Cow-Calf Corner | July 4, 2022
Cattle and Beef Markets 2022: The Second Half
Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist
The first half of 2022 is in the books. The general direction of cattle and beef market forecasts for this year has not changed but annual forecasts have been modified by the way the first half of the year has played out; with implications for a significantly different second half of the year. If the forecasts are to be realized, several factors will be significantly different in the third and fourth quarters compared to the first half of the year.
Beef production is projected to decrease year over year in 2022 from last year’s record level. The magnitude of that decrease has been trimmed back compared to earlier forecasts with current estimates for beef production to decrease roughly one percent in 2022. Beef production in the first half of 2022 is up about one percent, meaning that production in the second half of the year is projected to drop more sharply and is forecast to decrease nearly four percent year over year for the remainder of the year.
Lower beef production going forward implies that cattle slaughter will decrease as well. Cattle slaughter is currently forecast to decrease by 1.0 percent for the year. In the first half of the year, total cattle slaughter has been up by 1.4 percent year over year. The increase is due to more female slaughter with total cow plus heifer slaughter up 4.5 percent in the first half of the year. Thus far, increased female slaughter more than offsets the 1.6 percent year over year decrease in steer plus bull slaughter. Total cow slaughter is up 6.1 percent so far this year with decreased dairy cow slaughter, down 3.1 percent year over year so far, partially offsetting the 14.6 percent year over year increase in beef cow slaughter. For the remainder of the year, total beef cow slaughter is likely to remain higher year over year by double-digits and total cow slaughter is likely to increase by five to six percent year over year. This means that reduced cattle slaughter will be realized by less steer and heifer slaughter.
Reduced fed slaughter for the remainder of the year implies reduced feedlot marketing rates. Feedlots, as of June 1, had record inventories of cattle on feed which seems to be at odds with the idea of reduced marketings in the coming months. However, feedlots have been placing larger numbers of lightweight cattle which leads to more days on feed and slower turnover rates…in other words, slower marketing rates. Feedlots will work through current inventories in the second half of the year. May placements were down by the largest year over year monthly decrease since last September. Smaller placements in the coming months will lead to lower feedlot inventories by the end of the year unless drought forces even larger numbers of cattle into feedlots.
Exactly how continuing drought, reduced forage production and high feed prices will impact cattle and beef markets in the coming months remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the second half of 2022 is shaping up to look significantly different than the first half of the year.
Happy Independence Day!
Growth Promoting Technologies are More Important Now with High Input Costs
Paul Beck, Oklahoma State University State Extension Beef Nutrition Specialist
We have all noticed that input prices have increased substantially over the last year. Fertilizer, feed, and fuel have given us sticker shock, but in reality, prices for all necessities have increased with herbicides, seed, parts, tires, equipment and trailers all going up.
Based on current Feeder Cattle futures prices in October (currently trading at $180/cwt), 550-pound steers could be selling right at $200/cwt (based on a $10/cwt slide) this fall. Now is not the time to stop spending money on inputs, but we need to be ready to spend our money on inputs wisely.
Growth promoting technologies provide even more impact on net returns when costs are high. As I stated in a previous article, implants administered when the calves are between two months and four months of age will increase preweaning average daily gain of calves by approximately 0.10 to 0.2 pounds per day. This will result in 20 to 30 pounds heavier weaning weight, worth $40 to $50 per calf.
If an operation is currently using creep feeding to increase weaning weights. Alternatives should be considered this year. With typical free-choice creep feeding programs we expect creep intakes of 6 to 7 pounds per day. Free-choice creep feeding normally requires 8 to 10 pounds of creep for each additional pound of gain. Also, if these creep feeds are fed for more than 60 days, calves may be discounted for excessive fleshiness at market. Limit-fed creep feeding programs targeting creep intake of 1% of bodyweight should be considered. The limited creep supplements should be designed to match forage conditions, we use a moderate protein supplement (20 to 25%) when calves are on bermudagrass pastures with adequate protein but energy deficiencies. On native pastures with inadequate protein and energy we use a high protein supplement (35 to 40%) to match the forage deficiencies. The supplements contain 8 to 10% salt to help limit intake and the targeted amounts can be fed in creep feeders 2 to 3 times per week.
Limited creep supplements will increase gains by around 0.5 pounds per day requiring 4.5 to 5 pounds of supplemental creep per pound of added gain. Including an ionophore, such as monensin or lasalocid, in creep supplements will improve gains by 0.1 pounds per day on top of the creep feed, further improving supplemental efficiency to 3.5 to 4 pounds of supplemental creep per pound of added weaning weight. Providing a limit-fed creep supplement during the late summer with an ionophore will result in 50-to-60-pound heavier calf at weaning worth $100 to $120 more per calf. Depending on the cost of the creep supplement this should boost net returns by $50 to $60 per calf (I used $500 per ton of supplement in this example).
Now is not the time to completely pull back from spending money on inputs for our cowherd, but we do need to carefully consider the costs and impact on net returns for all management decisions.
Dr. David Lalman discusses the safety of implanting cattle on a classic episode of SunUp TV.
Alpha-gal syndrome known as “Red Meat Allergy” from Lone Star Tick bites
Justin Talley PhD; Dept. Head OSU Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
Tick activity in Oklahoma has been increasing in recent months. One tick that is gaining more press is the Lone Star tick, Amblyomma americanum, (Fig. 1) due to the condition that can result in some individuals having an allergic reaction to the consumption of red meat. This condition is known as Alpha gal syndrome or more commonly known as “Red Meat Allergy” caused by tick bites. Alpha-gal is a sugar compound that is present in the tick’s saliva and when feeding on a person they transmit this compound into the bite site. When this occurs then in some people this will trigger an allergic reaction to red meat including beef, pork, or lamb.
The severity of the reaction will vary among different people with some having a delayed reaction up to 4-6 hours after the consumption of meat. Common symptoms seen in individuals having a reaction to red meat are scaly skin, swelling of body parts including the lips, tongue and throat, shortness of breath, headaches, digestive issues, runny nose, and sneezing. Most medical professionals believe this allergic reaction is severely under-reported due to the delay in the allergic reaction. Individuals should seek medical advice from an allergist if you experience or suspect to be encountering an allergic reaction especially if you know you have had tik bites in the past. More severe reactions that cause anaphylaxis (restriction of breathing), full body redness (flushing), rapid or weak pulse, dizziness, and an inability to swallow should seek medical attention immediately.
Specifically, when a Lone Star Tick feeds on animals such as beef, they pick up the alpha-gal molecules then transmit those to a human when feeding. All animals that represent red meat has various levels of alpha-gal molecules present in the tissue. Every individual person is different in immune response and little is understood to factors that increase the risk of this reaction. One pattern especially for ranchers, is that individuals that are exposed to many tick bites from the Lone Star Ticks over time then can develop severe symptoms. These severe reactions can lead to never being able to consume any red meat due to how the immune response functions in relation to activating when alpha-gal molecules are introduced in the body.
There is evidence that other tick species are involved but in Oklahoma the most common tick feeding on cattle and humans during the summer is the Lone Star Tick. There are methods from developing red meat allergies and the main thing to lower the risk is to prevent ticks from attaching or not attaching for a long period. The following precautions should be taken by those outdoors:
- Use repellents when outdoors especially in known tick areas
- Wear light colored clothing in order to see ticks crawling on you
- Cover up with long sleeves or pants when in a heavily infested tick area
- Conduct a tick check immediately after coming in from the outdoors
- Take a shower as you as you come indoors mainly due to ticks will crawl over the skin sometimes for hours before attaching
- If a tick is found, then remove it with tweezers
The concerning issue is that there is no predictability on who will actually develop an allergic reaction to red meat after a bite from the Lone Star Tick. There is increasing evidence that more people are being diagnosed with this allergy. From the perspective of livestock producers, you not only have to protect yourself but try to limit the amount of Lone Star Ticks feeding on their animals to limit those ticks from transferring the alpha-gal compound. This is very challenging since tick populations are associated with the pasture environment not necessarily what you put on the animals to treat for ticks. Pastures that have a combination of tall grass, open grass areas neighboring wooded areas, and high wildlife activity are more prone to have higher tick populations. Burning pastures can limit tick populations for a period but then after normal forage and wildlife / livestock activity resumes then the tick populations will increase with some pastures supporting very high tick populations. Another issue for the Great Plains region is that pastures with high densities of Eastern Red Cedar trees support high Lone Star Tick populations. Ideally, livestock producers need to try to limit cedar growth in their pastures and implement some type of burning program to prevent large populations of ticks. If burning is not an option, then limit access to pastures with historic tick problems. Also, remember tick populations are difficult to measure because most tick infestations are not detecting until those animals are being looked at in a chute.
Overall, livestock producers can play a role in limiting tick populations that are feeding on their animals by identifying pastures with known tick problems then taking the appropriate steps to provide some level of protection for those animals with insecticides or dewormers. If livestock producers can limit the amount of ticks feeding on their animals then it could potentially limit the number of ticks transmitting the alpha-gal molecules to human populations.
Figure 1: Lone Star Tick, (female left & male right).