Livestock Risk Protection Insurance: Feeder Cattle

What feeder cattle are insurable?

Feeder cattle comprise the largest share of contracts historically purchased for Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance. Insurable types of feeder cattle include steers, heifers, predominately Brahman, and predominately dairy, as well as unborn steers and heifers, unborn Brahman, and unborn dairy calves. Feeder cattle types other than the unborn calf categories can all be insured at one of two weight categories—weight 1: less than 600 pounds and weight 2: 600–1,000 pounds. Specific coverage endorsements (SCE) for feeder cattle may be purchased with an annual limit of 25,000 head for an individual producer per year, with a maximum per SCE of 12,000 head (Risk Management Agency [RMA], 2022). While that is the maximum per contract, producers can purchase LRP insurance contracts for as little as one head. Find general information about how the LRP insurance program works in the companion Utah State University Extension fact sheet titled “Livestock Risk Protection Insurance FAQ.”

What are feeder cattle price adjustment factors?

Expected ending values follow the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Feeder Cattle futures market and are cash settled to the CME Feeder Cattle Index (FCI). Both the CME futures market and CME FCI correspond to feeder cattle steers, weight 2. To calculate expected ending values and actual ending values for the other feeder cattle types, the RMA uses price adjustment factors, as shown in Table 1 (RMA, 2022). To calcuate prices for other feeder cattle, simply multiply the price for steers, weight 2, by the corresponding adjustment factor for your desired feeder cattle type.

Table 1. Price Adjustment Factors for Feeder Cattle Types
Weight range	1–599 lb (weight 1)	600–1,000 lb (weight 2)
Steers	110%	100%
Heifers	100%	90%
Predominately Brahman	100%	90%
Predominately dairy	50%	50%

What are the "optimal" coverage contracts?

LRP contracts that return an indemnity to a producer greater than the subsidized premium cost could be defined as having a positive net return. Those combinations of coverage length and level that have historically provided the highest probability of a positive net return while also providing the highest average net return could be defined as “optimal” contracts (Haviland & Feuz, 2022). Table 2 summarizes these optimal contracts for each marketing month (the month in which a producer intends to market livestock). LRP coverage lengths of 13, 17, 21, 26, and 30 weeks are shown, with coverage levels of 85%–100% split into 5 groups:

• 1 = (85.00% - 89.99%).
• 2 = (90.00% - 92.49%).
  
• 3 = (92.50% - 94.99%).
• 4 = (95.00% - 97.49%).
• 5 = (97.50% - 100.00%).

The optimal contracts, already defined, are those cells within Table 2 shaded in gray and marked with an “X.”

Table 2. LRP Feeder Cattle “Optimal” Combinations of Coverage Length and Level by Marketing Month

Coverage length/levela

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Jun.

Jul.

Aug.

Sep.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

13/1

13/2

13/3

13/4

13/5

X

X

X

X

X

X

17/1

17/2

17/3

17/4

17/5

X

X

X

X

X

21/1

21/2

21/3

21/4

X

21/5

X

X

X

X

X

26/1

26/2

26/3

26/4

X

26/5

X

X

X

X

X

X

30/1

30/2

30/3

30/4

X

X

X

30/5

X

X

X

Notes. Optimal combinations of coverage length and level are those that have historically provided the highest average net return and highest probability of a positive net return. The optimal combinations are shaded in gray and marked with an “X.” a Coverage length/levels are defined as the length in weeks and the levels coded as 1 = (85.00%–89.99%), 2 = (90.00%–92.49%), 3 = (92.50%–94.99%), 4 = (95.00%–97.49%), and 5 = (97.50%–100.00%).

How were the optimal contracts determined?

The optimal contracts are based on historical performance of LRP contracts from 2005–January 2023. The net return and probability of positive net return were analyzed for each combination of coverage length and level and those combinations that were statistically the highest (5% significance level) were taken as the optimal set. As the LRP contracts for all feeder cattle types are based on the same CME futures and FCI, the optimal contracts identified are consistent across all feeder cattle types.

An online tool, Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) Support Tool (https://farmanalysis.usu.edu/lrp/), is available to help producers visualize which contracts are optimal based on their marketing month and specific commodity. The optimal contracts identified within Table 2 may not correspond directly to those identified using the LRP online decision tool. This discrepancy can arise as the online tool is continuously updated as new LRP data becomes available.

What patterns exist within the optimal contracts?

Patterns within the optimal contracts identified for feeder cattle suggest that generally higher coverage levels have historically been more likely to return a positive net return as well as the highest average net return across all marketing months. Patterns within coverage length are far less pronounced. This suggests that producers purchasing feeder cattle LRP insurance should prioritize purchasing contracts with relatively higher coverage levels to help mitigate price risk.

Example

As an example of how the information in Table 2 could be used, assume a producer typically markets feeder cattle in April. Referencing Table 2, this producer seeking to purchase a historically optimal contract could purchase a contract for 26 weeks in October with a coverage level of a 4 or 5 (95%–100%). Of course, having been identified as historically optimal does not guarantee similar future performance. However, as producers make LRP coverage selections, this historically optimal set can provide some ranking information based on historical performance to guide producers in their selection process.

Sources

• Haviland, L. B., & Feuz, R. (2022). Livestock risk protection: Selecting optimal coverage contracts for producers. In Western Economics Forum (Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 63–74).
• Risk Management Agency (RMA). (2022). Livestock risk protection (LRP) insurance standards handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Handbooks/Privately-Developed-Products---20000/Livestock-Risk-Protection/2023-20010-Livestock-Risk-Protection.ashx?la=en

Authors

Logan Haviland and Ryan Feuz

Related Research

Who Are Organic Wheat Consumers?

This fact sheet provides an overview of the socio-demographics, attitudes, and preferences of organic wheat consumers in the Western U.S. It discusses information on what food attributes these consumers value most along with their lifestyle and shopping h

Adopting Organic Wheat: Grower Motivations and Concerns

This fact sheet provides an overview of the study results by discussing grower motivations for adopting organic methods, as well as grower concerns regarding organic production.

Consumer Taste Beliefs Impact Organic Specialty Baked Good Pricing

In this fact sheet, we discuss how consumer taste beliefs related to organic specialty baked goods differ from their taste beliefs for conventional specialty baked goods, and whether this difference affects the amount consumers are willing to pay for orga

Which Factors Influence Consumer Organic Specialty Bakery Product Taste Ratings?

In this fact sheet, we compare consumer taste ratings for organic and conventional specialty bakery products and analyze what factors explain the differences.

Characteristics of Organic Wheat Growers

This fact sheet provides an overview of the study results and compares and contrasts these results with the results of other studies. It also provides suggestions for outreach to current and potential organic wheat growers.

Do Consumers Who Prefer Gluten-Free Also Prefer Organic?

In this fact sheet, we examine how consumers, who choose to avoid wheat/gluten bakery products for a variety of reasons, respond to organic wheat products relative to those who do not limit their wheat/gluten consumption, and whether organic wheat product

Labeling and Product Characteristic Preferences of Organic Food Buyers

This Extension fact sheet discusses the results of an online survey conducted in 2017 across 16 western states via Qualtrics. Just over one thousand residents responded to the survey.

Does Consumer Knowledge of Organic Production Standards Influence Demand for Organic and Non-GMO Labeled Foods?

This fact sheet summarizes a study conducted on consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for organic and non-GMO labels alone and in combination for bread and cookies, and how consumer knowledge that organic is non-GMO and overall organic knowledge of organic st

Who Values Organic Specialty Bakery Products?

In this fact sheet, we examine differences in sociodemographics and lifestyle choices between those who view organic as important when purchasing specialty bakery products and those who don’t, with the aim to identify a target market of consumers who pref

Bakery Organic Wheat Flour Quality and Quantity Requirements

This fact sheet summarizes the findings of a survey conducted with bakery owners and managers to assess their organic wheat flour quality and sourcing needs.

Premium Potential for Organic Wheat Products

This Extension fact sheet provides an overview of the premiums consumers in the Western U.S. are willing to pay for organic wheat products, as well as their knowledge of organic production methods, and opinions and attitudes toward organic food products i

Wheat Miller and Distributor Organic Wheat Quality and Quantity Requirements

This fact sheet summarizes the findings of a survey conducted with wheat buyers (millers and distributors) to assess their organic wheat quality and sourcing needs. We examine the importance of various quality measures in miller and distributor decisions

Events

View Events Near You

Learn More

Take an Online Course Tips SIGN UP Find an Event