Cattle Producer Attitudes Towards Alternative ... - AgEcon Search

Mississippi State University Departmental Research Report 2000-006

Department of Agricultural Economics June 2000

Cattle Producer Attitudes Towards Alternative Production and Marketing Practices Randall D. Little, Charlie S. Forrest and R. Curt Lacy Department of Agricultural Economics Mississippi State University P.O. Box 5187 Mississippi State, MS 39762 [email protected] Phone: 662-325-2750 Fax: 662-325-8777 Allen Williams1, Terry J. Engelken2, Fred D. Lehman2, Tommy Gregory3, Michael S. Boyd1, Blair McKinley1, Gary D. Jackson4, and Richard Hopper2 1

Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Services, Mississippi State University 3 Mississippi Agricultural Statistics Services 4 Department of Agricultural Information Sciences and Education, Mississippi State University 2

Abstract This paper reports the results of a comprehensive survey of Mississippi beef cattle producers regarding their current production and marketing practices and their attitudes toward and willingness to employ alternative production and marketing practices. This research was funded by the Rural Business Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture and the William M. White Special Program, Mississippi State University. Keywords: beef cattle production and marketing practices, producer attitudes

i Copyright © June 22, 2000 by Randall D. Little, Charlie S. Forrest and R. Curt Lacy. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables....................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 Current Production Practices ..................................................................................... 1 Current Marketing Practices ...................................................................................... 1 Alternative Production and Marketing Practices ........................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Objective .............................................................................................................................. 3 Overview of the Mississippi Cattle Sector............................................................................. 4 Research Methods and Procedures ........................................................................................ 4 Results 6 Current Production Practices................................................................................................. 7 Production and Financial Records ............................................................................. 8 Replacement Heifers ................................................................................................. 8 Breed Make-up of the Cow Herd ............................................................................... 9 Bull Breeds ............................................................................................................. 10 Bull Selection.......................................................................................................... 12 Health Management Practices.................................................................................. 13 Vaccination.................................................................................................. 13 Deworming.................................................................................................. 13 Grub and Lice Control ................................................................................. 14 Fly Control .................................................................................................. 15 Castration .................................................................................................... 15 Dehorning.................................................................................................... 16 Implanting ................................................................................................... 17 Consulting a Veterinarian ............................................................................ 17 Pregnancy Checking .................................................................................... 18 Breeding Soundness Exam........................................................................... 18

Current Marketing Practices................................................................................................ 19 Sources of Purchased Cattle .................................................................................... 24 Factors That Influence Timing of Cattle Sales..................................................................... 27 Retaining Ownership............................................................................................... 30 Pooling Cattle with Other Producers........................................................................ 30 Use of existing Livestock Marketing Cooperatives .................................................. 33 Alternative Production and Marketing Practices.................................................................. 33 Calving Season Length and Timing ......................................................................... 34 Custom Preconditioning or Grazing......................................................................... 34 Willing to Adopt Alternative Production and Marketing Practices ........................... 36 General Demographic Information...................................................................................... 38 Producer Age and Year Producing Beef Cattle ........................................................ 39 Off-farm Equipment ................................................................................................ 40 Importance of the Cattle Enterprise ......................................................................... 41 Other Characteristics ............................................................................................... 42 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................. 43 Current Production Practices ................................................................................... 43 Current Marketing Practices .................................................................................... 44 Alternative Production and Marketing Practices ...................................................... 45 References .......................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 47

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.

MISSISSIPPI BEEF CATTLE PRODUCER SURVEY OVERVIEW, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................... 5

TABLE 2.

BREEDING HERD MAKE-UP, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999............................. 6

TABLE 3.

ANNUAL STOCKER/YEARLING AND CATTLE ON FEED PRODUCTION, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999........................................................................ 7

TABLE 4.

TIMING OF CALVING, BY SEASON OF THE YEAR, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................... 8

TABLE 5.

USE OF ANIMAL AND FINANCIAL RECORDS IN MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999......................................................... 9

TABLE 6.

SOURCES OF REPLACEMENT HEIFERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................... 9

TABLE 7.

BREED MAKE-UP OF THE COW HERD, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 11

TABLE 8.

BREED MAKE-UP OF THE BULL HERD, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 11

TABLE 9.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF A BULL, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 .................................................................................... 12

TABLE 10. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – HERD VACCINATIONS, MISSISSIPPI, 1999.................................................................... 13 TABLE 11. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – DEWORMING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 14

iv

TABLE 12. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – GRUB AND LICE CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 14 TABLE 13. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – FLY CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................ 15 TABLE 14. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – CASTRATION, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 16 TABLE 15. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – DEHORNING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 16 TABLE 16. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – IMPLANT, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 17 TABLE 17. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – CONSULTING A VETERINARIAN, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ................................................................. 18 TABLE 18. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – PREGNANCY CHECKING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ........................................................................... 18 TABLE 19. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – BREEDING SOUNDNESS EXAM, MISSISSIPPI, 1999............................................................... 19 TABLE 20. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE ON A REGULAR SALE DAY AT AN AUCTION MARKET, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999............. 20 TABLE 21. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE DIRECTLY TO STOCKER OR BACKGROUNDING OPERATIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 20 TABLE 22. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE DIRECTLY TO FEEDLOTS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 .................................................... 21 TABLE 23. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE THROUGH VIDEO AUCTIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ......................................... 22 TABLE 24. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE USING FORWARD CONTRACTS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999................................ 23 TABLE 25. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE THROUGH SPECIAL SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999............................................. 23 TABLE 26. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, SALE BARNS OR AUCTION MARKETS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ........... 24 v

TABLE 27. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, DIRECT FROM OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............... 25 TABLE 28. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, THROUGH VIDEO SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 .............................. 25 TABLE 29. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, PURCHASING ON CONTRACT, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ........................ 26 TABLE 30. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, PURCHASE AT SPECIAL SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999...................... 26 TABLE 31. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – FACTORS THAT MOTIVATE CATTLE MARKETING DECISIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999................... 27 TABLE 32. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF CALVES THROUGH THE STOCKER PHASE AND FINISHING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 .................................................................................... 30 TABLE 33. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – POOLING CATTLE WITH THOSE OF OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ................................. 31 TABLE 34. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – ATTITUDES ABOUT POOLING CATTLE WITH THOSE OF OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999.............. 31 TABLE 35. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – MARKETING CATTLE THROUGH AN EXISTING LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 33 TABLE 36. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE CALVING SEASON LENGTH AND TIMING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 34 TABLE 37. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO PAY OTHERS TO PRECONDITION OR CUSTOM GRAZE ON CONTRACT OR TO PRECONDITION OR GRAZE CALVES FOR OTHERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ................... 35 TABLE 38. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT SELECTED PRODUCTION PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE IN A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ................................................... 36

vi

TABLE 39. ALTERNATIVE MARKETING PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT SELECTED MARKETING PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE IN A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ................................................... 37

TABLE 40. ALTERNATIVE MARKETING PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS INVEST IN NEW MARKET DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999...................................................................... 38 TABLE 41. PRODUCER AGE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999............................................ 39 TABLE 42. NUMBER OF YEARS RAISING BEEF CATTLE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 ............................................................................................. 39 TABLE 43. PRODUCER OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT, FULL- OR PART-TIME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999...................................................................... 40 TABLE 44. PRODUCER’S SPOUSE OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT, FULL- OR PART-TIME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999.................................... 41 TABLE 45. OFF-FARM INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999.................................... 41 TABLE 46. CATTLE SALES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GROSS FARM SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 .......................................................... 42 TABLE 47. PARTICIPATION IN BEEF CATTLE SHORT COURSES AND SEMINARS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999...................................................................... 42 TABLE 48. MEMBERSHIP IN THE MISSISSIPPI CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999........................................................................... 43

0

Cattle Producer Attitudes Towards Alternative Production and Marketing Practices

A Research and Extension Project Report

William M. White Special Project Award Program Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine Mississippi State University

Co-principal Investigators: Randall D. Little and Charlie S. Forrest Department of Agricultural Economics In Collaboration with: Michael S. Boyd, Allen Williams and Blair McKinley Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences Gary D. Jackson Department of Agricultural Information Science and Education Terry J. Engelken, Fred D. Lehman, and Richard Hopper College of Veterinary Medicine

1

Cattle Producer Attitudes Towards Alternative Production and Marketing Practices Executive Summary Effective outreach programs for educating beef cattle producers about alternative production and marketing strategies require a fundamental understanding of current practices and producer attitudes towards adoption of different practices. No comprehensive survey to gather such information has been conducted in Mississippi in recent years, until now. The goal of the research reported in this paper was to determine producer understanding of, attitudes toward, and willingness to employ alternative production and marketing practices. Key findings include: Current Production Practices · Larger producers use more intensive production and management practices, compared to the other operation size groups. · More large operations keep and use production and financial records to aid management decision making. · The importance of specific beef cattle breeds in the breeding herd was fairly consistent among operation size groups. Angus, Brangus, Hereford, and Charolais were the dominant cow breeds; Charolais, Angus, and Brangus were the most common herd sire breeds. · Larger producers employ more intensive health management practices than small producers. Current Marketing Practices · Larger producers are more willing to use marketing practices other than the traditional practice of selling at a conventional auction market. · The viability of many marketing alternatives is limited by size of operation. Without cooperative efforts, selling direct to stocker or feedlot operations, through video auctions, or forward contracting are not feasible for small producers. · Key factors that motivate cattle marketing decisions include cattle reaching a target weight, prices reaching a pre-determined level, forage availability, and anticipation of falling prices. · Almost half of all producers surveyed retained ownership through the stocker phase. Only the largest producers retained ownership through the feedlot. · While selling cattle in larger groups allows producers to receive higher prices, compared to selling in individual or small lots, most of the producers surveyed indicated that they do not pool cattle. Alternative Production and Marketing Practices · Most of the producers indicated that they would be willing to change production practices if they thought they could increase the profits from their cattle operations. · The producers surveyed were much less willing to adopt alternative marketing practices, including retaining ownership, forward contracting, pooling cattle, and accepting prices negotiated by a livestock marketing cooperative, than they were production practices. · Most of the producers were unwilling to invest in new market development through a livestock marketing cooperative.

1

Cattle Producer Attitudes Towards Alternative Production and Marketing Practices

Introduction Cattle production has historically been an important segment of the agricultural sector in the Southeast. The beef cattle industry in the Southeast is characterized by a predominance of small producers. The average number of beef cows on beef cattle operations in Mississippi, for example, is about 33 cows. The cattle sector, as reflected by inventory numbers in the Southeast, has been relatively stable over the last 15 years. However, that could change dramatically in the future. Mississippi cattle producers, especially in South Mississippi, have expressed concern over what appears to be an increasing trend in shifting pasture resources, currently used to support cattle production, to timber production. The number of acres of trees planted in the Southeast accounted for almost 75 percent the total planted to trees in the U.S. in 1994. Eight states in the Southeast, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas, planted over 100,000 acres each. As harvest on federal lands in the West declines, demand is anticipated to increase in the Southeast. In response to the anticipated increases in demand, reallocation of resources is beginning to occur: land resources currently used in pasture and forage production are being planted to trees (Ezell and Moorhead). Cattle numbers and cattle operations will likely decline as more land is shifted from cattle production to forestry. As has been observed in the lamb industry, should a sharp decline in the number of cattle operations and cattle inventories be experienced, an accompanying deterioration and erosion of the infrastructure currently in place to support the cattle industry is possible. As the number of auction markets declines, small cattle producers will have even fewer marketing options than at present. The need for cooperative efforts among surviving cattle producers in the Southeast will only be heightened in such an environment. It is well established that without some mechanism facilitating the pooling of calves, small cow-calf producers are subject to sharp price discounts when they market their calves (Faminow and Gum 1986; Schroeder, et al. 1988; Lambert, et al. 1989). Feeder calf buyers prefer to purchase cattle in truckload lots of 50,000 lbs., and they demonstrate that by their willingness to offer premiums for lot-sized shipments of uniform cattle - cattle of the same breed, sex, weight, and grade. Pooling livestock allows producers, especially small producers, to achieve more influence in the marketplace (Popp, et al. 1999). They are able to negotiate better prices and terms of trade with buyers. Not only are there potential benefits in the prices received by pooling cattle, but also in cost reductions. Guidry (1993) estimated that by pooling just 40 percent of their

2

cattle, producers in Mississippi and Louisiana could save about $12 per head in marketing costs, compared to conventionally-operated auction market. Producers have long used livestock marketing cooperatives as a vehicle for obtaining better selling prices and increased cost efficiency (Haas, Holder, and Ward 1979; Hogeland 1987). However, without modification, tools that succeeded in the past may not serve producers in today’s environment. To survive in the cattle business of the future in the Southeast, producers must be proactive, anticipating changes likely to occur, and developing strategies to cope. Objective Effective outreach programs for educating beef cattle producers about alternative production and marketing strategies require a fundamental understanding of current practices and producer attitudes towards adoption of different practices. No comprehensive survey to gather such information has been conducted in Mississippi in recent years. The goal of the research reported in this paper was to determine producer understanding of, attitudes toward, and willingness to employ alternative production and marketing practices. Data on current production and marketing practices were also gathered. The information provided by the survey will be useful in developing specific research programs determining physical and economic performance of alternative cattle production and marketing strategies. The results provide for development of strategic interdisciplinary extension programs designed to educate Mississippi cattle producers about selected production and marketing strategies and associated management issues. For example, the Integrated Resource Management (IRM) program will directly benefit from the data collected. Participating IRM producers could assist in evaluation and implementation of alternative production and marketing strategies. The alternative production and marketing strategies considered in this paper could offer improved chances for survival and increased profitability in what may become a radically altered livestock production and marketing environment in the Southeast. For example, the cooperative strategy extends the pooling concept of traditional livestock marketing cooperatives to include additional management practices, such as breed or genetic selection, breeding season management, and pre-weaning calf management. These herd management practices, which would be common to all cooperative producer-members, will provide a set of calves at marketing that are more uniform and have more predictable and consistent performance than current pooling practices based on visual appraisal and weighing can offer. It also lays the groundwork, by generating quality feeder cattle, for integration into the stocker and finishing phases of live beef production. Cattle with more predictable quality and performance characteristics lend themselves to value-added processing as a means of boosting returns to patrons. Also, cooperative purchases of animal health products and pasture inputs, such as fertilizer, could allow for volume discounts.

3

Overview of the Mississippi Cattle Sector This section provides a brief overview of Mississippi’s cattle sector. While the descriptive statistics reported focus on Mississippi, they are fairly reflective of the Southeastern beef cattle sector (with the exception of Florida, perhaps), in general. According 1997 Census of Agriculture, almost 19,000 farm operations in Mississippi (58.5 percent of all farm operations) reported owning cattle and calves in 1997. Of those, over 16,000 were classified as beef cattle operations. On the beef cattle operations reporting beef cow inventories, the average number of cows per farm was 33. However, almost 50 percent of the operations with beef cows had fewer than 20 beef cows. These operations owned just under 14 percent of the State’s beef cow inventory. The total market value of cattle and calves sold in 1997 was almost $215 million. Over 80 percent of that was attributed to farms classified as beef cattle operations. Despite the extensive nature of beef cattle ownership, the total market value of cattle and calves only comprised about 7 percent of the total market value of agricultural products sold in Mississippi in 1997, again, the product of the predominance of very small beef cattle operations. Poultry and poultry products, oilseed and grain crops, and cotton and cottonseed products generate much higher sales than do cattle and calves. Only 388 beef cattle operations in Mississippi (2.5 percent of those reporting sales of cattle and calves) had total sales of cattle and calves of $50,000 or more. Total sales by these operations was almost $75 million, over 43 percent of the total market value of the sale of cattle and calves by Mississippi beef cattle operations. The average age of Mississippi beef cattle producers is 56.7 years, down slightly from the average age of 57 years in 1992. Mississippi’s average beef producer has been in operation on his or her current farm for 20.5 years, virtually unchanged from 1992. Research Methods and Procedures The objective of this paper, to determine producer attitudes toward and understanding of alternative beef cattle production and marketing methods, was accomplished through a survey of Mississippi cattle producers. The survey instrument was designed to ascertain current production and marketing practices, as well as producer understanding of and willingness to adopt alternative production and marketing methods that may provide additional benefits. Producers were also queried regarding herd size and producer demographics, such as age and tenure. While only Mississippi cattle producers were surveyed, the results are likely descriptive of cattle producers throughout the Southeast. Thus, the results can provide insight into the potential acceptance of alternative beef cattle production and marketing methods by cattle producers in the Southeast.

4

The survey conducted was a probability survey, properly weighted and adjusted for non-response. The Mississippi Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS), USDA, administered the survey. Use of trained MASS enumerators provided proper sampling and confidentiality. Comparisons of select survey results to data routinely collected by MASS suggest that the survey results are reliable. After expanding the data from the sample to the population, items, such as total number of cows and timing of calving, checked against other sources match up quite well. Table 1 provides basic details about the survey, including a summary of the universe (N) and sample counts (n) and adjustments for non-response. The responses were segregated into five strata, based on size of operation. The sample was drawn from the National Agricultural Statistics Service's List Sampling Frame. This is a list of every known cattle producer in Mississippi. It is the most complete list in existence and is used by USDA for producing official statistics.

TABLE 1. MISSISSIPPI BEEF CATTLE PRODUCER SURVEY OVERVIEW, 1999

Strata

N

n

Refusals Adjusted Completed and Correctio Expansio n Expansio Questionnair Inaccessib n n Factor es le Factor Factor

1: 1 - 49 Cattle

16,761

150

111.740

81

69

2: 50 - 99

4,465

325

13.738

153

172

2.124

29.180

3: 100 - 249

2,228

476

4.681

270

206

1.763

8.253

4: 250 - 499

528

303

1.743

130

173

2.331

4.063

5: 500 or more

213

101

2.109

42

59

2.405

5.072

676

679

24,195 1,355

1.852 206.942

The unadjusted expansion factor is calculated by dividing the number of sample units in the universe by the number of sample units in the sample. Completed questionnaires contain more operations than those that are currently in the cattle business. For example, those operators who were discovered to have died were counted as completed questionnaires. Incomplete questionnaires are those for which the current status of the operation could not be determined. One reason the status of some operations could not be determined was that the operator refused to cooperate on the survey. Refusals totaled 40 operations. Inaccessible operations totaled 639 operations. This figure is relatively high and was primarily due to the fact that there was 5

no attempt to contact operations by personal interview. Telephone interviews were the only means used to follow up. The sample expanded up to 16,878 cattle operations. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, there were 26,000 cattle operations in 1999. The reason the survey did not expand to 26,000 is that the list sampling frame is incomplete. The Mississippi Agricultural Statistics Service uses an area frame to supplement its list frame on their surveys of the cattle industry. The area frame was not used on this study due to cost limitations. Results The survey response summaries are presented in this section. General descriptive data are presented to help characterize the operations, based on size, including current production and marketing practices, then responses to survey questions targeting producer attitudes about alternative beef cattle production and marketing methods are presented. Finally, the demographic data are presented. The descriptive data provide a basis to analyze information on current and proposed management and marketing practices with regard to characteristics of producers in each strata. This allows for targeting of educational efforts and defining a beef cattle marketing alliance with increased chances of success. The make-up of the breeding herds by for the different size operations is presented in Table 2. The number of beef cows ranged from 21.1 cows per operation in the smallest herd size group to almost 400 cows per operation in the largest; the number of replacement heifers ranged from 4.5 to 63; and the number of bulls ranged from 1.6 to 17.3 per operation. The smallest operations averaged 27.2 head in their breeding herds, while the largest operations averaged 478.1 head. The overall average for all respondents was just under 50 head of breeding livestock per operation. TABLE 2. BREEDING HERD MAKE-UP, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Cows

Replacement Heifers

21.1 44.0 86.3 153.3 397.8

Bulls

(number of head) 4.5 6.3 12.8 17.2 63.0

39.5

6.6

6

Total

1.6 1.9 3.4 5.9 17.3

27.2 52.2 102.5 176.4 478.1

2.1

48.2

Current Production Practices

The producers surveyed were asked about their annual production of stocker or yearlings and cattle on feed (Table 3). On average, the producers surveyed produce 30.2 stockers and two head of cattle on feed annually. The smallest operators reported producing, on average, about 12 stockers and only 0.3 head of cattle on feed annually. Production in the largest operations included about 839 yearlings and stockers and 41 head of cattle on feed annually.

TABLE 3. ANNUAL STOCKER/YEARLING AND CATTLE ON FEED PRODUCTION, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Stockers/ Yearlings

Cattle on Feed

(number of head) 12.4 27.4 53.5 139.6 838.7 30.2

0.3 1.9 5.8 18.8 41.4 2.0

About 57 percent of the calves born on the operations of the producers surveyed were born in the spring (Table 4). The predominance of spring calving was consistent among size groups, with the exception of the smallest group. About 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of calves, overall, were born in the fall and winter months. The larger size groupings indicated that about 20 percent of the calves were born in fall and 20 percent in the winter, compared to only 14 percent for each period, fall and winter, for smaller producers. The fewest calves were born in the summer months, regardless of operation size, according to the survey responses.

7

TABLE 4. TIMING OF CALVING, BY SEASON OF THE YEAR, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Spring

Summer

Fall

Winter

62.0 57.3 51.1 48.5 58.1

(percent) 10.7 13.6 7.7 18.7 6.7 20.4 6.8 23.5 2.4 21.6

13.8 16.4 21.8 21.2 17.9

56.8

8.0

17.2

17.9

Production and Financial Records The producers surveyed were asked about their use of animal and financial records to support their management decision making. Almost half (48 percent) of the respondents indicated that they used animal records while just over 61 percent said they used financial records as a decision making aid (Table 5). The larger operations were more likely to use the information provided by records, both animal and financial, when making decisions, than the smaller operations. No data reflecting the types of record keeping systems used were collected in the survey. Replacement Heifers The predominant source of replacement heifers was those raised on location, i.e., on-farm. About 75 percent of the largest operations and up to 90 percent of the operations with 50 to 99 head indicated that heifers they raised were their source of replacements (Table 6). The sale barn or conventional auction market was the second most frequently indicated source of replacement heifers, with relatively little variation among size groups. The smallest producers indicated purebred producers were an important source of replacement heifers, much more so than the other size strata.

8

TABLE 5. USE OF ANIMAL AND FINANCIAL RECORDS IN MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Animal Records Yes

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Financial Records

46.9 45.2 57.0 56.0 67.9

No Yes (percent) 53.1 59.2 54.8 61.1 43.0 68.8 44.0 79.2 32.1 75.9

40.8 38.9 31.2 20.8 24.1

48.0

52.0

38.8

61.2

No

Commercial producers and special sales were indicated as slightly more important sources for replacement heifers for larger operations than for the smallest size group. Producers were asked to identify the sources of their replacement heifers, multiple answers were possible, hence the percentages total more than 100.

TABLE 6. SOURCES OF REPLACEMENT HEIFERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Raised

Commercial Producer

Special Sales

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

81.6 90.4 86.5 80.2 75.0

2.0 6.1 6.5 8.8 7.1

Sale Barn/ Purebred Auction Producer Market (percent) 4.1 28.6 18.4 4.3 19.1 1.7 3.5 26.0 6.0 8.8 27.5 4.4 7.1 17.9 7.1

83.9

3.6

4.2

26.2

13.1

Other

4.1 0.9 3.0 4.4 0.0 3.3

Breed Make-Up of the Cow Herd The producers surveyed were asked to indicate, as best they could, the breed or breeds reflected in their cowherd. These results are presented in Table 7. Angus is the predominant breed in Mississippi beef cow herds, according to the survey results, with almost 40 percent of the herds in the state with Angus or Angus cross cows. A slightly higher percentage of the larger herds (46-49.5 percent) reported Angus cows compared to the smaller herds (37-38 percent). 9

Brangus, Hereford, and Charolais, were the next most popular beef breeds with 19.7, 18.8, and 17.8 percent of the producers indicating those breeds as a part of the breed make-up of their cow herds. Charolais was the predominate European breed reflected in Mississippi’s beef herd, followed by Limousin, Simmental, and Gelbvieh. About twice as many of the larger operations indicated owning Charolais cows than did the smaller operations. The popularity, as reflected in breed make-up, of Limousin and Simmental was fairly consistent across the different size groups. However, only about 7 percent of the largest producers indicated they had Simmentals in their cowherds, compared to a statewide average of 11 percent. Also, only 2 percent of the operations, on average, indicated that the Gelbvieh breed was a part of their cowherd’s breed make-up. In contrast, just over 10 percent of the largest operations indicated they had Gelbvieh cows. About 13 percent of the cowherds in Mississippi, according to the survey responses, have Brahman and Brahman-cross cows in their breeding herds. The level of the Brahman breed as a component of the cow herd breed make up varied only slightly by size of operation. Unknown crossbreeds were indicated as a key component of the breed make up of beef cow herds regardless of size of operations. The smallest operations indicated a higher predominance of unknown crossbred cows in their cowherd (36.7 percent), compared to the other size groups, which ranged from 25 to almost 29 percent. Bull Breeds The producers surveyed were asked to indicate the number of bulls in their herd by breed. The make-up of the bull herd used by the Mississippi cattle producers surveyed is presented in Table 8. Based on the survey results, the predominate breeds used for herd sires are Charolais, Angus, and Brangus. These breeds comprise about 22, 20, and 19 percent of the bulls used by the survey respondents, respectively. Limousin, Beefmaster, Hereford, and Simmental each comprised from about 6 to 8 percent of the bull herd, on average. Brahman, Gelbvieh, and Santa Gertrudis, which comprised 2.5, 2.5, and 1.2 percent of the bull herd of the survey respondents, respectively, were among the least used breeds, according to the survey results. Another 4.7 percent of the bull herd was designated as “other” by the survey respondents. There was relatively little variation among size groups in the relative importance of the breeds of bull. Angus bulls were slightly more predominant on larger operations, compared to small ones (25 to 26 percent compared to 17 percent). In contrast, Brangus bulls were slightly more important to smaller operations (22 percent compared to 14 to 16 percent). Larger operations used slightly more Charolais bulls than did smaller operations (25 to 30 percent compared to 17 to 21 percent).

10

TABLE 7. BREED MAKE-UP OF THE COW HERD, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Angus Herefor Limousi Charola Santa Simmental Beefmaste Brahma Gelbvie Brangu Unknow Other Size d n is Gertrud r n h s n is Cross (percent) 1-49 38.8 16.3 16.3 14.3 8.2 10.2 10.2 12.2 2.0 16.3 36.7 4.1 50-99 37.4 22.6 10.4 21.7 4.3 12.2 14.8 13.0 0.9 21.7 27.0 11.3 10043.5 24.0 11.5 28.0 7.5 13.5 16.5 16.5 2.0 30.0 27.0 9.5 249 25049.5 22.0 15.4 28.6 4.4 13.2 9.9 15.4 8.8 41.8 25.3 9.9 499 500+ 46.4 35.7 14.3 28.6 3.6 7.1 10.7 14.3 10.7 39.3 28.6 25.0 Overall Average

39.3

18.8

14.5

17.8

7.1

11.0

11.8

12.9

2.0

19.7

33.3

TABLE 8. BREED MAKE-UP OF THE BULL HERD, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Angus Hereford Limousi Charolai Santa Brangu Beefmast Brahm Gelbvieh Simment n s Gertrudi s er an al s (percent) 1-49 17.0 7.4 9.6 21.3 1.1 22.3 6.4 2.1 2.1 6.4 50-99 17.8 8.0 8.9 17.0 1.3 15.2 12.5 4.5 2.2 8.5 10025.3 5.7 7.3 22.5 0.7 16.9 5.8 2.4 1.5 8.3 249 25025.7 4.3 11.3 25.5 1.8 13.7 4.0 2.3 5.5 3.2 499 500+ 25.7 3.1 2.1 29.6 1.9 16.0 1.9 0.2 5.2 0.6

Overall Average

19.6

6.8

8.7

21.6 11

1.2

19.2

6.9

2.5

2.5

6.4

Other

4.3 4.0 3.5 2.7 13.7 4.7

6.5

Bull Selection The cattle producers surveyed were asked to identify key factors they considered when selecting their bulls. More than one selection was allowed. The bull’s appearance was indicated as important by about 2/3 of producers in Mississippi (Table 9). The importance of appearance varied relatively as operation size changed. With about 64 percent of the producers selecting it, the bull’s breed was also an important factor considered when selecting herd sizes. Breed was slightly less important to the smallest producers (59 percent), but quite important to the larger producers. TABLE 9. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF A BULL, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Price

Breed

EPDs

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

40.8 40.0 42.0 46.2 42.9

59.2 71.3 72.5 79.1 75.0

14.3 27.0 39.5 51.6 50.0

40.9

63.8

20.8

Seller Disposition Appearance Other Reputation (percent) 22.4 20.4 67.3 8.2 25.2 33.0 63.5 11.3 26.5 32.5 61.5 4.5 30.8 46.2 72.5 6.6 39.3 35.7 67.9 3.6 23.8

25.1

66.0

8.4

The next factor most frequently identified was price, with almost 41 percent of the producers responding indicating they considered bull price when selecting herd sizes. The importance of price as factor producers consider was quite consistent across the size groups. The seller’s reputation was also an important factor to about ¼of the producers responding. According to the survey results, the importance of the seller’s reputation increases as herd size increases. Only about 22 percent of the smallest producers indicated that they consider the seller’s reputation when selecting a herd size. In contrast, almost 40 percent of the largest producers said they do. The bull’s disposition was another factor that was important to ¼of the respondents, on average. In general, the importance of bull disposition increased as herd size increased, with the exception of the largest Herd Size. Finally, information about the bull’s expected genetic performance, as indicated by Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs), is a factor considered by about 1/5 of all producers, according to the survey results. However, the importance of EPDs as selection criteria varied widely with the size of operation. Only about 14 percent of the smallest operations indicated they used EPDs when selecting their herd sizes. In contrast, some 50 percent of the largest operations use EPDs. This suggests that the 12

larger operations, those most likely to rely on the cattle operation as a major source of household income, place value on the information provided by EPDs. They also seem to incorporate more factors into the bull selection decision process than the smaller producers. Health Management Practices The producers surveyed were asked about the herd health management practices they typically use. Specifically they were asked if they employ those practices according to recommendations, if they occasionally employ those practices, or if they never employ the listed practices on their operations. Producer responses to the queries regarding their herd health management practices are summarized in this section. Vaccination. According to the survey results, almost all of Mississippi's cattle producers at least occasionally vaccinate their cattle (Table 10). A slight majority (56.7 percent) vaccinates their beef cattle according to recommendations. The tendency to vaccinate according to recommendations increased considerably as operation size increased, from about 51 percent of the smallest operations to 90 percent of the largest operations.

TABLE 10. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – HERD VACCINATIONS, MISSISSIPPI, 1999

Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

According to Occasionally Recommendations (percent) 51.0 39.2 61.2 32.8 76.0 20.7 76.3 21.6 90.3 6.5 56.7

35.2

Never

9.8 6.0 3.4 2.1 3.2 8.1

Overall, only about 8 percent of the survey respondents indicated that they never vaccinate their cattle. A larger percentage of those producers who do not vaccinate are small operations. About 10 percent of the smallest operations never vaccinate, compared to 2.1 and 3.2 percent of the largest two herd size groups. Deworming. Over 96 percent of the beef cattle producers surveyed indicated that they at least occasionally deworm their cattle (Table 11). Regardless of size of operation, nearly 2/3 deworm their cattle according to recommendations. The tendency to deworm according to recommendations increased as operation size increased, from about 61 percent of the smallest operations to 87 percent of the largest operations. 13

Only about 3 percent of the producers surveyed indicated that they never deworm their cattle.

TABLE 11. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – DEWORMING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


According to Recommendations

Occasionally

Never

60.8 66.7 76.2 76.0 86.7

(percent) 35.3 31.7 21.4 24.0 13.3

3.9 1.7 2.4 0.0 0.0

64.2

32.6

3.2

Grub and Lice Control. The tendency among the producers to employ measures to control grubs and lice on their beef cattle practically mirrors their vaccination practices (Table 12). About 90 percent of all producers surveyed indicated that they at least occasionally take steps to control grubs and lice. Just over half of all producers indicated that steps they take to control grubs and lice are according to recommendations. As with the other health management practices discussed, more of the larger operations (up to 80 percent of the largest operations) took measures to control grubs and lice according to recommendations than did the smaller producers.

TABLE 12. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – GRUB AND LICE CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


According to Recommendations

Occasionally

Never

46.9 59.8 62.9 64.6 80.6

(percent) 42.9 26.5 28.2 29.2 16.1

10.2 13.7 8.9 6.3 3.2

52.1

37.2

10.7

Just under 11 percent of all the producers responding, indicated that they never attempt to control grubs and lice in their beef herds. Most of those producers were in the smallest two size groups. 14

Fly Control. Producer use of measures to control fly problems was similar but slightly less than use of vaccinations and grub and lice control practices (Table 13). Almost 90 percent of all cattle producers responding indicated that they at least occasionally took measures to control flies. Just over half of all producers controlled flies according to recommendations. The tendency to employ fly control practices according to recommendations increased as herd size increased, from 49 percent of the smallest herds to just over 77 percent of the largest herds.

TABLE 13. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – FLY CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


According to Occasionally Recommendations (percent) 49.0 39.2 51.7 38.8 56.5 34.3 61.5 31.3 77.4 19.4 50.9

38.2

Never

11.8 9.5 9.2 7.3 3.2 10.8

Just under 11 percent of all the producers responding indicated that they never attempt to control flies. Most of these operations were in the smallest size groups. For example, almost 12 percent of the smallest operations never use any fly control measures, compared to only 3.2 percent of the largest herds. Castration. The producers were asked if they castrated their calves. About 35 percent of the respondents indicated that they always castrate; 34 percent that they occasionally castrate; while just over 30 percent never castrate (Table 14). The tendency to always castrate increased sharply as herd size increased from only 31 percent of the smallest operations to 80 percent of the largest operations.

15

TABLE 14. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – CASTRATION, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


According to Recommendation

Occasionally

Never

31.3 35.5 49.8 65.6 80.0

(percent) 37.5 27.3 31.0 25.8 16.7

31.3 37.3 19.2 8.6 3.3

35.4

34.2

30.4

A large percentage of those that never castrate were smaller operations. For example, only about 3 percent of the largest producers indicted that they do not castrate, while about a third of the producers in the smallest two size groups indicted that they never castrate. Dehorning. Producers indicted that they were less likely to dehorn than castrate their calves (Table 15). Only about 46 percent indicated that they at least occasionally dehorn; only 22 percent always dehorn their calves. The tendency to dehorn as a routine health management practice increased considerably as size of operation increased. Of the smallest operations only 17 percent always dehorn and 21 percent occasionally dehorn. In contrast, 70 percent of the largest operations dehorn, and another almost 17 percent occasionally dehorn. TABLE 15. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – DEHORNING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


According to Occasionally Recommendation (percent) 17.0 21.3 24.8 28.3 35.4 32.3 45.7 23.9 70.0 16.7 21.8

24.0

Never

61.7 46.9 32.3 30.4 13.3 54.2

Just over half (54 percent) of the producers surveyed indicated that they never dehorn their calves. Clearly most of the operations who do not dehorn are small-almost 62 percent of the smallest operations indicated that they never dehorn. In contrast, about 13 percent of the largest operations indicated that they never dehorn. 16

Implanting. The producers surveyed were asked about their use of growth promotants, or implants, in their calves. Only about 15 percent of the respondents indicated that they use implants according to the recommendations (Table 16). Another 10 percent use them occasionally. Only in the largest two size groups did a majority of the producers surveyed indicate that they use implants, at least occasionally, as calf management practices. A clear majority of the producers in the smaller size groups, about 75 percent overall, never use growth promotants. Consulting a Veterinarian. Almost 90 percent of the producers surveyed indicated that they at least occasionally consulted veterinarians as a health management practice (Table 17). Most of the respondents (about 60 percent) only consult veterinarians occasionally, while about 30 percent said they regularly seek veterinarian input. TABLE 16. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – IMPLANT, MISSISSIPPI, 1999



Occasionally

Never

13.0 13.8 21.2 34.4 46.7

(percent) 8.7 8.3 14.3 20.0 23.3

78.3 78.0 64.6 45.6 30.0

14.9

9.6

75.5

The percentage of producers who regularly consult a veterinarian increased steadily as size of operation increased, from 25 percent of the smallest operations to 60 percent of the largest. Most of the producers in all size groups, except the largest, occasionally consult a veterinarian. Almost 13 percent of the smallest producers indicated that they never consult a veterinarian. The percentage who never consulted veterinarians decreased as size of operation increased, to about 2 percent of the producers in the second largest size group. However, 10 percent of the largest producers indicated that they never consult a veterinarian.

17

TABLE 17. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – CONSULTING A VETERINARIAN, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

25.5 36.4 40.5 45.1 60.0

Occasionally (percent) 61.7 57.3 51.3 52.7 30.0

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

30.2

59.1

10.6

12.8 6.4 8.2 2.2 10.0

Pregnancy Checking. Only about 1/3 of the producers surveyed indicated that they pregnancy check their cows at least occasionally (Table 18). Most never pregnancy check their cows. There was little difference in the use of pregnancy checking as a management practice among the producers in the three smallest size categories. However, most of the larger producers (those with 250 head or more) indicated they pregnancy checked their cows, at least occasionally. About 45 percent of the largest producers indicated that they regularly pregnancy check their cows. TABLE 18. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – PREGNANCY CHECKING, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

16.7 16.1 16.3 28.4 45.2


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

17.1

16.0

66.9

68.8 68.8 60.0 42.0 35.5

Breeding Soundness Exam. The reproductive function of bulls is dependent on sexual desire, mating ability, and the formation and deposition of viable and mobile semen. Poor fertility or infertility is an often overlooked cause of low productivity. Breeding soundness exams (BSE) are recommended to help minimize losses due to poor fertility. BSEs should include a physical examination, examination of the reproductive tract, a semen evaluation, and an evaluation of mating desire. Most (66 percent) of the cattle producers surveyed indicated that they never have breeding soundness exams performed on their bulls; almost 18 percent regularly have 18

BSEs performed on their bulls, while another 16 percent occasionally have BSEs (Table 19). As with several of the other health management practices, the larger producers indicated that they are more likely to use BSEs, at least occasionally. Among the largest operations, almost 37 percent of the producers regularly have BSEs performed on their bulls, compared to only 18 percent overall; another 43 percent have them done occasionally, compared to 16 percent overall; and only 20 percent never have BSEs done, compared to 66 percent overall. TABLE 19. CURRENT HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – BREEDING SOUNDNESS EXAM, MISSISSIPPI, 1999



Occasionally

Never

16.7 15.5 22.1 40.0 36.7

(percent) 14.6 17.3 21.6 25.6 43.3

68.8 67.3 56.3 34.4 20.0

17.7

16.4

65.9

Current Marketing Practices

According to the survey results, almost 3/4 of Mississippi cattle producers, especially the smaller producers sell their cattle regularly at conventional livestock auction markets (Table 20). Another 19 percent occasionally market cattle at sale barns. These findings are consistent with other studies. Reliance on regular use of conventional auction markets decreased as operation size increased – only 43 percent of the largest operations used conventional auctions regularly. Just over 21 percent of the largest operations never use conventional auction markets, compared to the overall average of 7.3 percent.

19

TABLE 20. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE ON A REGULAR SALE DAY AT AN AUCTION MARKET, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Occasionally

Never

72.0 80.0 73.2 61.3 42.9

(Percent) 18.0 19.2 23.9 31.2 35.7

10.0 0.8 2.9 7.5 21.4

73.4

19.3

7.3

Only about 11 percent of the Mississippi cattle producers surveyed indicated that they regularly sell their cattle directly to a stocker or backgrounding operation (Table 21). Another 14 percent indicated that they occasionally do so. The majority (74 percent) said they never sell their cattle directly to a stocker or backgrounding operation. TABLE 21. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE DIRECTLY TO STOCKER OR BACKGROUNDING OPERATIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

11.1 7.8 13.5 26.5 25.9


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

11.2

14.6

74.3

77.8 75.5 59.4 43.4 29.6

There was a distinct difference in the use of selling directly to stocker or backgrounding operators as a marketing practice as operation size changed. About 78, 75, and 59 percent, respectively, of the producers in the smallest three size groups never sell directly to these operations. In contrast, over half of the operations in the second largest size of operation group, at least, occasionally sold directly to stocker operations and about 70 percent of the largest operations did.

20

The trend of increasing direct sales to stocker or backgrounding operations as size increases can likely be attributed to economies of size, particularly with respect to transactions costs. Larger operations can provide a greater volume of more consistent cattle than smaller operation. Selling cattle directly can be advantageous to both buyers and sellers. Direct sales to a stocker or backgrounding operation lowers the cow-calf producer’s transactions costs, as there are no yardage charges, commissions, etc. associated with auction markets. Cow-calf producers could also receive higher prices since their calves have not been co-mingled with other calves at an auction. Because of the limited exposure to disease, risks associated with disease and death loss are lowered for stocker operators who buy directly from producers. The vast majority, about 93 percent, of the operations surveyed indicated that they never sell their cattle directly to a feedlot (Table 22). Only 1.5 percent indicated that they regularly sold cattle directly to a feedlot, while another six percent said they occasionally do. As with selling directly to stocker operations, there was a steady increase in the percentage of operations who sell directly to feedlots as operation size increased. None of the smallest operations surveyed indicated that they regularly sell directly to a feedlot, while only 4.5 percent said they occasionally do. About 25 percent of the operations with 250 to 499 head indicated they at least occasionally sell directly to feedlots. There was a significant increase in the largest size group. Over 38 percent of the largest producers indicated they regularly sell cattle to feedlots, and another 19 percent said they occasionally do.

TABLE 22. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE DIRECTLY TO FEEDLOTS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 2.0 4.8 8.9 38.5


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

1.5

6.0

92.6

95.5 92.0 83.2 75.9 42.3

More large operations, compared to small operations, tend to sell directly to feedlots for many of the same reasons as discussed for direct sales to stocker or backgrounding operations. Most commercial feedlots need 125 to 150 head to fill a pen to capacity. They prefer single source cattle in each pen. Larger operations can more readily fill this requirement. Less than four percent of the cattle producers surveyed indicated that they sold cattle through video auctions (Table 23). About one percent said they sell through video auctions regularly, another 2.6 percent said they do so occasionally. 21

Selling through video auctions is basically a marketing practice employed by large producers. About 30 percent of the producers with the largest operations indicated that they, at least occasionally, sell their cattle through video auctions. About half of those do so regularly. Just over 15 percent of the producers in the second largest size group sell cattle through a video auction at least occasionally. In the three smallest operation size groups, the percentage selling through video auctions, at least occasionally, ranged from only 2.3 to 4.8 percent. TABLE 23. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE THROUGH VIDEO AUCTIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 2.0 2.4 3.8 14.8


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

0.9

2.6

96.5

97.7 96.0 95.1 84.6 70.4

Like direct sales to stockers or feedlots, the positive correlation between operation size and sale through video auctions can also probably be attributed to economies of size. Most video auctions have a minimum lot size of about 50 head. Ideally these lots include calves of the same sex, similar genetics, and a weight range of 150 pounds or less. Smaller producers must pool their cattle to meet these specifications. Even fewer producers (only 1.5 percent, overall) sell their cattle using forward contracts (Table 24). About 98.5 percent never use forward contracts when they sell their cattle. The use of forward contracts was more prevalent among the larger operations surveyed. Almost 12 percent (2.6 percent regularly and 9 percent occasionally) of the producers in the second largest size group sell using forward contracts. There was a significant increase, to 24 percent, in the percentage of the largest producers who use forward contracts at least occasionally when selling cattle. About half of those forward contracts regularly, the other half only occasionally.

22

TABLE 24. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE USING FORWARD CONTRACTS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 2.0 1.8 2.6 12.0


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

0.8

0.7

98.5

100.0 96.0 98.2 88.5 76.0

Larger producers are more likely to sell their calves using forward contracts because it reduces the variability of their income; thus reducing their risk. Implicitly, larger producers have more total price risk than smaller producers. Therefore, in certain instances it can be advantageous for them to forward contract and reduce their price risk. However, operation size can also be a contributing factor as a requirement to forward contract is a minimum of one semi-tractor load or 50,000 pounds of uniform calves. For producers selling 350 pound calves, 143 calves are needed to fill a truck. If 650 pound calves are being sold, 77 calves are required. These numbers far exceed what smaller producers can individually provide. In short, larger producers are more able to satisfy the requirements to forward contract. The cattle producers surveyed were asked if they sold cattle through special sales, such as the Southeast Pride Sales. Most (91.2 percent) said they do not (Table 25). Of those who do sell though special sales, only 1.6 percent do so regularly, the remainder only occasionally.

TABLE 25. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SELLING CATTLE THROUGH SPECIAL SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 4.0 4.2 7.3 15.4


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

1.6

7.3

91.2

23

93.2 89.1 88.1 79.3 57.7

There was a definite trend towards using special sales as a marketing method as operation size increased. Only 6.8 percent of the smallest producers indicated that they sell cattle through special sales, and all of them only do so occasionally. Use of special sales increased to about 43 percent of the largest producers. Larger producers selling their cattle through special sales is likely a function of their management practices. As was discussed in the current production practices section, more of the large producers vaccinate, deworm, control grub and lice, control flies, castrate, dehorn, implant, and consult with a veterinarian according to recommendations than do smaller producers. Several of these management practices are requisite to participation in special sales. Most producers perceive little price advantage to performing these additional practices when calves are sold through traditional auction markets. Sources of Purchased Cattle The producers surveyed were also asked a set of questions pertaining to the sources of the cattle they purchased. Most (about 57 percent) indicated that they, at least occasionally, purchase cattle from conventional auction markets (Table 26). About 25 percent do so regularly and another 32 percent, occasionally. Almost half of the smallest operations indicated that they never purchase cattle from sale barns. In contrast, only about 26 percent of the largest producers said they never do.

TABLE 26. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, SALE BARNS OR AUCTION MARKETS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

20.8 35.4 28.5 45.5 25.9


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

25.4

31.8

42.8

47.9 32.7 35.2 31.8 25.9

A more common source for cattle, overall, is other producers (Table 27). Only 36 percent indicated that they never purchase cattle directly from other producers. Almost two-thirds indicated that they, at least occasionally, purchase cattle directly from other producers. There was no clear trend, based on size of operation, in the tendency to purchase cattle directly from other producers.

24

TABLE 27. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, DIRECT FROM OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

35.4 31.0 19.0 22.2 32.1


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

32.5

31.5

36.0

33.3 43.4 36.5 42.2 28.6

Very few (only about 2.3 percent) of the producers surveyed indicated that they purchase cattle through video auctions (Table 28). Almost all of those do so occasionally. Only with the largest operations, where just over 19 percent of the respondents indicated they occasionally purchased cattle through video auctions, were video auctions a significant source of cattle. TABLE 28. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, THROUGH VIDEO SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

0.2

2.1

97.7

97.9 98.1 97.0 98.8 80.8

Similar tendencies were exhibited when the producers were asked if the bought cattle on contract. None said they do so regularly, and only 3.3 percent do so occasionally (Table 29). Again, only in the largest size group where just over 15 percent indicated they bought cattle on contract, did contracting appear a major marketing tool for purchasing cattle. Finally, the producers were asked if they purchase cattle though special sales, such as the Southeast Pride Sales. About 13 percent indicated that they do, at least occasionally (Table 30). Most (86.5 percent), however, said they never buy cattle at special sales.

25

TABLE 29. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, PURCHASING ON CONTRACT, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

0.0

3.3

96.7

95.7 99.0 98.8 98.8 84.6

TABLE 30. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – SOURCES OF PURCHASED CATTLE, PURCHASE AT SPECIAL SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Regularly

Never

4.3 5.7 6.1 7.1 27.6


1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

5.0

8.5

86.5

89.4 85.7 76.7 75.3 34.5

As operation size increased, there was more of a tendency to purchase cattle at special sales. For example, only about 11 percent of the smallest producers purchase cattle at special sales. In contrast, about 25 percent of the producers in the second largest size group do. Significantly more (about 65 percent) of the largest producers purchase cattle from special sales. As discussed in the previous section, larger operations are more likely to use video sales, forward contracting, and special sales than smaller operations. The same factors that influence use of these options as a selling option hold for cattle purchases as well. By purchasing cattle through these markets, producers purchase larger groups of more homogeneous calves in one location. By purchasing large groups of uniform calves, purchasers can lower their transaction costs. The fact that producers buy and sell using the same marketing methods suggests that these alternative marketing techniques are perceived to be more efficient by the larger producers.

26

Factors That Influence Timing of Cattle Sales The producers surveyed were asked to indicate their views on the importance of a variety of factors that influence their cattle marketing decisions (Table 31). Of the factors identified, their cattle reaching a target weight was most important. About 80 percent of the producers surveyed said this was either important or very important as a motivator to sell. Another 13.6 percent said it was somewhat important. Cattle reaching a target weight was consistently important, regardless of operation size.

TABLE 31. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – FACTORS THAT MOTIVATE CATTLE MARKETING DECISIONS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999



I sell... When I need the money. Not Somewhat Important Important Important (percent) 42.9 20.4 20.4 43.0 28.9 14.0 35.7 29.1 23.0 45.2 30.1 12.9 40.0 33.3 16.7 42.2

23.5

19.1

I sell... At a specific point in time. Not Somewhat Important Important Important (percent) 33.3 31.3 25.0 36.3 29.2 21.2 26.2 23.1 28.2 20.2 26.6 37.2 19.4 22.6 29.0 32.8

29.8

27

24.9

Very Important 16.3 14.0 12.2 11.8 10.0 15.3

Very Important 10.4 13.3 22.6 16.0 29.0 12.6




I sell... When I run out of grass Not Somewhat Important Important Important (percent) 34.7 22.4 24.5 30.0 28.2 29.1 32.3 28.5 28.0 31.6 27.4 23.2 29.0 29.0 35.5 33.3

24.4

25.9

Very Important 18.4 12.7 11.3 17.9 6.5 16.4

I sell... When my cattle reach a target weight. Not Somewhat Very Important Important Important Important (percent) 6.0 14.0 36.0 44.0 8.4 12.6 26.1 52.9 11.4 13.4 24.3 51.0 7.3 14.6 32.3 45.8 9.7 12.9 32.3 45.2 7.1

13.6

32.5

I sell... When the price reaches a set level. Not Somewhat Important Important Important (percent) 26.5 20.4 30.6 21.2 27.4 25.7 20.0 22.1 27.7 18.7 28.6 27.5 6.5 16.1 41.9 24.4

22.2

28

29.3

46.7

Very Important 22.4 25.7 30.3 25.3 35.5 24.1


I sell... If I think prices are going to fall. Not Somewhat Important Important Important (percent) 39.6 18.8 22.9 32.7 31.8 27.1 27.4 31.6 30.0 30.4 25.0 22.8 32.3 35.5 29.0 36.6

23.0

24.6

Very Important 18.8 8.4 11.1 21.7 3.2 15.8

The second most important factor, among those listed, was selling when prices reach a certain level. About 53 percent identified price level as an important or very important factor that motivates them to sell cattle. Another 22 percent said it was somewhat important. Prices reaching a set level was significantly more important to large producers, compared to the other size groups. Forage conditions on the farm is another important factor influencing the decision to sell cattle. About 42 percent of the producers surveyed said that running out of grass is an important or very important factor that motivates them to sell. Another 24 percent said it was somewhat important. The importance of having adequate forage to justify keeping the cattle was consistent across the size groups. Anticipation of falling cattle prices was the next most important factor that motivates sale of cattle. About 40 percent said thinking prices are going to fall is an important or very important factor that motivates them to sell. Another 23 percent said it was somewhat important. Anticipating falling cattle prices was slightly less of a motivating factor to the largest producers, compared to the other size groups. Selling at a specific point in time was important or very important to 37.5 percent of the producers who responded to the survey. Another 30 percent indicated that it was somewhat important. Sale at a specific point in time more important as a factor influencing cattle sales to larger producers (100 head or more) than smaller producers. Almost 60 percent of the largest producers indicated that sale at a specific point in time is important or very important. The least important factor motivating sale of cattle, of those listed, was selling when the producer needed money. Only 34 percent indicated that selling when they needed money was important or very important. Another 23.5 percent said it was somewhat important. Selling when they needed money was slightly less important to the larger producers, compared to the smaller producers.

29

Retaining Ownership A key potential value-adding service under study in this research is the opportunity to vertically integrate in the live beef production process. Almost half of Mississippi cattle producers retain ownership through the stocker phase (Table 32). The percentage retaining ownership through the stocker phase was consistent among the different size groups. In contrast, while almost half of the largest operations retain ownership through the finishing, only about 7 percent of Mississippi beef cattle producers, overall, retain ownership through finishing. The positive correlation between operation size and producers retaining ownership through finishing is likely attributable to economies of size. As discussed previously, most commercial feedlots require 125-150 calves per pen. Unless smaller producers cooperatively place cattle in a feedlot, only larger producers can utilize this value-added practice. Also, retaining ownership through finishing involves much more risk and requires more capital, which effectively limits participation by many smaller producers. TABLE 32. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF CALVES THROUGH THE STOCKER PHASE AND FINISHING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


Through the stocker Yes No

Through finishing Yes No

48.0 45.5 42.6 31.9 48.3

(Percent) 52.0 54.5 57.4 68.1 51.7

46.6

53.4

6.2 3.8 10.2 11.4 48.3

93.8 96.2 89.8 88.6 51.7

6.7

93.3

Pooling Cattle with Other Producers Selling cattle in larger groups allows producers to receive higher prices, compared to selling in individual or small lots. However, almost all (96.1 percent) of the producers surveyed indicated that they do not pool cattle (Table 33). While larger producers are much more likely to pool cattle than the average producer, only 16.7 percent of the larger producers currently pool cattle.

30

TABLE 33. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – POOLING CATTLE WITH THOSE OF OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Yes

No (Percent) 2.0 6.9 7.8 8.2 16.7 3.9

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

98.0 93.1 92.2 91.8 83.3 96.1

The producers surveyed were asked to respond to a series of questions about pooling cattle, even if they do not pool cattle with other producers (Table 34). Almost 75 percent of the producers indicated they had never considered pooling cattle. More of the largest producers said they had considered pooling cattle than the smaller operations. TABLE 34. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – ATTITUDES ABOUT POOLING CATTLE WITH T HOSE OF OTHER PRODUCERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 “I have not considered “Larger, more uniform “Pooling saves on pooling cattle.” lots of cattle sell at a transportation costs.” high price.” Herd Size Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree (percent) 1-49 76.2 23.8 76.9 23.1 78.0 22.0 50-99 64.4 35.6 73.8 26.2 71.2 28.8 100-249 65.8 34.2 78.0 22.0 70.8 29.2 250-499 72.1 27.9 83.3 16.7 69.4 30.6 500+ 55.2 44.8 89.7 10.3 82.1 17.9 Overall Average 72.1 27.9 76.6 23.4 75.5 24.5

31

“Video auction “Buyers prefer single “It’s too risky because markets make pooling source cattle, of potential disease cattle easier.” regardless of lot size.” problems.” Herd Size

Agree

Disagree

1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

60.5 52.6 57.1 63.3 59.3

39.5 47.4 42.9 36.7 40.7

58.5

41.5

Agree Disagree (percent) 52.6 47.4 56.7 43.3 58.0 42.0 58.2 41.8 72.4 27.6 54.5

45.5

Agree

Disagree

57.5 50.5 50.3 41.5 41.4

42.5 49.5 49.7 58.5 58.6

54.6

45.4

“I don’t like to sell my “I don’t like it because “I don’t pool because I cattle at the average I can’t sell when I want don’t trust the grading pen price.” to.” and sorting.” Herd Size Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree (percent) 1-49 67.5 32.5 70.7 29.3 43.6 56.4 50-99 65.3 34.7 65.7 34.3 33.0 67.0 100-249 62.2 37.8 69.5 30.5 40.6 59.4 250-499 61.3 38.8 68.3 31.7 40.7 59.3 500+ 67.9 32.1 62.1 37.9 34.5 65.5 Overall Average 66.3 33.7 69.3 30.7 40.7 59.3

The producers surveyed seemed to recognize the primary advantages of pooling cattle: potentially higher prices and lower transaction costs. Just over 75 percent of the producers responding said that they think larger and more uniform lots of cattle sell at a higher price. A somewhat higher percentage of the larger producers indicated that they agreed that larger lots of uniform cattle sold at higher prices. About 75 percent of the producers also indicated that they agreed that pooling cattle saves on transportation costs. The percentage who agreed varied somewhat by size of operation, with no clear trend related to size. The major factors influencing producer decisions to avoid pooling cattle include the loss of flexibility in marketing (69.3 percent agreed) and a sense of being forced to accept the average pen price for their cattle (66.3 percent agreed). Almost 55 percent of the respondents indicated they agreed with the statements, “Buyers prefer single source cattle, regardless of lot size,” and “Pooling is too risky because of potential disease problems.” The decision not to pool cattle was influenced less by a lack of trust in the grading and sorting (only about 41 percent agreed) than the other factors identified. 32

In general, the largest producers expressed less reservation, compared to the other size groups, about pooling cattle with other producers. For example, about 44 percent of the smallest producers indicated that they did not trust the grading and sorting of cattle that is necessary when pooling, compared to only 34.5 percent of the largest producers. Similarly, only about 41 percent of the largest producers listed potential disease problems as a deterrent to pooling cattle, while 57.5 percent of the smallest producers did. There was slightly less variation expressed among size groups regrading the loss of flexibility in marketing. Just over 70 percent of the smallest operators, compared to 62 percent of the largest operations, indicated they do not like pooling cattle because they cannot market when they wish. The reluctance to pool cattle because of having to accept an average pen price was also quite consistent (between 61 and 68 percent) across size groups. Use of Existing Livestock Marketing Cooperatives The producers surveyed were also asked if they currently market their cattle through an existing livestock marketing cooperative. About 73 percent said they did not, 16.3 percent indicated that they did, and the remainder were unsure (Table 35). A slightly higher percentage of small producers marketed their cattle through existing livestock marketing cooperatives than did the large operations (17.3 percent compared to 12.9 percent). TABLE 35. CURRENT MARKETING PRACTICES – MARKETING CATTLE THROUGH AN EXISTING LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Yes

No (percent)

Not Sure

1-49 50-99

17.3 15.0

69.2 80.8

13.5 4.2

100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

13.7 13.4 12.9

79.1 80.4 80.6

7.1 6.2 6.5

16.3

73.1

10.6

Alternative Production and Marketing Practices

The cattle producers surveyed were asked a number questions eliciting their opinions about the prospect of changing production and marketing practices with the

33

express goal of increasing returns to their cattle enterprises. This section presents a summary of the producer responses to these questions. Calving Season Length and Timing About 3/4 of the producers responding indicated that they would be willing to change the length of their calving seasons and almost as many (72 percent) said they would be willing to change the timing of their calving seasons (Table 36). Such production management changes are requisite to producing consistent and uniform cattle within a livestock marketing cooperative.

TABLE 36. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE CALVING SEASON LENGTH AND TIMING, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


Calving Season Length

Calving Season Timing

Yes

Yes

No

No

72.0 80.2 83.3 88.2 81.5

(percent) 28.0 19.8 16.7 11.8 18.5

68.6 78.8 79.5 83.9 71.4

31.4 21.2 20.5 16.1 28.6

75.4

24.6

72.3

27.7

The smallest operations were least likely, among the size groups, to change the length and timing of their calving seasons (Table 36). The willingness to change increased with herd size, from 72 to 88 percent and from 69 to 84 percent for calving season length and timing, respectively, from the smallest operations to the second largest size group. However, willingness to modify these production practices dropped off somewhat when moving to the largest producer group. Custom Preconditioning or Grazing Contracting with others to precondition or custom graze calves at their location provides cattle producers with the opportunity to retain ownership without having to increase the size of their operation. When asked about their willingness to pay others to precondition or custom graze their calves, most (90.3 percent) of the producers expressed opposition (Table 37). The willingness to contract with others to care for the calves increased, for the most part, as operation size increased. Almost half of the 34

largest operations indicated that they would contract with others to precondition or custom graze their calves, compared to less than eight percent of the smallest operations. TABLE 37. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO PAY OTHERS TO PRECONDITION OR CUSTOM GRAZE ON CONTRACT OR TO PRECONDITION OR GRAZE CALVES FOR OTHERS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Pay Others to Precondition or Custom Graze your Calves Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Yes

Precondition or Graze Calves for Others on your Farm

No

7.8 31.1 13.0 28.0 46.7 9.7

Yes

No

(percent) 92.2 68.9 87.0 72.0 53.3

15.7 19.3 20.3 31.9 36.7

84.3 80.7 79.7 68.1 63.3

90.3

17.5

82.5

Another option producers have is to use their resources to precondition or custom graze calves on contract for others. This enables producers with excess capacity to more fully utilize their resource base, including management skills, without assuming the production and market risk inherent with ownership of stocker cattle. With about 17.5 percent of the producers surveyed indicating, “yes,” the willingness to precondition or custom graze for others was slightly higher, on average, than the willingness to contract with others to perform that service (Table 37). The degree of willingness varied by size of operation, from about 16 percent of the smallest size group indicating a willingness to almost 37 percent of the largest operations. The strong opposition to either paying to have one’s calves pre-conditioned or being paid to pre-condition calves for others expressed in the survey responses could help explain the virtual absence of this practice in Mississippi. Producer reluctance implies, perhaps, a lack of trust. A number of questions must be answered before entering a custom stocker or backgrounding agreement. Some of these include, “Who will weigh the calves on and off?” “Where will they be weighed?” “How will the producer be paid?” “Who is at fault if the calves do not perform well?” “How will death loss be handled?”

35

Willingness to Adopt Alternative Production and Marketing Practices The producers surveyed were also asked to indicate their willingness to adopt or modify selected production and marketing practices in order to participate in a livestock marketing cooperative, with the express intent of boosting net returns. The production and marketing practices selected were identified as those central to the success of a livestock marketing cooperative that produces large lots of consistent and uniform cattle and facilitates producer participation in other segments of the live beef production chain. Across the board, the willingness to adopt the identified production practices was much higher than the marketing practices (Tables 38 and 39).

TABLE 38. ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT SELECTED PRODUCTION PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE IN A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999

Change breed of bull Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Yes

No

Identify cows and calves Yes

No

Preweaning Health Program Yes

56.2 62.3 50.8 50.0 62.1

43.8 37.7 49.2 50.0 37.9

57.4 57.5 57.8 67.4 65.5

(percent) 42.6 62.5 42.5 60.2 42.2 63.9 32.6 70.0 34.5 79.3

56.9

43.1

57.8

42.2

62.5

No

Preconditioning Program Yes

No

37.5 39.8 36.1 30.0 20.7

64.6 58.6 60.6 60.2 67.9

35.4 41.4 39.4 39.8 32.1

37.5

62.8

37.2

On average, about 57 percent of the producers indicated that they would be willing to change the breed of their bulls in an effort to boost net returns. Based on the responses received, there was relatively little variation among the size groups in the willingness to change bull breed. Animal identification is being discussed as a beef production quality control measure. About the same percentage as were willing to change bulls (58 percent) indicated they would be willing to individually identify their cows and calves. Between 57 and 58 percent of the producers in the three smallest size groups indicated that they would individually identify their cattle, while over 65 percent of the producers in the two largest groups said they would.

36

About 63 percent of the producers surveyed said they would be willing to implement both a pre-weaning health management program for their calves and a 30 to 60 day post-weaning preconditioning program. The level of willingness to adopt these alternative production practices was consistent across size of operation. The largest operations indicated they would be somewhat more willing to institute a pre-weaning health management program and/or a post-weaning preconditioning program than the smaller producers. TABLE 39. ALTERNATIVE MARKETING PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT SELECTED MARKETING PRACTICES TO PARTICIPATE IN A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999

Retain Ownership Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Averag e

Yes

No

Use Cash Forward Contracts Yes

No

Pool Cattle with Other Producers Yes

34.0 32.4 33.0 41.4 67.9

66.0 67.6 67.0 58.6 32.1

30.4 30.2 31.4 44.8 66.7

(percent) 69.6 34.0 69.8 42.6 68.6 42.0 55.2 48.9 33.3 48.3

34.1

65.9

31.2

68.8

37.2

No

Accept Prices Negotiated by Cooperative Yes

No

66.0 57.4 58.0 51.1 51.7

41.3 42.1 46.9 56.7 69.0

58.7 57.9 53.1 43.3 31.0

62.8

42.7

57.3

The willingness to adopt alternative marketing practices, despite the prospect of generating more profit, was markedly less than the willingness to change production practices (Table 39). Only about 34 percent, overall, indicated they would be willing to retain ownership. The larger producers, however, were much more willing to retain ownership than the smaller producers (68 percent compared to 32 to 34 percent). About 31 percent, overall, of the producers surveyed indicated that they would be willing to cash forward contract as a marketing strategy. Again, the larger producers were, in general, much more willing to forward contract than were small producers. About 37 percent, overall, of the producers surveyed indicated they would be willing to pool cattle with those of other producers. Only 34 percent of the smaller producers were willing to pool cattle, while almost half of the larger producers were willing. Producers in the operation size groups with 50 to 500 head indicated that they

37

were at least slightly more willing to pool cattle than they were to retain ownership or cash forward contract, while the largest producers were somewhat less willing. The producers were also queried about their willingness to accept prices for their cattle negotiated by the livestock marketing cooperative. Almost 43 percent indicated that they would be willing to let a livestock marketing cooperative negotiate pricing. The willingness increased as operation size increased, from about 41 percent of the smallest operations to 69 percent of the largest. Finally, the producers were asked if they would be willing to invest in new market development through a livestock marketing cooperative. Only about 35 percent of the producers indicated they would be willing to invest (Table 40). The smallest producers were least likely among the size groups to invest (only about 33 percent), while half of the largest producers indicated they were willing. Of those who were willing to invest, about 54 percent indicated they would be willing to invest up to $5.00 per head sold. About 32 percent said they would invest up to $10.00 per head sold, the remaining 13 percent said they would invest up to $25.00 per head sold. About half of the smallest producers who indicated a willingness to invest said they would invest over $5.00 per head sold, compared to only about 17 percent of the largest.

TABLE 40. ALTERNATIVE MARKETING PRACTICES – WILLINGNESS INVEST IN NEW MARKET DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A LIVESTOCK MARKETING COOPERATIVE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

Yes

No

Up to $5/hd

Up to $10/hd

Up to $25/hd

(Percent) 1-49

32.6

67.4

50.0

35.7

14.3

50-99

41.1

58.9

58.5

26.8

14.6

100-249

37.1

62.9

62.7

30.5

6.8

250-499

38.5

61.5

66.7

24.2

9.1

500+

50.0

50.0

83.3

8.3

8.3

Overall Average

35.2

64.8

54.3

32.3

13.4

General Demographic Information

The producers were asked a series of questions to gather general demographic information. The purpose of this section is to present these descriptive data. 38

Producer Age and Year Producing Beef Cattle The majority of the producers surveyed were over 50 years old; about 43 percent were over 60 (Table 41). Another 26 percent were between 41 and 50 years of age. Only about 7 percent of the producers responding were less than 40. The predominance of retirement age cattle producers suggests an approaching period of turnover in Mississippi cattle industry. TABLE 41. PRODUCER AGE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size

60

22.6 25.6 27.8 30.3 25.8

41.5 48.8 42.0 38.4 25.8

24.0

42.9

In general, the age distribution was quite similar across the producer size groups. However a higher percentage of the smaller operations were over 60, compared to the largest operations. The producers surveyed have been raising beef cattle for an average of almost 30 years (Table 42). The producers in the smallest operation size group have the lowest number of years raising cattle, 24 years; while the second largest size group had the highest, 31.5 years.

TABLE 42. NUMBER OF YEARS RAISING BEEF CATTLE, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Years 24.2 29.3 30.4 31.5 29.0 29.6

39

Off-Farm Employment The beef cattle producers were asked if they or their spouses were employed off the farm to provide an idea of the relative importance of beef cattle production as a source of family income. Almost 53 percent of the producers responding indicated that they had off the farm employment (Table 43). The percentage of producers working offfarm within each size group was consistent, between about 52 to 57 percent. TABLE 43. PRODUCER OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT, FULL- OR PART-TIME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


Employed Off-farm? Yes No (percent) 52.0 48.0 55.2 44.8 51.5 48.5 54.3 45.7 57.1 42.9 52.7

47.3

Full-time

Part-time

(percent) 82.1 17.9 90.6 9.4 79.8 20.2 88.5 11.5 100.0 0.0 84.0

16.0

Of those producers who indicated that they had off-farm jobs, about 84 percent said they were employed full-time. The remainder worked part-time off the farm. Size of operation seemed to have no bearing on the number of hours worked off-farm, as the percent of producers had full-time jobs varied in a somewhat random fashion across the size groups. All of the producers in the largest operation size group indicated that they are employed full-time off-farm. Of the producers responding to the question about spouse's off-farm employment, almost 48 percent, on average, indicated that their spouse was employed off the farm (Table 44). Of those spouses with off-farm employment, about 9 of 10 had full-time jobs, the remainder had part time jobs. A slightly higher percent of the large operator's spouses (54 to 63 percent in the two groups with the largest operations) were employed off-farm than the smaller operations (about 48 percent). This is likely due, in part, to the age distribution within each size group. For example, a higher percentage of producers from smaller operations were over 60 years of age. A lower percentage of those operator's spouses were employed off farm.

40

TABLE 44. PRODUCER’S SPOUSE OFF-FARM EMPLOYMENT, FULL- OR PART-TIME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Spouse Employed Off-farm? Yes No (percent) 1-49 47.7 52.3 50-99 48.6 51.4 100-249 41.9 58.1 250-499 53.5 46.5 500+ 63.0 37.0 Overall Average 47.6 52.4

Full-time

Part-time

Herd Size

(percent) 90.9 86.8 82.5 84.8 83.3

9.1 13.2 17.5 15.2 16.7

89.0

11.0

At 89 percent, on average, more of the spouses employed off-farm has full-time jobs compared to the cattle producers surveyed; 11 percent are employed part-time. A slightly higher percentage of the spouses of small producers are employed full-time (87 to 91 percent), compared to the spouses of producers with the largest operations (about 83 to 85 percent). The producers surveyed were also asked to indicate the percentage of household income from off-farm sources. The overall average was 70 percent (Table 45). A slight trend was exhibited in the responses, as the percentage of household income from off-farm sources decreased as operator's size increased. Offfarm income consisted of about 71 percent of total household income for the smallest operations, compared to about 60 percent of that of the largest.

TABLE 45. OFF-FARM INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Percent 71.0 73.3 72.4 64.0 60.3 70.0

Importance of the Cattle Enterprise The beef cattle enterprise was an important component of the overall farming operation for the producers surveyed. They indicated that 70 percent, on average, of 41

their gross farm sales were from cattle sales (Table 46). There was little variation in the percentage of gross farm sales made up by cattle sales as operation size varied.

TABLE 46. CATTLE SALES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GROSS FARM SALES, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999 Herd Size 1-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500+ Overall Average

Percent 70.0 72.5 67.3 71.5 73.4 70.0

Other Characteristics Almost 70 percent on average, of the producers surveyed indicated they had never attended any beef cattle short courses or seminars (Table 47). Interestingly, the percentage that had participated in these educational events increased, in general, as operation size increased. A significantly higher percentage of the largest producers (60 percent) indicated that they had participated, compared to between 26 and 30 percent of the smallest groups of producers.

TABLE 47. PARTICIPATION IN BEEF CATTLE SHORT COURSES AND SEMINARS, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


Have you participated? Yes No (percent) 29.8 70.2 26.3 73.7 39.9 60.1 38.5 61.5 60.0 40.0 30.6

69.4

Similar tendencies were exhibited when the producers were asked about their membership in Mississippi Cattleman's Association (MCA). Only about 34 percent of the producers surveyed indicated that they are members of the MCA (Table 48). However the responses indicated a strong positive trend between operation size and 42

MCA membership. Only about 31 percent of the smallest operators said they are MCA members. In contrast, 57 and 73 percent of the largest two groups of operators indicated they are MCA members. Summary and Conclusions Effective outreach programs for educating beef cattle producers about alternative production and marketing strategies require a fundamental understanding of current practices and producer attitudes towards adoption of different practices. No

TABLE 48. MEMBERSHIP IN THE MISSISSIPPI CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION, BY HERD SIZE, MISSISSIPPI, 1999


Member of MCA? Yes No (percent) 30.8 69.2 36.7 63.3 42.5 57.5 57.1 42.9 73.3 26.7 34.2

65.8

comprehensive survey to gather such information has been conducted in Mississippi in recent years, until now. The goal of the research reported in this paper was to determine producer understanding of, attitudes toward, and willingness to employ alternative production and marketing practices. Data on current production and marketing practices were gathered. The information provided by the survey will be useful in developing specific research programs determining physical and economic performance of alternative cattle production and marketing strategies. The results provide for development of strategic interdisciplinary extension programs designed to educate Mississippi cattle producers about selected production and marketing strategies and associated management issues. Current Production Practices The results suggest that larger producers use more intensive production and management practices, compared to the other operation size groups. For example, the timing of calving is more concentrated in the Fall and Spring months on large operations, but more evenly distributed throughout the year for smaller operations. Also, more large operations keep and use production and financial records to aid management decision making.

43

The importance of specific beef cattle breeds in the breeding herd was fairly consistent among operation size groups. Angus, Brangus, Hereford, and Charolais were the dominant breeds listed for the cow herd. The use of unknown crossbred cows was also a common practice. Charolais, Angus, and Brangus were the most common breeds identified for herd sires. Larger producers employ more health management practices, including vaccination, deworming, grub, lice, and fly control, castration, and dehorning, than small producers. Large producers were also more likely to use growth implants and to regularly consult a veterinarian than smaller producers. Overall, cattle producers were less likely to use health management practices that are surgical in nature. Factors that may influence the limited use of such health management practices are the associated expense, lack of adequate working facilities, and less reliance on the cow herd as an income source. Also, the smaller producers, on average, were older than the larger producers, which may have had a deterring effect. Finally, smaller producers were much less apt to have participated in beef cattle short courses or seminars, and hence, may not be aware of the benefits of such health management practices. Current Marketing Practices The results suggest that larger producers are more willing to use marketing practices other than the traditional practice of selling at a conventional auction market. However, the viability of many of these alternatives is limited for many producers by size of operation. Without the cooperative efforts of several small producers, selling direct to stocker or feedlot operations, through video auctions, or forward contracting are not feasible for small producers. Large operations have opportunity to capture economies of size when using marketing alternatives with minimum lot size requirements. Key factors that motivate cattle marketing decisions include cattle reaching a target weight, prices reaching a pre-determined level, forage availability, and anticipation of falling prices. The importance of each varied on slightly with size of operation, with the exception of selling when prices reached a set level or when prices were expected to fall. Prices reaching a set level was somewhat more important to large producers, while expectation of falling cattle prices was more important to small producers. Almost half of all producers surveyed retained ownership through the stocker phase. The decision to retain ownership through the stocker phase is likely influenced by excess capacity in forage and pasture resources. In contrast, only the largest producers retained ownership through the feedlot to a measurable extent. Size of operation, which dictates the ability to place a pen of uniform cattle (age, sex, weight), is a key barrier to retaining ownership through finishing for many small producers. Capital requirements, limited management skills, and risk exposure are other deterrents. Selling cattle in larger groups allows producers to receive higher prices, compared to selling in individual or small lots. However, almost all of the producers surveyed indicated that they do not pool cattle. The producers surveyed seemed to 44

recognize the primary advantages of pooling cattle: potentially higher prices and lower transaction costs. The major factors influencing producer decisions to avoid pooling cattle included the loss of flexibility in marketing and a sense of being forced to accept the average pen price for their cattle. Alternative Production and Marketing Practices Most of the producers responding indicated that they would be willing to change production practices, such as the length and timing of their calving seasons if they thought they could increase the profits from their cattle operations. Other production practices a majority of the producers responding would be willing to implement included changing bull breeds, identifying all cows and calves, following a specified pre-weaning health program, and preconditioning calves after weaning. Such production management changes are requisite to producing consistent and uniform cattle within a livestock marketing cooperative. Contracting with others to precondition or custom graze calves at their location provides cattle producers with the opportunity to retain ownership without having to increase the size of their operation. However there was a general reluctance to paying others to precondition or custom graze their calves. Larger producers were much more willing to contract with others to care for the calves. Another option producers have is to use their resources to precondition or custom graze calves on contract for others. This enables producers with excess capacity to more fully utilize their resource base, including management skills, without assuming the production and market risk inherent with ownership of stocker cattle. About one in five producers surveyed indicated a willingness to precondition or custom graze for others, on average. The degree of willingness increased as size of operation increased. Overall, the producers surveyed were much less willing to adopt alternative marketing practices, including retaining ownership, forward contracting, pooling cattle, and accepting prices negotiated by a livestock marketing cooperative, than they were production practices. However, the larger producers indicated they were somewhat more willing than smaller producers to change marketing practices. Finally, the producers were asked if they would be willing to invest in new market development through a livestock marketing cooperative. Most said they were unwilling. The smallest producers were least likely among the size groups to invest, while half of the largest producers indicated they were willing. Of those who were willing to invest, just over half indicated they would be willing to invest up to $5.00 per head sold, and a third said they would invest up to $10.00 per head sold, the rest said they would invest up to $25.00 per head sold. More of the smallest producers were willing to invest over $5.00 per head sold, compared to the larger producers.

45

References Ezell, Andy and Dave Moorhead. “Forest Regeneration in the South.” http://www.ext.msstate.edu/anr/forestry/forestinfo/mtn3k.html Faminow, Merle D. and Russell L. Gum. 1986. “Feeder Cattle Price Differentials in Arizona Auction Markets.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics. 11(2):156-163. Guidry, Kurt M. 1993. “Producer Costs of Marketing Cattle in Louisiana and Mississippi by Type of Market Outlet.” Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Louisiana State Univ. Haas, John T., David L. Holder, and Clement E. Ward. 1979. Livestock and Wool Cooperatives. Cooperative Information Report 1, Section 14. Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, USDA. Hogeland, Julie A. 1987. The Future Role of Livestock Cooperatives. ACS Research Report No. 61. Agricultural Cooperative Service, USDA. Lambert, Charles D., Mark S. McNulty, Orlen C. Grunewald, and Larry R. Corah. 1989. “An Analysis of Feeder Cattle Price Differentials.” Agribusiness. 5(1):9-23, 1989. Popp, Michael P., Merle D. Faminow, and Lucas D. Parsch. 1999. “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Value-added Production on Cow-calf Farms.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 31(1):97-108. Schroeder, Ted, James Mintert, Frank Brazle, and Orlen Grunewald. 1988. Feeder Cattle and Cow Price Differentials at Kansas Cattle Auctions - Fall 1986 and Spring 1987. Report of Progress 547. Manhattan, KS: Agric. Exp. Station, Kansas State Univ. Veterinary Services - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA (USDA:APHIS:VS). Part I: Reference of 1997 Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices. #N233.697. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Fort Collins, CO. June 1997. Veterinary Services - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA (USDA:APHIS:VS). Part IV: Changes in the U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Industry, 19931997. #N238.398. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Fort Collins, CO. May 1998.

46

APPENDIX

47

Agricultural Economics Department P.O. Box 5187 Mississippi State, MS 39762

Mississippi Beef Cattle Production and Marketing Survey Your voluntary and confidential participation is very important to the success of this research effort. Please answer questions pertinent to your operation as completely as possible. Thanks! PART I. Current Production Practices

What is your current herd inventory or annual production for the following: Inventory: 101 Cows 102 Replacement Heifers Head produced annually: 104 Stockers/Yearlings

Herd Bulls Cattle on Feed

103 105

What records do you use when you make decisions about your cattle operation? 106 Animal records?

1o 2o

107

1o

Financial records?

Yes

Yes No 2o

No

What is the source of your replacement heifers? (Check all that apply.) 108o

Raised Commercial producer 110o Special sales 109o

111o Sale barn or auction market Purebred producer 113o Other (Please specify.)

112o

Please indicate, for a typical year, the percent of your calves born in the following seasons. 114 Spring

%

116

Summer

%

48

117

Fall

%

118

Winter

%

Please identify the key breed or breeds reflected in your cow herd.(Check all that apply.) 119

120 Hereford

122

Angus Charolais 125 Beefmaster 128 Brangus 130 Other

123

121 Limousin Santa Gertrudis 124 Simmental 126 Brahman 127 Gelbvieh 129 Unknown crossbred (Please specify.)

Please indicate the number of bulls by breed. (Check all that apply.) 132 Hereford 133 Limousin Angus Charolais 135 Santa Gertrudis 136 Brangus 137 Beefmaster 139 Brahman 140 Gelbvieh 141 Simmental 142 Other (Please specify.) What factors do you consider when you select your herd sires? (Check all that apply.) 131

134

143o

Price 144o Breed 148o Bull’s appearance

145o

EPDs 149o Other

146o

Seller reputation

147o

Disposition (Please specify.)

What health management practices do you typically use? (Check all that apply.) According to Occasionally Recommendations 150 Vaccinate................................................................... 1o 151 Deworm ..................................................................... 1o 152 Grub and lice control ................................................. 1o 153 Fly control .................................................................. 1o 154 Implant....................................................................... 1o 155 Dehorn ....................................................................... 1o 156 Castrate ..................................................................... 1o 157 Consult veterinarian ........................................... 1o 158 Pregnancy check....................................................... 1o 159 Breeding soundness exam (bulls) ............................ 1o

49

Never 2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

2o

3o

PART II. Current Cow-calf Marketing Practices

Which marketing methods do you use to sell cattle? Regularly Occasionally Never Sell cattle on a regular sale day at an auction market .........1o 2o 3o 161 Sell directly to a stocker or backgrounder.............................1o 2o 3o 162 Sell directly to a feedlot ........................................................ 1o 2o 3o 163 Sell through a video auction ................................................. 1o 2o 3o 164 Sell using forward cash contracts......................................... 1o 2o 3o 165 Sell cattle through special sales (i.e., Southeast Pride,........1o 2o 3o replacement heifer sales, etc.) 160

Which marketing methods do you use to purchase cattle? Regularly Occasionally Never 166 Buy cattle at a sale barn or auction market ...........................1o 2o 3o 167 Buy calves directly from a producer.......................................1o 2o 3o 168 Buy through a video auction ................................................. 1o 2o 3o 169 Buy cattle on contract.............................................................1o 2o 3o 170 Buy cattle at special sales (i.e., Southeast Pride,................. 1o 2o 3o replacement heifer sales, etc.) Do you currently retain ownership of your calves... Through the stocker phase? ............................................... 1o Yes 2o No Through the feedlot? ............................................................. 1o Yes 2o No Please rate, by checking the appropriate box for each, the following factors that motivate you to sell: Not Somewhat Very I sell... Important Important Important Important 173 When I need the money.................................... 1o 2o 3o 4o 174 At a specific point in time .................................. 1o 2o 3o 4o 175 When I run out of grass. ................................... 1o 2o 3o 4o 176 When my cattle reach a target weight.............. 1o 2o 3o 4o 177 When the price reaches a set level. ................. 1o 2o 3o 4o 178 If I think prices are going to fall......................... 1o 2o 3o 4o 171

172

Do you ever sell cattle that are commingled (“pooled”) with cattle from other producers and sold as a group? 179 1o Yes 2o No

50

Even if you don’t “pool” or commingle cattle, please indicate your opinion on the following statements. Agree Disagree 180 Larger, more uniform lots of cattle sell at a higher price.............. 1o 2o 181 Pooling saves on transportation cost............................................ 1o 2o 182 Video auction markets make pooling cattle easier....................... 1o 2o 183 Buyers prefer single-source cattle, regardless of lot size. ........... 1o 2o 184 I don’t like to sell my cattle at the average pen price. .................. 1o 2o 185 I have not considered pooling cattle. ............................................ 1o 2o 186 I don’t like it because I can’t sell when I want to. ......................... 1o 2o 187 I don’t pool because I don’t trust the grading and sorting............ 1o 2o 188 It’s too risky because of potential disease problems.................... 1o 2o 189 Other

Do you currently market cattle through an existing livestock marketing cooperative? 190 1o Yes 2o No 3o Not Sure PART III. Attitudes about Alternative Production and Marketing Practices

For cow-calf producers, would you be willing to... A. Restrict the length of your calving season (90 to 120 days), if you thought you increase the profits of your cattle operation? 191 1o Yes 2o No B. Change the time of year when you calve, if you thought you could increase the profits of your cattle operation? 192 1o Yes 2o No

Would you be willing to pay someone to precondition or graze your calves on contract? 193 1o Yes

2o

No

Would you be willing to precondition or graze calves on contract for others on your farm? 194 1o Yes 2o No Would you be willing to adopt (if necessary) these practices to participate in a livestock marketing cooperative to possibly get price premiums for producing high quality, uniform cattle? Individually identify all cows and calves................................... 1o Yes breed of bulls .............................................................. 1o Yes 197 Follow a specific pre-weaning health program ....................... 1o Yes 198 Vaccinate and pre-condition for 30 to 60 days past weaning .. 1o Yes 199 Co-mingle or pool calves with those of other producers ......... 1o Yes 200 Use cash forward contracts ..................................................... 1o Yes 201 Retain ownership through stocker/feedlot ............................... 1o Yes 202 Accept prices negotiated by the cooperative........................... 1o Yes (i.e., to provide premiums and discounts for quality)

195

196 Change

51

2o

No No 2o No 2o No 2o No 2o No 2o No 2o No

2o

Would you be willing to invest in new market development through a livestock marketing cooperative? 1o Yes 2o No If yes, please indicate how much:

204

1o

up to $5 per head sold 2o up to $10 per head sold 3o up to $25 per head sold

PART IV. General Information –

Please indicate your current age: 205 1o 20 or younger older

2o

21-30

3o

31-40

4o

5o

41-50

51-60

6o

61 or

Are you and your spouse (if married) employed off the farm? If yes, please indicate if you work full-time or part-time off the farm. Yes No Full-time Part-time You 206 1o 2o 207 1o 2o Spouse 208 1o 2o 217 1o 2o About what percentage of your total household income is from off-farm sources?209 % How many years have you been raising beef cattle?210 County

In what county is your cattle operation located?211 Are you a member of the Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association?212

1o

Yes

2o

%

Cattle sales make up what percentage of your average gross farm sales?213 Have you participated in beef cattle short courses or seminars?214 Office Use

215

Mail Telephone 3 Personal Interview 4 Refusal 5 Inaccessible 1

1o

Yes

216

2

Enumerator:

No

2o

No

Enumerator ID