Feed Lot Magazine Online, Organic Feeding

Recently, a good number of clients have asked about the feasibility of organic feeding. Before discussing the practical aspects, I always convey that I am fundamentally opposed, as organic feeding implies there is something wrong with conventional feeding .

Having said that, I normally advise against the standard organic feeding contracts, as the premiums paid are usually nothing more than a break-even for the performance losses. That is, most of these contracts only add about $2.00/cwt. on the rail. As a general rule, we normally give up about 7 to as much as 12 percent in conversion. If the contract prohibits the use of ionophores, we also take a higher rate of digestive deads.

Organic vs "Hormone-Free." "Hormone-free," such as beef destined for the European market can be produced with relatively little reduction in performance.

The problem is that we must use bulls to do it. Since steers are castrated animals, performance is dependent upon implants. Bulls produce substantial "natural" hormone and thus there is little performance loss by withholding implants. Actually, the performance of a bull vs. an implanted steer is slightly better.

Most feeders are concerned about aggressive behavior. While that can be a problem with older bulls, it is not a major problem with bull calves. Most of the cattle fed in Europe are bulls normally going on feed at or near weaning, and marketed at about 14 to 18 months. When fed as calves and slaughtered as yearlings, aggressive behavior is minimized.

The real problem is market risk. If the contractor suddenly goes out of business, we are stuck with unmerchantable cattle. Beef from yearling bulls can be nearly as tender as steer beef, but it will not be marbled and will not "grade." As a result, mainstream packers will apply severe discounts to bulls, if they purchase them at all. For this reason, I normally recommend against bull feeding.

A safer alternative is heifers. With heifers we give up some performance by withholding implants, but not nearly as much as with steers. The reason is that unlike steers, heifers are intact animals. That is, they secrete natural hormone. With heifers we give up 12 to about 15 percent in gain and about 6 to 8 percent in conversion. In steers, gain reductions are on the order of 18 to 22 percent, with conversions 9 to about 12 percent higher. While unimplanted heifers aren't as efficient as bulls, if the buyer goes south, we still have an animal that is merchantable; albeit with a higher cost of gain.

As we move from "Hormone-Free" to "Organic," feeding becomes substantially more expensive. Every "organic" contract I am aware of prohibits the use of antibiotics in the feed - no aureomycin, terramycin, sulphameth- azine, or Tylan. As a general rule, however, I am not aware of any prohibitions on therapeutic injections.

The real gray area is ionophores. Early-on most of the organic contractors prohibited all feed additives. However, problems became so acute some have begun to look the other way and/or have interpreted that Rumensin, etc. are not "antibiotics." That is, ionophores are not used in human medicine, nor used to prevent infectious diseases (other than coccidiosis) and therefore some "organic" contractors have deemed ionophores as permissible.

On paper, without ionophores we give up another 4 to 8 percent in conversion. Beyond that, controlling routine problems such as bloat, acidosis, sudden death and coccidiosis become much more problematic. To compensate for the digestive problems we must usually add more roughage and/or fat to the ration, which drives feed costs up beyond the increase in conversions. For coccidosis there is no effective preventative measure we can take.

For some, "organic" feeding means using grains grown without pesticides or herbicides, which elevates matters to a new plateau. To date, I am not aware of anyone taking "organic" to this level. For lesser levels of "organic," numerous merchandisers are actively offering product to consumers and/or contracts to feeders.

The bottomline is that to consumers the meat is no more wholesome than "ordinary" USDA inspected product, and to feeders most premiums are no more lucrative than feeding for an ordinary grid.

Dr. Porter Price has a subscription newsletter and books for sale. For more information, call Feedlot Magazine at 800-798-9515.