Markets

Are Calf Prices Shaping Vaccine Decisions?

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:05:52 GMT

With feeder and calf prices surging to record highs in 2025, producers are making vaccination decisions in a market that looks very different than it did a year ago.

Recent USDA market reports show feeder calves selling at strong levels: fall auction reports list 500 lb. to 600 lb. feeder steers at $450 to $550 per head and heifers of the same weight range at $350 to $450 per head. Profits per head look strong enough that many producers aren’t feeling the same pressure to protect every animal through to the next stage.

A vaccinated calf could bring $10 to $50 more per hundredweight at sale compared to an unvaccinated calf, and vaccine costs per calf are modest in many cases. The median bovine respiratory disease (BRD) vaccine costs in U.S. operations are in the single digits per head. However, producers tend to see the upfront cost of a vaccination that isn’t a part of their regular routine and shy away. This issue is exacerbated in large herds where the total vaccine cost can be in the thousands of dollars. There is also the issue of logistics — time, effort, labor — that go into vaccination programs that can deter producers from adding to their vaccine schedule.

An additional issue complicating this is the lack of consistent regulation surrounding vaccination status at sale. While some states have programs for animal vaccine certification, others have no such requirements, adding risk to any purchases. With a payout guaranteed at sale regardless of vaccination status, fear is brewing with veterinarians this fall for what a lack of preconditioning vaccines could mean for feedlot animal health.

Skipping vaccinations when prices are strong might seem harmless, but the cost simply shifts downstream. The biggest issue when it comes to vaccination status is BRD. Unvaccinated calves commingling after being brought to the feedlot can lead to an increased incidence of BRD outbreak. Even if this animal is vaccinated upon arrival, there is a three-to-four-week lag before that vaccine takes effect during which they are vulnerable. This leads to high morbidity and mortality during this period.

This emphasizes the importance of cooperation between cow-calf and feedlot producers. Both operations have the same goal: produce the best, healthiest animals. Improved herd management decisions, that benefit everyone, can be made with an open discussion between parties on a given animal’s health history at a cow-calf operation as well as observing how they perform once they arrive at the feedlot. Further, by establishing a history of providing healthy, well-performing calves including the use of preconditioning vaccines, cow-calf producers could build a relationship with a guaranteed feedlot buyer.

With calf prices being as high as they are, now could be the perfect time for producers to up their vaccine game and invest in herd health.

A Review of Feedlot Structure and 2024 Marketings

Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:11:18 GMT

The latest USDA-NASS Cattle on Feed report pegged the Feb. 1 feedlot inventory at 11.716 million head in feedlots with 1,000+ capacity, down 0.7% year over year. January marketings were 101.4% of one year ago and placements were 101.7% of last year. The report was well anticipated with values close to pre-report estimates.

The February report also contained a summary of 2024 feedlot production and the structure of the feedlot industry coming into 2025. The total U.S. feedlot inventory on Jan. 1, 2025 was 14.297 million head, including 2.474 million head in feedlots with capacity less than 1,000 head (Table 1). Since cattle inventories peaked in the mid-1970s, feedlot inventories have represented a growing percentage of cattle inventories (Figure 1). Feedlot inventories represented 16.5% of total cattle inventories on Jan. 1, 2025, down fractionally from the peak of 16.6 percent last year.

(USDA/Peel)

Table 1 shows the size distribution of feedlots and their contribution to total feedlot production. A total of 2105 feedlots with capacity of 1,000+ head (included in monthly Cattle on Feed reports) accounted for 82.7% of the Jan. 1 feedlot inventory and 87.2% of total feedlot production in 2024. A total of 24,000 feedlots with less than 1,000 head capacity accounted for 17.3% of feedlot inventory on Jan. 1 and 12.8% of total feedlot marketings in 2024. Feedlots with capacity over 50,000 head made up 3.8% of feedlots over 1,000 head capacity but accounted for 34.8% of inventory and 35.1% marketings last year. Over 50% of feedlot inventories on Jan. 1 and annual marketings in 2024 were in feedlots over 32,000 head of capacity, 6.9 percent of feedlots with 1000+ head.

Table 1. Feedlot Size Distribution, Inventory and Marketings.

Feedlot Capacity	Feedlots	% of Feedlots >1000 Hd.	Inventory Jan. 1, 2025	% of Total Inventory	Marketings 2024	% of Total Marketings
Head	Number		1,000 Head		1,000 Head
<1,000	24,000		2,473.7	17.3	3,180.0	12.8

1,000 – 1,999	740	35.5	363.0	2.5	610.0	2.5
2,000 – 3,999	530	25.2	630.0	4.4	1,220.0	4.9
4,000 – 7,999	370	27.6	930.0	6.5	1,790.0	7.2
8,000 – 15,999	190	9.0	1,040.0	7.3	1,990.0	8.0
16,000 – 23,999	85	4.0	940.0	6.6	1,840.0	7.4
24,000 – 31,999	45	2.1	760.0	5.3	1,550.0	6.2
32,000 – 49,999	65	3.1	2,190.0	15.3	3,920.0	15.8
>50,000	80	3.8	4,970.0	34.8	8,720.0	35.1

Subtotal >1,000	2,105		11,823.0	82.7	21,640.0	87.2

Total	26,105		14,296.7		24,820.0

The estimated total feedlot capacity (1,000+ head) on Jan. 1, 2025 was 17.2 million head, up fractionally from the previous year. Total feedlot capacity has not changed significantly in recent years and has averaged 17.13 million head since 2011. Figure 2 shows the Jan. 1 feedlot inventory as a percentage of feedlot capacity.

(USDA/Peel)

The cattle on feed percentage of feedlot capacity on Jan. 1, 2025 was 68.7%, down from 69.8% in 2024 and from the recent peak of 70.4% in 2022. For the past fifteen years, feedlot inventories have averaged 66.7% of the feedlot capacity (red dotted line). The percentage dropped significantly from 2014-2017 during herd expansion. Ever tighter feeder cattle supplies and the prospect of heifer retention for herd rebuilding mean that the percentage is likely to decrease in the future.

What Four Questions Will Cattle Market Need to Answer in 2025?

Wed, 08 Jan 2025 20:29:13 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

This article was shared by S outhern Ag Today . Kenny Burdine is a University of Kentucky Extension Professor of Agricultural Economics and Livestock Specialist.

Read more: USMEF Looks At Red Meat Trade Opportunities With Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom

Mexican Border is Expected to Open for Feeder Cattle Week of Jan. 20, Sources Say

The Big Reveal from the Latest Milk Production Report

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:16:43 GMT

The latest USDA Milk Production report for July reflects a continuing downward trend, echoing the declines that milk production reports have consistently documented month after month in 2024. While this may seem like a case of “been there, done that,” a deeper dive into the data reveals some surprises worth noting.

Surprising Revisions in June Figures
Phil Plourd, president of Ever.Ag Insights, pointed out particular states where the milk production figures were revised downwards more substantially than anticipated. States such as Colorado, Idaho, and Iowa, which have been dealing with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks, saw significant drops, including:

Colorado: Revised to -3.7% from an initial -1.1%
Idaho: Revised to -2.8% from an initial -1.0%
Iowa: Revised to -1.6% from an initial +1.2%

From a market perspective, Plourd expressed uncertainty about the implications of these revised numbers.

“I don’t know for sure, but looking at this list, some of the states that dropped lower seemed to be states that, anecdotally, were dealing with HPAI outbreaks,” Plourd reported. He added, “From a market perspective, I’m not sure what we do with the knowledge that things in June were worse than initially believed.”

Cow Numbers: A Glimmer of Hope?
While milk production has faced challenges, the situation with cow numbers offered a more nuanced picture. According to Plourd, despite light slaughter numbers, there was an increase of 3,000 head in cow numbers for the month. He noted that the current economic conditions are favorable for production, suggesting that eventually, weather conditions will cooperate more universally. Plourd shares that the U.S. dairy cow story may be more interesting, as slaughter is running light.

“The big questions is how much we can really grow milk production given how tight we are on animals,” Plourd asks.

Detailed Production Figures
The USDA reported that July milk production in the 24 major states totaled 18.2 billion lbs., down 0.2% from July 2023. The revised production figures for June stood at 17.9 billion lbs., down 1.5% from June 2023—a revision indicating a decrease of 137 million lbs., or 0.8% from last month’s preliminary production estimate.

Production per cow in the 24 major states averaged 2,047 lbs. for July, which is 2 lbs. above July 2023. The number of milk cows on farms in these states was 8.88 million head, 31,000 head less than July 2023, but 3,000 head more than June 2024.

Furthermore, New Mexico experienced the largest decline, down 48 million lbs. (-8.9%) and 31,000 head to 491 million lbs., while South Dakota gained 29 million lbs. (+7.4%) to 420 million.

2021 Livestock Market Outlook Roundup

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

The editors at AgWeb.com are looking at experts’ projections for a variety of commodities in 2021 to help you succeed and be profitable in the coming year. Here’s a look at what analysts are expecting for the upcoming year in the protein segments.

2021 Beef Outlook: New Challenges, New Opportunities

(Farm Journal)

Disruptions to the beef industry from the COVID-19 pandemic will likely linger into 2021, but the result may not be all bad for producers, Don Close, animal protein analyst at Rabo AgriFinance told AgriTalk.

Read more.

U.S. Pork Outlook: Will 2021 Be Different?

(Farm Journal)

Five respected economists in the pork industry share their insight on what’s ahead in 2021 and ways producers can make the most of new opportunities ahead.

Read more.

2021 Milk Price Outlook: Throw the Crystal Ball Out the Window

(Farm Journal)

Government intervention creates a level of uncertainty that makes a 2021 milk price forecast nearly impossible.

Read more.

Cattle Market’s Bottom Is In, Nalivka Says

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:57:18 GMT

Cow-calf operations have struggled with profitability much of this year, but Sterling Marketing president John Nalivka says better days may lie ahead. He told AgriTalk host Chip Flory on Thursday his projections suggest that 2020 will be the low-water mark for calf prices and cow-calf profitability.

“Producers were doing really well in 2014 and 2015, but when we compare this year to those years cow-calf profits are down 80%,” Nalivka said. “I think we’ve hit the bottom and we’re moving up now. For two or three years I think (cow-calf profitability) will look pretty good.”

Feedyards should also see improved profitability going forward.

“I am projecting good feeding margins going into next year,” Naivka said.

He projects cash fed cattle will trade from about $118 per cwt. to the upper $120’s during the early months of 2021. He said breakevens will range from $112 per cwt. to $116 per cwt.

“That give you a positive margin, but obviously if we have a treacherous winter that raises feeding costs that could change.”

Nalivka said COVID-19 has obviously disrupted the cattle industry, and beef demand has experienced a “demand disruption to the positive side. And now we’re beginning to get past the backlog of cattle” that was created last spring.

Nalivka also acknowledged the efforts of the packing industry in helping minimize the impact of the pandemic.

“The packing industry spent a billion dollars to address COVID.” He called the packing companies’ response to pandemic’s impact on the industry “phenomenal. They have done an incredible job.”

Beef packers, of course, had plenty of incentive to keep their doors open as they saw record profits during the height of the pandemic last spring. Still, Nalivka said by utilizing Saturday kills, their harvest capacity utilization is currently 93%, compared to the 50% to 60% that was common in April.

As for profit margins, Nalivka said it is important to realize that most packers are producing value-added products, and with the increase in quality of fed cattle coming to the plants, “they are going to have a better margin. The margins now are $250 a head, whereas a packer when they made $10 a head (a few years ago) they were celebrating. We’re beyond that now. And it’s the quality of the cattle and the entire industry has moved ahead to quality in in addressing what the consumer wants to buy.”

Glenn Selk: Dressing Percent And Cull Cow Marketing

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:31:34 GMT

October is often the month of calf weaning and cow culling (for spring calving herds). Cull cows represent about 20% of the gross income in commercial cow calf operations. Understanding the major factors impacting cull cow prices is important to the bottom line. Remember cull cows that are destined to go to the packing house are graded by their fleshiness. In the USDA Market News reports cull cows are reported in four grades. The fattest cows are called “Breakers”. Moderately fleshed cows are “Boners” or “boning utility”. Thin cows are called “Leans” or “Lights”, depending upon the weight of the cow. There will be price differences among these four grades.

However, within each grade, large variation in prices per hundredweight will exist because of differences in dressing percentage. Cow buyers are particularly aware of the proportion of the purchased live weight that eventually becomes saleable product hanging on the rail. Dressing percentage is (mathematically) the carcass weight divided by the live weight multiplied by 100.

Key factors that affect dressing percentage include gut fill, udder size, mud and manure on the hide, excess leather on the body, and anything else that contributes to the live weight but will not add to the carcass weight. Most USDA Market News reports for cull cows will give price ranges for High, Average, and Low Dressing Percentages for each of the previous mentioned grades. As you study these price reports, note that the differences between High and Low Dressing cows and bulls will generally be greater than differences between grades.

Many reports will indicate that Low Dressing cows will be discounted $8 to $15 per hundredweight compared to High Dressing cows and will be discounted $5 to $7 per hundredweight compared to Average Dressing cows. These price differences are usually widest for the thinner cow grades (Leans and Lights). See examples from last week’s sale in Oklahoma City National Stockyards: https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_1823.pdf

As producers market cull cows and bulls, they should be cautious about selling cattle with excess fill. The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight.

Retail Beef Market Embraces Changes, New Cuts

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:31:30 GMT

Chuck flap, rib-eye filet, tomahawk steak, Denver or Sierra cuts, flat irons and tri tips – the landscape of the local grocery meat case is changing when it comes to beef cuts, according to a Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service expert.

A traditional top sirloin steak. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo)

As the COVID-19 pandemic brought beef shortages, consumers may have noticed some different cuts of beef when their traditional selections were sold out, said Davey Griffin, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension meat specialist in the Department of Animal Science of Texas A&M University. Perhaps they were even hesitant to purchase because they were unfamiliar with how to prepare these cuts .

Griffin said the recent crisis might have spotlighted the changing supermarket offerings, but these newer beef cuts have been available for some time and are starting to gain popularity with chefs and others across the nation due to their reasonable cost and flavorful eating experience provided.

The North American Meat Institute’s Meat Buyer’s Guide outlines all the beef cuts. The chuck, rib, loin and round are some of the major primal cuts familiar to consumers, with the brisket, plate, flank and foreshank being the traditional minor cuts.

Breaking down a beef carcass, Griffin said, results in one-third trimmable fat and bone and another 20%-25% in trimmings for ground beef and pizza toppings. The middle meats, where the higher-value steaks come from, account for 10%-12% of the carcass but one-third of the value of the whole carcass.

“The rest of it is the other muscles, and those are the ones we are trying to utilize more – enhance the value because they are the lower-cost muscles that still provide an excellent quality beef cut for consumers,” Griffin said.

Over the past 10-15 years, the industry and Texas A&M started identifying those muscles that could be used to produce other affordable cuts.

“Enhancing the value of cuts from the chuck and round not only helps consumers have a great moderately priced eating experience, it also increases the overall value of the carcass,” Griffin said. “That also has potential to add to the value of live cattle.”

New cuts for new consumer preferences

“We know these cuts are changing to meet the changes of consumers,” Griffin said. “Over the years the size of families have grown smaller. They aren’t cooking a great big roast or porterhouse steak anymore.”

The chuck is being broken down very differently, providing new cuts more targeted for different cooking and eating experiences, he said.

“The second most tender muscle in the beef carcass comes from the chuck and is now being merchandised as a mid-priced flat iron steak,” Griffin said. “It was just in a chuck roast. Now we’ve pulled it out, and it is a menu item at restaurants. It has enhanced the whole value of the carcass and provided the consumer an affordable eating experience.”

Sirloin cap steaks and center cut sirloin steaks. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo)

The petite shoulder tender also has become overwhelmingly popular with chefs, and ranch steaks have a nutritional value close to a boneless, skinless chicken breast, he said.

Other new cuts – ribeye filets, ribeye caps and sirloin caps – also provide some new opportunities for retailers and consumers.

“There was a while in there that some of this was attempted and retailers couldn’t get much movement on some of the newer cuts,” Griffin said. “Now, with newer customers and those willing to try new things, they are starting to get movement, and customers are having good experiences and are willing to try them again.”

He offered a breakdown of new offerings from the four primal cuts:

The traditional chuck rolls are now cut into chuck-eye steaks, chuck-roll roasts, Denver and Sierra steaks, and the chuck flap.
From the rib section, there can be a rib roast, tomahawk steak, rib steak, rib-eye cap steak, rib-eye filet, rib-eye steak and prime rib.
The loin section now yields the short loin or tenderloin, and “we don’t see as many T-bones and porterhouse cuts anymore.” Strip or top loin steaks and tenderloin steaks are more common now.
The round traditionally would have been round steak. Now it is broken down into sirloin tip steak, top-round steak, eye-round steak and bottom-round steak. Other cuts are flank steak, skirt steak and inside skirt – all used in fajitas. The bottom sirloin flap is also used for fajitas.

“The traditional way of cutting the sirloin is to make whole sirloin steaks,” Griffin said. “But we don’t really see those at all anymore. The muscle fibers in the center of a sirloin steak run a little different than the cap. So, they have been taken apart and sold as top sirloin steaks, cap steaks and center cut sirloin steaks.”

The smaller size, he said, means it can be cut pretty thick, making it easier to cook to the right degree of doneness. The bottom part of the sirloin is the sirloin ball tip, tri-tip and flap.

“Tri-tip is used a lot in other regions of the U.S., and we are starting to use it more in Texas, because you can cut across the grain and make those cuts more tender,” Griffin said.

Ordering up your own beef cuts

Griffin said because of these new cuts, sometimes individuals who raise their own beef and take it to small processors don’t always get back what they were expecting.

“I’d get calls from guys who said the meat cutter stole all of my T-bones,” he said. “But when I’d ask if they got certain other cuts, they’d say ‘Yes’. You can’t have both out of one side of beef. You have to understand how the cuts are made.”

Knowing the newer cuts and where they come from helps to understand why the expected porterhouse steaks or racks of ribs are not in the beef packages when they are picked up after processing, he said.

Cattle have only 13 ribs, and they can be cut into several different retail/foodservice cuts, Griffin explained. For instance, chuck short ribs are cheaper than the counterpart ribs from the plate but contain the same flavorful muscle. Back ribs are less meaty, come from underneath the rib-eye roll and are less expensive.

“The chuck short ribs are used a lot for export, but they are otherwise cheap on the market because of the barbecue influence,” he said. “If you want to receive the plate short ribs, you can’t do a tomahawk steak, so you have to pick one or the other out of a side of beef.”

Other producers going to smaller processors who are still making the bone-in cuts using band saws and not really trimming out the muscle – cuts like we had in the 1960s – wonder “how can I get my guy to cut these new cuts,” Griffin said. All processors know where those muscles are, it just costs more and takes longer to do, so it is a matter of asking and paying for it.

Griffin’s advice for consumers with beef to process in the future is to discuss with the butcher/processor what you would like to have. His advice to processors is “be prepared because that’s how the consumer is eating today. The muscles haven’t changed, but we are using them in smaller, more utilizable pieces for the consumer.”