Commercial meat goat production practices in Texas and the Southern states reflect prevailing agroclimatic conditions, basic reproductive physiology, and ad hoc responses to recurring drought conditions. Texas producers typically kid their herds in December-January-February with a much smaller wave of offspring in late spring. Many Southern producers prefer to kid in March and April. Thus, relatively few kid goats are born June through mid-November. The kids tend to be sold for slaughter at 4 to 8 months of age, depending in part on forage supplies.

As a result of these seasonal breeding/kidding schedules and the usual summer/fall shortage of forage, the supply of slaughter goats is also seasonally skewed. Unfortunately for producers and consumers alike, seasonal supplies of such goats do not match very well with consumer demand which tends to be higher from December through Easter. This recurring imbalance of supply and 0 demand has historically resulted in erratic prices - quite low to producers selling June through November and substantially high- for consumers buying during winter, particularly so in traditional holiday markets.

The Texas Department of Agriculture publishes a January I goat census each year, but since other states do not, the aggregate U.S. goat population is unknown. Figure 1 documents the changes in quantity and type of Texas goats for the past decade. Note the precipitous decline in Angora goat counts, which has been only partially offset by increased meat goat numbers. Since 1995, the Texas goat inventory is down by about 30%.

On the other hand, industry observers in other, states report various anecdotal evidence in support of substantial, recent increases in meat goat numbers. Based upon our conversations and travels throughout the U.S., we hazard a guess that currently the U.S. has perhaps 2,000,000 head plus possibly 500,000 or more dairy goats. From this supply, a half million or so are slaughtered in federally inspected plants and perhaps 250,000 more are sacrificed "informally" (not reported to any agency). There are also about a quarter million goat carcasses (30 pound carcass equivalent) imported annually for a total consumption of nearly 1 million head annually.

The extreme seasonality of the goat supply is documented in figure 2 that shows the monthly average throughout 1997-99 for the San Angelo, Texas, auction. Note particularly the lowest numbers n in January/February followed by a steeply upward trend until peak sales are reached in September. Thereafter, numbers drop t sharply, but are still considerably higher in d November and December than in January y and February.

In accord with classical economic theory, prices paid to producers of goats for slaughter are dependent upon the prevailing supply and demand (with some variability for differences in quality of product). At San Angelo, prices for slaughter goats weighing 40 to 80 pounds during 1997-99 demonstrated the theory

quite well. See Table1 that shows the price responses to both number of goats selling and to quality (live grade) of goats. For illustration, compare the recurring price declines for choice goats, May through October of each year, with the increases in numbers of goats sold during the same periods, as shown in Figure 2. Inversely, note that the highest prices received (Dec/April) correspond rather closely to the months of lowest supply. Be aware that increased demand at Christmas and at Easter has an additive effect on producer and consumer prices during these low supply months.

The price response data shown in Table I is perhaps more dramatically represented in Figure 3. There are recurring pricing patterns across years - low in summer, high in winter. Note also the price responses to goats of differing quality. The three quality levels (prime, choice, good) reflect primarily the body condition and general conformation of the goats offered for sale. These price differentials range from 9 to I 10 per pound between grades and are said by buyers to reflect the expected wholesale values of the carcasses.

The positive price responses for better conditioned (higher grading) goats are clearly seen in Table I and Figure 3, This would seem to provide opportunities for producers to increase price per head via improved conditioning and, possibly, larger selling weights. Producers might consider reducing stocking rates on moisture-challenged pastures or supplementing kids via creepfeeding in certain cases or improving herd health or, for the desperate, buying a (guaranteed) easy-keeping buck. Obviously, such options may or may not be cost-effective for any given circumstances: much caution is urged during decision -making.

Table I data describes yet another opportunity for possible producer exploitation. Under certain circumstances, an astute producer might elect to delay his typical summer marketings until December or thereafter, in pursuit of higher prices per pound and also increased selling weights. Remember that selling prices per pound do not historically decline appreciably with increasing weight across the 40 to 80 pound category. Remember, too, that growing young lightweight kid goats (July-August-September) to heavier weights in December or beyond, may also enable an upward change in body condition, i.e. they may "jump a grade" and thus add a premium to their already higher price per pound.

As always, the added costs associated with delayed marketing could exceed the added income realized from larger goats selling at higher prices per pound. To illustrate an expected increase in price per head via delayed marketing, consider a February-born goat weighing 40 pounds (net) in mid-August 1999 with a good conformation and condition. He would have sold for $61.50/cwt or $24.60 (less commission). If he had been held until mid-December and gained 0.3 pounds per day for 120 days (36 pounds) to reach a net selling weight of about 74 pounds and also jumped one grade to choice, he would have sold for $78.17/cwt, or $57.85 (less commission). Thus the gross difference in profit was $33.25 per head for holding the- goat for 4 months. -Note that had the heavier goat graded prime rather than choice, he would have brought $66.84 and had a gross profit of $42.24 (less commission).

The net profit is, of course, the critical factor and is obviously dependent upon the costs (feed, labor, interest, etc.) incurred during the 120 days. Such costs tend to be rather site-specific and thus make valid management generalizations very difficult. However, individual producers can certainly estimate most likely costs of holding goats on their place, thus enabling a decision as to do so or not.

In the recent past, droughts and relatively high prices for supplemental protein and energy feeds have precluded cost-benefit ratios favorable enough to carry summer-weaning kid goats to higher weights or grades in the traditional western Texas goat-producing areas. Such may be the future case, too. However, for those eastern Texas and Southern producers who more often than not have favorable forage growing conditions well into the fall and, with small grain pastures, even into the winter, a "stocker" option for goats may have economic merit.

Keeping the cost of gain low during the stocker period is, of course, crucial to economic benefits. Prospective players must factor in additional costs of procurement of goats for the stocker operation, trucking to the farm, trucking and hauling shrinkage to market site, death loss and other expenses associated with this additional holding period (ie. medications, worming, etc.). But, they can also expect higher selling prices in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and possibly southern Florida than those in western Texas. For example, Pennsylvania/New Jersey prices typically exceed Texas prices by 10 to 12 cents per pound ($6-8 per head).

For those Southerners whose available forage is thought inadequate in quantity and/or quality for stocker enterprise consideration, you might wish to explore options for nutrient supplementation on pasture. Others may wish to consider a confinement feedlot with a view to increasing daily gains and thus shortening the time on feed to. a given weight. However, this option is likely to be more risky because of the health hazards associated with confinement and , secondly, the feed conversion efficiency of most goats is relatively low. Therefore, the feed cost per pound of gain is likely to be relatively high.

To illustrate a feedlot scenario, make certain assumptions and calculations. For example:

Conclusion

(This article was prepared by Louis Nuti, PhD., Prairie View A&M University; Frank Pinkerton, PhD., Retired Goat Extension Specialist, Langston, University; and Kenneth W McMillan, PhD., Louisiana State University as part of a broader research project at Prairie View A&M University (Texas) concerning pasture supplementation of post-weaning Spanish and Boerx Spanish kid goats, their live and carcass grades, and market price and consumer responses.)