Pasture-based Beef Finishing:
First Year summary
Fred Martz, Jim Gerrish, Kevin Moore, Val Tate
Introduction
We are making good progress toward completing our first
year of a two-year study evaluating finishing cattle on
pasture. There is a great deal of discussion about problems
in the cattle industry: low prices (profitability), fear of
drug residues (quality assurance), problems with waste
disposal (environmental), and concern over excess fat (health
issues). If we can successfully produce finished cattle on
pasture, we will have an impact on reducing most, if not all
of these problems. The key question is whether or not
consumer acceptable beef can be produced on pasture, with or
without grain supplementation.
This research is partially funded by grants from two
government agencies, the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education program (SARE) and the EPA Agriculture in
Concert with the Environment program (ACE). The EPA interest
in this project is from the standpoint of reducing point-source
pollution potential associated with conventional
feedlot finishing of cattle.
Materials and Methods
This study used 128 home raised steers that were either
Hereford X Gelbvieh (HG), HG X Angus, or > 3/4 Angus. Spring
born calves were weaned October 20, grazed fescue stockpile
until January 1 (70 days), then wintered on large bales of
mixed grass-legume hay and 5 lb daily of a grain mix (1/3 corn
gluten feed and 2/3 cracked corn) until turn-out on April 20
(110 days). Steers gained 1.03 lb daily during winter and
went to pasture weighing 735 lb.
Pasture treatments were grain feeding levels to equal 0,
25, 50, and 75 % of the steer's nutrient needs with the
remaining nutrients coming from pasture. A fifth treatment
consisted of steers assigned to a conventional feedlot
finishing program. Each treatment had two replications. The
number of steers per pasture replication was 8, 10, 12, 14
with approximately 8 acres per replication. The number of
steers used per treatment was varied because as grain
supplement increased, pasture consumed would decrease; hence,
a higher stocking rate was necessary to utilize the available
pasture on the higher grain feeding treatments. The base
stocking rate in the zero grain system was consistent with
previous experience on similar pastures at the Forage Systems
Research Center.
Pastures were mixed cool season grass-legume species with
about 20 % legume in most pastures. Some pastures were
predominantly tall fescue with an endophyte infection level
>90%. Steers were moved to new pasture every 1 to 3 days
depending on the season and need of the system. Each pasture
treatment group was assigned to a grazing cell with 6
permanent paddocks. Steers were allocated about 1/3 of a
paddock each day during Phase I and 1/6 paddock during Phase
II. Steers were allowed to back graze for up to 6 days for
water access. Nutrient content of pasture and the amount of
pasture consumed were measured but have not been fully
summarized at this time.
Results and Discussion
Steers from the feedlot treatment were harvested
September 29, 1995 and cattle from the pasture treatments were
harvested November 4, 1995. The target finish goal for all
cattle was .3 to .4 inches of backfat, but the pasture based
cattle were out of pasture so they were harvested before they
reached target. The major reason for slaughter directly off
pasture was to be able to clearly evaluate the flavor of the
resulting meat. Meat flavor and fat color are the most
frequent criticisms of pasture finished beef. The hypothesis
for this study is that feeding grain supplement on pasture
will dilute out any off- flavor due to the pasture and the
resulting meat will be comparable to grain finished beef.
After we were awarded the SARE-ACE grant, we were given
additional funds from the Missouri Agricultural. Experiment.
Station to perform taste tests on meat samples from the cattle
carcasses produced. Therefore, we wanted to harvest cattle
directly off pasture and chose not to use a fall stockpiled
pasture or a short feedlot finishing period to reach our
target finish. In another 3-year project we finished steers
which had been forward grazed on a comparable pasture system
with no grain feeding. Those steers entered the feedlot
weighing 792 lb, gained 4.13 ADG, were fed 115 d and finished
at 1233 lb. Quality grades were 8 % standard, 32% select, 43%
choice and 17% prime. We are confident we can finish steers
off pasture with a relatively short feeding period.
The summer pasture season was divided into two phases
because the gains were not as good as expected early in the
grazing period ( Table 1 ). During spring and early summer
there was only .25 lb ADG difference between treatment 0 and
75 % grain supplementation. We would expect a difference of
about 1 lb ADG or more. Therefore, we changed some management
practices being used: 1) The grain supplement was
reformulated from all cracked corn to a mixture of 70 %
cracked corn and 30 % corn gluten feed which added fiber to
the ration to prevent acidosis and promote appetite. 2) The
steers were given a fresh paddock of pasture daily to enhance
pasture intake. These changes seemed to be successful because
the steers appeared to have improved appetites in phase II and
the ADG's were improved ( Table 1 ).
Values for total grain intake, finished live weight and
feed conversion are presented in Table 1. The 0 grain group
averaged about 130 lb lighter than the feedlot group and thus
were not as finished. The feedlot group averaged .32 inches
of backfat, which was in our target range. The feed
conversion ranged from 10 to 13 lb per lb of gain. Usually
feedlot feed conversions will range from 8 to 10. Our low
feed conversions resulted from lower than expected ADG's which
were possibly due to very hot weather and the lower energy
density of the pasture ration.
Dressing % and carcass quality measures are presented in
Table 2. As carcass increased in weight, the dressing %
increased. It is well known that more finished cattle have
higher dressing percentages than lean cattle. In general,
all conventional carcass quality measures increased as grain
level increased. Slightly over 50% of the carcasses in the
feedlot group graded choice, whereas all but 2 carcasses in
each replication in the 0 grain group graded standard. In the
market, these carcasses were discounted severely so that their
value was $220 less than the feedlot steers (Table 4). With
as little as 45 days (3.3 lb ADG, 150 lb total gain) in the
feedlot these cattle would have probably graded similar to the
feedlot group and the carcass value would have also been
similar.
Fat color was also evaluated by giving each carcass a
subjective visual score as it hung in the cooler. Pasture
finished cattle are thought to have yellow, undesirable fat.
The fat of the pastured cattle from this study had fat color
comparable to feedlot cattle ( Table 2 ).
We have retained some cuts of meat from the carcasses for
formal taste evaluation which will be conducted early in 1996.
We have some other cuts which we have had a total of 32 people
taste (Table 3). These cuts were not cooked in any special
way. Most people agreed that all meats were acceptable and
the data collected indicate that the meats from pastured
cattle could not be detected from feedlot cattle or cattle fed
75% grain on pasture (Table 3).
Several economic cost and return analysis calculations
have been made comparing these finishing methods (Tables 4 and
5). Feeding grain increased the cost of gain in all cases.
One of our goals is to finish cattle with the use of less than
3000 lb of grain. Steers on treatment 50% were within 100 lbs
liveweight of the feedlot group and received only 1852 lbs
grain for the total finishing period ( Table 1 ) plus 550 lb
during the wintering period for a grand total of 2400 lbs.
They would have had to stay on feed for only 45 days on a
similar treatment (2.3 ADG, 100 lb total gain) to have reached
a similar liveweight as the feedlot cattle.
Before you get depressed about all the minus numbers (
losses) in Tables 4 & 5, remember these are estimates of
economic profits and losses which attempt to account for all
costs including labor, land use, interest, feed, shrink,
transport, etc. We use this measure because many producers
probably have to cover these costs. There are others who may
want to look at things differently. Just remember that the
values shown here are returns to management.
All groups of cattle on the study lost money (scenario I,
Table 5) partly because of the low market prices at the time
of sale and partly because of the discounts due to a lack of
finish on some of the cattle. Also our facilities and methods
at FSRC are not always the most cost effective because of
research constraints. So a private producer could very likely
improve efficiency above our situations. The importance of
avoiding discounts can be seen by looking at the values in
scenarios I & III. Because most of the cattle on the 50 and
75% grain treatments were select grade in scenario I and all
the cattle in scenario III would be select or better, the
economic bottom line for the pasture groups equals or exceeds
the feedlot group in these cases.
The remaining scenarios in Table 5 are attempts to show
the sensitivity of several other factors to the profitability
of these kinds of systems. As we all know, prices are all
important in profitability. A comparison of scenario I & II
illustrates that using a 5-year average price decreased the
losses by about $100 per head. A 5-year average price in this
case was higher than the current year prices and also
represented a larger period of time. Scenario IV illustrates
that improved performance and taking all cattle to a more
acceptable finish grade will shave another $100 from the loss
column. The feedlots in the western plains are efficient and
set the standard of today. Scenario VI illustrates a small
improvement in returns with lower costs in yardage but this
improvement would not cover the transportation of cattle to
the high plains from Northern Missouri.
Marketing of pasture finished cattle will be extremely
important. It appears, and future results from FSRC may show,
that pasture finished cattle are leaner than feedlot finished
cattle. This difference may enable this beef to be marketed
in niche branded channels and may leave room for premium
prices. Pasture-finished beef which is marketed in
conventional channels today will have difficulty competing.
The alternative will be to use pasture in such a way as in
scenarios III, IV and VI to compete in the conventional meat
channel.
Conclusion
So what might this mean to a North Missouri cattle
producer on 300 to 350 acres of open pasture land with a 100-cow
beef herd? If a system could be used from Table 5 to
return $20 per head, the other values in this report contain
a return on the wintering phase of $60 per head and the
illustrations include $24 worth of labor per head. Add these
together for a return to labor and management of $104 per head
or a total of $10,000 annually. Other systems and
combinations may be even more profitable such as more stockers
and less cow units, or better performing finishing systems on
pasture. When its all said and done finishing cattle on
pasture in Missouri still looks promising
Table 1. Grain intake, ADG, and finished weight for steers
finished on pasture with different grain supplementation
levels.
Treat- Grain Intake Phase 1 Phase 2 Live Wt Total Feed
ment ------------ ADG ADG Grain Conversion1
Phase 1 Phase 2 (lb) (lb) (lb) Fed
---------------- (lb)
(lb/hd/d)
------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0.00 0.00 1.34 1.93 1066 0 13.1
25 3.75 7.00 1.27 1.86 1050 968 12.3
50 8.00 12.00 1.47 2.29 1097 1852 10.2
75 15.00 18.00 1.59 2.33 1109 3126 11.1
FL 33.85 29.60 2.73 2.70 1195 5253 11.4
1 Feed : Gain ratio, pasture intake has been measured but is
not summarized. This value assumes DM intake of 2.5% of body
weight. Pasture intake was assumed to be difference between grain
supplement consumed and total DM intake.
Table 2. Dressing percent, carcass quality measures, and fat
color for cattle finished on pasture supplemented with varying
grain levels.
Treat- Dress Marbling Quality Backfat Rib eye Yield Fat
ment (%) Score Score Thickness Area Grade Color
(in) (in2) Score
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0 55 3.70 1.29 0.07 10.30 1.86 1.40
25 57 3.77 1.60 0.11 10.00 1.94 1.60
50 58 4.05 1.86 0.12 11.10 1.95 1.80
75 58 4.20 2.49 0.19 11.20 2.24 1.70
FL 61 5.17 4.76 0.32 11.90 2.54 1.00
Table 3. Preliminary taste comparisons of meat from cattle
finished on pasture or with grain feeding.
# of
Treatment Quality Cut Seasoned persons doing Average
Grade taste test Ranking 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Test I
0 Grain Standard Sirloin No 11 1.45
75 % Grain Select Sirloin No 11 1.54
Test II
0 Grain Standard Prime Rib Yes 21 1.9
75 % Grain Select Prime Rib Yes 21 1.8
Feedlot Choice Prime Rib Yes 21 2.3
1 Ranking is from 1 = most preferred to 3 = least
preferred.
Table 4. Costs and returns for steers finished on pasture
with four levels of grain supplementation compared with steers
finished in a conventional feedlot.
Percent Cost of Ownership Total Total Total Value of Economic
Nutrient Animal1 Cost2 Feed Yardage Cost Animal5 Profit or
from Cost3 Costs4 Loss6
Grain ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0 543 24.81 85.19 15.40 678 470.00 -208
25 543 25.33 109.91 12.32 700 502.00 -198
50 543 25.88 136.02 10.27 725 545.00 -180
75 543 26.84 181.13 8.80 769 581.00 -188
Feedlot 543 23.92 233.70 52.53 862 691.00 -171
1 Price per cwt was $72, local price for weight & quality of
stockers.
2 Interest charged at 8 % for cost of animal, half the feed
cost for length of feeding period and value of equipment and
buildings amortized over 10 years also at 8 % interest.
3 Pasture was valued at 1.4 cents/lb DM which includes $40
annual cost of land, $22.50 annually for variable costs of
establishment amortized over 10 yrs, plus 20% markup for labor
charge for maintenance and moving cattle (12.50). Pasture
yield is 7000 lb DM annually with 75% harvest. 5250 lb DM
harvested divided by $75 cost = 1,4 cents / lb. Grain costs
are actual purchase prices winter & summer 1995. Feedlot
ration $88/ ton, Mineral $12/cwt with 3 oz intake / day,
pasture supplement corn & corn gluten feed $88 / ton.
4 Yardage for feedlot was $20 / ton of feed used to cover
grinding use of equipment-facilities and labor for feeding.
Pasture yardage was fencing ( $ 12/A/yr ) and water ($4/A/yr)
based on 60 acres (trailer loads of stockers) for a total cost
of $16/A/yr.
5 Value was carcass wt X price at time of sale, Choice $103,
Select $95, Standard $82 / cwt of cooled hanging carcass wt.
6 Economic profit/loss is calculated as total returns minus
costs for all factors of production , i.e. costs for land,
labor ( both hired and owner/operator) and capital have been
deducted from income.
Table 5. Economic profit or loss per head for finishing
steers on pasture supplemented with different levels of
grain. 1
Scenario Treatment - % grain in ration
------------------------------------------------
0 25 50 75 Feedlot
($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------
I 2 -208 -198 -180 -188 -171
II 3 -106 -107 -87 -67 -82
III 4 19 -18 -19 -64 -82
IV 5 38 7 17 -21 -82
V 6 10 -8 -1 -23 -82
VI 7 32 13 12 -4 -25
1 Many of the prices and costs used in these scenarios are
the same as those used in Table 4. Exceptions are indicated.
2 Actual performance, actual costs, and prices.
3 Same animal and pasture performance as Scenario I. Sale
prices are Cattle-Fax 5-year average. 1990 - 95 live weight
average cut-out Choice $73.50, Select $71, Standard
$57/cwt.
4 The carcasses from the grass based treatments were severely
discounted. Scenario III keeps the cattle on the pasture a
longer period until they reach weight and finish of
treatment 75% grain.
5 Scenario IV assumes the better performance observed in
phase II (Aug. to Nov. ). See Table 1.
6 Scenario V is similar to IV except that pastured cattle are
put on full feed for 60 days after pasture to gain 2.8 lb ADG
to reach same finish grades as feedlot. We are
confident of this assumption, we have done it several times.
7 Same as Scenario V but cost of gain is decreased to level
of Western feedlots.
|
