| | A preconditioned calf is one that has been vaccinated, castrated and weaned for 30-45 days prior to sale date and has experience feeding from a bunk. Most producers would agree that preconditioning adds value to calves but are not certain whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
Cattle buyers will usually pay for value but they need to be assured that the preconditioning has been done properly. Fortuneately, availability of animal information to the buyer can be very good which allows buyers to find cattle easily. Consequently source verification of cattle has become as important as preconditioning itself.
What is preconditioning worth?
Two recent studies from Iowa State University provide evidence that preconditioning is beneficial to feedlots. In one study cattle were obtained from three separate sources: 1) ranch direct preconditioned calves; single source 2) preconditioned calves from many sources commingled on sale day 3) unweaned calves commingled on sale day. The calves were randomly placed in feedlot pens and fed a backgrounding/finishing ration of corn and corn silage until they reached slaughter weight. The calves were compared for final weight, days on feed, ADG, health costs, pulls and retreats. Non-preconditioned calves had a slightly lower ADG, more days on feed and higher health treatment costs including pulls and retreats than the other two groups of calves (See Table 1). For 650 lbs of gain the non-preconditioned calves were on feed for 10 days longer and had approximately 4$/head higher health product costs.
Table 1. Effect of cattle source on performance and health cost
 | Ranch PC | Multiple PC | Non-PC |
| Number | 71 | 56 | 66 |
| In Weight | 612 | 611 | 619 |
| Out Weight | 1263 | 1291 | 1308 |
| Days on Feed | 258 | 264 | 278 |
| ADG | 2.52 | 2.58 | 2.48 |
| Health Cost $/head | $1.48 | $ 2.17 | $6.13 |
| Pulls | 2% | 14% | 47% |
| Retreats | 0% | 2% | 25% |
In a second study the Iowa State University researchers evaluated several years of steer test data that showed a higher value for preconditioned calves. The results showed non-weaned calves were 3 times more likely to experience BRD than weaned calves, independent of age, feedlot or vaccine status. They concluded that the net profit was $57.48/head lower for steers treated for just BRD and 20% of the calves were treated. From this information, it is highly advantageous for feedlots to buy cattle that they do not have to treat.
What will feedlots pay?
Experience suggests that the seller will bear the majority of the post- weaning treatment cost in a preconditioning program. For example research shows that 40% of the treatment for BRD occurs in the first 14 days in the feedlot while 81% of the first treatment of high morbidity cases is in the first 42 days.
Researchers from Iowa State put together an estimated budget for a 42 day preconditioning program. The budget included feeding, vaccination and treatment costs. The budget showed a $23.00 return to facilities labour and management illustrating that a preconditioning program pays for itself after accounting for weight gain and price slide without a premium from feedlots. The researchers concluded that for operations with the appropriate facilities and time the cash cost of preconditioning was relatively low.
While research indicates that feedlots can benefit from preconditioned calves they must have confidence in the calves they are buying. This can be done by documenting calves back to the herd of origin or participating in a recognized preconditioning program that requires third party (vet, auction yard) validation. Another Iowa State study found that after accounting for factors that could impact cattle prices such as weight, grade, sex, feed prices and lot size, preconditioned calves brought higher prices. For example, a pooled group of 90 head (550 lb steers) received $20- 35/head more than non-source verified calves.
The bottom line is that buyers can pay more for verified preconditioned calves.
Prepared By:
Dr. Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein
Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Lethbridge
Southern Alberta Beef Review - April/May, 2001. Volume 3, Issue 2
Edited by:
Ken Ziegler, Ag Info Centre, Alberta Agriculture and Food, September 2011 |
|