Largest Auction Barn in Eastern Half supports R-Calf

[Charlie1948]

The largest livestock auction barn in from the Mississippi River east has come out in big support for R-calf.
Blue Grass Stockyards moved over 1 million head of cattle last year and have come to the conclusion that R-calf has done more to help the cpw calf and feeder man that any one in the last 10 years.
NCBA can,t be the Packers friend,The Feedlots friend ,And the cow calf and feeders friend it just doesn,t work that way.The most money gets the most help which leaves us last.
They were around 275 to 300 farmer ranchers here leaving NCBA and have joined R-Calf in the last fue weeks.
And by the way Farm Bureau is going the same way down hill.
When you talk to your fellow producer and no one wanted the border open that was NCBA or Farm Bureau members and then they came out and said that our memberships wanted the border open thats the problem the are wanta be politicions and they play the game that way.The Hell with us do what is politically correct.
Every one have a Merry Xmas and Happy New Year

 

[HAY MAKER]

That's good news Charlie,I believe yall did the right thing,and thank you for your honesty..............good luck & merry Christmas to you & yours.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course the LMA is supporting R-CULT. That's where most of these packer conspiracies and NCBA conspiracies originated. The LMA didn't like it when NCBA's checkoff funded strategic alliances program showed that producers could make more money on better cattle buy retaining ownership on them than by selling them in the non value based markerting of the salebarn. I proved it to myself. We netted $75 more per head by retaining ownership on our calves that gained 3.4 pounds per day and converted 5.5 pounds of feed to a pound of gain as opposed to selling them in the barn. That doesn't include the $20 per head we saved on shrink, extra trucking, commission, and the hit we always took on unnecessary sorting.

If the LMA can get a handful of producers to believe they represent the producers as opposed to a producer driven organization, then those producers will follow their LMA pied pipers.

The liberal democratic supporting blamers will follow R-CULT and their conspiracy oriented, anti corporate, emotionally driven, factually void agenda.

Those conservative republican producers who search for the truth, will support the truth, the facts, and the free market system which operates best when free of excessive government regulations.

R-CALF is a joke!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Of course the LMA is supporting R-CULT. That's where most of these packer conspiracies and NCBA conspiracies originated. The LMA didn't like it when NCBA's checkoff funded strategic alliances program showed that producers could make more money on better cattle buy retaining ownership on them than by selling them in the non value based markerting of the salebarn. I proved it to myself. We netted $75 more per head by retaining ownership on our calves that gained 3.4 pounds per day and converted 5.5 pounds of feed to a pound of gain as opposed to selling them in the barn. That doesn't include the $20 per head we saved on shrink, extra trucking, commission, and the hit we always took on unnecessary sorting.

If the LMA can get a handful of producers to believe they represent the producers as opposed to a producer driven organization, then those producers will follow their LMA pied pipers.

The liberal democratic supporting blamers will follow R-CULT and their conspiracy oriented, anti corporate, emotionally driven, factually void agenda.

Those conservative republican producers who search for the truth, will support the truth, the facts, and the free market system which operates best when free of excessive government regulations.

R-CALF is a joke!


~SH~

SH, you chase $75 while others want their $175. I would take theirs over yours any day.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Of course the LMA is supporting R-CULT. That's where most of these packer conspiracies and NCBA conspiracies originated. The LMA didn't like it when NCBA's checkoff funded strategic alliances program showed that producers could make more money on better cattle buy retaining ownership on them than by selling them in the non value based markerting of the salebarn. I proved it to myself. We netted $75 more per head by retaining ownership on our calves that gained 3.4 pounds per day and converted 5.5 pounds of feed to a pound of gain as opposed to selling them in the barn. That doesn't include the $20 per head we saved on shrink, extra trucking, commission, and the hit we always took on unnecessary sorting. "

Sometimes retained ownership works, sometimes it doesn't. There is NO marketing strategy that is the thing to do all of the time.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Sometimes retained ownership works, sometimes it doesn't. There is NO marketing strategy that is the thing to do all of the time."

With cattle that have the capabilty of gaining 3.4 pounds and converting 5.5 pounds of feed to a pound of gain, if you manage your risk with futures and options, those cattle will make you money far more times than they will lose you money.

I don't need the salebarn to market those calves anyway if I decide to sell them, I can sell calves like that off the place any time I want if I have a load and use the DTN breakevens as my market. Anyone buying in the barns is using the same projections and they don't know what those calves are capable of gaining or converting so they play on the side of caution.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

Sandcheska: "Sometimes retained ownership works, sometimes it doesn't. There is NO marketing strategy that is the thing to do all of the time."

With cattle that have the capabilty of gaining 3.4 pounds and converting 5.5 pounds of feed to a pound of gain, if you manage your risk with futures and options, those cattle will make you money far more times than they will lose you money.

I don't need the salebarn to market those calves anyway if I decide to sell them, I can sell calves like that off the place any time I want if I have a load and use the DTN breakevens as my market. Anyone buying in the barns is using the same projections and they don't know what those calves are capable of gaining or converting so they play on the side of caution.


~SH~

It's pretty obvious you didn't run those numbers this year.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "It's pretty obvious you didn't run those numbers this year."

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM: "It's pretty obvious you didn't run those numbers this year."

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture.

Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking. We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

OCM: "It's pretty obvious you didn't run those numbers this year."

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture.

Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking. We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works.

So how do you market those 8 wts? Have you ever had a contract?

 

[ocm]

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture.

Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking. We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works.

So how do you market those 8 wts? Have you ever had a contract?

Private treaty, sale barn, video. Whatever. Unlike fats, there are many options.

 

[Bill]

OCM: "It's pretty obvious you didn't run those numbers this year."

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture.

Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking. We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works.

"Retained ownership" to 800 lbs. is nothing more than delayed selling.

Retained ownership in the cattle business is birth to harvest and might not work all the time but is where the most profit is usually made on good cattle.

 

[ocm]

This year would have been no different had we not dropped our numbers and sold them. We didn't have enough calves left to warrant feeding them out.

Had I retained ownership on our calves this year, I would have protected my price on the board.

I beat the salebarn price every single year I fed but only because our calf feds gained 3.4 and converted 5.5. This year would have been no different.


~SH~

So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture.

Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking. We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works.

"Retained ownership" to 800 lbs. is nothing more than delayed selling.

Retained ownership in the cattle business is birth to harvest and might not work all the time but is where the most profit is usually made on good cattle.

We operate a feedlot. We encourage our customers to "retain" until about 800 lbs. Some do less. Some only go about 90 days after weaning. You will note that I put quotes around "retained ownership." There are situations and kinds of cattle that do well on open range (the cows) but not quite as well feeding--about average (their calves). Breeding to make the calves do well would create cows that won't survive on the open range. Most of our customers come from areas where cow survival and her ability to produce a calf every year is a key factor in profitability. The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow). My definition of "good" cattle is those that are profitable in the situation they're in.

 

[Mike]

There are situations and kinds of cattle that do well on open range (the cows) but not quite as well feeding--about average (their calves). Breeding to make the calves do well would create cows that won't survive on the open range. Most of our customers come from areas where cow survival and her ability to produce a calf every year is a key factor in profitability. The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow). My definition of "good" cattle is those that are profitable in the situation they're in.

Makes me think that there might be some places not suitable for producing cattle.

 

[ocm]

There are situations and kinds of cattle that do well on open range (the cows) but not quite as well feeding--about average (their calves). Breeding to make the calves do well would create cows that won't survive on the open range. Most of our customers come from areas where cow survival and her ability to produce a calf every year is a key factor in profitability. The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow). My definition of "good" cattle is those that are profitable in the situation they're in.

Makes me think that there might be some places not suitable for producing cattle.

Cattle do better there than anything else. It has forage (though not much) that ruminants convert into energy and protein. It would be empty space otherwise.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

There are situations and kinds of cattle that do well on open range (the cows) but not quite as well feeding--about average (their calves). Breeding to make the calves do well would create cows that won't survive on the open range. Most of our customers come from areas where cow survival and her ability to produce a calf every year is a key factor in profitability. The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow). My definition of "good" cattle is those that are profitable in the situation they're in.

Makes me think that there might be some places not suitable for producing cattle.

You mean like Alabama where it hardly freezes but you have to feed hay?



OCM my cows grazed the hills all winter and they are out grazing yet. we run close to 40 acres per cow. The calves off those cows will gain over three pounds a day given the right ration. They also excel at converting grass to meat so we ususally run them as yearlings on grass.

 

[Mike]

You mean like Alabama where it hardly freezes but you have to feed hay?

What kind of dumbass question is that?

It froze almost every night just last week.


No, I mean places where it takes 50-75 acres to run 1 cow.

There's lots of guys down here that don't feed any hay. I'm one myself this year because there ain't any.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

You mean like Alabama where it hardly freezes but you have to feed hay?

What kind of dumbass question is that?

It froze almost every night just last week.


No, I mean places where it takes 50-75 acres to run 1 cow.

There's lots of guys down here that don't feed any hay. I'm one myself this year because there ain't any.

Nothing wrong with 75 acres per cow. It's the cost of running that cow that counts.

 

[Mike]

You mean like Alabama where it hardly freezes but you have to feed hay?

What kind of dumbass question is that?

It froze almost every night just last week.


No, I mean places where it takes 50-75 acres to run 1 cow.

There's lots of guys down here that don't feed any hay. I'm one myself this year because there ain't any.

Nothing wrong with 75 acres per cow. It's the cost of running that cow that counts.

Go back to OCM's comment:

The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow).

Is there not a conflict here?

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "So why not just sell your calves and speculate on the board? As soon as you talk hedging, you throw a whole different aspect into it. Retained ownership becomes an insignificant part of the picture."

No, I am not speculating on the board. I am managing my risk. All I did was buy CME insurance (options) to prevent a train wreck. I wouldn't even consider feeding cattle without protection on the board.

There is big difference between speculating and managing your risk.

ocm: "Don't get me wrong. We encourage "retained ownership", but not like you're talking."

Of course you encourage "retain ownership", most feedlot operators do. That way they can transfer the risk to the owner of the cattle and the producer is placed in a situation of trusting the feeder that what he's being billed for is actually going into the bunk.

ocm: "We do not encourage taking them past 800 lbs. By then most of the good is out of them. COG starts going up with % return going down. Take the profit and get into another set. Also you need to look at the fact that it takes more capital to keep them longer, which cuts into the capital your could use for you cow heard. There is not a single answer that always works."

What about the end product? The rewards of "retained ownership" are not just in the feedlot, they are on the rail as well.

The reason to retain ownership on your cattle is so you can see what they are hanging on the rail as well as how they perform in the feedlot. With the information, you can manage your genetics so you can achieve better results in the feedlot and better carcass premiums.

The only way to know if you are raising cattle that will perform in the feedlot and hanging the right carcass on the rail is to watch them all the way through and adjust your genetics accordingly.

ocm: "We operate a feedlot."

Randy Stevenson from Wyoming I presume?

ocm: "We encourage our customers to "retain" until about 800 lbs. Some do less. Some only go about 90 days after weaning. You will note that I put quotes around "retained ownership."

That's the first time I've heard that.

Weather and market factors can have a huge effect on when those cattle would turn a profit.

I'm guess that your distance from the packing house is an issue too right? That would also explain your theories on "captive supply" too. I'm starting to get the picture here.

If you look at CattleFax's "retained ownership analysis" that has measured profitability in every aspect of retain ownership for well over 25 years, fast track heavy weight feeder cattle that finished in April made more money than any other "retain ownership" alternative.

Now granted, it was about 5 years ago that I read this report but it was for a 20 - 25 year time period. This analysis doesn't include any possible carcass premiums which can be substantial.

If I am going to retain ownership, I'm going to take them to the rail because that is where I may have to make some changes.

ocm: "There are situations and kinds of cattle that do well on open range (the cows) but not quite as well feeding--about average (their calves). Breeding to make the calves do well would create cows that won't survive on the open range. Most of our customers come from areas where cow survival and her ability to produce a calf every year is a key factor in profitability. The same breeding that makes a calf gain 3.5 lbs in the feedlot conflicts with a cow that can survive on 80 acres(per cow). My definition of "good" cattle is those that are profitable in the situation they're in."

That is a very true statement but there is cattle that do well in both situations. Not many of them but they do happen.

I listened to Kit Pharo speak on profitability on the range and I thought I had the chink in his armour with how those small cattle would perform in the feedlot and on the rail. My assumption was wrong, DEAD WRONG! Those cattle had to be fed a little differently but they ended up hanging 700 - 750 lb. choice Y2s. YES A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF CHOICE YIELD GRADE 2s. I couldn't believe it. Must have had a touch of Tarentaise in them because most Angus cattle have too much bark.

Anyway, your point is taken in many situations but I know for a fact that there is cattle that do it on the range and do it in the feedlot.

My biggest criticism of most "retain ownership" feedlots are more concerned about selling feed than when, where, and how they should be selling fat cattle.

If you are Randy Stevenson, I hope your health is improving.


~SH~