Southern Ag Today

Author: Kenny Burdine

  • Four Questions the 2025 Cattle Market Will Need to Answer

    Four Questions the 2025 Cattle Market Will Need to Answer

    Trends are always difficult to ascertain coming out of holiday periods as many markets are closed and volumes tend to be pretty light, but cattle prices have started 2025 very strong. While questions exist on the demand side, tight cattle supplies will remain the primary driver in the new year and should continue to support prices. And as always, weather will have a significant impact on feed and forage availability and cattle marketing patterns. As I write this article in early January, I want to discuss four questions that I think will be important for the 2025 cattle market to answer.

    Will we start to see significant heifer retention? – This question has been circulating for the better part of the last two years. There are a lot of reasons why retention has been delayed including weather, production costs and interest rates. But market conditions should be very favorable again and I do think heifer retention could be seen in 2025 if weather cooperates. When heifer retention does pick up, it will further tighten supplies of cattle as those females are held out of the marketing system. This will be the first stage of growing this cowherd, which is currently at a 60+ year low.

    Can slaughter weights keep increasing? – Most analysts are forecasting beef production to be lower in 2025. These forecasts are based on continued decreases in cattle numbers and the potential for decreased female harvest in response to high prices. In truth, I could have written this exact same thing last year. But with cattle supplies tight, beef prices high, and feed prices relatively low, cattle were fed longer and to heavier weights. This increase in pounds largely offset the decrease in female slaughter and resulted in steady beef production levels for 2024. I will readily admit that I don’t know how much further weights can be pushed, if at all, but those same factors are largely at play again this year. So, I will be watching harvest weight trends very closely.

    Will we see greater than expected growth in pork and poultry production? – Holding everything else constant, lower feed prices increase returns across all livestock species and lead to greater production levels. And production levels of competing meats do impact beef and cattle prices. Recent increases in pork production have been driven almost entirely by productivity, rather than increases in breeding inventory, and increases in broiler production have been running close to the long run trend. I just point this out because production increases can occur much faster in the hog sector than the cattle sector, and faster still in the poultry sector. While there aren’t many indications of expansion in other species currently, this was a factor in 2015, and I think it bears watching in 2025. It is important to remember that beef supplies are not the only factor that impacts beef prices. All proteins compete in the meat case.

    What will be the impact of any changes in trade policy? – Trade has been a major topic of discussion recently and I doubt that will change in 2025. Beef exports have been lower in recent years due to tight domestic supplies and high prices, but the US still exported the equivalent of roughly 11 percent of production last year. In the past, retaliatory tariffs have impacted beef and cattle prices, so it bears watching going forward. It is also important to remember that the nature of beef trade very much depends on the trading partner. For example, we export a lot of beef to Mexico and Canada, but we are also a significant import market for those two countries. And while trade discussions typically focus on beef, a significant number of live cattle enter the US from Mexico and Canada each year. Conversely, over half of US beef exports go to Japan, South Korea and China, but those are almost exclusively export markets. The complexity of each of these trading relationships makes discussion of trade impacts very complex and something that will be interesting to follow this year.

    Burdine, Kenny. “Four Questions the 2025 Cattle Market Will Need to Answer.” Southern Ag Today 5(2.2). January 7, 2025. Permalink

  • When is an Hour of Operator Labor, Not Just an Hour of Operator Labor?

    When is an Hour of Operator Labor, Not Just an Hour of Operator Labor?

    As an Extension Economist, I regularly have the opportunity to talk about cow-calf profitability. I usually start with revenues, talking about calf prices and making assumptions about weaning weight and weaning rate. Then I walk through costs like winter feed (hay), pasture maintenance, breeding, vet/medicine, trucking, sale expenses, etc. While there is always room for discussion, most of these expenses can be estimated on a “per cow” basis by making some reasonable assumptions. At some point in the discussion, I bring up the topic of labor. Some cow-calf operations hire a significant amount of labor, but for a lot of these operations, the majority of labor is unpaid operator labor.

    The classic economist approach to valuing unpaid labor is to value it at its opportunity cost. By that, I mean if the farmer could be making $20 per hour doing something else, their labor on the farm should be valued at $20 per hour and be treated as an expense. On the surface, it’s hard to argue with this logic, but it is also not the way that most farmers think about the value of their time. For this reason, I tend not to treat labor as an expense but instead make the point that any return must be sufficient to adequately compensate the operator for the time they spend. This allows each individual in the room to evaluate whether that return is sufficient and place whatever value they feel is appropriate on their time.

    One danger of this approach is that it may encourage ignoring other expenses that often accompany operator labor. To illustrate this, consider two very different operator labor hours – an hour spent manually clearing fence rows and an hour spent on a tractor baling hay. A producer clearing fence rows may be using a set of loppers to cut small saplings, they may have a smaller set of clippers for briars and weeds, and they may even have a chainsaw they use on occasion when needed. An overly eager economist could talk about depreciation on that chainsaw and the other equipment, as well as the fuel being used when the chainsaw is operating, but clearly, these costs are pretty minimal. The point here is that the vast majority of the cost associated with an hour clearing fence rows is time.

    On the contrary, time is a much smaller portion of the total cost of an hour spent baling hay. Beyond the hour of labor, the producer baling hay is running both a tractor and hay baler. Fuel costs are much more significant, as is depreciation on both pieces of equipment. The same can be said of maintenance and repairs associated with the additional use of the equipment. Choosing not to place a value on an hour spent clearing fences is one thing, but not placing a value on time spent baling hay is very different. Obviously, I am describing two extremes here, but hopefully, it helps to illustrate the point I am making. Sometimes an hour of operator labor is not just an hour of operator labor, especially if there are a lot of other expenses being incurred during that hour.

    My experience has been that most farmers prefer time spent running machinery over time spent doing more manual labor. In fact, many producers would readily trade manual labor hours for more machinery hours. Cleaning out fence rows on a hot day is tough work, but the expense beyond the value of the time spent is minimal. Conversely, that same hour spent baling hay comes with a lot of additional expenses beyond the value of that time. The point is that choosing not to value operator labor is the choice of the farmer, but that farmer still needs to make sure they are valuing other costs incurred during those operator labor hours. Failing to do so has the potential to greatly underestimate the total costs for the operation.

    Burdine, Kenny. “When is an Hour of Operator Labor, Not Just an Hour of Operator Labor?” Southern Ag Today 4(42.1). October 14, 2024. Permalink

  • The Three Ps of Herd Expansion: Profit, Pasture and Patience

    The Three Ps of Herd Expansion: Profit, Pasture and Patience

    The beef cow inventory is at a sixty-three-year low. Tight supplies have driven cattle markets and calf prices have increased by roughly $1 per lb over the last two years. Limited heifer retention and beef cow slaughter exceeding 10 percent of beef cow inventory for the year indicate that beef cow numbers will be even lower in 2025. Cowherd expansion will happen eventually but, there appears to be little evidence that producers have an appetite for that currently. For the cow herd to grow, we need to have the 3 Ps of herd expansion at the cow-calf level: profit, pasture, and patience.

    The first P is probably the most obvious – profit. There will be no interest in cowherd expansion without money being made at the cow-calf level. While profit has been there recently, it is important to remember that these strong calf price levels are relatively new. We actually went from November 2015 to February 2023 (7 years and 4 months) with the state average price of a 550 lb medium / large frame #1-2 steer in Kentucky being under $2 per lb. Coming out of that challenging 7-year period, I think a lot of cow-calf operators have been cautious and guarded. Just as importantly, a lot of costs are substantially higher now than they were ten years ago, so comparing current calf prices to historical calf prices is misleading. Still, I think current returns at the cow-calf level are sufficient to see heifer retention if the other two Ps fall into place.

    The second P is pasture, and I am using pasture broadly to describe forage/feed availability. While profit may be the first driver of expansion, no level of profit can make it rain, and limited pasture and hay supplies can nix any interest in expansion. As a recent example, drought was so widespread in the US during 2022 that expansion would have been highly unlikely, regardless of calf price levels. Both hay supplies and pasture and range conditions have improved since 2022, but a lot of areas have been dry this year, including my home state of Kentucky. 

    The final P is patience, and I think this may be the one that is most lacking in the cattle industry right now. When a farmer decides to expand the size of their cowherd, they are trading income from the sale of heifers today for a stream of income from additional calf sales in the future. Weaned heifers are valuable in 2024 and passing up that income in the short run is difficult. Developing heifers is also costly and is an expense that is incurred well before additional calves can be sold. These same factors were largely present when our last expansion began in 2015, but interest rates were considerably lower than they are today. Higher interest rates increase the cost of production and also increase the preference for income today, rather than in the future. Put another way, patience is at a premium in higher interest rate environments like the present.

    At some point, the three Ps will line up and herd expansion will start. When that will happen is a difficult question to answer, but it is safe to say there are no signs of heifer retention right now. Limited heifer retention, combined with cow slaughter levels, suggest that another decrease in beef cow inventory is almost certain when the January 2025 estimates are released. So, supply fundamentals are encouraging and should continue to support calf prices next year. Many are also expecting some reductions in interest rates over the several months, which may factor into this decision at the producer level. 

    If weather cooperates, I do think increased heifer retention could be seen in 2025, but it is important to remember that this would just be the first step towards expansion. And the initial impact of heifer retention is actually a tightening of calf markets as those heifers are held back. There are always risk factors out there, but I remain optimistic about the next couple of years largely because cattle supplies are tight and likely to get tighter. We are not seeing signs up expansion yet, so all we can do is watch for the 3 Ps!

    Burdine, Kenny. “The Three Ps of Herd Expansion: Profit, Pasture, and Patience.” Southern Ag Today 4(41.2). October 8, 2024. Permalink

  • Growing On-feed Inventory, Lower Placements, and No Sign of Heifer Retention

    Growing On-feed Inventory, Lower Placements, and No Sign of Heifer Retention

    USDA’s July Cattle on Feed report was released on Friday July 19th. These monthly reports estimate inventory in US feedlots with one-time capacity exceeding 1,000 head, which represent more than 80% of total on-feed inventory in the United States. The July report is also a quarterly report that includes data on the steer-heifer mix in feedlots. This brief article will walk through last week’s report and some of the implications of it.

    Total on-feed inventory declined during the month of June with July 1 inventory estimated at just over 11.2 million head. This trend is normal as on-feed numbers tend to decline seasonally from winter to late summer. Compared to 2023, July 2024 inventory was actually about 0.5% higher. On the surface this seems odd given the recent declines in the size of calf crops, but I maintain that cheap feed and higher slaughter weights are largely the reason for this as cattle are being fed longer.

    Feedlot placements have been the most interesting number to watch in recent months. For the month of June, placements were down almost 7% from last year. This contrasts with placements being 4% higher year-over-year for the month of May. These last two months illustrate why it is sometimes hard to look at things purely on a monthly basis. If I instead calculate feedlot placements for the first 6 months of 2024, as compared to the first 6 months of 2023, total placements have been down by 3.2%. This likely tells the feeder cattle supply story a bit better.

    Since USDA will not be publishing a July Cattle Inventory report this year, the July steer-heifer mix on feed is especially important as it provides some perspective on heifer retention. Heifers accounted for 39.6% of on-feed inventory in July, which was actually higher than the previous estimate from April. If retention were occurring, one would expect the heifer percentage to be in the low-mid 30% range, so this continues to suggest that expansion is not on the near horizon.

    Burdine, Kenny. “Growing On-feed Inventory, Lower Placements, and No Sign of Heifer Retention.” Southern Ag Today 4(30.2). July 23, 2024. Permalink

  • Understand the Implications of a Price Slide When Buying and Selling Cattle

    Understand the Implications of a Price Slide When Buying and Selling Cattle

    Everyone who buys or sells feeder cattle regularly understands that in most markets, the price per pound decreases as cattle get heavier. This can create a challenge for pricing cattle in situations where weight is not known with certainty. Final weight is uncertain in forward contracts, internet sales, and when cattle are sold off the farm but hauled to another location to determine pay weight. In these situations, cattle are often sold with a base weight, and the price is adjusted downward as the weight of the cattle exceeds that base weight. As an illustration, let’s consider a backgrounder that sold cattle via an internet auction with an advertised base weight of 800 lbs. and a price slide of $8 per cwt. Let’s further assume that the cattle sell for $240 per cwt in the auction and will be hauled to a weigh station the following week to determine the pay weight.

    If those steers were to weigh exactly 800 lbs, no price adjustment is needed. The pay weight is 800 lbs. and the price is $240 per cwt for a total of $1,920 per head. However, if the cattle weighed 850 lbs., the price is adjusted downward because they are 50 lbs. above the base weight. With an $8 per cwt slide, the price would be adjusted downward by $4 per cwt (50 lbs. is half of a cwt). With a pay weight of 850 lbs. and an adjusted price of $236 per cwt, the per head total is $2,006. Price slides can get much more complicated than this, but this simple illustration captures the process well enough for this discussion. As long as the price slide is not so large as to actually result in a lower value per head, the seller is typically happy to have more lbs. to sell. In the previous example, the cattle sold for $86 more than they would have had they weighed right at the base weight.

    Now, I want to focus this discussion on the difference between the artificial price slide used to adjust the price for cattle weighing above the base weight and the actual market price discount as cattle get heavier. The table below illustrates this point in relatively simple terms. Suppose the market price for an 800 lb. steer is $240 per cwt and the market price for an 850 lb. steer of the same type and quality was $235 per cwt. This would imply that the actual price discount in the feeder cattle market was $10 per cwt and the market value of those 850 steers would be $1,997.50 per head (850 lbs. x $235 per cwt). If a seller advertised that group of steers with a base weight of 800 lbs. and a $10 per cwt price slide, the price slide and the market discount for weight would match perfectly. The final price would be the same even though the pay weight exceeded the base weight. This scenario is shown in the middle row of the table below, but this will not be the case when differences exist between the market discount for weight and the price slide.

    If the artificial price slide is less severe than the market discount as cattle get heavier, then the seller is actually better off if the pay weight exceeds base weight because the lower artificial price slide would result in a smaller price discount due to the additional lbs. This is illustrated below with the $8 per cwt price slide and note that the final price is higher for these steers. Previous research has found evidence that sellers tend to underestimate weights in these situations (Brorsen et al., 2001). Conversely, if the market discount is greater than the price slide, the seller would actually receive a lower final price than had they advertised the cattle with the higher base weight to begin with. Note that the $12 per cwt price slide below, which exceeds the market discount, results in a lower final price. In situations such as this, sellers have no incentive to overestimate weight (Burdine et al., 2014).

    In theory, price slides used for selling cattle with weight uncertainties should evolve with the market. But my experience has been that they are often slow to adjust, whereas market conditions change very quickly. The key point from this discussion is that a price slide is most efficient when it is roughly equal to the market discount as cattle get heavier. In those situations, there is no incentive for sellers to underestimate weight when selling cattle on a slide and there is little true penalty if they do. Buyers and sellers both need to understand the implications when prices slide and market weight discounts diverge, as this can have an impact on both parties.


    Base weight
    Sale Price
    Pay Weight
    Price Slide    		Final Price
    per cwt    		Final Value
    per head
    800$240850$8 per cwt$236$2,006.00
    800$240850$10 per cwt$235$1,997.50
    800$240850$12 per cwt$234$1,989.00

    References:

    Brorsen, B. W., N. Coulibaly, F. G. C. Richter, and D. Bailey. 2001. “Feeder Cattle Price Slides”. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26: 291-308.

    Burdine, K.H., L. J. Maynard, G.S. Halich, and J. Lehmkuler. 2014. “Changing Market Dynamics and Value-added Premiums in Southeastern Feeder Cattle Markets”. The Professional Animal Scientist. 30:354-361.

    Burdine, Kenny. “Understand the Implications of a Price Slide When Buying and Selling Cattle.” Southern Ag Today 4(21.3). May 22, 2024. Permalink