"It doesn't matter if you say you can, or you say you can't, you're right."
Many years ago I read the above quote, and it stuck with me. I don't remember who the quote is attributed to, but the simple wisdom of it has stuck with me through the decades.This self fulfilling prophecy really applies when you are considering different management techniques.
In drought conditions like much of the southwest is currently under, ranchers are culling herds deep to save grass. When you mention following an intensive, rotational grazing program the first thing out of their mouth is usually "I can't." This is of course followed by a myriad or "reasons" as to why it will not work on their ranch. The "reasons" range from water systems to how rough their ranch is, or how much brush, to their kind of cattle.
This brings me to my own saying. The only difference between a really good reason, and a poor excuse, is if you are listening to, or telling it. The "reasons" you give after spouting off the phrase "I can't" are only the excuses you give for not trying methods which may keep you from reducing your herd in a drought. When the first reaction is "I can't" you are not thinking of the positive possibilities, but the things which will only hold you back.
Conversely, a person who says or thinks "I can" when approached with a new method to improve their situation will find a way to get it done. Again, this is a self fulfilling prophecy. When you say "I can" you are going to learn all you can about the new method so you can implement it for your situation.
The most efficient and effective way to manage your grazing at anytime is by herding your cattle through a holistic, intensive rotational program. You may need to make some changes in your water system, but for the most part the changes are rather simple, and relatively inexpensive for the benefits received. It will allow you to utilize grass more effectively, and in many cases allow you to graze areas of your ranch that usually aren't grazed at all. When the rains do come, this method will promote faster growth of grass, especially in tsabosa flats where the grass has become gray and matted.
Training your cattle to graze as a tight knit herd is simple. It is all a matter of whether you say "I can" or "I can't." If you want to keep your cow numbers up in this combination of drought and high prices, it may benefit you to adopt the "I can" philosophy!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Grass fed vs Grain Fed
There is a lot of debate on grass fed vs grain fed beef. It has dawned on me, that while everyone is posting their "facts" on the issue, that some very important information is being ignored. That information happens to be the yield grades being compared and the genetics which results in them.
When comparing the health differences, are researchers are comparing A yield grade 1 or yield grade 4 against the grass fed beef? In comparing the time to finish, are they comparing a grass fed steer which would finish on grain at a grade 4 against a grain fed steer which is finishing at a grade 1?
A yield grade 1will have marbling, but much less extra fat than a yield grade 4 making the yield grade 1 a healthier product. Cattle finishing at a yield grade 4 generally have genetics which take longer to get marbling. This means that the "facts" in the debate can be misconstrued by researchers stacking the data by comparing against different genetic types.
You want to stack the data to show how much healthier grass fed beef is over grain fed? Compare and Angus grass finished carcass against a large , fatty, yield grade 4 carcass. Want to stack the data showing how more efficient feeding grain is? Compare times to finish that animal producing the yield grade 4 carcass against the Angus steer finished on grain.
When gaining information between feeding methods, unless the genetics are taken into consideration, the results will not be accurate. Either side of the grass fed vs grain fed debate can use genetic differences in stacking the data in their favor. Until such time as there is a study comparing cattle with the same genetic tendencies towards marbling and body fat, neither side of the debate can give an accurate report to the consumer about efficiency or health.
When comparing the health differences, are researchers are comparing A yield grade 1 or yield grade 4 against the grass fed beef? In comparing the time to finish, are they comparing a grass fed steer which would finish on grain at a grade 4 against a grain fed steer which is finishing at a grade 1?
A yield grade 1will have marbling, but much less extra fat than a yield grade 4 making the yield grade 1 a healthier product. Cattle finishing at a yield grade 4 generally have genetics which take longer to get marbling. This means that the "facts" in the debate can be misconstrued by researchers stacking the data by comparing against different genetic types.
You want to stack the data to show how much healthier grass fed beef is over grain fed? Compare and Angus grass finished carcass against a large , fatty, yield grade 4 carcass. Want to stack the data showing how more efficient feeding grain is? Compare times to finish that animal producing the yield grade 4 carcass against the Angus steer finished on grain.
When gaining information between feeding methods, unless the genetics are taken into consideration, the results will not be accurate. Either side of the grass fed vs grain fed debate can use genetic differences in stacking the data in their favor. Until such time as there is a study comparing cattle with the same genetic tendencies towards marbling and body fat, neither side of the debate can give an accurate report to the consumer about efficiency or health.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Reducing Input Expenses
In my last two posts, I discussed how much money you can be throwing away through poor cattle handling procedures and the true worth of your cattle after inflation is taken into consideration. While changing your cattle handling methods is an easy fix, trying to cut other inputs can seem to be insurmountable. However it can be easier than you can imagine.
If you have more than one full time employee for every thousand head of cows, or two thousand head of yearlings, you are over staffed. If you practice reduced stress cattle handling methods, and get through your cattle once or twice a week, the only time you should need extra help is when you are branding, weaning, shipping, or preconditioning.
Nearly everyone spends more time in their pickup or on four wheelers than they do a horse. In many cases (especially if your ranch is in rough country) you really can't go any faster in a pickup than you can on a horse. Even if your roads are in good enough shape to go faster, why burn the fuel and tear up an expensive truck or ATV? I recently talked with one rancher who runs 1,500 pairs, plus a few hundred yearling heifers. He is running three employees and burns up over 1,000 gallons of gas and diesel each month in three pickups checking waterlines. That is an expense of nearly $4,000 in fuel before you figure in wear and tear on the trucks, flat tires and an extra full time employee.
I have run 2,200 yearlings plus an additional 150 pairs on 50,000 acres with no help and burned less than 45 gallons of fuel a month (with the exception of running to town for mineral or other supplies every other month.) The amount of fuel NOT burned amounts to 820 gallons a month. At $3.40 gas this amounts a reduction in input amounts of over $30,000 a year in fuel expenses alone.
Your wheels are turning, and you are thinking of all of the longer hours you will be putting in without your pickup or ATV. When running the above ranch, I ran the waterlines on a motorcycle Saturday morning and was off the ranch by noon. I would do a quick run on Monday morning just to make sure there were no new leaks. During the week, I was seldom home later than 5 or 5:30.
If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment or email me.
Labor
If you have more than one full time employee for every thousand head of cows, or two thousand head of yearlings, you are over staffed. If you practice reduced stress cattle handling methods, and get through your cattle once or twice a week, the only time you should need extra help is when you are branding, weaning, shipping, or preconditioning.
Fuel Mechanical Maintenance
Nearly everyone spends more time in their pickup or on four wheelers than they do a horse. In many cases (especially if your ranch is in rough country) you really can't go any faster in a pickup than you can on a horse. Even if your roads are in good enough shape to go faster, why burn the fuel and tear up an expensive truck or ATV? I recently talked with one rancher who runs 1,500 pairs, plus a few hundred yearling heifers. He is running three employees and burns up over 1,000 gallons of gas and diesel each month in three pickups checking waterlines. That is an expense of nearly $4,000 in fuel before you figure in wear and tear on the trucks, flat tires and an extra full time employee.
I have run 2,200 yearlings plus an additional 150 pairs on 50,000 acres with no help and burned less than 45 gallons of fuel a month (with the exception of running to town for mineral or other supplies every other month.) The amount of fuel NOT burned amounts to 820 gallons a month. At $3.40 gas this amounts a reduction in input amounts of over $30,000 a year in fuel expenses alone.
Your wheels are turning, and you are thinking of all of the longer hours you will be putting in without your pickup or ATV. When running the above ranch, I ran the waterlines on a motorcycle Saturday morning and was off the ranch by noon. I would do a quick run on Monday morning just to make sure there were no new leaks. During the week, I was seldom home later than 5 or 5:30.
Additional Benefits
The first benefit is one you may not have thought of, your health and stress level. You, or your employee will remain healthier, both physically and emotionally, riding a horse than bouncing around in a pickup. Second, your cattle see you and will be calmer when you go to gather. This also means you see your cattle and know where they are, reducing or eliminating going back out to gather remnants at shipping time. If you plan your riding carefully, you will be checking your fences regularly and keep them in a better state of repair.Direct Cattle Management
As I have pointed out before, using reduced stress cattle handling methods can increase ADG's with no added input. If you are running pairs, time your calving season to coincide with green grass. If you are in an area of cold and snow, this can cut your feed bill by two-thirds. You can either sell your excess hay or adjust your herd size to make up for the difference. Once again, this goes with the principle of reducing inputs while increasing income. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment or email me.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Adjusting Today's Prices
Nearly everyone is happy about record high cattle prices. A lot of investors are looking at cattle as a "good investment" right now. However when you really look at input costs, you are receiving less for calves today than you were in the late 1970's
In 1979, I worked for a rancher who sold his calves for $125cwt. At the time, a new four wheel drive pickup was about $10,000 and a "high paid" cowboy made $500 a month and beef. Day work was expensive at $50 a day. Hay was roughly $45 a ton and gas was well under $2 per gallon.
Today's calves are bringing roughly $58 per cwt more, less than a 50% increase. Many cowboys are now starting out at $1,500 a month, or three times higher. Day labor has doubled at $100 a day. That four wheel drive pickup now costs $40,000, or four times as much. Hay costs over a $100 a ton (more than double) and gas is getting close to $4 a gallon and in many places, diesel is already over $4 a gallon (again, doubled). This does not take into account not only higher land prices, but higher property taxes as well. This means, after figuring input costs, your cattle are actually worth less than they were in 1979. If cattle were even keeping up with labor costs, today's calves should be bringing $3.75 cwt.
I can think of a number of things that 90% of cattle operations today could do to lower input costs. Most of these ranches could do to increase stocking capacity and the total pounds of cattle shipped from their ranch while lowering input costs. What are you doing to increase the efficiency of your cattle operation without increasing your input costs?
In 1979, I worked for a rancher who sold his calves for $125cwt. At the time, a new four wheel drive pickup was about $10,000 and a "high paid" cowboy made $500 a month and beef. Day work was expensive at $50 a day. Hay was roughly $45 a ton and gas was well under $2 per gallon.
Today's calves are bringing roughly $58 per cwt more, less than a 50% increase. Many cowboys are now starting out at $1,500 a month, or three times higher. Day labor has doubled at $100 a day. That four wheel drive pickup now costs $40,000, or four times as much. Hay costs over a $100 a ton (more than double) and gas is getting close to $4 a gallon and in many places, diesel is already over $4 a gallon (again, doubled). This does not take into account not only higher land prices, but higher property taxes as well. This means, after figuring input costs, your cattle are actually worth less than they were in 1979. If cattle were even keeping up with labor costs, today's calves should be bringing $3.75 cwt.
I can think of a number of things that 90% of cattle operations today could do to lower input costs. Most of these ranches could do to increase stocking capacity and the total pounds of cattle shipped from their ranch while lowering input costs. What are you doing to increase the efficiency of your cattle operation without increasing your input costs?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Can You Afford To Burn Money?
I know of very few people who can afford to burn hundred dollar bills ten at a time, but many ranches tend to do just that every time they work cattle. This seems to be especially true on desert ranches where time is spent, not in the cattle, but constantly checking waterlines.
This past week I day worked on a local ranch which I've worked on before. Cattle are scattered out in groups of a hundred to two hundred per pasture, with the average pasture size around two thousand acres. If the cattle were ridden through even once a week, and handled with reduced stress methods one person could gather the cattle into the pens with no help, and a crew of four or five could get done with the sorting, branding, vaccinating and castrating fairly easily.
As these cattle only see people horseback when they are going to the pens to get worked, they are not only trotty, they have no intention of going into the pens. Since it is a known "fact" that the cattle are going to be hard to handle the crew grows to nine people, or an extra four or five hundred dollars a day.
Finding cowboys to work for day wages is hard. Finding cowboys that work for day wages who also work cattle in a reduced stress manner is next to impossible. As a result, when the cattle start getting leery of the pens, rather than back off and keep them quiet, the charge is on to get them into the pens as fast as possible. The pressured cattle wind up running off and in the ensuing stampede, calves have more stress related shrink, which winds up in higher than necessary morbidity and mortality rates. It also results in having to go back out to the pasture and roping calves that got away. At today's cattle prices this is costing in the neighborhood of thirty dollars per calf, or burning thirty one hundred dollar bills for every hundred calves you wean.
This week the ranch I worked on, between having to hire extra help, and their methods basically burned two hundred and five, one hundred dollar bills. If this isn't burning enough money, the cattle we worked this week is only one third of their herd, so between weaning the three groups, they are burning six hundred and fifteen of those one hundred dollar bills a year on weaning alone. Add a third that much shrink loss during branding and you are looking at over eighty thousand dollars a year going up in smoke.
Even including all related expenses, paying a cowboy thirty thousand dollars a year would save this ranch a minimum of forty thousand dollars a year. However the mentality seems to be that if a person is horseback in the cattle they are not "getting anything accomplished."
If you are tired of burning hundred dollar bills, and would like to learn more about reduced stress cattle handling, click here.
This past week I day worked on a local ranch which I've worked on before. Cattle are scattered out in groups of a hundred to two hundred per pasture, with the average pasture size around two thousand acres. If the cattle were ridden through even once a week, and handled with reduced stress methods one person could gather the cattle into the pens with no help, and a crew of four or five could get done with the sorting, branding, vaccinating and castrating fairly easily.
As these cattle only see people horseback when they are going to the pens to get worked, they are not only trotty, they have no intention of going into the pens. Since it is a known "fact" that the cattle are going to be hard to handle the crew grows to nine people, or an extra four or five hundred dollars a day.
Finding cowboys to work for day wages is hard. Finding cowboys that work for day wages who also work cattle in a reduced stress manner is next to impossible. As a result, when the cattle start getting leery of the pens, rather than back off and keep them quiet, the charge is on to get them into the pens as fast as possible. The pressured cattle wind up running off and in the ensuing stampede, calves have more stress related shrink, which winds up in higher than necessary morbidity and mortality rates. It also results in having to go back out to the pasture and roping calves that got away. At today's cattle prices this is costing in the neighborhood of thirty dollars per calf, or burning thirty one hundred dollar bills for every hundred calves you wean.
This week the ranch I worked on, between having to hire extra help, and their methods basically burned two hundred and five, one hundred dollar bills. If this isn't burning enough money, the cattle we worked this week is only one third of their herd, so between weaning the three groups, they are burning six hundred and fifteen of those one hundred dollar bills a year on weaning alone. Add a third that much shrink loss during branding and you are looking at over eighty thousand dollars a year going up in smoke.
Even including all related expenses, paying a cowboy thirty thousand dollars a year would save this ranch a minimum of forty thousand dollars a year. However the mentality seems to be that if a person is horseback in the cattle they are not "getting anything accomplished."
If you are tired of burning hundred dollar bills, and would like to learn more about reduced stress cattle handling, click here.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Results of Viral Ag Experiment
As some of you will remember I wanted to try trending @4H through the ag related cowboy gathering Texas Crossroads. This experiment to see if we could consciously trend an agriculture related event on twitter, but if it was possible for the different factions of agriculture to band together and have a louder voice.
We may be able to blame part of it on the weather and the rolling blackouts around much of the country, but only a small part of it. How can we explain that out of nearly 200 tweets, this experiment received only 20 RT's and of those 20, only five of them came from the several hundred that knew about this experiment ahead of time. Of the five, three of them were from a high school student who is interested in agriculture. The remaining RT's I made myself from my other Twitter account.
As I have mentioned before, we are a minuscule part of the population. Compared to the people and organizations dispensing negative and often false information about agriculture we are like a whisper in the wind. We cannot afford to be fragmented and expect to reach the general consumer in enough numbers to really make an impact.
If we don't find a way to band together and get our voices heard, the Agricultural industry in this country will go the same way as the steel mills, textile mills, and auto factories. A big step in this direction is already being taken with the USFS proposal to sell off all of its 193,000,000 acres and yet barely a whisper from people in agriculture.
We may be able to blame part of it on the weather and the rolling blackouts around much of the country, but only a small part of it. How can we explain that out of nearly 200 tweets, this experiment received only 20 RT's and of those 20, only five of them came from the several hundred that knew about this experiment ahead of time. Of the five, three of them were from a high school student who is interested in agriculture. The remaining RT's I made myself from my other Twitter account.
As I have mentioned before, we are a minuscule part of the population. Compared to the people and organizations dispensing negative and often false information about agriculture we are like a whisper in the wind. We cannot afford to be fragmented and expect to reach the general consumer in enough numbers to really make an impact.
If we don't find a way to band together and get our voices heard, the Agricultural industry in this country will go the same way as the steel mills, textile mills, and auto factories. A big step in this direction is already being taken with the USFS proposal to sell off all of its 193,000,000 acres and yet barely a whisper from people in agriculture.
Friday, February 11, 2011
US Forest Service to Sell off 193 Million Acres
The National Forest Service has announced plans to sell off its 193,000,000 acres of federally owned land. Government attorneys have argued that precedence for federal ownership of land has been set, showing the federal government has the authority over these lands. We can show that the precedence used to prove the legality of federally owned lands was flawed by asking one simple question:
Why did the federal government adhere to the stipulations of Article 17 under the Powers of Congress in all statehood expansion east of the Mississippi River?
For those of you not familiar with this section of the Constitution, it says:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The precedence set of allowing territories to become states and NOT withholding large tracts of land east of the Mississippi River would indicate that the federal government is NOT allowed to hold interest of large tracts of land within a state.
The fight needs to be taken to the federal government on a three pronged attack. First disprove that the precedences used to support the government's claims that federally owned lands are legal. Secondly it needs to be pointed out to the Supreme Court in (historical terms, not legal) that the founders of our country, and the drafters of the Constitution were trying to create a government which would not own large portions of the country. The third prong of attack is using someone who is versed in the English language at the time the Constitution was written to describe what the article means in today's language.
By approaching the matter in this way we can prove that the government was acting beyond its authority when it withheld lands from the territories when granting statehood. That precedence used showing the federal government has the authority to control multi-use or recreational lands was false. It will also show that the intent of Article 17 in the Powers of Congress section was purposely written to prevent federal ownership of land.
In actuality, this proposed sale could prove to be an opportunity. The attorney generals of every state having USFS or BLM controlled land should be banding together on this fight. These states should be suing to have all land held by the federal government, falling outside of Article 17, returned to possession of the states. This would allow states to receive the income now going to the federal government for grazing, mining,logging and National Parks.
If you would like to read exactly what the powers of Congress are, click here!
Why did the federal government adhere to the stipulations of Article 17 under the Powers of Congress in all statehood expansion east of the Mississippi River?
For those of you not familiar with this section of the Constitution, it says:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
The precedence set of allowing territories to become states and NOT withholding large tracts of land east of the Mississippi River would indicate that the federal government is NOT allowed to hold interest of large tracts of land within a state.
The fight needs to be taken to the federal government on a three pronged attack. First disprove that the precedences used to support the government's claims that federally owned lands are legal. Secondly it needs to be pointed out to the Supreme Court in (historical terms, not legal) that the founders of our country, and the drafters of the Constitution were trying to create a government which would not own large portions of the country. The third prong of attack is using someone who is versed in the English language at the time the Constitution was written to describe what the article means in today's language.
By approaching the matter in this way we can prove that the government was acting beyond its authority when it withheld lands from the territories when granting statehood. That precedence used showing the federal government has the authority to control multi-use or recreational lands was false. It will also show that the intent of Article 17 in the Powers of Congress section was purposely written to prevent federal ownership of land.
In actuality, this proposed sale could prove to be an opportunity. The attorney generals of every state having USFS or BLM controlled land should be banding together on this fight. These states should be suing to have all land held by the federal government, falling outside of Article 17, returned to possession of the states. This would allow states to receive the income now going to the federal government for grazing, mining,logging and National Parks.
If you would like to read exactly what the powers of Congress are, click here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)