Identification of Risk Vulnerability in
Cow-calf Operations
Final Report
Stan Bevers
Professor and Extension Economist
Project Number RME-D1D02334
Southern
This project utilized the
Beef Cow-calf Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) program to identify
strengths and vulnerabilities of cow-calf operations during a two year
period. The SPA program is a production
and financial performance analysis system and facilitates the comparison of an
operations performance between years, producers, production regions, and
production systems (Bevers and McCorkle).
The analysis is normally completed the following calendar year after the
calves have been weaned. This assures
that all production and financial data needed has been completed.
The project involved
cow-calf operators completing the analysis twice with the assistance of the
project manager. Eleven ranches were
analyzed for two years. The first
analysis was completed in the spring and summer of 2007 for calves weaned in
the 2006 year, i.e., the 2006 year was analyzed. These results were then compared to the means
and standard deviations of a SPA database (benchmark) to determine the
operations strengths and vulnerabilities.
Results included ten production performances, 25 financial performances,
and eleven miscellaneous performances.
An operation’s strengths and vulnerabilities were identified when their
results were 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean of the benchmark database
means.
Following the first years
completion, a risk management plan was completed for each operation that
identified specifically where their vulnerabilities were. The report included possible means of
mitigating the risk.
In the spring and summer of
2008, the second year analyses were completed.
Results were compared to the previous year’s analysis results and also
to the benchmark means and standard deviations.
A final risk management report was completed which then included a trend
analysis.
Table 1 presents the 2006
production strengths and vulnerabilities of the eleven herds compared to the
benchmark mean and standard deviation.
In this case, the benchmark mean and standard deviation were based upon
97 herds making up 51,888 breeding females that had completed the SPA analysis
since 2002. Of the ten production
performances, there were five strengths and three weakness found across the
eleven ranches. The most common strength
was pounds weaned per acre. The benchmark
mean was 48.1 pounds per acre while the standard deviation was 35.1. This suggests large variability across the
benchmark data and in fact the benchmark data includes ranches that utilize
native pasture (where pounds per acre would be very low) to ranches that
utilize predominantly improved pastures (where pounds per acre would be very
high). Vulnerabilities were limited to
three; however, two of these were identified on the same ranch (ranch 10). Overall, the results are not surprising in
that the typical focus of the operators and resource experts tend to be on the
production side. In the end, most
operations’ production levels are alike unless an abnormal one-time situation
occurs such as a disease outbreak or a non-performing bull battery.
Table 2 outlines the revenue
and expenses per breeding female and strengths and vulnerabilities of the
eleven herds. The benchmark Gross
Revenue mean was $515.24 per breeding female while the standard deviation was
132.6. Gross revenue includes sales of
weaned calves (or values assigned to retained calves), value of retained
replacement heifers, gains and/or losses on the sale of culled breeding stock,
and finally any miscellaneous income generated from the cow-calf
resources. Again, ranchers are typically
characterized as price takers and if their production level is somewhat common
as suggested by the Table 1 results, then their gross revenue would have to be
alike as well.
As pointed out by most media
and experts, most ranchers need to focus on their cost structure. Table 2 also includes 23 expense items and
one total cost. Each of these expenses
is expressed on a breeding cow basis.
The benchmark mean was $519.31 per breeding female while the standard
deviation was 137.0. Comparing the gross
revenue to the total cost, the benchmark net income was a negative $4.07 per
breeding female.
Of the 23 expense types, 24
ranch vulnerabilities were found. The
most common vulnerability across the ranches was professional fees where four
ranch’s professional fees were greater than 1.5 standard deviations away from
the benchmark mean. Professional fees
represent a small percentage of the total costs (1.2%) and include accounting
fees, legal fees, etc.
The most vulnerabilities
found on the eleven ranches were four.
Ranch 2 was vulnerable for Building and Improvement Depreciation,
Freight, Utilities, and Professional Fees.
Ranch 3 was vulnerable for their Purchased Feed expense, their repair
and maintenances cost, utilities, and their veterinary and breeding
expenses. Three ranches were found to be
vulnerable with regard to their total costs.
Table 3 presents summary
data as well as some miscellaneous date.
Breakeven price per cwt of weaned calves provides a common figure where
production and costs are compared. The
benchmark mean is $111.41 per cwt while the standard deviation is 31.2. While the standard deviation is high, no
ranches were found to be vulnerable.
However, given the standard deviation, some of the ranches would find it
difficult to be profitable if they were even one-half standard deviation from
the benchmark mean. As mentioned above,
cow-calf operators are considered to be price takers. The benchmark price received for weaned
calves was $108.68 per cwt. Two ranches
were vulnerable with regard to the amount of mineral and salt and protein
supplement that was fed. Finally, the
actual rainfall deviation from normal percentage is presented. Rainfall amounts varied greatly with eight of
the eleven ranches experiencing below normal rainfall amounts. Four ranches experienced less than 75 percent
of normal rainfall. While this affects
the current year weaning weights and feed amounts, it also affects the
pregnancy percentage for the calves weaned in the following year.
The second year’s analyses
were completed during 2008 for calves weaned in 2007. The benchmark means and standard deviations
were calculated on 116 herds encompassing 63,005 breeding females. The eleven herds’ second analysis was again
compared to benchmark means and standard deviations.
The 2007 results were
influenced by the operator’s management, carryover drought conditions from 2006
for many of the herds, as well as inputs costs that were starting an
unprecedented increase. Table 4 presents
the production strengths and vulnerabilities.
Compared to 2006, vulnerabilities increased from three to eight. The bulk of these were in one ranch (ranch 2)
where drought conditions prevailed into 2007.
Strengths changed very little.
Rising feed and fuel prices
influenced the 2007 results. However, some
ranches made changes to reduce their vulnerabilities. Overall, 25 vulnerabilities were identified
across the eleven herds (Table 5). The
largest change across the expense types was with fuel (Gasoline, Fuel, and Oil)
and Feed Purchased. In 2006, these were
vulnerabilities for zero and two ranches respectively. In 2007, three ranches were identified to
have fuel as a vulnerability and three ranches were
identified to have feed purchases as a vulnerability.
Three ranches showed
improvement in the number of expense vulnerabilities. The greatest improvement was in Ranch 2 where
the 2006 results showed four expense types as vulnerable. The 2007 results for Ranch 2 identifies only
one expense item, Building and Improvement Depreciation, as still being outside
1.5 standard deviations from the benchmark mean. Three ranches maintained the number of
identified vulnerabilities, while five of the herds’ vulnerabilities increased.
Table 6 provides the 2007
miscellaneous strengths and vulnerabilities for the eleven ranches. Continued dry conditions increased the
vulnerability of some ranches, particularly Ranch 2 where the 2006 drought
conditions continued well into 2007.
Rising costs and poor production performance combined to make the
overall ranch vulnerable as shown by the breakeven price per cwt of weaned
calves being tagged as a vulnerability.
Likewise, Ranch 5 results show the increased nutrition (forage fed,
mineral and salt fed, and protein supplement fed) being supplied by the
management and as such each was identified as a vulnerability.
This program allowed
ranchers to identify their strengths and their vulnerabilities. It will become increasing important that
ranchers identify those areas that need attention and then take action to
alleviate the risk. As pointed out by
McCorkle, et.al., the real benefits and impacts for SPA occur after the
third year of completion.
Table 1. 2006 Production
Strengths and Vulnerabilities of Participating Cow-calf Herds.
|
|
Benchmark Mean |
Benchmark Stand Dev |
Ranch 1 |
Ranch 2 |
Ranch 3 |
Ranch 4 |
Ranch 5 |
Ranch 6 |
Ranch 7 |
Ranch 8 |
Ranch 9 |
Ranch 10 |
Ranch 11 |
|
Pregnancy Percentage (percent) |
87.8 |
13.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pregnancy Loss (percent) |
4.6 |
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calving Percentage (percent) |
84.2 |
9.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calf Death Loss (percent) |
2.9 |
2.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weaning Percentage (percent) |
81.7 |
9.4 |
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female Replacement Rate (percent) |
11.7 |
11.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
Average Weaning Weights (pounds) |
518.4 |
69.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
Pounds Weaned per Breeding Female |
425.4 |
82.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
Pounds Weaned per |
48.1 |
35.1 |
S |
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
Calving Season Length (days) |
143.1 |
95.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
Table 2. 2006 Revenue and Expense per
Breeding Female: Strengths and Vulnerabilities
of Participating Cow-calf Herds.
|
|
Benchmark Mean |
Benchmark Stand Dev |
Ranch 1 |
Ranch 2 |
Ranch 3 |
Ranch 4 |
Ranch 5 |
Ranch 6 |
Ranch 7 |
Ranch 8 |
Ranch 9 |
Ranch 10 |
Ranch 11 |
|
Gross Revenues |
$515.24 |
132.6 |
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chemicals |
$6.16 |
9.4 |
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
Custom Hire |
$11.94 |
22.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dep. – Livestock |
$38.14 |
34.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
Dep. – M/E |
$32.97 |
27.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dep. – B/I |
$11.90 |
15.0 |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feed Purchased |
$67.81 |
42.8 |
|
|
V |
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
Fertilizer & Lime |
$33.38 |
40.4 |
V |
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freight |
$1.60 |
3.1 |
|
V |
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline, Fuel, & Oil |
$22.49 |
16.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance |
$10.67 |
15.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hired Labor & Mgnt. |
$73.28 |
64.9 |
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
Rents/Leases |
$38.78 |
47.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
Repairs/Maintenance |
$34.59 |
29.0 |
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seed & Plants |
$3.77 |
7.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplies |
$16.20 |
28.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property Taxes |
$14.06 |
23.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
Utilities |
$10.00 |
$10.3 |
|
V |
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vet & Breeding |
$20.83 |
14.8 |
|
|
V |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Fees |
$6.01 |
7.8 |
|
V |
|
|
|
V |
|
V |
|
|
V |
|
Miscellaneous |
$19.00 |
42.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrual Adj. |
$1.74 |
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
$21.77 |
44.0 |
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family Withdrawals |
$22.21 |
26.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Costs |
$519.31 |
137.0 |
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
V |
Table 3
2006 Miscellaneous:
Strengths and Vulnerabilities of Participating Cow-calf Herds.
|
|
Benchmark Mean |
Benchmark Stand Dev |
Ranch 1 |
Ranch 2 |
Ranch 3 |
Ranch 4 |
Ranch 5 |
Ranch 6 |
Ranch 7 |
Ranch 8 |
Ranch 9 |
Ranch 10 |
Ranch 11 |
|
Breakeven Price (dollars per cwt of
weaned calf |
$111.41 |
31.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Calf Price Received ($/cwt) |
$108.68 |
14.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cull Female Price ($/cwt) |
$46.32 |
8.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cull Bull price ($/cwt) |
$59.23 |
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investment (Cost Basis) per
Breeding Female |
$3,159.73 |
3,352.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities per Breeding
Female |
$416.12 |
731.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds of Feed Fed per Breeding
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forage |
1,653.9 |
1,401.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complete Feed |
70.9 |
257.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral & Salt |
34.2 |
26.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protein Supple. |
298.4 |
327.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
73.7 |
81.3 |
103.4 |
71.7 |
69.5 |
120.5 |
78.3 |
118.8 |
85.7 |
85.7 |
57.1 |
Table 4. 2007
Production Strengths and Vulnerabilities of Participating Cow-calf Herds.
|
|
Benchmark Mean |
Benchmark Stand Dev |
Ranch 1 |
Ranch 2 |
Ranch 3 |
Ranch 4 |
Ranch 5 |
Ranch 6 |
Ranch 7 |
Ranch 8 |
Ranch 9 |
Ranch 10 |
Ranch 11 |
|
Pregnancy Percentage (percent) |
87.7 |
12.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pregnancy Loss (percent) |
4.4 |
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calving Percentage (percent) |
84.0 |
9.7 |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
Calf Death Loss (percent) |
2.9 |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
|
|
Weaning Percentage (percent) |
81.5 |
9.3 |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
|
Female Replacement Rate (percent) |
11.8 |
11.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
Average Weaning Weights (pounds) |
521.7 |
69.0 |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
Pounds Weaned per Breeding Female |
426.8 |
83.0 |
|
V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
Pounds Weaned per |
47.3 |
36.5 |
|
|
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
Calving Season Length (days) |
138.5 |
92.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V |
|
Table 5. 2007 Revenue and Expense per
Breeding Female: Strengths and Vulnerabilities
of Participating Cow-calf Herds.
|
|
Benchmark Mean |
Benchmark Stand Dev |
Ranch 1 |
Ranch 2 |
Ranch 3 |
Ranch 4 |
Ranch 5 |
Ranch 6 |
Ranch 7 |
Ranch 8 |
Ranch 9 |
Ranch 10 |
Ranch 11 |
|
Gross Revenues |
$527.85 |
145.8 |
|
|
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chemicals |
$5.98 |
8.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Custom Hire |
$13.21 |
26.4 |
|
|
V |