Managing what you measure: Current and historical Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) benchmarks provide reliable data for making herd management decisions
(AS2040-7, September 2021)The Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) has been used by beef producers and Extension professionals for more than 35 years. CHAPS provides industry standards and reliable data to enable producers to make informed management decisions. We present the 2021 CHAPS benchmarks along with five-year average percentiles for each benchmark. Additionally, we present a snapshot of the benchmarks during the past 20 years for historical reference. As we move forward with an update to the CHAPS program, we continue to provide producers with an effective tool to manage what they measure.
This article is part of the 2021 North Dakota Livestock Research Report.
Zachary Carlson, Lee Tisor, Lauren L. Hulsman Hanna, Kris Ringwall, Charles Stoltenow
Summary
The Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) has been used as a herd management tool by beef producers and Extension professionals since 1985. Each year, producers submit herd data for CHAPS analysis, including calving distributions, reproductive percentages, and mean weights, growth and ages. CHAPS data specialists compile herd data to calculate yearly averages and the CHAPS benchmarks are calculated as five-year rolling averages of the yearly herd averages. As industry standards, the CHAPS benchmarks help producers set goals and manage their herds to achieve these goals. We present the 2021 CHAPS benchmarks as five-year averages (means), with five-year average minimums, maximums, and 25th, 50th (median) and 75th percentiles, as well as historical benchmarks from 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. We are updating CHAPS from a desktop program to a web-based application to improve usability and data access for producers and will continue to provide additional data and tools to enable producers to better manage their herds. Accompanying the release of the web-based CHAPS, NDSU Extension personnel will lead workshops to navigate producers through the updated program, highlight new features and demonstrate the importance of record-keeping to help producers achieve their goals.
Introduction
NDSU Extension and the North Dakota Beef Cattle Improvement Association developed the Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) as a beef herd management tool to collect, store and evaluate beef production data to establish reproduction and production benchmarks (Ramsay et al., 2016; Ringwall, 2018). CHAPS provides vital information about herd performance to help producers manage what they measure through solid data.
The CHAPS program and its development have been described previously (Ramsay et al., 2016). Briefly, CHAPS calculates individual herd calving distribution, reproductive percentages (pregnancy, pregnancy loss, calving, calf death loss, weaning and replacement percentages), and production benchmarks (herd average birth and weaning weights, average daily gain and weight per day of age, frame score, age at weaning, cow age, weight and condition, and pounds weaned per cow exposed).
Yearly averages are calculated from individual herd averages; CHAPS includes herds with a minimum of 50 cows and three consecutive years of data submitted to the CHAPS program. Each year, five-year average benchmarks are calculated from the previous five yearly averages.
The five-year benchmarks are the foundation of CHAPS and guide herd management decisions for CHAPS producers. Understanding the CHAPS benchmarks in terms of five-year average minimum, maximum and percentiles also may provide useful information to producers. Many beef producers, who use breed association expected progeny difference (EPD) percentile tables, which rank sires (Ringwall, 2014), could see the benefit of further understanding where their commercial herd ranks among CHAPS herds.
We are updating CHAPS from a desktop program to a web-based application, which ultimately will provide remote access to CHAPS and ensure safe, secure, centralized data storage. Improving the ease with which producers can record data is expected to increase data collection, allow for better data management and help producers make informed herd management decisions (Schulz et al., 2021).
Experimental Procedures
CHAPS-selected herds had a minimum of 50 cows and three years of data submitted to the program; yearly averages were calculated from the selected herds. The 2021 benchmarks were calculated as an average of the previous five yearly values (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) for each reproduction or production trait.
We present 2021 benchmark data for overall calving distribution (%) at 21 days, 42 days, 63 days and after 63 days, as well as heifer (early, 21 days and 42 days) and mature cow (21 days and 42 days) calving distributions. Reproductive percentages include pregnancy, pregnancy loss, calving, calf death loss, weaning and replacement percentages.
Weight and growth benchmarks (reported in pounds) include birth and weaning weights, average daily gain, weight per day of age, frame score, age at weaning (day), and cow age (year), weight and condition, and pounds weaned per cow exposed. Calculations are described in Ramsay et al. (2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Additionally, we report female culling percentages calculated as the sum of culled breeding females relative to the number exposed to at least one bull.
In addition to the five-year benchmarks, we calculated five-year average minimum and maximum benchmarks as well as the five-year average 25th, 50th (median) and 75th percentiles for each benchmark. We also present historical five-year benchmarks from 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, representing yearly averages of CHAPS data collected from 1995 until 2019. Some of this historical data has been summarized previously (Ramsay et al., 2017d).
Results and Discussion
The CHAPS benchmarks were derived from 57,271 cows exposed to bulls from 2016 to 2020. We present the 2021 benchmarks as well as the five-year average minimums, maximums and percentiles (Table 1). The percentiles reflect the distribution of the CHAPS benchmarks. The 50th percentiles (median) and 2021 benchmarks (mean) are similar, indicating a symmetrical distribution of the data and validating the continued use of five-year means in computing the five-year average benchmarks.
| 2021 Benchmark | min. | 25th | 50th | 75th | max. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPA | ||||||
| pregnancy, % | 94.3 | 82.0 | 91.6 | 94.7 | 97.0 | 100 |
| pregnancy loss, % | 0.74 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 7.2 |
| calving, % | 93.6 | 79.4 | 91.0 | 94.3 | 96.5 | 100 |
| calf death lossa, % | 3.1 | 0 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 3.7 | 12.3 |
| calf crop – weaning, % | 91.4 | 75.9 | 89.1 | 92.0 | 94.1 | 100 |
| female replacement, % | 16.0 | 2.0 | 12.4 | 15.0 | 17.3 | 41.5 |
| calf death lossb, % | 3.3 | 0 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 4.1 | 13.1 |
| age at weaning, day | 190 | 147 | 168 | 190 | 205 | 268 |
| calving distribution, % | ||||||
| 21 days | 63.6 | 17.1 | 54.6 | 66.8 | 74.6 | 90.3 |
| 42 days | 88.8 | 47.2 | 86.0 | 90.6 | 93.5 | 99.7 |
| 63 days | 96.5 | 67.6 | 95.5 | 98.1 | 99.4 | 100 |
| after 63 days | 3.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 32.4 |
| weaning weight, lb | ||||||
| Steers | 592 | 448 | 536 | 569 | 599 | 761 |
| Heifers | 553 | 431 | 510 | 543 | 578 | 712 |
| Bulls | 606 | 428 | 582 | 642 | 675 | 756 |
| all calves | 564 | 440 | 526 | 560 | 606 | 735 |
| pounds weaned/cow exposed, lb. | 509 | 358 | 465 | 509 | 545 | 686 |
| CSF | ||||||
| ADG, lb. | 2.6 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.1 |
| WDA, lb. | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.6 |
| birth weight, lb. | 82 | 72 | 79 | 82 | 85 | 95 |
| adjusted 205-day weightc , lb. | 643 | 498 | 603 | 654 | 680 | 769 |
| frame scorec | 5.5 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 6.3 |
| heifers calving, % | ||||||
| Early | 42.3 | 0 | 13.4 | 42.1 | 69.3 | 98.0 |
| 21 days | 77.7 | 22.4 | 69.8 | 83.0 | 93.3 | 100 |
| 42 days | 91.3 | 48.6 | 87.7 | 96.5 | 100 | 100 |
| cows calving, % | ||||||
| 21 days | 60.6 | 10.2 | 49.9 | 63.8 | 75.4 | 90.2 |
| 42 days | 87.9 | 42.6 | 85.05 | 89.9 | 94.15 | 99.6 |
| cow age, year | 5.6 | 3.6 | 5.2 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 7.4 |
| cow weight, lb. | 1,423 | 1,185 | 1,390 | 1,427 | 1,480 | 1,590 |
| cow condition scorec | 5.9 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.4 |
| culledd, % | 13.4 | 1.0 | 9.1 | 12.4 | 15.2 | 39.0 |
a - relative to the number of females exposed
b - relative to the number of calves born
c - BIF Guidelines (2021)
d - additional benchmark (not historically provided)
In some cases, the benchmark percentiles reflect a wide distribution (minimum to maximum) of benchmark values (for example, early heifer calving distributions range from 0% to 98%), whereas others are more narrow. For some benchmarks, a lower percentile indicates lower performance (e.g. pregnancy, calving and weaning percentages, most calving distributions, and weaning weights and weight gains). For other benchmarks, lower percentiles are more favorable (e.g. pregnancy and calf death loss percentages, late calving distribution, age at weaning). Benchmark percentiles may provide producers with a further incentive to improve their herds beyond the benchmark averages.
For a historical perspective, we present CHAPS benchmarks from 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Table 2), representing 97,408, 80,274, 91,832, 76,235 and 60,827 cows exposed to bulls, respectively. Most benchmarks improved from the year 2000, possibly reflecting improvements in data acquisition and comprehension, which resulted in subsequent improvements in management after 2000.
| 2020 | 2015 | 2010 | 2005 | 2000 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPA | |||||
| pregnancy, % | 94.0 | 93.5 | 93.8 | 93.4 | 92.4 |
| pregnancy loss, % | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| calving, % | 93.4 | 92.9 | 93.1 | 92.8 | 91.7 |
| calf death lossa, % | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.9 |
| calf crop – weaning, % | 91.3 | 90.4 | 91.1 | 90.3 | 88.6 |
| female replacement, % | 15.3 | 15.2 | 15.2 | 15.1 | 18.7 |
| calf death lossb, % | 3.2 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 4.3 |
| age at weaning, day | 191 | 192 | 189 | 192 | 197 |
| calving distribution, % | |||||
| 21 days | 63.6 | 62.2 | 63.9 | 62.4 | 55.1 |
| 42 days | 88.5 | 87.2 | 88.1 | 86.4 | 84.2 |
| 63 days | 96.6 | 95.8 | 95.7 | 94.6 | 94.4 |
| after 63 days | 3.4 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 5.4 | 5.6 |
| weaning weight, lb | |||||
| Steers | 590 | 567 | 574 | 562 | 551 |
| Heifers | 550 | 537 | 546 | 545 | 524 |
| Bulls | 600 | 595 | 610 | 618 | 586 |
| all calves | 562 | 555 | 565 | 558 | 542 |
| pounds weaned/cow exposed, lb. | 507 | 495 | 505 | 500 | 475 |
| CSF | |||||
| ADG, lb. | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.3 |
| WDA, lb. | 3.0 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.8 |
| birth weight, lb. | 82 | 83 | 86 | 88 | 87 |
| adjusted 205-day weightc , lb. | 638 | 620 | 637 | 627 | 595 |
| frame scorec | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 5.8 |
| heifers calving, % | |||||
| Early | 42.8 | 37.3 | 37.5 | 35.0 | 30.1 |
| 21 days | 78.0 | 72.2 | 71.6 | 71.2 | 69.9 |
| 42 days | 89.4 | 86.4 | 85.5 | 84.6 | 88.2 |
| cows calving, % | |||||
| 21 days | 60.5 | 59.1 | 62.8 | 59.7 | 51.8 |
| 42 days | 87.7 | 86.0 | 85.7 | 85.5 | 83.1 |
| cow age, year | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.4 |
| cow weight, lb. | 1,416 | 1,411 | 1,400 | 1,378 | 1,308 |
| cow condition scorec | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 5.4 | 5.0 |
| culledd, % | 12.7 | 13.2 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 14.8 |
a - relative to the number of females exposed
b - relative to the number of calves born
c - BIF Guidelines (2021)
d - additional benchmark (not historically provided)
From 2005 until 2020, some of the benchmarks showed slight changes through time, increasing (weaning weights, early and 21-day calving distribution, pregnancy, calving and weaning percentages), or decreasing (birth weight, late calving distribution), while others remained relatively stable (pregnancy loss, female replacement, average daily gain [ADG], weight per day of age [WDA], frame score). Similarly, these changes suggest improvements by CHAPS producers through informed management.
As we reflect on historical data trends and update CHAPS to better serve the technological needs of producers, we remain committed to providing an effective tool for producers to better manage what they measure through solid data.
Literature Cited
Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs. (May 28, 2021). Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Guidelines (Wiki) http://guidelines. beefimprovement.org/index.php/ Guidelines_for_Uniform_Beef_Improvement_Programs (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ramsay, J., Hulsman Hanna, L., K. Ringwall. 2016. Maximizing use of Extension beef cattle benchmarks data derived from Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software. J. Exten. 54(3): tt5 https://archives.joe. org/joe/2016june/tt5.php (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ramsay, J., Hulsman Hanna, L., K. Ringwall. 2017a. Maximizing use of an Extension beef cattle data set: Part 1—calving distribution. J. Exten. 55(3): tt5 https://archives.joe.org/ joe/2017june/tt5.php (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ramsay, J., Hulsman Hanna, L., K. Ringwall.2017b Maximizing use of an Extension beef cattle data set: Part 2—reproductive rates. J. Exten. 55(4): tt6 https://archives.joe.org/ joe/2017august/tt6.php (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ramsay, J., Hulsman Hanna, L., K. Ringwall. 2017c. Maximizing use of an Extension beef cattle data set: Part 3—weights and growth. J. Exten. 55(5): 5 https://archives.joe.org/ joe/2017october/tt5.php (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ramsay, J., Tisor, L., Hulsman Hanna, L., Ringwall K. 2017d. Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS): 15 years of beef production benchmarks. 2017 North Dakota Beef Report, North Dakota State University, Fargo N.D. www.ag.ndsu. edu/publications/livestock/2017- north-dakota-beef-report#section-31 (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Ringwall, K. 2014. BeefTalk: Understanding EPD percentile tables is important. www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/ columns/beeftalk/beeftalk-understanding-epd-percentile-tables-isimportant (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021) Ringwall, K. 2018. BeefTalk: Data are the foundation for developing cattle goals. www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/ columns/beeftalk/beeftalk-data-arethe-foundation-for-developing-cattlegoals (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
Schulz, P., Prior, J., Kahn, L., G. Hinch. 2021. Exploring the role of smartphone apps for livestock farmers: data management, extension and informed decision making, J. Ag, Educat. Ext., DOI:10.1080/138922 4X.2021.1910524 (Accessed Aug. 3, 2021)
