastures Modeled. January CP and TDN Numbers Are A Function Of Stockpiling. OBJECTIVES • Test if financial performance differs between a spring (defined 90 day season) vs. continuous calving season • Conduct sensitivity analyses on: • calf price premiums • calving rate (annual number of calves sold per cow exposed) and • operator labor limitations with changes in operation size • DATA • Base case scenario was an Arkansas 50-cow operation with these assumptions: • similar pasture management of two types of pastures (Figure 1) for both controlled and continuous calving • calving distributions and associated cow nutrition requirements (Figure 2) • two types of hay (mixed and high quality) and feed supplements could be purchased • labor and operating capital requirements adjusted by calving distribution • hired labor available if requirements exceeded 100 hours/month • 35% grazing efficiency and 70% harvest efficiency for forage utilization • long-term, average, seasonally adjusted, nominal Arkansas steer and heifer prices • hauling and marketing charges on per head basis to allow proper modeling of calf price premiums • cow replacement and capital investment constant across continuous vs. controlled calving Table 1 summarizes key statistics for the base case scenario with different calving seasons • PROCEDURES • LP in Excel with added Frontline Premium Plus Solver due to size of tableau • Linked spreadsheets allow for user interface to conduct sensitivity analyses on key production statistics • RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS • Initial solution for base case scenario resulted in selection of continuous calving (Table 2) assuming: • 85% calving rate for either calving season • no price premiums for controlled calving • same total labor requirements per cow regardless of calving season • Switched from continuous to controlled calving with only a $1/cwt calf price premium for larger, more uniform lots with controlled calving (Table 2) • Switched from continuous to controlled calving with only a 1% decline in calving rate for continuous (results not shown) • With expected calf price premiums of $3/cwt, controlled calving remains the optimal choice over a range of conditions • Sod-seeding pasture had a large positive impact on returns (Table 3) • More even seasonal labor distribution (Table 1), failure to calculate calving rate, lack of awareness of potential calf price premiums, and small differences in farm income relative to off-farm income may be why more producers do not control calving • INTRODUCTION Why, despite expert recommendations to control breeding seasons in cow/calf operations, do roughly half of small-scale producers leave herd sires with cows year-round? • cash flow – can sell a calf when cash flow is required • income averaging – guaranteed not to sell entire calf crop at potentially lowest seasonal price • ease – do not have to maintain separate facilities for herd sires • forages – cows naturally select calving interval depending on forage availability • flexibility – do not have to wait for next breeding season for open cows Controlled breeding season on the other hand offers: • nutrition – ability to match feed to nutrition requirements by stage of lactation • culling – improved monitoring of reproductive performance enhances herd genetics over time • prices – sale of uniform, larger batch of calves leads to premiums Decision to convert to controlled breeding season takes 4 – 5 years Table 3.Profit Maximizing Solutions for Alternative Acreages with 85% Calving Rate, 25% Higher Labor Requirement than Base Case Scenario and $3/cwt Premium for Calves with Controlled Calving Season. Continuous Calving: Are Economic Incentives Large Enough to Eliminate the Traditional Practice? by D. Doye and M. Popp Figure 2. Crude Protein (CP) and Total Digestible Nutrient (TDN) Requirements per Cow based on Seasonal Calving Distribution as Affected by Calving Season Management. Table 1. Base Case Scenario Summary Statistics for Key Variables by Month and Calving Season Management.