The Importance of Cattle to Missouri 2013 Breimyer Seminar Dr. Scott Brown Agricultural Markets and Policy Division of Applied Social Sciences July 17, 2013 brownsc@missouri.edu http://amap.missouri.edu
Will I Be One of The Best Closers Ever With Today s Presentation? Cattle remain a critical component of Missouri agriculture but big changes are coming!
Or Just Wild And Never Find The Strike Zone? Change can often be difficult and ignored as a result
Million Head Warmup Pitch. Missouri Cattle Inventory Declining 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1924 1934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004
$ per cwt. Pitch 1. Record Missouri Cattle Prices Have Not Given Us Record Returns Missouri Cattle Prices 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1990 2000 2010
Pitch 2. Missouri Commodity Competition Is Growing, Cattle Is Losing 35% Missouri Cattle Receipts as a Percent of Total Receipts 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1924 1934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004
2013 Beef Cow Inventory as a Percent of 1973 Atchison Nodaway Worth Harrison Mercer Putnam Schuyler Scotland Clark Holt Gentry Grundy Sullivan Adair Knox Lewis Andrew DeKalb Daviess Livingston Linn Macon Shelby Marion > 125% 100-125% 75-100% 50-75% < 50% Buchanan Platte Clinton Clay Jackson Cass Bates V ernon Barton Jasper Caldwell Ray Cedar Lafayette Henry St. Clair Dade Lawrence Carroll Johnson Polk Pettis Benton Hickory Greene Saline Chariton Cooper Morgan Camden Howard Moniteau Dallas Laclede Webster Randolph Miller Wright Boone Cole Pulaski Monroe Audrain Callaway Maries T exas Osage Phelps Ralls Montgomery Gasconade Dent Pike W arren Franklin Crawford Shannon Lincoln St. Charles W ashington Reynolds Iron Jefferson St. Louis St. Francois Madison W ayne Ste. Genevieve Bollinger Perry Cape Girardeau Scott No 2013 data Newton McDonald Barry Stone Christian T aney Douglas Ozark Howell Oregon Carter Ripley Butler Stoddard New Madrid Dunklin Mississippi Pemiscot
2012 Corn + Soybean Planted Area as a Percent of 1973 Atchison Nodaway Worth Harrison Mercer Putnam Schuyler Scotland Clark Holt Gentry Grundy Sullivan Adair Knox Lewis Andrew DeKalb Daviess Livingston Linn Macon Shelby Marion < 100% 100-115% 115-130% 130-145% > 145% No 2012 data Buchanan Platte Clinton Clay Jackson Cass Bates V ernon Barton Jasper Newton McDonald Caldwell Ray Cedar Lafayette Henry St. Clair Dade Lawrence Barry Carroll Johnson Polk Stone Pettis Benton Hickory Greene Saline Christian Chariton Cooper Morgan Camden Howard Moniteau Dallas Laclede T aney Webster Randolph Miller Wright Douglas Ozark Boone Cole Pulaski Monroe Audrain Callaway Maries T exas Osage Phelps Howell Ralls Montgomery Gasconade Dent Pike W arren Franklin Crawford Shannon Oregon Lincoln St. Charles W ashington Reynolds Iron Carter Ripley Jefferson St. Louis St. Francois Madison W ayne Butler Ste. Genevieve Bollinger Perry Stoddard Cape Girardeau Scott New Madrid Dunklin Mississippi Pemiscot
We Are Losing Pasture! Polk County 2012 2006
Pitch 3. Weather Has Dictated Beef Cow Movements The Past Few Years
Annual Change in Beef Cow Inventory, 2012-16 - 20-18 +20 +23 +20 +32-53 +55 +112-21 - 31-238 -19-460 +10 +10-18 -28-40 +10 +10-11 +14
Annual Change in Beef Cow Inventory, 2013-20 -10 + 50 +41-20 -15-44 - 45 + 60 +10 + 78-79 +30 +29-119 - 100-24 -58-10 +33-38 -22-10 + 22-10 - 550-32
Percent Pitch 4. Strong Demand Will Cure Many Industry Issues 50 Missouri Livestock Cash Receipts 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Cattle and calves Hogs Dairy Poultry
Billion Dollars Repeat Pitch 4. Missouri Cash Receipts 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Soybeans Corn Cattle and calves
Million Head A Beef Demand Scenario: U.S. Cattle and Calves 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Baseline Demand Growth
Billion Dollars Pitch 5. Markets Will Adjust Long Term Missouri Farm Income Measures 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Crop receipts - selected expenses Livestock receipts - selected expenses
Pitch 6. Missouri Cattle Producers Should Evaluate New Technology Many new technologies are emerging! FTAI Genomics Sexed semen New forages EVALUATE ALL OPTIONS They must be profitable for YOUR operation Proper technology use can reduce risk Keep consumers aware
Percent of Inventory Are These Technologies Scale Neutral? 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1-49 head Beef Cow Operation Size, 2007 50-99 head 100-499 500+ head Missouri U.S.
This Picture Can t Continue Long-Term $ Per Head AVERAGE RETURNS TO CATTLE FEEDERS Feeding 725 Lb. Steers, S. Plains, Monthly 275 225 175 125 75 25-25 -75-125 -175-225 -275-325 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA-AMS & USDA-NASS, Compiled & Analysis by LMIC C-P-22 05/16/13
MU Thompson Research Center A focus on better genetics Higher accuracy AI studs used Research on FTAI protocols Steers have been fed at Irsik and Doll Feedyard Data on profitability Multiple years What do you see in these cows?
Feedyard Returns by Thompson Research Center Cow 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321
Index; 1 = average Does Quality Affect Profitability? 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 Select Choice Prime
Index; 1 = average How About Sire? 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 A B C D E
The Missouri Cattle Business Is Changing! Missouri is well-positioned to grow in importance in the U.S. cow-calf sector However, other states are working hard on their herds as well We can t keep doing things the same way we have the past couple of years Must target consumer demand Must increase productivity even faster Tools exist I hope when the 2023 Breimyer Seminar happens we have 2+ million head of beef cows and not <1.5 million