Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Open minds. Open doors.TM
A PRODUCTION PRACTICES SURVEY OF COW-CALF
PRODUCERS IN NORTHEASTERN OREGON: ASSESSING THE
INDUSTRY’S EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
Cory Parsons, PAS
Associate Professor,
Department of Animal Sciences
OSU Extension Baker & Union Counties
Introduction & Goals
• Need to provide timely and pertinent information
• In order to monitor/measure change I needed to assess the current status
• Decided to conduct a producer survey
Materials & Methods
• Modified an existing survey (Bohnert et al. 2005)• Modified a 22 question survey into a more
comprehensive 27 question survey• Focusing on economically important cow/calf
management practices• Mailed 415 self addressed-stamped confidential
surveys to cow/calf producers in Baker and Union counties of northeaster Oregon
• Waited 2 month and sent a reminder• After 4 months we analyzed the responses
Results
• Analyzed data using SPSS 13.0, 2004 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois)
• 103 total surveys were returned (25%)– 72 surveys from Baker County (20%)– 31 surveys from Union County (7%)
Although County survey data results often varied, for the purpose of this presentation all results have been pooled and will be reported as such.
Results Herd Size
Herd Size
13.210.5
13.2 13.215.7
10.5 10.513.2
02468
1012141618
Number of Head
Per
cent
age
The average herd size varied widely, with the most common herd being 301-400 head which was reported by 15.7% of respondents.
NAHMS 1997 80% 1 - 49 head 19% 50 – 499 head 1% > 500 head
ResultsType of Operation
Type of Operation
13
87
7.9
63
11 8
020406080
100
Regi
stere
dSe
ed S
tock
Com
mer
cial
prod
ucer
Outsi
de ye
arro
und
Irrig
ated
/impr
oved
pas
ture
Com
mon
allo
tmen
t
Dese
rt ra
nge
Perc
enta
ge
• We listed seven categories for type of beef operation, and respondents were asked to check all that applied. Many respondents listed multiple operation types, indicating the diverse nature of beef production operations in Northeastern Oregon.
Results Culling Practices
Reason for Keeping Open Cows
33.3
16.7
5.611.1
6.7 6.8 8.611.2
05
101520253035
Yo
un
g o
rp
rove
n
Pa
stp
erf
orm
an
ce
Se
ntim
en
tal
No
t co
ws
fau
lt
Re
bre
ed
an
dse
ll
Eco
no
mic
s
Ge
ne
tic b
ase
No
se
lect
ion
on
su
rve
y
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Annual Culling Rate
31.6
52.6
10.52.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0-10 15-Nov 16-20 VariesDepending on
Cycle
Per
cen
tag
e
Results Culling Practices
Always Cull Dry/Pregnant Cows?
24
74
20
1020304050607080
Yes No No Response
Response
Per
cen
tag
e
If Not Why?
34
85
05
10152025303540
Not cows fault Young cow Past performance
Response
Per
cen
tag
e
Results Cow Replacement Practices
Annual Cow Death Loss
55.3
34.2
7.92.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 – 0.5 0.5 – 1 1 – 1.5 > 1.5
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Cow Replacement Strategies
53
1811
5 40
102030405060
Co
nst
an
tR
ep
lace
me
nt
Sa
me
Nu
mb
er
Cu
lled
Re
tain
Mo
reW
he
n $
Lo
w
Se
ll M
ore
Wh
en
Ca
shis
Sh
ort
Ke
ep
Mo
reW
he
n M
ark
et
is H
igh
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Results Cow Replacement Practices
Results Annual Cow Costs
Annual Cow Cost
15.8
26.323.7
7.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400
$
Pe
rce
nta
ge
ResultsFeed Resources
Purchase or Raise Feed
84
133
020406080
100
Raise Purchase Combination
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Tons/Cow/Year
5.3 5.3 5.3
50
26.3
2.60
20
40
60
0.5 - 1 1 – 1.5 1.5 – 2 2 – 2.5 2.5 – 3 > 3
Pe
rce
nta
ge
ResultsFeed Resources
Utilize Analysis Results
52
48
46
48
50
52
54
Yes No
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Analyze Forage Quality
32
66
20
20
40
60
80
Yes No No Response
Pe
rce
nta
ge NAHMS 1997
9% conduct forage analysis
22% formulate rations
ResultsBull Management
81% of the survey respondents purchase their bull battery from either a bull sale or by private treaty. Only 3% of respondents listed the local auction barn as the location they purchase bulls and 10% of producers stated they do a combination of raising their own bulls and purchasing from bull sale.
Bull Purchase
34
26
21
3
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Bull Sale Private Treaty Combination Auction Yard Raise andPurchase
Pe
rce
nta
ge
ResultsBull Management
Purchase Price
10.5 10.515.8
5.3
23.728.9
05
101520253035
1,001-1,300
1,301-1,900
1,901-2,200
2,201-2,500
2,501-3,000
> 3,000
$
Pe
rce
nta
ge
ResultsBull Management (BSE)
Type of Test
2.6
36.8
10.518.4
23.7
7.9
05
10152025303540T
rich
om
on
iasi
s
Se
me
n
Tri
cho
mo
nia
sis
+ s
em
en
Bre
ed
ing
sou
nd
ne
sse
xam
No
test
ing
No
se
lect
ion
on
surv
ey
Pe
rce
nta
ge
65% conduct some type of BSE
NAHMS 1997
54% of producers in the West conduct Semen evaluation
ResultsCow Reproduction
Calving Season
79
318
0
50
100
Spring Fall Both
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Cow:Bull Ratio
3442
185
01020304050
15-20;1 20-25:1 >25:1 NoResponse
Pe
rce
nta
ge
76% run between 15-25 cows per bull
NAHMS 1997
94% one calving season
10% 2 or more calving seasons
ResultsCow Reproduction
Pregnancy Rate
8 13
79
020406080
100
71-85 86-90 > 91
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Length of Breeding Season
10.5
52.6
23.7
10.52.6
0
20
40
60
≤ 45 45-60 60-90 90-120 >120
Pe
rce
nta
ge
63% have a breeding season less than 60 days
NAHMS 1997
62% < 105 days
21.2% <64 days
ResultsCalf Marketing
Calf Marketing Strategies
26 2419
1318
0102030
Loca
lau
ctio
nya
rd
Ret
ain
owne
rshi
p-
slau
ghte
r
Priv
ate
trea
ty
Vid
eo/In
ter
net a
uctio
n
Com
bina
tion
of a
bove
Pe
rce
nta
ge
When asked if they currently participate in a retained ownership / niche marketing program 29% stated yes with the remaining 71% stating no.
Conclusions
• Though not totally inclusive I believe that the results of this survey will be extremely valuable in guiding the Extension livestock programming efforts in Northeastern Oregon.
Conclusions
• Practices such as,– not verifying pregnancy– not testing forages– not conducting BSE – not selling open cows
are some areas that could benefit from educational efforts with positive impacts.
Open minds. Open doors.TM
Cory Parsons, PAS
Associate Professor,
Department of Animal Sciences
OSU Extension Baker & Union Counties
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS
