Official Publication, North Dakota Beef Cattle Improvement Association
July 2000 -- Volume 5, Number 2    

NDBCIA heifer development project determines actual cost.

• By JAMES ODERMANN Editor

Four years of research and collection of costs associated with development of heifers has provided beef cattle producers with benchmark values for heifer development in North Dakota and the upper great plains. The study, conducted in concert with the North Dakota Beef Cattle Improvement Association and the Dickinson Research Extension Center, was directed by Kris Ringwall, Keith Helmuth, John Dhuyvetter, Jim Nelson and Garry Ottmar.

The study, which began in the fall of 1993, was conducted at the DREC and involved evaluation of 549 heifers from a weaned spring born heifer calf to a bred replacement heifer. One of the goals of the project was to develop the heifers to reach 70 per cent of their mature weight at breeding time. Production and cost benchmarks were documented.

The average cost of developing a breeding quality replacement heifer was $270.68 of cash costs per animal for 365 days. "These costs do not reflect the value of the heifer, interest charges or the value of producer demand for the service," the authors wrote in their report, which was reproduced in the 47th Annual Research Roundup report released October 9, 1998.

Data collected indicated a low cost of $249.47 in the third season (1995-96) and a high cost of $297.19 in the fourth season (1996-97). (See Table 1 Heifer Development.)

Statistics from the research project indicate heifers achieved an average daily gain of 1.67 pounds from the weight on test (599 pounds) to the pre breeding weight (884 lbs.). Heifers averaged 1 lb. average daily gain on summer pasture with a project ending weight of 1,034 lbs (see Graph 1, Average Daily Gain; Graph 2, Heifer Growth). Respiratory distress was the primary health problem requiring treatment, with foot root the second most common health-related problem. Project mortality was 0.73% with morbidity at 6.2% across all four years.

The genetics and management of these heifers resulted in 92.6% of the heifers returning home pregnant. Although not all heifers were bred to artificial insemination, 77.8% of the heifers expressed estrus following exposure to a synchronization program and 54.3% conceived to AI services. Overall, 42.9% were bred to AI service, 49.7% were bred to natural service and 7.4% were open.

The authors noted that "if all least cost scenarios were to occur simultaneously, then heifers could have been developed for $77.54 less than what the actual costs were. This however is hypothetical, and the winter of 1996-1997 (4th year) also would suggest that environmental factors must always be accounted for."

Feed costs made up the largest portion of the development and the authors noted "payback to appropriate managerial decisions regarding feed management is great." Sixty-one per cent of the associated costs were related to feed and "even more striking is the fact that over the four years, the range in feed costs ($54.76) was 33% of the average feed costs of $165.30.

Yardage, the cost accrued per head per day to cover labor, equipment, facilities, utilities, fuel, repairs and management, was the second highest. These costs were set at $.20/day in the dry-lot and $.10/day on pasture and were not changed during the four years. The lower yardage charges were a result of heifers spending more time on grass. The third leading expense was breeding costs. These costs accounted for 14% of the total cost and were relatively constant from year to year (Table 1 Heifer Development Costs).

The same can be stated for health costs which accounted for slightly more than 3% of the total cost followed by 2% miscellaneous expenses.

The authors noted, "Feed costs need to be targeted for cost reduction, in order to least cost a development program. . . In the future, continued efforts are being made to reduce heifer development costs. Experimental protocols will be developed to effectively reduce feed cost without decreasing performance, as well as potentially reducing yardage costs incurred through exploring more extensive rather than intensive development systems."

Table 2 Heifer Development, presents statistics regarding the feed costs by year for the various feeds delivered to the bunk.

Growth of the heifers was monitored closely. The heifers averaged 84.4 estimated mature weight of 1220 lbs. As designed by the project, these heifers reached 72.1 percent of their estimated mature weight prior to breeding (75, 71, 68 and 72 percent, year 1,2,3 and 4, respectively). The project goals to establish benchmark values for heifer development were met and the NDBCIA and the DREC have modified the program slightly to accommodate new research.

• Individuals wanting more information can contact the NDBCIA, 1133 State Avenue, Dickinson, ND 58601. Telephone: 701-483-2348. Email: ndsu.chaps@ndsu.edu