At Warren and Carol Wiebert’s Kansas feedyard, the computer has become one of the most valuable tools for working cattle.
Located in Decatur county, the family-owned business feeds and finishes 38,000 head at a time. With electronic sorting they are able to report back to their clients how well every steer performed in the lot and in the packing house.
“A lot of people look at the feedlot as screwing up what was a good product at the seedstock level or on the ranch,” Wiebert told the directors of four purebred associations who met in Calgary Oct. 16 to discuss ways to improve beef.
Read Also
Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins
Hormone implants can lead to bigger calves — reducing greenhouse gas intensity, land use intensity and giving the beef farmer more profit, Manitoba-based model suggests.
“If you didn’t breed in the specific genetics for the optimum beef production, there is nothing I can do as a feeder to change that,” he said.
The system was started in 1994 as a way to micro-manage cattle and meet the demands of the modern consumer, who is abandoning beef for other meats.
Cattle at Wiebert’s yard are owned jointly with producers through the Decatur County Alliance. The Wieberts charge $12 a head to join.
Their management methods depend on the collection, assimilation and interpretation of large quantities of data, said Wiebert. So far, the system is paying for itself.
This is how it works.
When animals arrive at Decatur, they walk through an alley system of five chutes.
In the first chute, they are identified with a unique number on an electronic ear tag that cross-references them back to their ranch. As they walk through the second chute, they are photographed to evaluate their frame size. The third chute has an electronic ear tag reader. They are measured with ultrasound in the fourth and in the final chute they receive their implants and vaccinations.
They are then sorted in pens for size and type. The process is repeated in 65 days and the animals are sorted according to how well they grew. If they have reached their optimum weight, they may get shipped at that time. They may be assessed a third time and the computer can tell whether they are ready for slaughter or should stay on feed longer.
“Every critter has an expiration date,” Wiebert said.
All cattle are sold on a negotiated grid formula at Excel Packers. The Wieberts have arranged to deliver cattle the same day every week so the packer is ready for them.
Sorting animals has enabled the Wiebarts to ensure nearly all those shipped fit into the packer’s weight specifications of 650 to 850 pound carcasses. More than half grade Choice and few show signs of nonconformities like dark cutters.
Each producer receives a sheet containing all information on their animals, as well as packer results on carcass merit. The sheet lists the animals from worst to best and tells the customer how much money each lost or earned.
One client who received a report on his cattle got rid of all his bulls to make some major genetic changes. Twenty-five percent of his cattle were losing money. They did not gain enough or grade high enough.
The Wieberts’ records show the top 25 percent of the cattle earn an average $120 per head more, while the bottom quarter lose $20 each. Overall, the lot earns an average of $50 per head so they would like to remove the bottom 25 percent to boost profitability.
They have also found the top cattle are healthier with better frame scores, better daily gain and feed efficiency. More than 83 percent of these high performers grade Choice.
