The concept of preconditioning programs for beef calves at the farm or ranch of origin was first introduced in the mid 1960s.1 The primary objective of pre conditioning programs is to reduce the incidence of respiratory tract disease in calves during the period of time between weaning and slaughter by increasing each calf's immunity to organisms that cause BRD and by reducing the stress on the calves before, during, and after shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.2 Numerous preconditioning programs have been developed and revised during the past 40 years, and the specific management requirements vary among programs. However, many preconditioning programs include several similar elements, such as ensuring that before calves are shipped from the farm or ranch of origin, they have been weaned for at least 3 weeks, trained to eat from a feed bunk and to drink from a water trough, administered parasiticides, vaccinated against clostridial and BRD pathogens, and dehorned, and males have been castrated.3
Preconditioning programs were initially accepted well by beef producers. However, in the early 1980s, economic conditions of the beef industry forced cattle producers to reduce input costs, and many beef producers discontinued preconditioning programs. It was indicated in a National Animal Health Monitoring System report4 that the perception of feedlot operators improved with regard to the value of preconditioning programs between 1994 and 1999. Another author5 believes that numerous developments in the US beef industry will likely increase the interest in preconditioning programs. These developments include valuebased marketing, food safety concerns, source verification, individual animal identification, and consolidation of the cow-calf industry.5
A common deterrent to the widespread adoption of preconditioning programs by beef producers has been the belief that preconditioning programs fail to add sufficient value to feeder calves to offset the cost of the programs.6 Costs of preconditioning programs range from $28/calf to $63/calf.5,7–10 Thus, beef producers would need to receive a premium price for their preconditioned calves to make preconditioning programs practical.
On the other hand, cattle buyers are willing to pay higher prices for preconditioned calves only if they are more profitable during the feeding period than calves that have not been in preconditioning programs. Beef calves that remain healthy in a feedlot have higher net returns, compared with returns for beef calves that are treated because of disease, primarily BRD.11–22 The higher net returns for healthy calves are primarily attributable to decreased mortality rates, lower treatment costs, higher average daily gains, and improved carcass quality grades. The higher net return of healthy calves ranges from $11.48/animal to $151.18/animal.19,22 Based on the average body weight of these calves when they enter a feedlot, feedlot operators could pay between $2.47/cwt (1 cwt equals 45.45 kg) and $24.82/cwt more for calves that stay healthy, and they would make a similar profit to that for feeding calves that required treatment because of disease. However, it is difficult to predict the calves that will remain healthy.
It was indicated in an early study7 that preconditioning programs were not profitable for beef producers or feedlot owners. More recent studies23–25 revealed that preconditioned calves had higher net returns for feedlots, compared with net returns for calves with an unknown vaccination history. In a study24 conducted at 2 feedlots, beef calves that were included in 45-day preconditioning programs at the farm or ranch of origin were worth $9.92/cwt and $11.04/cwt more at entry into a feedlot, compared with the value for calves that were not part of a preconditioning program. The higher values of the preconditioned calves were the result of higher average daily gains, improved feed efficiency, lower mortality rates, and lower medicine costs during the feeding period. In a survey,6 feedlot managers responded that they believed preconditioned calves were worth $5.25/cwt more at the time of entry into a feedlot, compared with the value for similar calves that had not been part of a preconditioning program.
Premium prices have been paid for preconditioned beef calves sold through special sales conducted at livestock auction markets5,6,26–30 and for beef calves enrolled in certified health programs and marketed through Internet auctions.31 In those reports, premiums paid for preconditioned calves ranged from $2.30/cwt to $8.75/cwt, depending on the year, requirements of the preconditioning program, and sex of the calves. One author5 believed that cattle buyers could pay slightly higher prices for preconditioned cattle than they are currently paying. The reason that premiums have been lower than the true economic value of the preconditioned calves involves risk. Even with preconditioned calves, there is uncertainty with regard to health and performance of the cattle during the feeding period, and cattle buyers factor this uncertainty into the price they pay for preconditioned calves. The premiums paid for these calves would be expected to increase and approach the full value for preconditioned calves as the reputation and integrity of preconditioning programs increase.
Videotape auctions are a relatively new marketing tool available to beef producers. Marketing calves through videotape auctions and the effects on sale price of beef calves in certified health programs administered at the farm or ranch of origin have not been reported.
The objectives of the study reported here were to quantify the effect of certified health programs on the sale price of beef calves offered for sale by a livestock videotape auction service between 1995 and 2005, evaluate changes in the premiums paid for beef calves included in the certified health programs during the 11 years of the study, and describe changes in the amount of producer participation in the certified health programs over time.
Materials and Methods
Sample population–Data for factors that could have affected the sale price of beef calves between 1995 and 2005 were obtained from sale catalogues of a livestock videotape auction service.a Information in the written description of each lot of calves in the sale catalogues was recorded, including date of the auction, number of calves in each lot, sex of the calves in each lot, whether the calves had been weaned prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, base weight of each lot, region of the United States for the farm or ranch of origin of each lot, breed description of each lot, frame score of each lot, amount of flesh on the calves, whether the calves were home raised or purchased, amount of variation in weight among calves in each lot, whether the calves had horns, whether the calves had been implanted with a growth-promoting compound, number of days between the date of the auction and date of delivery, whether the calves qualified for inclusion in one of the videotape livestock auction's certified health programs, whether the calves met the requirements for the videotape livestock auction's natural program (NATb; years 2004 and 2005 only), whether each lot qualified for the videotape livestock auction's age- and source-verification program (ASVc; year 2005 only), and the price paid for each lot.
Certified health programs–Calves offered for sale in each auction were assessed to determine whether they met the requirements of one of the livestock auction service's certified health programs. Each lot of calves that was verified by personnel of the livestock auction service as qualifying for a certified health program was identified in sale catalogues by a special stamp that designated the type of program. Calves that did not meet the requirements for a certified health program were allocated into 2 groups on the basis of the information recorded in the vaccination section for each lot in the sale catalogues. The first group (viral vaccinated) consisted of lots of calves that were not in a certified health program but that had been vaccinated against 1 or more respiratory tract viruses (ie, IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) at some time prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. The second group (not viral vaccinated) consisted of calves that were not in a certified health program and that had not been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.
Vaccination and management requirements for each certified health program were designed by personnel at, and under the supervision of, the livestock auction service. For one of the certified health programs (ie, V24),d calves were 2 to 4 months of age and still suckling their dams when they were administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (or both). Calves in another certified health program (V34)e were still suckling their dams when administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin; they were also administered vaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. In another certified health program (V45),f calves were weaned a minimum of 45 days before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. There were 2 vaccination schedules for the V45 program. For option 1, calves were administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia when they were still suckling on their dams at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before weaning; they were vaccinated against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) 2 to 4 weeks before weaning and administered booster inoculations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at the time of weaning. For option 2, calves were administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at branding or at weaning; they were administered vaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at the time of weaning and administered booster vaccinations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) in accordance with vaccine label instructions. The 2 options for V45 could not be distinguished from each other on the basis of information in the sale catalogues and were considered to be the same certified health program for the purposes of the study reported here. Another health program (VPC)g was designed for calves that were gathered from multiple sources. It required that the calves be weaned at least 60 days before shipment. Calves in this certified health program were administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at the time of arrival at the premises of the current owner and were administered booster inoculations of all antigens in accordance with vaccine label instructions.
In all certified health programs, IBR and PI3 antigens were chemically altered modified-live or modified-live virus vaccines. The BVDV and BRSV antigens were killed or modified-live virus vaccines. Approval of a veterinarian was obtained when modified-live virus IBR and PI3 vaccines were administered to calves before weaning.
Beef producers could also enroll their calves in 2 additional programs offered by the livestock auction service. The NAT program was initiated in 2004, and the ASV program began in 2005. Each lot of calves that qualified for one or both of these programs was identified in sale catalogues with an appropriate stamp.
The NAT program had several requirements, including that calves had not been fed or injected with antimicrobials or ingredients that could possibly result in antimicrobial residues; calves had not been fed any antimicrobial ionophores; calves had not been implanted with or fed synthetic hormones, growth promotants, or anabolic steroids; calves had not been fed any feed containing protein derived from mammalian tissue; and any calves that had received therapeutic treatment were identified and would not be shipped from the seller's farm or ranch without the buyer's permission. The person who sold the calves had to verify that he or she was the original owner of the calves or provide a certificate signed by the original owner that attested to the all-natural status of the calves.
To enroll and market calves in the ASV program, a beef producer had to select an RFID tag and a database supplier. Then, the producer had to place an RFID tag in the left ear of each calf before the calves were delivered. Also, each beef producer had to obtain a premises identification number from their state veterinarian's office (if available); if such identification numbers were not currently available, the name, address, and telephone number of the seller could be used as the premises identification. Furthermore, each beef producer was required to record and maintain a written record of the birth date of each calf or the date the first calf in each calf crop was born and to enter the RFID tag numbers; age of the cattle; and the beef producer's name, address, and telephone number (or premises identification number) into the national database before shipment from the seller's farm or ranch. The buyer was allowed to retrieve this information from the database provider.
Data collection–Data used for each year of the study to evaluate the effect of certified health programs on the sale price of beef calves were from lots that had a recorded sale price and from lots that consisted exclusively of steer or heifer calves. Data for calves that were not sold, that were sold in lots that contained a mixture of steers and heifers, or that were from lots of feeder cattle were not included in the study. Calves that were sold in lots consisting of a mixture of steers and heifers were not included in the analysis because the price of heifers in these lots was totally determined by the price of the steers. Feeder cattle were older and heavier than calves, and all feeder cattle had been weaned, usually for a considerable amount of time, before sale. Thus, the effect of certified health programs on the sale price of feeder cattle would be expected to differ from the effect on sale price of calves. In addition, almost no lots of feeder cattle qualified for the V24 or V34 certified health programs. For these reasons, we used only calves in the study. Lots consisting of calves that had been weaned but that were not in the V45 or VPC health programs were also deleted from each year of the study to eliminate confounding between weaning and these 2 health programs.
For each year of the study, a subjective decision was made to include auctions in which the total number of lots of calves and the distribution of those lots in the certified health programs were adequate to support the analysis. The largest calf sales were held between April and November in each study year.
States were allocated to various geographic regions, which included California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (West Coast); Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Rocky Mountain–North Central); Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas (South Central); and Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (South East). Remaining states in the continental United States were included in the Northeast region and were excluded from the study because of the small number of lots that originated from those states.
Each lot of calves was categorized into 1 of 3 breed descriptions (English and English crossbred cattle, EnglishContinental crossbred cattle, and cattle with Brahman influence). Scoring systems established by the livestock auction service for frame score, flesh score, and amount of variation in body weight within a lot for use in sale catalogues were used in the study.
Data analysis–A lot of beef calves was the unit of analysis in the study, and a separate multiple regression model quantifying the effects of independent factors on the sale price of calves was developed for each year of the study through a backwards selection procedure32 by use of a statistical software program.h All factors contained in the written description of each lot of beef calves in the sale catalogues that could be accurately quantified or categorized were included in the initial models. To prevent multicollinearity between the linear and quadratic terms for base weight, the base weight of each lot in each year was centered at zero by subtracting the mean base weight of all of the lots for the year from the base weight of each lot. A similar procedure was used to prevent multicollinearity between the linear and quadratic terms for the number of calves in each lot in each year.
Independent variables included in the initial models were auction date, calf sex, breed, frame score, flesh score, region of origin, whether a calf was home-raised or purchased, variation in body weight in the lot, whether calves had horns, whether calves had received growth implants, whether calves were part of a certified health program, whether calves were part of the NAT program (2004 and 2005) or ASV program (2005), number of calves in a lot (linear and quadratic functions), base weight (linear and quadratic functions), and number of days from sale to delivery. At each step of the backwards selection procedure, the variable with the largest P value was eliminated from the model.
A value of P < 0.05 was used to maintain a variable in the model.
The lots of calves that were not viral vaccinated were used as the reference population in each year of the study, and price premiums were calculated for the certified health programs and viral-vaccinated lots in each year by subtracting the least squares mean sale price of the not viral-vaccinated group from the least squares mean sale price of each of the other health groups. The actual mean sale price for all lots of calves sold in each year of the study was calculated by summing the sale prices for each lot and dividing that value by the total number of lots for the year. This value was defined as the base sale price for the year. Price premiums for calves in the certified health programs and the viral-vaccinated program in each year of the study were also expressed as a percentage of the base sale price for that year by dividing the price premium by the base sale price and multiplying the resulting quotient by 100.
The percentage of lots in each health program category in each study year was calculated by dividing the number of lots in a health program during a particular year by the total number of lots in the V34, V45, viral-vaccinated, and not viral-vaccinated groups for that year. In none of the years of the study was there a sufficient number of lots in the VPC program to include in the final analysis. Only in years 2003 through 2005 were there sufficient numbers of lots in the V24 program to include this certified health program in the final analyses. Thus, to make the percentages of lots in each health program comparable for all years of the study, V24 lots were not included in the denominator for any year.
Results
Effect of certified health programs on calf prices in 2005–A total of 421,478 beef calves in 3,584 lots were used to quantify the effect of certified health programs on sale price in 2005. These calves were marketed through 6 videotape auctions conducted by the livestock auction servicea between June 14 and September 23, 2005. Because of the relatively small number of lots of calves in the VPC program that were offered for sale in these auctions, calves in that health program were eliminated from the 2005 analysis. Unadjusted mean, SD, median, and range values for continuous variables describing the lots of beef calves sold in 2005 were summarized (Table 1). Unadjusted mean, SD, median, and range values for sale price for each level of each categoric variable in the 2005 model were also summarized (Table 2). Unadjusted means represent mean values determined from the raw data without an attempt to account for potentially unbalanced data.
Unadjusted mean,* SD, median, and range values for continuous factors characterizing each lot of beef calves sold through ± videotape auctions from June to September 2005.
| Factor | Mean ± SD | Median | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base weight of each lot (lb)† | 575.0 ± 73.2 | 575 | 350–800 |
| No. of calves in each lot | 117.6 ± 72.8 | 92 | 50–1,150 |
| No. of days from sale to delivery | 88.8 ± 36.7 | 93 | 0–232 |
| Price ($/cwt)‡ | 121.43 ± 10.00 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
Unadjusted means represent mean values determined from the raw data without an attempt to account for potentially unbalanced data.
To convert pounds to kilograms, divide the value by 2.2.
To convert values, 1 cwt is equal to 45.45 kg.
Unadjusted mean,* SD, median, and range values of sale price ($/cwt) for several categoric factors characterizing each lot of beef calves sold through ± videotape livestock auctions from June to September 2005.
| Factor | Mean ± SD | Median | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| All lots of calves | 121.43 ± 10.00 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Date of auction | |||
| Jun 14–17 | 121.82 ± 6.76 | 120.75 | 108.00–155.00 |
| Jul 5–9 | 123.03 ± 9.88 | 121.00 | 102.50–165.00 |
| Jul 25–29 | 118.09 ± 10.76 | 116.88 | 96.00–153.00 |
| Aug 17–19 | 122.51 ± 11.25 | 120.00 | 96.50–163.00 |
| Sep 7–9 | 121.59 ± 9.95 | 120.00 | 100.00–165.00 |
| Sep 22–23 | 122.28 ± 9.78 | 120.75 | 105.00–161.00 |
| Sex of calves in lot | |||
| Steers | 123.26 ± 10.38 | 121.50 | 97.00–165.00 |
| Heifers | 118.47 ± 8.57 | 117.00 | 96.00–152.00 |
| Region of United States from which calves originated† | |||
| West Coast | 117.78 ± 10.81 | 116.50 | 96.00–161.00 |
| Rocky Mountain–North Central | 123.26 ± 9.38 | 121.50 | 98.00–165.00 |
| South Central | 119.90 ± 9.70 | 118.25 | 100.001–165.00 |
| South East | 119.56 ± 9.90 | 120.00 | 96.50–146.00 |
| Breed description of calves in lot | |||
| English and English crossbred | 123.17 ± 9.60 | 121.50 | 96.50–163.00 |
| English-Continental crossbred | 120.29 ± 9.98 | 119.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Cattle with Brahman influence | 119.88 ± 10.45 | 118.50 | 96.50–165.00 |
| Certified health program for calves in lot‡ | |||
| V24 | 122.82 ± 10.87 | 120.35 | 101.35–165.00 |
| V34 | 121.81 ± 8.75 | 120.50 | 98.50–163.00 |
| V45 | 120.76 ± 11.20 | 118.88 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Viral vaccinated | 120.64 ± 11.66 | 119.00 | 96.50–163.00 |
| Not viral vaccinated | 119.85 ± 11.02 | 118.00 | 100.00–154.00 |
| Weight variation of lot§ | |||
| Fairly even | 124.27 ± 10.60 | 121.75 | 99.25–165.00 |
| Uneven | 121.22 ± 9.93 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Very uneven | 121.05 ± 9.87 | 120.25 | 104.50–153.50 |
| Horns on calves | |||
| No | 121.55 ± 9.99 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Yes or tipped | 119.44 ± 9.97 | 118.00 | 100.00–161.00 |
| Flesh score of lot∥ | |||
| Light medium to medium | 128.92 ± 12.11 | 126.50 | 103.00–165.00 |
| Medium | 120.98 ± 9.40 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Medium heavy to heavy | 115.12 ± 7.74 | 115.00 | 97.00–149.50 |
| Qualified for ASV program¶ | |||
| No | 121.32 ± 10.07 | 120.00 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Yes | 122.36±9.35 | 120.38 | 102.50–165.00 |
| Qualified for NAT program# | |||
| No | 120.71±9.46 | 119.50 | 96.00–165.00 |
| Yes | 123.08±10.98 | 121.50 | 96.50–162.00 |
States in each region were as follows: West Coast: California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington; Rocky Mountain–North Central: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming; South Central: Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; and South East: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia.
V24, Calves were 2 to 4 months of age and still suckling their dams when they were administered vaccines against 7 typesof clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (or both); V34, calves were still suckling their dams when administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and they were also administeredvaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin; V45, calves were weaned a minimum of 45 days before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin and administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) and administered booster inoculations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both); viral vaccinated, calves not in a certified health program but that had been vaccinated against 1 or more respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) prior toshipment from the farm or ranch of origin; and not viral vaccinated, calves not in a certified health program and that had not been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.
Lots were characterized as follows: fairly even, < 10% variation in weight below or above the baseweight of the lot; uneven, 10% to 15% variation in weight below or above the base weight of the lot; and very uneven, > 15% variation in weight below or above the base weight of the lot.
Flesh scores were subjective measurements of the amount of external fat carried by the lot of calves, and an average score was assignedto the lot by trained personnel of the livestock auction service. Flesh scores were characterized as follows: light medium to medium, thin to slightly thin; medium, typical condition; and medium heavy to heavy, slightly fleshy to fleshy.
A beef producer had to select an RFID tag and a database supplier. Then, the producer had to place an RFID tag in the left ear of each calf before the calves were shipped from the farm or ranch of ori-gin. Also, each beef producer had to obtain a premises identification number from their state veterinarian's office (if available); if such identification numbers were not currently available, the name, address, and tele-phone number of the seller could be used as the premises identification. Furthermore, each beef producer was required to record and maintain a written record of the birth date of each calf or the date the first calf in each calf crop was born and enter the RFID tag numbers, age of the cattle, and the beef producer's name, address, and telephone number (or premises identification number) into the national database before ship-ment of the calves from the farm or ranch of origin.
Requirements included the following: that calves had not been fed or injected with antimicrobials or ingredients that could possibly result in antimicrobial residues;calves had not been fed any antimicrobial ionophores; calves had not been implanted with or fed synthetic hormones, growth promotants, or anabolic steroids; calves had not been fed any feed containing protein derived from mammalian tissue; and any calves that had received therapeutic treatment were identified andwould not be shipped from the farm or ranch of origin without the buyer's permission. The person who sold the calves had to verify that he or she was the original owner of the calves or provide a certificate signed by the original owner that attested to the all-natural status of the calves.
See Table 1 for remainder of key.
Beef calves that qualified for the V45 certified health program sold for a significantly higher mean price ($120.72/cwt), compared with the mean sale price ($114.08/cwt), for similar calves that were not in a certified health program, had not been weaned, and had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin (Table 3). This resulted in a price premium of $6.64/cwt for the V45 calves. The mean sale price of V45 calves was also significantly higher than the sale price for V24, V34, and viral-vaccinated calves.
Factors affecting the sale price of beef calves sold through 6 videotape livestock auctions from June to September 2005.
| Factor | No. of lots | Least squares mean ± SEM of sale price ($/cwt) | Price premium ($/cwt)* | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of auction | < 0.001 | |||
| Jun 14–17 | 631 | 121.14 ± 0.34a | 5.44 | — |
| Jul 5–9 | 1,125 | 118.64 ± 0.31b | 2.94 | — |
| Jul 25–29 | 822 | 113.18 ± 0.34c | −2.52 | — |
| Aug 17–19 | 484 | 114.38 ± 0.38d | −1.32 | — |
| Sep 7–9 | 381 | 115.46 ± 0.41e | −0.24 | — |
| Sep 22–23 | 141 | 115.70 ± 0.50e | 0.00 | — |
| No. of days between sale date and delivery date | 3,584 | Nc | −0.0474 | < 0.001 |
| Sex of calves in lot | < 0.001 | |||
| Steers | 2,217 | 120.94 ± 0.31a | 9.04 | — |
| Heifers | 1,367 | 111.90 ± 0.32b | 0.00 | — |
| Region of United States from which calves originated† | < 0.001 | |||
| West Coast | 692 | 115.25 ± 0.36a | 1.78 | — |
| Rocky Mountain–North Central | 2,081 | 119.27 ± 0.31b | 5.80 | — |
| South Central | 694 | 117.67 ± 0.31c | 4.20 | — |
| South East | 117 | 113.47 ± 0.55d | 0.00 | — |
| Breed description of calves in lot | < 0.001 | |||
| English and English crossbred | 1,498 | 117.98 ± 0.35a | 3.62 | — |
| English-Continental crossbred | 1,566 | 116.91 ± 0.33b | 2.55 | — |
| Cattle with Brahman influence | 520 | 114.36 ± 0.34c | 0.00 | — |
| Certified health program for calves in lot‡ | < 0.001 | |||
| V24 | 261 | 115.25 ± 0.39a,b | 1.17 | — |
| V34 | 1,929 | 116.53 ± 0.33c | 2.45 | — |
| V45 | 848 | 120.72 ± 0.32d | 6.64 | — |
| Viral vaccinated | 418 | 115.51 ± 0.36a | 1.43 | — |
| Not viral vaccinated | 128 | 114.08 ± 0.49b | 0.00 | — |
| Weight variation of lot§ | < 0.001 | |||
| Fairly even | 257 | 117.91 ± 0.39a | 3.13 | — |
| Uneven | 3,189 | 116.57 ± 0.29b | 1.79 | — |
| Very uneven | 138 | 114.78 ± 0.45c | 0.00 | — |
| Horns on calves | < 0.001 | |||
| No | 3,391 | 117.15 ± 0.26a | 1.46 | — |
| Yes or tipped | 193 | 115.69 ± 0.43b | 0.00 | — |
| Flesh score of lot∥ | < 0.001 | |||
| Light medium to medium | 344 | 117.64 ± 0.36a | 2.37 | — |
| Medium | 3,051 | 116.33 ± 0.29b | 1.06 | — |
| Medium heavy to heavy | 189 | 115.27 ± 0.44c | 0.00 | — |
| Qualified for ASV program¶ | 0.035 | |||
| No | 3,204 | 116.16 ± 0.28a | −0.52 | — |
| Yes | 380 | 116.68 ± 0.38b | 0.00 | — |
| Qualified for NAT program# | 0.665 | |||
| No | 2,494 | 116.40 ± 0.31 | −0.07 | — |
| Yes | 1,090 | 116.47 ± 0.33 | 0.00 | — |
| Base weight of lot | 3,584 | ND | −0.1156 | < 0.001 |
| Quadratic of base weight of lot** | 3,584 | ND | 0.0003 | < 0.001 |
| No. of calves in lot | 3,584 | ND | 0.0152 | < 0.001 |
| Quadratic of No. of calves in lot** | 3,584 | Nc | −0.00001 | < 0.001 |
Price premiums were the regression coefficients of the model.
To prevent multicollinearity between the linear and quadratic values, the base value of each lot was centered at zero by subtracting the mean value for all lots from the base value of each lot.
ND = Not determined. — = Not applicable.
Within a factor, values with different superscript letters differ significantly (P < 0.05).
See Table 2 for remainder of key.
Cattle buyers paid a premium of $2.45/cwt for V34 calves, compared with prices for similar calves that were not viral vaccinated (Table 3). The mean sale price differed significantly between these 2 groups of calves. Calves that had been vaccinated at 2 to 4 months of age in accordance with V24 requirements sold for prices in 2005 that were similar to prices for calves that were not in a certified health program and that had been or had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses at some time point prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. Mean adjusted sale prices were $115.25/cwt, $115.51/cwt, and $114.08/cwt for the V24, viral-vaccinated, and not viral-vaccinated calves, respectively.
Effect of other factors on calf prices in 2005–Beef calves that had RFID tags received a relatively small price premium of $0.52/cwt, which differed significantly when compared with the price received for similar calves not in the ASV program (Table 3). Calves in the NAT program did not sell at a premium in 2005 (P = 0.66).
Other factors that significantly affected the sale price of beef calves in 2005 were auction date, sex of calves in the lot, base weight of the lot, quadratic effect of base weight of the lot, number of calves in the lot, quadratic effect of number of calves in the lot, number of days between sale date and delivery date, region of the United States where the lot originated, breed description, calves with horns, amount of variation in body weight among calves in the lot, and flesh score of calves in the lot (Table 3). As expected, steers sold for higher prices than heifer calves. Calves that originated in the Rocky Mountain–North Central region sold for the highest prices, followed by calves from the South Central, West Coast, and South East regions. The highest mean price was paid for English and English crossbred calves; English-Continental crossbred calves were intermediate in price, and cattle with Brahman influence had the lowest mean price. Calves that had horns were discounted in price, compared with the price for calves without horns. Sale prices increased as lots comprised calves with less body weight, larger numbers of calves, lower flesh scores, and more uniform body weight and that were sold at a date closer to the delivery date.
Several factors did not impact sale price of beef calves in the study. Whether the calves were home raised or purchased, frame score of calves in the lot, and whether the calves had been or had not been implanted with a growthpromoting product did not significantly affect the sale price of beef calves in 2005.
Factors affecting calf prices in the years 1995 through 2004–Auction date, base weight of the lot, quadratic effect of base weight of the lot, calf sex, region of origin, breed description, inclusion in a certified health program, and number of calves in the lot significantly affected the sale price of beef calves in videotape auctions in every year between 1995 and 2004. The amount of variation in body weight among calves in the lot (8 years), flesh score of calves in the lot (6 years), and number of days between sale and delivery date (6 years) had significant effects on price in a majority of the years between 1995 and 2004. Lots containing calves with horns were significantly discounted in each year between 2000 and 2004, but having calves with horns did not affect sale price in the years between 1995 and 1999. Frame score of calves in the lot remained in the model in 1997, 2001, 2003, and 2004. Implanting calves with a growth-promoting product significantly decreased sale price in 1995 but had no effect on sale price in any other year of the study. The NAT program was introduced in 2004, and a premium of $1.05/cwt was paid for calves in this program in that year, compared with the sale price for similar calves not in the program.
Trends in the premiums during the study–In each of the 11 years of the study, beef calves in the V45 or V34 certified health program sold for significantly higher prices, compared with sale prices for similar calves that were not in a certified program, had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses at some time point prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and had not been weaned. Sale prices for calves in the V45 program were significantly higher than prices for calves in the V34 program and viral-vaccinated calves in all years of the study. Cattle buyers paid significantly more for V34 calves, compared with prices paid for viral-vaccinated calves, in all years of the study, except 1999 when the sale prices for these 2 groups were similar. For lots consisting of calves that were not in a certified health program, those that were administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses sold for significantly higher prices in all 11 years of the study, compared with sale prices for lots that contained calves that had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses.
The lowest price premium paid for V45 calves was $2.47/cwt in 1995. The price premium paid for V45 calves increased to $3.35/cwt in 1996 and remained relatively constant between 1996 and 2001, with values ranging from $3.33/cwt to $4.06/cwt for those years (Figure 1). Beginning in 2002, premiums paid for V45 calves increased steadily and reached a maximum value of $7.91/cwt in 2004. In 2005, the premium paid for lots consisting of V45 calves decreased to $6.64/cwt. When the price premium was expressed as a percentage of the base sale price for all calves in the same year, values for V45 calves ranged from 3.7% in 1995 and 2000 to 6.7% in 2003.
The premiums paid for V34 calves ranged from a low value of $0.99/cwt in 1996 to a high value of $3.47/cwt in 2004 (Figure 2). Similar to the observation for the premium paid for V45 calves, the premium paid for V34 calves decreased in 2005. The premium paid for V34 calves determined as a percentage of the base sale price ranged from 1.4% in 1999 to 3.4% in 2003.
Price premiums paid (bars) and the percentage that those premiums represented of the base price (line) for beef calves in the V45 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V45 program, calves were weaned a minimum of 45 days before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin and administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (or both) and administered booster inoculations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both). To convert values, 1 cwt is equal to 45.45 kg.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid (bars) and the percentage that those premiums represented of the base price (line) for beef calves in the V45 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V45 program, calves were weaned a minimum of 45 days before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin and administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (or both) and administered booster inoculations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both). To convert values, 1 cwt is equal to 45.45 kg.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid (bars) and the percentage that those premiums represented of the base price (line) for beef calves in the V45 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V45 program, calves were weaned a minimum of 45 days before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin and administered vaccines against 7 types of clostridia, IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida (or both) and administered booster inoculations against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both). To convert values, 1 cwt is equal to 45.45 kg.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid for beef calves in the V34 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V34 program, calves were still suckling their dams when administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and they were also administered vaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid for beef calves in the V34 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V34 program, calves were still suckling their dams when administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and they were also administered vaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid for beef calves in the V34 certified health program that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the V34 program, calves were still suckling their dams when administered a vaccine against 7 types of clostridia at the time of branding or at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and they were also administered vaccines against IBR, PI3, BVDV, BRSV, and M haemolytica or P multocida (or both) at 2 to 4 weeks before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the price premiums paid for viral-vaccinated calves gradually increased between 1996 and 2000 (Figure 3). The premiums paid for viralvaccinated calves remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2002 and then increased in 2003 when it achieved a highest value of $1.85/cwt. Premiums paid for viral-vaccinated calves decreased slightly in 2004 and 2005. The premium paid for viral-vaccinated calves as a percentage of the base sale price was the lowest in 1996 at 0.7%. The highest percentage achieved for this group was 1.9% in 2003.
Price premiums paid for viral-vaccinated beef calves that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the viralvaccinated program, calves were not in a certified health program but had been vaccinated against 1 or more respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid for viral-vaccinated beef calves that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the viralvaccinated program, calves were not in a certified health program but had been vaccinated against 1 or more respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Price premiums paid for viral-vaccinated beef calves that were sold through a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. For the viralvaccinated program, calves were not in a certified health program but had been vaccinated against 1 or more respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin. See Figure 1 for remainder of key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Patterns for participation in health programs for beef calves during the study–The percentage of the total number of lots consisting of beef calves that qualified for the V45 certified health program increased each year of the study from 1995 to 2004 and then decreased slightly in 2005 (Figure 4). Participation in the V45 program ranged from 3.2% in the first year of the study to 26.8% in 2004, which resulted in an increase of > 8-fold.
Change in the percentage of V45 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 1 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of V45 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 1 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of V45 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 1 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
The overall pattern for participation in the V34 program revealed an increase in the proportion of lots over time (Figure 5). In 1995, only 12.7% of the total number of lots sold during that year were enrolled in the V34 program. However, by 2005, > 58% of the total number of lots were calves in the V34 program.
Change in the percentage of V34 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 2 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of V34 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 2 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of V34 beef calves sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 2 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
The percentage of lots consisting of beef calves that were not in a certified health program but that had been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses remained relatively constant between 1995 and 1999, with values ranging from 33.9% to 39.5% (Figure 6).
Change in the percentage of viral-vaccinated beef calves sold by a live-stock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 3 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of viral-vaccinated beef calves sold by a live-stock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 3 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of viral-vaccinated beef calves sold by a live-stock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. See Figure 3 for key.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
The highest percentage of lots of viral-vaccinated calves was in 2000 (47.1%), but the percentage for this group decreased in subsequent years and reached its lowest value of 12.6% in 2005.
In each year of the 11-year study, the proportion of the lots consisting of calves that were not in a certified health program and that had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses decreased (Figure 7). In 1995, not viral-vaccinated calves represented the largest proportion of any of the health groups (44.7%), compared with 39.5%, 12.7%, and 3.2% for viral-vaccinated, V34, and V45 groups, respectively. In 2005, only 3.9% of the lots of calves sold by the livestock videotape auction service were not viral vaccinated.
Change in the percentage of beef calves that were not viral vaccinated and sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. Calves were not in a certified health program and had not been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of beef calves that were not viral vaccinated and sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. Calves were not in a certified health program and had not been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Change in the percentage of beef calves that were not viral vaccinated and sold by a livestock videotape auction service from 1995 through 2005. Calves were not in a certified health program and had not been vaccinated against respiratory tract viruses (IBR, PI3, BVDV, and BRSV) before shipment from the farm or ranch of origin.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 9; 10.2460/javma.229.9.1389
Discussion
Analysis of results of the study reported here revealed that the V34 and V45 certified health programs increased the sale price of beef calves in each of the 11 years of the study, compared with sale prices for similar calves that were not in a certified health program, had not been administered a vaccine against respiratory tract viruses prior to shipment from the farm or ranch of origin, and were not weaned. When all other factors remained constant, the price premium for V45 calves ranged from $2.47/cwt to $7.91/cwt, where as the price premium paid for calves in the V34 program ranged from $0.99/cwt to $3.47/cwt. The higher premiums paid for V45 calves, compared with the premiums paid for V34 calves, were expected because the booster vaccinations required for the V45 program should provide calves with a higher degree of immunity to BRD and clostridial pathogens, and the 45-day period after weaning should better prepare calves for the stresses associated with transportation and adaptation to a new environment.
It is difficult to compare the price premiums for the study reported here with other published values because of the differences in marketing methods, variation in the definitions of preconditioning programs, and differences in geographic locations and years of the studies. In a study28 conducted between 1982 and 1987 in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, steer calves that weighed 182 to 227 kg (400 to 500 lb) were sold in 6 special preconditioned sales. Sellers received premiums of $4.24/cwt to $8.75/cwt, compared with prices paid for steers of similar body weight that were sold during the same week at another Oklahoma stockyard. Cattle buyers paid premiums of $2.76/cwt to $8.63/cwt for heifer calves. Calves in that study28 were weaned for 30 days before the sale and were vaccinated against IBR, BVDV, PI3, 5 serovars of leptospires, and 4 types of clostridia. Price premiums for beef calves sold in special calf sales between fall 1999 and spring 2003 at a sale barn in Kansas ranged between $2.30/cwt and $5.45/cwt.5 However, the vaccination and management practices required to sell calves in these special sales were not reported. In a Canadian study29 that compared the prices of beef calves sold in special auctions with those for calves sold at conventional auctions at a livestock market located in western Ontario in 1999 and 2000, vaccinated or preconditioned beef calves sold for $6.00/cwt more than similar calves sold at conventional sales during the same week. Calves in that study29 were vaccinated in a manner similar to that for the V45 calves; however, vaccinated calves were not weaned, and preconditioned calves had been weaned for only 28 days.
Two studies30,31 did include beef calves that were managed in a manner similar to that for the V34 and V45 calves in the study reported here. The first study was conducted at a regional stockyard in southwestern Missouri between November 2003 and March 2004 to quantify the effect of 2 certified health programsi,j on the sale price of beef calves. One of those certified health programsi required that calves be weaned at least 45 days before being sold and be vaccinated in a manner similar to that for the V45 program. Cattle buyers paid a premium of $5.33/cwt for calves in that certified health programi that were sold during special sales, compared with the price paid for calves with an unknown vaccination history that were sold during the same week at regular sales at the same regional stockyard. That premium was less than the premium of $6.69/cwt paid for V45 calves in 2003 in our study. Calves in the other certified health programj were administered similar vaccinations as those administered to the V34 calves. The price premium paid for calves in that certified health programj was $4.84/cwt at the regional stockyard, which was higher than the premium of $3.39/cwt paid for V34 calves in 2003 of our study. However, more than half of the calves in that certified health programj had been weaned at least 14 days before the date of the sale, and this may have contributed to the higher premium paid for those calves.
In a study31 in which beef calves were sold through Internet auctions in 2004, the calves were included in the same certified health programs reported here. The price premiums paid for V34 and V45 calves were $2.62/cwt and $3.19/cwt, respectively. These premiums were less than those paid in 2004 in our study, but because these certified health programs were only introduced in 2004 for the Internet auctions, buyers may not have had time to become familiar with the programs.
Premiums paid for V45 calves in the study reported here were less than the net value advantage of $9.92/cwt and $11.04/cwt for beef calves at the time of feedlot entry in another study,24 in which investigators evaluated the profitability of two 45-day preconditioning programs. The lower premiums were likely a result of the risk still associated with buying and feeding calves involved in 45-day certified health programs. Not all V45 calves will remain healthy during the feedlot period. Thus, feedlot operators are not willing to pay cow-calf producers the full added value of preconditioned calves because of the difficulty of predicting the health and performance of a specific group of calves between the time of purchase and time of slaughter.
Price premiums for calves in the V45 and V34 certified health programs increased over time on an actual dollars-per-hundredweight basis and as a percentage of the base market price between 1995 and 2004. These increases in premiums happened at the same time that the supply of calves in each of the certified health programs increased. Analysis of these results indicated that cattle buyers continued to place increasing value in the V45 and V34 certified health programs presumably because of their favorable experiences in feeding calves that were included in these health programs. The reason for the lower price premiums paid for V45 and V34 calves in 2005 cannot be determined.
The ASV program was introduced in 2005, and the premium paid for calves enrolled in this program was a modest $0.52/cwt. The higher sale price of ASV calves was within the range of premiums received for source-verified cattle sold in Iowa between 1997 and 2000.33,34 Source verification is becoming mandatory through the use of electronic identification tags and national databases; therefore, the transfer of information between various segments of the beef industry will become a powerful tool. Feedlot operators will be able to trace groups of calves that performed well or poorly in their feedlots back to the farm or ranch of origin and obtain information related to the management practices for those groups of calves. Thus, this exchange of information may increase the value of preconditioning or certified health programs in the future.
It has been reported24,35–37 that preconditioning or certified health programs administered at the farm or ranch of origin have resulted in a decrease in morbidity of beef calves in feedlots, and calves that remain healthy in the feedlot yield carcasses with improved quality grades.11–19,35,38,39 As more and more feedlot cattle are sold through value-based marketing systems, value-based marketing may also increase the value of preconditioned calves or calves in certified health programs.
Large increases were observed during the 11 years of our study in the percentages of lots consisting of beef calves in the V34 or V45 certified health program that were sold. These increases were probably driven by the price premiums paid for calves in these health programs and by promotion of these programs to beef producers and veterinarians by personnel at the livestock videotape auction service. The large decrease in the percentage of calves that were not viral vaccinated was attributable to beef producers incorporating a certified health program into their management plan or to these producers reporting to the livestock auction service the viral vaccines that were already being used at their operation, so this information could be included in the written description of the calves in the sale catalogues.
Numerous other factors significantly influenced the sale price of beef calves in all 11 years of the study, including auction date, base weight, quadratic effect of base weight, calf sex, number of calves in a lot, and breed description. In most years, weight variation of the lot, flesh score, calves having horns, and frame score of the lot also affected sale price of the calves. Results of this study agree with other published results in which investigators evaluated factors affecting the sale price of beef cattle sold through livestock auction markets in Kansas40–43 and Oklahoma.44 One interesting difference in the study reported here, compared with results of other studies, was that a higher price was paid for English and English crossbred calves than for Continental crossbred calves in each year after 1999. The opposite was true in earlier studies40–44 in which investigators collected data on calves sold between 1981 and 1999 and determined that Continental crossbred calves sold for the highest prices. This would indicate a shift in the type of cattle that feedlot operators want to buy and feed in their feedlots.
It is not within the scope of the study reported here to determine whether administering preconditioning or certified health programs at the farm or ranch of origin is profitable for beef producers. However, it does provide price premiums that have been paid for V34 and V45 beef calves sold through videotape auctions of a specific company between 1995 and 2005. These values can be used by producers to evaluate the practicality of similar health programs for their operations. In 1 study,5 an economic analysis worksheet was provided that can be used to assist beef producers and their veterinarians in making informed decisions related to the potential economic returns for preconditioning or certified health programs.
Data from the livestock videotape auction service provided several advantages in quantifying the effect of certified health programs on the sale price of beef calves. First, the certified health programs were appropriately defined as to the vaccination and management practices required for each program, and the requirements for each of these certified health programs remained constant throughout the 11 years of the study. This consistency allowed cattle buyers the opportunity to become familiar with the certified health programs and provided feedlot operators with the ability to evaluate feedlot and carcass performance of calves that had been enrolled in these health programs.
A second advantage of the data was the large number of lots consisting of beef calves that were sold through the same marketing format. For each lot of calves included in this study, similar information was available to potential buyers through the written description of the lot in the sale catalogues and through the videotape presentation of the cattle during the videotape auctions. Another advantage of the data used in this study was that it represented cattle from all geographic regions of the continental United States, except for calves originating in the northeast region. Cattle buyers from any location in the United States could purchase calves through the videotape auctions. Thus, the prices paid for calves in the certified health programs should reflect the value of these programs to cattle buyers throughout the United States.
The data used in the study reported here represented beef calves from relatively large operations that were sold through a videotape auction format. Because calves sold through the livestock videotape auction service were delivered from the farm or ranch of origin to the new owners, it was most practical for a producer to sell truckload-sized lots. There were essentially no lots with < 50 calves that were sold during the 11 years of the study, and the mean number of calves in each lot was approximately 120 in each study year. Thus, results of this study cannot be directly applied to smaller beef operations that sell calves through other marketing channels.
Results of the study reported here revealed that the V34 and V45 certified health programs consistently increased the sale price of beef calves, with the largest price premiums paid for V45 calves. The premiums paid for calves in both programs increased during the 11 years of the study. Analysis of the data also indicated that beef producers can further increase the sale price of their calves by increasing the number of calves in each lot, by dehorning calves, and by sorting calves into lots with uniform weight. As electronic identification tags and source verification become mandatory and as more cattle are sold through value-based systems, the value of preconditioning or certified health programs may increase.
ABBREVIATIONS
| BRD | Bovine respiratory disease |
| cwt | Hundredweight |
| IBR | Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis |
| PI3 | Parainfluenza type 3 |
| BVDV | Bovine viral diarrhea virus |
| BRSV | Bovine respiratory syncytial virus |
| RFID | Radiofrequency identification |
Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Owner Certified Natural program, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Verified Age Source Electronic ID (VASE) program, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Vac 24, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Vac 34, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Vac 45, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
Vac Pre Con, Superior Livestock Auction, Brush, Colo.
PROC GLM, SAS, version 8.2, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
WeanVAC, Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY.
PreVAC, Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY.
References
- 1↑
Thornsbury RM. Preconditioning for cow-calf producers: a marketing advantage or disadvantage? Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1991;13:495–501.
- 2↑
Speer NC, Young C, Roeber D. The importance of preventing bovine respiratory disease: a beef industry review. Bovine Pract 2001;35:189–196.
- 3↑
American Association of Bovine Practitioners. American Association of Bovine Practitioners: report of the panel for the symposium on immunity to the bovine respiratory complex. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1968;152:713–719.
- 4↑
National Animal Health Monitoring System. Changes in the U.S. feedlot industry: 1994–1999. Fort Collins, Colo: USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services-Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, National Animal Health Monitoring System, 2000.
- 5↑
Dhuyvetter KC. Preconditioning beef calves: an economic analysis, in Proceedings. Beef Stocker 2003 Profitability Conf 2003;1–19.
- 6↑
Avent RK, Ward CE, Lalman DL. Economic value of preconditioning feeder calves. Fact Sheet F-583. Stillwater, Okla: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, 2003.
- 7↑
Cole NA. A critical evaluation of preconditioning, in Proceedings. North Am Symp Bovine Respir Dis Conf 1983;20–49.
- 8
Bailey D, Stenquist NJ. Preconditioning calves for feedlots. Available at: www.ag.arizona.edu/arec/wemc/TodaysCattlePub.html. Accessed Nov 2, 2004.
- 9
Rawls E. Can you afford to wean and feed your calves? Available at: www.tnbeefcattleinitiative.org/production.html. Accessed Nov 2, 2004.
- 10
St Louis DG, Engelken TJ, Little RD, et al. Systems to reduce the cost of preconditioning purchased calves. In: Hearn RA, ed.Mississippi State University research report. Starkville, Miss: Mississippi State University, 2002;23:1–5.
- 11
McNeill JW. 1992–93 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1993.
- 12
McNeill JW. 1993–94 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1994.
- 13
McNeill JW. 1994–95 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1995.
- 14
McNeill JW. 1995–96 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1996.
- 15
McNeill JW. 1996–97 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1997.
- 16
McNeill JW. 1997–98 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1998.
- 17
McNeill JW. 1998–99 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 1999.
- 18
McNeill JW. 1999–2000 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 2000.
- 19
McNeill JW. 2000–2001 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail north/south summary report. College Station, Tex: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 2001.
- 20
Gardner BA, Dolezal HG, Owens FN, et al. Impact of health on profitability of feedlot steers. In: Clutter AC, ed.Oklahoma Ag Experiment Station research report. Stillwater, Okla: Oklahoma State University, 1998;102–108.
- 21
Faber R, Hartwig N, Busby D, et al. The costs and predictive factors of bovine respiratory disease in standardized steer tests. In: Strohbehn DR, ed.1999 beef research report. Animal science leaflet R1648. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1999.
- 22
Stovall TC, Gill DR, Smith RA, et al. Impact of bovine respiratory disease during the receiving period on feedlot performance and carcass traits. Available at: www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/2000rr/16.htm. Accessed Nov 29, 2004.
- 23
Nyamusika N, Spreen TH, Rae O, et al. A bioeconomic analysis of bovine respiratory disease complex. Rev Agric Econ 1994;16:39–53.
- 24↑
Cravey M. Preconditioning effect on feedlot performance, in Proceedings. Southwest Nutr Manage Conf 1996;33–37.
- 25
Roeber DL, Speer NC, Gentry JG, et al. Feeder cattle health management: effects on morbidity rates, feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and beef palatability. In: Stanton TL, ed.Colorado State University 2000 Animal Sciences research report. Fort Collins, Colo: Colorado State University, 2000;1–4.
- 26
McKinnon BR, Greiner S. Beef quality corner—VQA feeder cattle program update. Available at: www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/livestock/aps-01_06/aps-0374.html. Accessed Nov 2, 2004.
- 27
McKinnon BR, Greiner S. Beef quality corner—VQA feeder cattle program update. Available at: www.ext.vt.edu/news/ periodicals/livestock/aps-02_07/aps-117.html. Accessed Nov 2, 2004.
- 28↑
Lalman D, Smith R. Effects of preconditioning on health, performance and prices of weaned calves. Fact sheet F-3529. Stillwater, Okla: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, 2001.
- 29↑
Macartney JE, Bateman KG, Ribble CS. Comparison of prices paid for feeder calves sold at conventional auctions versus special auctions of vaccinated or conditioned calves in Ontario. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:670–676.
- 30
King ME, Seeger JT. Joplin Regional Stockyards study: calves in value-added health programs receive premium prices. Pfizer Animal Health technical bulletin SV-2004-04. New York: Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer Inc, 2004.
- 31↑
King ME. The effect of “health” programs on the sale price of beef calves sold through Superior Stampede Internet auctions: 2002 to 2004. New York: Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer Inc, 2005.
- 32↑
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Multiple regression analysis. In: Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 2nd ed. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Co, 1988;102–123.
- 33
Yeboah G, Lawrence JD. Estimating the value of source verification in Iowa feeder cattle markets. In: Strohbehn DR, ed.2000 Beef research report. Animal science leaflet R1725. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 2000.
- 34
Yeboah G, Lawrence JD, May GJ. Estimating the value of source verification in Iowa feeder cattle markets. In: Strohbehn DR, ed.2002 Beef research report. Animal science leaflet R1725. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 2002.
- 35
Roeber DL, Speer NC, Gentry JG, et al. Feeder cattle health management: effects on morbidity rates, feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and beef palatability. Prof Anim Sci 2001;17:39–44.
- 36
Macartney JE, Bateman KG, Ribble CS. Health performance of feeder calves sold at conventional auctions versus special auctions of vaccinated or conditioned calves in Ontario. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:677–683.
- 37
Seeger JT. Commercial feedlot study confirms WeanVAC®calves return improved health performance compared to unweaned calves of unknown health history. Pfizer Animal Health technical bulletin SVC05004. New York: Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer Inc, 2005.
- 38
Gardner BA, Dolezal HG, Bryant LK, et al. Health of finishing steers: effects on performance, carcass traits, and meat tenderness. J Anim Sci 1999;77:3168–3175.
- 39
Busby WD, Strohbehn DR, Beedle P, et al. Effect of post-weaning health on feedlot performance and quality grade. In: Mabry JW, ed.Iowa State University animal industry report 2004. Animal science leaflet R1885. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 2004.
- 40
Mintert JR, Brazle FK, Schroeder TC, et al. Factors affecting auction prices of feeder cattle. C-697. Manhattan, Kan: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, 1988.
- 41
Lambert CD, McNulty MS, Grunewald OC, et al. An analysis of feeder cattle price differentials. Agribusiness 1989;5:9–23.
- 42
Sartwelle J, III, Mintert JR, Brazle FK, et al. Improving the value of your calf crop. The impact of selected characteristics on calf prices. MF-2142. Manhattan, Kan: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, 1996.
- 43
Sartwelle J III, Brazle FK, Mintert JR, et al. Buying and selling feeder cattle. The impact of selected characteristics on feeder cattle prices. MF-2162. Manhattan, Kan: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, 1996.
- 44↑
Smith SC, Gill DR, Bess C III. Effect of selected characteristics on the sale price of feeder cattle in eastern Oklahoma. E-955. Stillwater, Okla: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, 2000.
