Beef and Cattle Trade Responds to Cattle Market Conditions 

Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

 

Cattle and beef markets are undergoing a sharp transition in 2023 with ever-tighter cattle numbers, declining beef production and sharply higher cattle and beef prices. These market conditions are expected to impact international trade of U.S. cattle and beef. Reduced beef supplies and higher prices are projected to lead to reduced beef exports and increased beef imports. The strength of the U.S. dollar and the impacts of exchange rates may further exaggerate or mute these underlying market forces. The relatively strong dollar in recent months has tended to dampen beef exports and support increased imports. Unique market factors in specific countries will also impact trade flows in particular markets. The most recent trade data confirms that the expected impacts are indeed developing. 

 

Beef exports in the latest data for May are down 19.9 percent year over year. Total beef exports for the year to date are down 11.4 percent compared to the record pace in 2022. Beef exports began to weaken in late 2022 and have been down year over year each month for the past seven months. Beef exports to Japan were down 36.4 percent year over year in May and are down 13.9 percent for the January to May period compared to last year. Exports to South Korea were down 14.0 percent in May contributing to an 11.3 percent decrease year over year thus far in 2023. For the year to date, South Korea is the largest market for beef exports, ahead of Japan so far this year. China/Hong Kong remains the number three beef export market but is down 9.3 percent for the January to May period following an 11.1 percent year over year decrease in May. 

 

Mexico remains the number four beef export market and is the only major market that is higher, up 10.3 percent year over year for the year to date but was down 5.4 percent in May compared to one year ago. Beef exports to the number five market in Canada were up 22.7 percent in May, holding the year-to-date total to a 3.3 percent decrease compared to last year. Taiwan is the number six beef export market and was up 7.8 percent year over year in May but remains down 16.1 percent for the first five months of the year compared to one year ago. 

 

Total beef imports were up 5.7 percent year over year in May. For the year thus far, beef imports are down a scant 0.6 percent compared to the first five months of last year. Beef imports appear to be reverting to more traditional import patterns with May imports of beef from Australia up 39.1 percent and imports from New Zealand up 23.2 percent for the month. For the January to May period, beef imports from Australia are up 23.9 percent with New Zealand up 9.0 percent year over year. Australia is currently the fifth largest beef import source behind fourth place New Zealand. Canada remains the leading beef import source with May imports down 6.9 percent and a year-to-date total up 2.3 percent. Mexico is the number two beef import source with May imports down 4.1 percent and cumulative imports for the year down 11.9 percent. Brazil is the third largest source of beef imports with May imports down 9.2 percent and total imports down 11.5 percent thus far in 2023. Beef imports will continue to be supported by higher domestic beef prices and the reduction in U.S. processing beef supplies due to reduced cow slaughter. 

 

Cattle imports from Mexico are rebounding sharply from the 15 year low in 2022. Total cattle imports from Mexico for the year thus far were up 49.0 percent in May and are up 37.4 percent for the January to May period. Increased cattle imports from Mexico offsets a 16.5 percent year to date decrease in cattle imports from Canada leading to an 11.1 percent increase in total cattle imports thus far in 2023. Very dynamic U.S. market conditions will continue to impact beef and cattle trade flows for the foreseeable future.  

 

 

Creep Grazing 

Mark Z. Johnson, Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Cattle Breeding Specialist 

 

This week we re-visit the potential benefits of creep grazing.  While creep feeding, based on grains, has been studied in the animal science field for many years and quite a lot of data is available, typically when the question of whether creep feeding is cost-effective practice comes up. The simple answer for commercial cow/calf operations is “not in most circumstances”. This is particularly true for spring calving operations. Calf weaning weights can be increased anywhere from about 20 to 80 pounds. However, in most cases, the value of added weight gain will not cover the added expenses of creep feeding. Even so, not all operations make this decision based on the economics. For example, seedstock producers may have entirely different objectives when it comes to creep feeding. Chief among those include marketing and expression of genetic potential for growth. 

 

Creep grazing, on the other hand, has potential to be a more cost effective solution.  Creep grazing programs can produce additional calf gains using forage rather than the traditional grain-based creep diets. There are many ways to adapt this system to each individual situation, but the bottom line is that it must be profitable.

 

Most forages can be used for successful creep grazing as long as they are high in nutrient quality and readily available. Time of year will affect which forage is used for creep grazing. During the warm season months, most producers will use legumes, pearl millet, or sorghum-sudan grass. During the cool season months, annual grasses like rye, oats, wheat or ryegrass will be used. Two different methods have been used to allow calves access to creep forage while keeping cows out. One method is to build a typical creep gate with entrance slots 18 inches wide and place the creep gate in the fence line or at the gate separating the creep grazing area from the main pasture. Another method is to use one strand of electric wire to allow calves to graze while keeping cows out. Placing this single strand of wire 36 to 42 inches above the ground will allow calves to pass under while keeping the cows out.

 

Similar to grain creep feeds, the added weight gain from creep grazing depends on pasture quality. Regardless of forage quality, if forage quantity is a problem, creep grazing should have a positive effect on calf performance. Daily gains tend to be less than the full fed energy creep systems. Daily gains are usually increased by 10 to 20 percent with creep grazing. However, improvements in daily gains of 0 to 50 percent have been reported. This underscores the effects that pasture quality and quantity exert on gains of creep-grazed calves.

 

Creep grazing has a few other indirect benefits. One is that calves do not get as fat as when they are fed a grain-based creep feed and may not receive price discounts often applied to calves fed an unlimited high energy creep feed. Replacement heifers may get too fat if fed a grain-based creep feed and have reduced milk production. This problem is less likely to occur when using forage as a creep feed. 

Most experiments that track cow weight change and calf milk intake show that calves consume all the milk available whether they are fed creep fed or not. Creep feeding simply does not change or improve cow weights or body condition.  Calves prefer milk first, palatable creep feed second, then forage.

 

Reference

Creep Feeding Beef Calves.  University of Georgia Extension Bulletin 1315. 

 

 

Are Worms Winning? 

Rosslyn Biggs, DVM, OSU State Extension Beef Veterinarian 

John Gilliam, DVM, OSU College of Veterinary Medicine 

 

It is impossible to know if resistant gastrointestinal parasites are present on an operation unless testing is performed. Although limitations exist, the Fecal Egg Count Reduction Test (FECRT) to assess the efficacy of parasite control programs is the only practical method of determining the presence of resistance in cattle nematodes at the farm level.  

 

Recent research by Drs. John Gilliam, Jared Taylor, and Ruth Scimeca of the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine has provided evidence that apparent resistance exists in Oklahoma cow-calf herds. In this small study, thirteen of 16 participating herds had evidence of apparent anthelmintic resistance. Herds were included from around the state and represented a variety of grazing types and anthelmintic products (dewormers). While the primary purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance in Oklahoma beef cow-calf herds, a secondary objective was to evaluate the use of composite, or pooled, fecal samples for the detection of anthelmintic resistance at the herd level. 

 

Pooling fecal samples simply means combining samples from a specified number of animals into a single test sample. Pooling, or composite sampling, potentially presents a more efficient way to test samples both from an economic standpoint for the producer and time inputs of both the operation and lab when compared to individual animal testing.   

 

The composite sampling portion of the OSU study included 14 groups of cattle and reported a high level of agreement and correlation between FECR percentage based on individual samples with FECR percentage based on composite samples. The classification of a population as susceptible or resistant was consistent for all 14 groups of cattle for both sampling methods.  

 

From the OSU study it appears as though FECR testing using composite samples may present a way to reduce cost and possibly increase adoption of FECR testing for assessing dewormer effectiveness in beef operations.  Only one study prior to the OSU survey had reported the results of the use of composite samples for FECR testing in cattle and that study reported positive results as well.  That said, composite sampling is a new technique and further research is needed to ensure its validity.  One important note is that individual animal samples are still submitted to the lab, and the lab, such as the Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory creates the composite samples.