United States Small-scale U.S. Agriculture Animal and ...

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Small-scale U.S. Cow-calf Operations

Veterinary Services

National Animal Health Monitoring System

April 2011

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 2150 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 (970) 494-7000 Email: NAHMS@aphis.

#596.0411

Cover photo courtesy of Agricultural Research Service

Items of Note

For this report, small-scale cow-calf operations were defined as operations with fewer than 100 beef cows. Farms with fewer than 100 beef cows are important contributors to U.S. agriculture, accounting for 90.4 percent of all farms with beef cows and 45.9 percent of all U.S. beef cows (NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture).

The majority of small-scale cow-calf operations relied at least partially on off-farm income to support the household. When considering all the hours worked on and off farm, producers on operations with fewer than 50 beef cows devoted an average of 28.9 percent of their total work time to the cow-calf operation, and operations with 50 to 99 beef cows devoted an average of 47.3 percent of their work time to the operation.

Almost 8 of 10 operations with fewer than 50 beef cows (78.0 percent) operated their cow-calf operation as a supplemental source of household income; 5.3 percent operated as the primary source of household income; and 16.7 percent operated for some other reason, such as pleasure. Among operations with 50 to 99 beef cows, 68.3 percent operated their cow-calf operation as a supplemental source of household income; 24.1 percent operated as the primary source of household income; and 7.6 percent operated for some other reason, such as pleasure.

Over 60 percent of small-scale cow-calf operations used production practices to target conventional marketing channels for calves produced (60.5 and 68.7 percent of operations with 1-49 and 50-99 beef cows, respectively). About 7 of 10 of the operations that functioned as the primary source of household income (72.7 percent) targeted conventional marketing channels compared with about 5 of 10 of the operations that functioned for reasons other than income (55.8 percent). A very small percentage of operations used specific production practices to target certified organic marketing channels (1.2 and 0.2 percent of operations with 1-49 and 50-99 beef cows, respectively). The percentage of operations that targeted conventional and certified organic marketing channels did not differ substantially by herd size.

Use of some marketing practices for calves differed between small-scale cow-calf operations and larger operations. Operations with fewer than 100 beef cows were less likely to use specific production practices to target breed-influenced programs and age-and-source verification programs than operations with 100 or more beef cows. Small-scale operations were also less likely to utilize forward pricing of calves than larger cow-calf operations. Just 2.3 percent of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows and 3.1 percent with 50 to 99 beef cows marketed calves using forward pricing.

USDA APHIS VS / i

Utilization of reproductive technologies, such as estrus synchronization, palpation for pregnancy, ultrasound, and semen evaluation, generally increased with herd size. The two most common reproductive technologies used across all cowcalf operations were semen evaluation and palpation for pregnancy. Palpation for pregnancy was used by about 1 of 10 operations with 1 to 49 beef cows (10.8 percent) and about 1 of 4 operations with 50 to 99 beef cows (25.8 percent). For operations that did not use a particular reproductive technology, the most common reason cited was labor/time.

Producers were asked to consider whether certain diseases had a significant economic impact on their operations in 2007. Of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows, 58.8 percent strongly agreed or agreed that external parasites had a significant economic impact on their operation, while 49.6 percent strongly agreed or agreed that internal parasites had a significant economic impact. Over one-half of operations with 50 to 99 beef cows strongly agreed or agreed that open/late calvers, external parasites,

and internal parasites had a significant economic impact (73.9, 65.2 and 57.1 percent of operations, respectively). A lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows than operations with 50 or more beef cows strongly agreed or agreed that calf scours, pneumonia/ shipping fever, or open/late calvers had a significant economic impact.

About 6 of 10 operations with 1 to 49 beef cows (59.4 percent) vaccinated any cattle or calves in 2007 compared with about 9 of 10 operations with 50 to 99 beef cows (86.6 percent). A lower percentage of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows vaccinated calves against respiratory disease from birth to sale compared with operations with 50 or more beef cows.

ii / Small-scale Operations Initiative

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report: USDA. 2011. Small-scale U.S. Cow-calf Operations USDA?APHIS?VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO #596.0411

Contacts for further information: Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Andrea Beam (970) 494?7000 Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Fienhold (970) 494?7000 Email: NAHMS@aphis.

Feedback Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding this report are welcome. Please forward correspondence via email to: NAHMS@aphis., or you may submit feedback via online survey at: (Click on "FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.")

USDA APHIS VS / iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Terms Used in This Report 4 Section I: Population Estimates 5 A. Business Characteristics 5 1. Contribution of the cow-calf operation to household income 5 2. Marketing channels 7 3. Forward pricing 9 4. Sales and customers 10 B. Animal Health and Management Practices 11 1. Grazing land 11 2. Reproductive technology 12 3. Impact of health problems 14 4. Vaccinations 15 Section II: Conclusions 16 1. Marketing channels 16 2. Vaccination 16 3. Reproductive technology 17 4. General conclusions 17 References 19

iv / Small-scale Operations Initiative

Introduction

Introduction

This report is the second in a series of reports resulting from the Small-scale Operations Initiative implemented by the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) at the request of the administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The primary objective of the Small-scale Operations Initiative is to investigate factors that set smallscale operations apart from larger operations. This particular report provides information comparing small and large beef cow-calf operations.

Data sources

Unless otherwise noted, data for this report were taken from the NAHMS Beef 2007?08 study, which was conducted in 24 States.* As of January 1, 2008, these 24 States accounted for 79.6 percent of all U.S. cow-calf operations and 87.8 percent of all U.S. beef cows. Furthermore, these States accounted for 76.8 percent of small-scale U.S. cow-calf operations (fewer than 100 beef cows) and 82.7 percent of U.S. beef cows on small operations (USDANASS).

Defining farm size for cow-calf operations

The USDA defines a small farm as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation with annual gross sales of less than $250,000 for all agricultural products sold from the farm. However, for this report small-scale cow-calf operations are defined as operations with fewer than 100 beef cows as of July 1, 2007. This definition has been utilized by other researchers as well (Lacy et al., 2003; Ward et al., 2008). In addition, most operations with fewer than 100 beef cows would be expected to have annual gross cattle sales well below $250,000 (Benson and Poore, 2008; Forero et al., 2008), although some cow-calf operations also raise and sell other livestock or crops, increasing the operations' total gross sales. This report discusses characteristics and management practices of operations with 1 to 49 beef cows and 50 to 99 beef cows. These two size groups account for 79.4 and 11.0 percent, respectively, of all 764,984 farms with beef cows in the United States (NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture).

A total of 2,159 cow-calf operations participated in the NAHMS Beef 2007?08 study. The study used a stratified random sample with unequal selection probabilities. All respondent data were statistically weighted to reflect the population from which they were selected. Additional details of sample weighting and study design are published elsewhere (USDA-APHIS, 2008; USDAAPHIS, 2010).

Small-scale cow-calf farms in the United States

Farms with fewer than 100 beef cows accounted for 90.4 percent of all U.S. farms with beef cows and 45.9 percent of all U.S. beef cows (NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture) [figure 1]. Of these small farms, the majority had fewer than 50 beef cows.

*Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.

USDA APHIS VS / 1

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download