Lesser prairie chicken listed as threatened species

Mary Soukup, Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 03/31/2014

In a move that has lawmakers, farmers and ranchers, oil and gas companies, and other energy companies calling foul, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Thursday, March 27, its plans to list the lesser prairie chicken (LPC) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species List. The listing will affect the LPC’s range which includes land in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
A “threatened” listing means the species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, according to FWS. It is a step below “endangered” under ESA, and the agency says a threatened listing provides for more flexibility to implement required protections. The proposal was accompanied by a special final rule intended to allow the affected states to continue to manage conservation efforts and avoid additional regulatory requirements.
According to the FWS, the LPC was identified in 1998 as a candidate for federal protection. Since that time, federal and state officials have worked with conservation groups, landowners and other stakeholders to address population decline challenges. In 2013, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) initiated a range-wide conservation plan designed to provide “tools and incentives” to encourage landowners and other entities, including oil and gas companies, to voluntarily work with state agencies in habitat conservation efforts while still achieving land-use needs. To date, FWS reports that more than 3 million acres of land have been enrolled in the range-wide plan, the USDA NRCS Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative and other initiatives.
Despite these efforts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said the LPC is in “dire straits.”
While the service recognizes the importance of the established programs, calling them a comprehensive framework within which conservation of the LPC can be achieved, they determined a “threatened” listing was necessary because the threats to the species remain and are likely to continue, the service said.
In 2013, the LPC population was 17,616, almost 50 percent less than the 2012 population estimate. The states’ plan has a population goal of 67,000 birds range-wide. According to the FWS, the primary threats to the LPC include habitat loss from converting grassland to agricultural uses; encroachment by invasive woody plants; wind energy development; petroleum production; the ongoing drought; and the presence of roads and manmade vertical structures including towers, utility lines, fences, turbines, wells and buildings.
Leaders from the range states, including governors and lawmakers in Washington, D.C., have blasted FWS for the “threatened” listing.
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback called it a federal overreach and announced on March 28 that the state will join other range states and take its fight against the listing to the Courts.
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin said while she was pleased that FWS will allow states to continue efforts under the range-wide plan, the potential impact of this listing without the range-wide plan could be damaging to her state’s economy, which relies heavily on energy and agriculture.
U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives, from the five states joined their governors in raising concerns and saying the federal listing was not necessary because of the ongoing voluntary, state-led efforts. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said his greatest concern with the listing is that it is “easier to list a species than delist it.”
“Just look at the American Burying Beetle (ABB) in Eastern Oklahoma. The beetle has been listed as endangered since 1989, even though newly published population surveys show a population 10 times larger than the conservation goals outlined in the original ABB conservation plans,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Despite this, the ABB remains an endangered species, and it is one without a General Conservation Plan, making economic development in the ABB range very difficult to undertake. That ABB remaining listed is to the detriment of Eastern Oklahoma’s economy.”
The final rule to list the LPC and the final rule will be published in the Federal Register and will take effect 30 days after publication. The final rule can be found on the FWS website at www.fws.gov/southwest.

NPR Suggests Cattle Degrade The Environment

Mar 31, 2014 by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily

I was disappointed to read Eliza Barclay’s article, “How Your Love Of Burgers May Be Helping To Drive Wildlife Extinct,” which appeared in NPR’s The Salt recently. The article suggests that meat lovers are the real reason the environment is in such desperate shape.
"We need to see a drastic reduction in meat consumption to protect land, water and wildlife," Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director for the Center for Biological Diversity, is quoted as saying in the article.
Feldstein blames cattle grazing on the decline of bears and wolves, as well as prairie dogs and elk. She must not have talked to anyone in Idaho or Minnesota/Wisconsin about declining wolf populations.

Join the conversation! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

According to the article, “Grazing destroys vegetation and damages soils and stream banks. And if you think grass-fed beef is a more ‘sustainable’ choice, think again. Grazing cattle on grass has more negative impacts on the land than any other land use, the group says. Instead, we could replace meat with plants, even one day a week. Meatless Monday, perhaps?”
If I had the chance to visit with these folks who dream of a utopic world untouched by humans, I would explain to them that grazing is not only beneficial for the land but it promotes a healthy wildlife habitat as well.
Vast herds of unencumbered bison roamed and grazed America’s Great Plains for centuries, and modern cattle grazing mimics that nomadic behavior. Just as bison did, cattle aerate and fertilize the soil with their hooves, which promotes moisture retention and new growth of grass. They also convert the forage located on land that is unsuited to crop production into tasty and nutritional beef.
According to explorebeef.org, there are several benefits to beef cattle production including:
1. Reducing the risk of wildfires.
“Grazing cattle can minimize the invasion of non-native plant species and minimize the risk of wildfires by decreasing the amount of flammable material on the land. Approximately 85% of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops. Grazing animals on this land more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food. Cattle serve a valuable role in the ecosystem by converting the forages humans cannot consume into a nutrient-dense food.”
2. Enriching the lives of wildlife.
“A combination of livestock and wildlife management on grazing lands has resulted in better species survival than when these activities are practiced separately. In the Eastern and Central United States, wildlife is almost entirely dependent on ranch, farm and other private lands; so, ranchers play an important role in the survival of native species.
3. Reducing our global footprint.
"Beef producers are experienced in using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain air quality surrounding their operations. In addition, animal agriculture contributes minimally to the production of total greenhouse gasses. According to the EPA, the entire U.S. agricultural sector accounts for only 6.4% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and livestock production is only a portion of that total.”
These are excellent points with which to refute Barclay’s opinion piece on cattle and the environment, which is just that – opinion. To suggest that skipping a burger will save the planet is simply naïve and reckless. There are many other ways to reduce our carbon footprint, and going meatless is not one of them. What do you think about the article? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Which breeds stay in herds longer?

by Dennis Halladay, Western Editor
Hoard's Dairyman

Sooner or later, every dairy cow leaves her herd for some reason. But how long she stays seems to depend a lot on what breed she is.
In the 2012 National Dairy Herd Information Association data compiled by USDA, the rate of cows leaving production for all reasons varied by nearly one-third between the highest and lowest breeds. Here’s the breakdown:

Breed	Percent Culling
Holsteins	32.7%
Red & Whites	32.0%
Guernseys	30.8%
Brown Swiss	29.8%
Shorthorns	28.6%
Ayrshires	27.7%
crossbreds (over 50%)	26.9%
crossbreds (50% or less)	26.1%
Jerseys	24.9%

While it’s likely that sexed semen use and continued high beef prices have an influence on some of these numbers, it’s even more likely that there is something fundamental about Jerseys that helps them stay problem free and profitable longer than any other breed.
The Holstein breed, for instance, continues to have a glut of heifers that keeps the price spread small between cull cows and replacements and makes it easy to ship a cow for any little reason.
Jerseys don’t do as well in the beef market, which could be an incentive for owners to hang on to them longer. But their remarkable reproductive abilities often make it difficult for their owners to find room for all of the heifers that are available.
To comment, email your remarks to intel@hoards.com.

Energy intake is important in post-calving cows

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Extension | Updated: 03/24/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

The winter of 2013-2014 has brought challenges in the form of very high feed prices, cold weather, and in some instances, short hay supplies. Cows in many Midwestern herds are calving in marginal body condition. Unfortunately, this is a season where maintaining or gaining body condition on spring calving cows is really quite difficult. Warm season grasses Figure 1. Change in body condition after calving influences rebreeding rates. Cows that maintain body condition (yellow line) had a rebreeding rate of 94%. Cows that lost body condition after calving (red line) had a rebreeding rate of 73% (Wettemann, et al., 1987 Journ. Animal Sci., Suppl. 1:63). have not yet begun to grow. Dormant grass (what little is left) is a low quality feed. Cows cannot, or will not, consume a large amount of standing dormant grass at this time year. If the only supplement being fed is a self-fed, self-limited protein source, the cows may become very deficient in energy. Remember, the instructions that accompany these self-fed supplements. They are to be fed along with free choice access to adequate quantity and quality forages.
There is another factor that compounds the problem. A small amount of winter annual grasses may begin to grow in native pastures. These are the first tastes of green grass many cows have seen since last summer. The cows may try to forage these high moisture, low energy density grasses, in lieu of more energy dense hays or cubes. The sad result is the loss of body condition in early lactation beef cows just before the breeding season is about to begin.
Body condition at the time of calving is the most important factor affecting rebreeding performance of normally managed beef cows. Nonetheless, condition changes after calving will have more subtle effects on rebreeding especially in cows that are in marginal body condition. Body condition changes from the time the cow calves until she begins the breeding season can play a significant role in the rebreeding success story. This appears to be most important to those cows that calve in the marginal body condition score range of "4" or "5". An Oklahoma trial illustrates the vulnerability of cows that calve in the body condition score of 5. Two groups of cows began the winter feeding period in similar body condition and calved in very similar body condition. However, after calving and before the breeding season began, one group was allowed to lose almost one condition score. The other group of cows was fed adequately to maintain the body condition that they had prior to calving. The difference in rebreeding rate was dramatic (73% vs 94%). Again this illustrates that cows that calve in the body condition score of 5 are very vulnerable to weather and suckling intensity stresses and ranchers must use good nutritional strategies after calving to avoid disastrous rebreeding performance.
Hereford and Angus cows in the 1980’s were much smaller than most cows today but the body condition score is still the same. Cows should calve in moderate to good condition (scores of 5 or 6) to ensure good rebreeding efficiency. Ideally, cows should be maintaining condition during mid to late pregnancy and gaining during breeding. The goal of the management program should be to achieve these body conditions by making maximum use of the available forage resource.
Continue feeding a source of energy, such as moderate to good quality grass hay free choice and high energy supplements until the warm season grasses grow enough to provide both the energy and protein that the lactating cows need. Yes, the feed is high-priced. But the cost of losing 21% of next year’s calf crop is even greater!

Proactive Communication Is Important To Producers & DVMs

Jay R. Brown, Vetgate Global
BEEF Online

As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, cattlemen increasingly see themselves as “food producers.” Meanwhile, bovine practitioners must, and are, changing their mindset from just treating sick cattle to being proactive purveyors of wellness programs for cattle.
Bovine practitioners are increasingly moving into “production medicine,” and are being asked to assist and advise their clients in making veterinary medical decisions that may have a profound impact on the producer’s economic bottom line. Client communications will be a key element in helping bovine practitioners continue this transition, but such communications must be proactive.
In the past, bovine veterinarians responded to calls to treat sick or non-productive animals in an after-the-fact situation. Today’s economic and social environment, which is driven by the consumers of beef products, demand that producers and their veterinarians practice more wellness (preventive) medicine programs.
In fact, many practices have moved to offering “herd health programs,” but even many of these practices haven’t yet initiated an ongoing, regular proactive client communication program. Nor is a proactive practice marketing program part of their herd health programs.
What difference does it make if bovine practitioners are proactive with either current or potential new clients? According to the 2007 National Animal Health Monitoring Survey (NAHMS) Beef/Cow-Calf report:
1. More than 60% of all operations did not vaccinate calves for anything prior to weaning.
2. More than 70% of all operations did not conduct a breeding soundness exam on their bulls.
3. More than 80% of all operations did not vaccinate replacement heifers for any reproductive diseases.
4. More than 80% of all operations did not vaccinate replacement heifers for any respiratory diseases.
5. 75% of all operations did not vaccinate replacement heifers for the respiratory/reproductive diseases (IBR/BVD).
6. More than 90% of all operations did not do any diagnostic screening for internal parasites.
The NAHMS report documents that most cows, calves, and bulls in the U.S. cow-calf herd aren’t receiving optimum animal health care. And a plethora of scientific data indicates that beef animals that suffer from respiratory disease during the grazing or feedlot phase of production yield lower-quality, less tender carcasses and bring less value to the beef production system. Other university data show beef animals infected with even a subclinical case of internal and/or external parasites also have lower-grading carcass grades and lower red meat yields, as well as produce poorer-grading hides.
This information points to the need for more emphasis on wellness (preventive) programs. The data also show that bovine practitioners’ herd health recommendations aren’t reaching (or at least not being accepted) by a good percentage of beef producers.
Bovine practitioners must be proactive in communicating with their clients (as well as other producers in their practice locale) regarding the reasoning behind their health recommendations. They can help their clients understand that better herd health leads to improved food quality.
In addition, bovine practitioners have an opportunity to link the value of a herd health wellness plan to the consumer’s desire for the highest quality product their clients can produce. Those bovine veterinarians who move to the front in this arena (as well as many others non-medical arenas which can help their clients improve their productivity – animal identification, biosecurity, animal welfare, just to name a few – will help their clients become more profitable with a more stable consumer market for their products. Thus, it’s incumbent upon bovine practitioners to begin incorporating proactive client communications programs into their practice to keep their clients fully informed of the latest data in both the scientific areas as well as the consumer trends area.
Today, more than 80% of all U.S. citizens have access to either broadband Internet or a smartphone with Internet connectivity; and many have both. Bovine practitioners can capitalize on this very efficient method to communicate more often and more effectively with clients and producers in their communities. Our experience over the past 5+ years working with practices to help them develop such proactive client communication and practice marketing programs has produced the following key findings:
1. Practices with the higher percentage of e-mails of clients and a planned client communication and practice marketing program have higher compliance rates, and continue to grow practice revenue even in difficult economic times as compared to practices which do not record client e-mail addresses and do not have nor implement a planned communication and marketing plan.
2. Practices that utilize multiple avenues and multiple periods of client communication and practice marketing have higher compliance and practice growth than practices which utilize fewer, i.e., monthly or more often client communications (website, email, mobile phone text, direct mail newsletters, and direct mail postcard promotions) vs. only 1 or 2 postcards or printed newsletters once or twice a year (or no proactive communication).
These NAHMS “non-compliance” data indicate that in every cattle production community, there is tremendous potential for improving animal welfare, improving overall food quality, improving the economic return of beef and dairy producers, and establishing/growing vibrant bovine practices. All of which could be very beneficial to the local community, the food-consuming public, bovine veterinary medicine, and the animal husbandry profession.
Who better to lead the drive to improve compliance with proper herd health recommendations than the bovine practitioner? Bovine practitioners have an opportunity to initiate a new “service” in their practice – client communications. An investment in bringing this new service to their clients (as well as potential new clients in their communities) can bring a multifold return to their practice, their clients, and the communities they serve.

Jay R. Brown, DVM, MS, is founder and president of Vetgate Global (www.vetgateglobal.com).

Pasture lease agreements

I realize this is Nebraska based information, but I thought it had some important information to consider.


Jay Jenkins, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension | Updated: 03/21/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Pasture leasing plays an important role in American agriculture. It is important that lease agreements are fair, and in writing. Agreements that treat both parties fairly have more staying power. They are more likely to be renewed, more likely to be followed, and are more enforceable.
Price
Price is usually the first thing ranchers think about when they are deciding whether or not a lease agreement is fair. What is included in the lease, local supply and demand, and landowner-tenant history affect lease price.
Lease rate surveys can provide a starting place for price negotiations. Two useful surveys are the Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Highlights and the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Stocking Rate

The stocking rate should be plainly stated in the lease agreement. This helps avoid disagreements. It provides the landowner a way to reach their goals for rangeland health and the cattle owner to reach production goals.

Disaster Clause

Grazing leases should include a clause that covers how grazing pressure will be reduced in response to drought or other natural disaster. Specify who will make the decision to reduce stocking rate and how the decision will be made.

Put it in Writing

You should have a written lease agreement. That written agreement should include everything that you discussed during lease negotiations.

Pasture Rental Arrangements for Your Farm

Ag lease 101 is a great website with many resources related to leasing, including a publication called "Pasture Rental Arrangements for Your Farm." The publication covers in-depth many of the steps in arriving at an equitable lease arrangement. It contains a template lease form that you can use as you develop your own agreement. If you aren't able to access it online, your local extension office is happy to help.

Get Legal Counsel

Pasture leases are binding agreements. It is important to get legal advice before entering into any legally binding agreement.
A recent video titled "Pasture Lease Agreements" further explains the important aspects of a grazing lease agreement.

Steps to Improve Cow Herd efficiency

Katie Allen, Kansas State University Extension | Updated: 03/19/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Business owners are often challenged to find time to sit down, analyze data, and strategize to make their business more profitable and successful. A beef cow/calf operation is one such Improving feed efficiency is a main area of focus for beef cattle farmers and ranchers to become more profitable. Cow/calf efficiency is especially important, as cow/calf production accounts for 70 percent of the total calories consumed in the entire beef sector. business, and improving feed efficiency is a main profit-driver.
Bob Weaber, beef breeding, genetics and cow/calf specialist for K-State Research and Extension, said feed efficiency is converting pounds of feed resources, whether that is a concentrated diet in a feedlot or a diet of range and pasture forage, into pounds of calf gain.
“Feed costs are associated with about 60 to 70 percent of total beef production costs,” Weaber said. “A large chunk of those are realized in a feedlot, but it’s also important to think about feed efficiency on the cow side.”
Fed cattle only account for 30 percent of the total calories consumed in the entire beef sector, he said. Ignoring the cow/calf side of the beef production system, which consumes the remaining 70 percent of the total calories, means producers are missing a great opportunity to not only change feed costs, but also improve efficiency, sustainability and the impact of the beef production system on the environment.
Knowing inputs and outputs
Cattle in the commercial feedlot are easy to evaluate for feed efficiency, Weaber said. On a pen-wide basis, feedlot managers know how much feed the cattle consume, as every feed truck is weighed, and cattle owners are billed accordingly.
“We know how much the cattle cost going into the feedlot and how much they weighed,” he said. “We know what the value is when they leave the feedlot in terms of grid value, carcass merit, live weight or other output measurement. That’s easy to capture.”
Understanding efficiency at the cow/calf level is a much more complicated issue, Weaber said.
“We don’t measure how much forage they consume,” he said. “We have a fixed land mass typically in owned or rented pasture that provides the bulk of calories our animals consume. We can only measure hay allocation and supplemental feed as additional inputs.”
To calculate efficiency in feedlots, managers often use the feed conversion ratio, a measure of an animal’s feed intake to gain, or its reciprocal, gross feed efficiency, Weaber said. Cow/calf producers, on the other hand, should collect enough records to be able to calculate weaning weight per cow exposed to measure efficiency. This provides producers with the output of their cow herd relative to the calories that the cows exposed to a bull consumed. It shows producers how the cows are working not individually, but as a system.
“For most producers in Kansas and across the country who sell calves at weaning time, weaning weight is the targeted end point,” he said. “The nice thing about weaning weight per cow exposed is that it captures all sensitive areas that have an impact on productivity in your cow/calf operation—fertility, conception rate and ability for cows to re-breed. It is a function of how many cows you turned out with bulls and the net effect the management decisions made to realize a marketable product.”
Understanding feed efficiency tools and concepts
Weaber and several of his colleagues are working on a beef feed efficiency project and completed a nationwide survey of beef cow/calf producers, seedstock producers and feedlot operators in 2013, to gauge producers’ understanding of a wide variety of feed efficiency and genetic concepts.
One of the most surprising things, Weaber said, was that only about one-third of the cow-calf producer respondents could correctly identify the proper definition of feed conversion ratio or the measure of feed efficiency.
Producers also answered questions about methods historically used by the beef industry to improve the feed efficiency of growing animals. Slightly more than 50 percent of cow/calf producers correctly identified increased growth rate or average daily gain (ADG) as the genetic tool used by the U.S. beef industry to improve feed efficiency of growing animals.
Slightly more than half of the respondents were not aware of any consequence to the cow herd resulting from selection for increased growth rate. About 13 percent responded that there were no harmful effects, and only about 10 percent correctly identified that selection for increased ADG results in potentially higher maintenance cows with larger mature weights and leaner body composition.
When asked about other measures of efficiency, only 16 percent of producers were familiar with residual, or net, feed intake (RFI), and 14 percent had heard of residual average daily gain (RADG).
“We have lots of work to do in the industry to help producers understand conventional measures of feed efficiency or transformation of data into measures of metabolic size, feed intake or growth rate, such as RFI or RADG,” Weaber said. “We also need to help them understand how to use those tools in selection strategies.”
Breed association national cattle evaluation programs are beginning to report efficiency-related expected progeny differences (EPDs) that producers can use in cattle selection. For a long time, the strong genetic association of feed intake and gain performance has been understood in the beef industry, he said, as it’s somewhere around 0.75 or 0.80.
In addition to the RADG EPD published by the American Angus Association, other EPDs and value indexes are emerging to differentiate animals for growth efficiency. For determining maintenance efficiency on the cow side, $EN (cow energy value) in Angus or the maintenance energy EPD in Red Angus are examples. These can help producers select sires of replacement females that represent lower maintenance energy costs and a more moderate mature size and lactation potential.
Matching animals to their environment
Along with knowing the genetic selection tools available for improving efficiency, producers should also understand the difference between maintenance requirements versus maintenance efficiency in the cow herd.
“Maintenance efficiency in a cow perspective is how animals differ in their ability to use consumed nutrients, and right now in the beef sector we don’t have a very good way to measure that on an individual animal basis,” Weaber said. “So that means selection to change that would be difficult.”
A more appropriate strategy, he said, is making sure maintenance requirements match a producer’s forage environment. Cow size and milk production are both moderate to highly heritable traits, and EPDs can help producers select for cows that are more optimally matched to their production environment. For many producers, that will mean selecting lower milking cows with more moderate or smaller mature weights, as they will likely have fewer maintenance requirements.
“We can affect cow size and lactation potential in the next calf crop by using appropriate selection strategies,” Weaber said. “If we think about the nutrient requirement between a 1,000-lb. cow and a 1,400-lb. cow for maintenance of bodyweight, there’s about a 27 percent difference. If we look at the difference between a low milk, 10-lb. peak lactation cow versus a 30-lb. peak lactation cow, that’s another 16 percent change in nutrient requirements.”
Together, that is more than a 40 percent difference in maintenance requirements between small, low-milk cows and large, high-milk cows. On a caloric basis, that’s about a ton of corn equivalent per cow, he said.
“If you think about how energy-dense corn is, think about the required difference in nutrient consumption if you were feeding prairie hay,” Weaber said. “The difference is massive.”
Producers should strive to hit the optimum level of how many cows and calves they have relative to their access of native, standing forage, he said. Not having to feed a lot of harvested forage can really change the profitability of an operation.
Crossbreeding also helps improve cow herd efficiency by improving weaning weights of calves and especially traits with low heritability, such as fertility and longevity, Weaber said. System efficiency improvements across the whole cow herd inventory due to crossbreeding can be realized in three to five years depending on the replacement rate in the herd.
For more information on the effects of crossbreeding on production efficiency, production system constraints and breeding systems, Weaber recommends the National Beef Cattle Education Consortium’s Beef Sire Selection Manual available online.

2014 AgriFuture Educational Institute

What is a bull worth?

Patrick Gunn, Iowa State Extension | Updated: 03/11/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

I often get the question “How much should I pay for a bull?” My first answer is “Whatever the market will bear.” Admittedly, that answer really gives no insight into return on investment for the producer relative to traits of emphasis for their particular marketing goals. With the record prices currently being observed in all markets of the beef industry, it is no secret that this translates to increased prices of replacement breeding stock.

While to my knowledge, no calculator exists to determine the exact price a producer should spend on a bull, there are multiple factors that can be considered to establish a base price. Typical thumb rules that I have heard over the years for the value of an average purebred or composite bull include 2 times the value of a fed steer, 5 times the value of a feeder calf at weaning, or 25 times the cwt price of feeder calves. In the current market, using these thumb rules, we get an approximate range of $3975 to $4650, which is very representative of early sale reports from 2014.

While spending less does not insinuate you have purchased an inferior bull, it should be expected that an above average bull for traits such as calving ease, weaning weight, docility, staybility, marbling, etc., will likely garner a premium.

Assuming an average bull in today’s market will be utilized for 4 years and mated to 100 cows, the mating fee over the life of the bull will be $43 per cow. Regardless of base price, for every $500 more spent on a herd sire, it raises the service fee only $5 per cow over the life of the bull.

Given today’s feeder prices, for every $500 more spent on a herd sire, only 3 more pounds of weaning weight per calf would need to be obtained to offset the added investment on a sire improved growth EPDs. Similarly, only 0.5 more calves would need to be born to a sire with an improved calving ease (CE/CED/CEM) EPD profile. Given the fluctuations in grid premiums and discounts, return on investment needed for bulls with improved carcass traits is harder to pinpoint, and will be specific to your operation.

The initial investment of a bull in today’s market may seem staggering, but it is an investment that adds immediate value to the herd working forward.

Good luck, and happy bidding.

Commentary: Milking a new controversy

Dan Murphy | Updated: 03/13/2014
Drover's Cattle Networks

Think the debate over milk’s nutritional value is just a veggie-vs.-animal-foods battle? Well, now there’s a more complex and interesting debate pitting A1 against A2. Confused? Read on.
Most consumers are aware of the controversy surrounding the nutritional benefits of so-called “raw milk.”
Proponents of raw (unpasteurized) milk claim that its health benefits are far superior to pasteurized milk — to the extent that many advocates insist that the homogenized, pasteurized stuff 99.99 percent of us drink can cause all sorts of health problems.
That debate pits an isolated fringe group against an overwhelming majority of both scientists and consumers, and when on occasion raw milk containing pathogenic bacteria sickens somebody, it only reinforces the extremist stance of the people opposed to the most reliable food-safety technology ever developed.
But like a belief in alien abduction, there’s no convincing raw milk devotees that they should re-examine their beliefs.
Now, however, there’s another milk-related controversy, one seemingly more plausible, but one also being flogged by a small cadre of researchers and their media cheerleaders. It’s based on the theory that many people who suffer from lactose intolerance are not allergic to lactose. Instead, they’re unable to properly digest the A1 protein typically found in milk from Holstein cows, unlike the A2 protein that predominates in Jersey and Guernsey breeds.
The A1 and A2 proteins are different forms of beta-casein, which comprises about 30 percent of milk’s protein content.
But you already knew that.
What I didn’t know, however, is the A2 backstory. It seems that A2 beta-casein mutated into A1 thousands of years ago among certain European dairy herds. Millennia later, cows can now be classified either as pure A2, A1-A2 hybrid, or pure A1. (Both human breast milk and goat’s milk contains only A2 beta-casein).
This controversy over the alleged ill effects of A1 milk first heated up in New Zealand some 20 years ago, thanks to research by Prof. Robert Elliott at New Zealand’s University of Auckland. Elliott theorized that the consumption of A1 milk might explain the high incidence of type 1 diabetes among Samoan children in New Zealand. According to a current story in Mother Jones magazine, he analyzed per-capita consumption of A1 milk and the incidence rates of diabetes and heart disease in 20 different countries and discovered strong correlations.
Of course, correlation is not causation; the etiology of chronic disease is always multifactorial, meaning that factors such as diet, lifestyle and the amount of vitamin D a person metabolizes from exposure to sunlight would influence any correlations between A1 milk and chronic disease.
That didn’t slow down Prof. Elliott, however, and in a 1997 study published by the International Dairy Federation, he demonstrated that A1 beta-casein caused mice to develop diabetes. Elliott’s co-researcher, Corran McLachlan, soon after partnered with wealthy New Zealand businessman Howard Paterson to launch the A2 Corporation.
A cause, or a correlation?
Since then he’s had plenty of support and gotten lots of publicity from several self-appointed health authorities.
“We’ve got a huge amount of observational evidence that a lot of people can digest the A2 but not A1,” Keith Woodford, a professor of farm management and agribusiness at New Zealand’s Lincoln University and author of the 2007 book “Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health, and the Politics of A1 and A2 Milk,” told Mother Jones. Woodford reviewed more than 100 studies that he said suggest links between the A1 protein and the development of heart disease, diabetes, even autism.
Woodford’s stance is adamant, even though the evidence is less-than conclusive.
For instance: A 2009 study by the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the available scientific literature concerning the health effects of beta-casein in milk and concluded that, “A cause-and-effect relationship is not established between the dietary intake of beta-casomorphin-7 or [its] possible protein precursors and non-communicable disease.”
In other words, the A1 protein does not appear to be a causative agent for diabetes, heart disease and cancer, as Prof. Woodford suggested.
That conclusion prompted New Zealand’s Food Safety Minister, Lianne Dalziel, to declare the debate over A1 versus A2 milk resolved, and that it was not necessary for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to conduct its own scientific review.
That hasn’t stopped A2 Corporation from marketing its a2 brand milk in New Zealand and Australia, where its product line accounts for about 8 percent of dairy product sales Down Under (according to the company). In 2012, A2 expanded distribution through the Tesco chain into Great Britain, where a two-liter bottle now sells at about an 18 percent premium over conventional milk.
A2’s literature explains that the company’s farmer-suppliers use DNA analysis of tail hair from each cow to certify she is producing A2 milk, which is kept segregated throughout processing.
To its credit, A2 Corp. officials have been careful not to overtly suggest that consuming its products would allow consumers sidestep the serious diseases identified in Elliott’s and Woodford’s published research. Instead, they merely emphasize the “digestive benefits” of its fluid milk, fresh cream and infant formula products. Of course, some of that caution is the result of a $15,000 fine the Queensland (Australia) Health Department levied on the company in 2004 for making “false and misleading claims” about the health benefits of its a2 brand milk.
Here’s the bottom line: Given the incredible variability of individuals in any large population, it’s entirely possible that certain people do react severely to the A1 protein fraction when it’s present in milk—especially babies, whose digestive tracts are far more permeable. After all, most people could eat an entire jar of peanut butter without incident, while a few sensitive individuals would risk anaphylactic shock merely by sniffing the lid.
Whether or not the science behind A2’s marketing is legitimate, the company is poised to re-enter the U.S. market sometime this year. It seems clear from reading their prospectus that its management believes there are enough American consumers willing to pay a premium for A2 milk to make the launch worthwhile.
Even more telling: It’s now possible to convert a herd of A1-producing cows to A2-producing cows, and selected dairies are doing exactly and test-marketing A2 milk in a number of states.
Might try some myself.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.

Managing Your No-Till System

Link may exist between disposition and reproduction

Ryan Sterry, University of Wisconsin Extension | Updated: 03/12/2014
Drovers Cattle Network

Experience tells most producers that high strung, poorly tempered stock, sometimes do not perform as well as herd mates with a more moderate disposition. Science has backed this up in the feedlot with studies showing steers with calmer dispositions out gaining steers with the most excitable temperaments. Links are also being made by research between disposition and health, including response to vaccination. Most of all, stock with a bad temperament pose a greater risk to you being injuring during handling.
Determining if a link exits between reproductive performance and disposition has been difficult to prove. Anecdotally, producers and A.I. technicians have noted that cows with bad temperaments are less likely to conceive to A.I. However, putting hard numbers to this has proven difficult.
In an experiment at Oregon State University by Reinaldo Cooke, crossbred heifers were divided into two groups. After weaning one group was trained for handling by being brought up from pasture to a pen three times a week, for four weeks, so that they’d become acclimated to people and going through a working chute. The other group was not handled during this time and was left on pasture. Both groups were tested for the hormone Cortisol. This hormone is associated with stress and is part of the “fight or flight” response in animals. When Cortisol levels are elevated, it is an indicator of stress. Some research indicates elevated cortisol levels impair the naturally occurring reproductive hormones LH and FSH, and could help explain why stressed or poorly tempered animals may have poorer fertility.
Since these were young heifers not ready to breed yet, you might be asking what could possibly be proven by this experiment. The results of this study found two important differences in the trained group that could impact reproduction down the road. First, the group that was handled had lower Cortisol levels at the end of the four week training period than the non-trained group. Secondly, the trained group reached puberty at a faster rate than the non-trained heifers, with nearly a 20% difference in the number of heifers cycling five, six, and seven months after the project began. Having these heifers start cycling sooner can greatly improve reproduction by allowing heifers to be bred sooner and calve early in the calving season. These heifers will ultimately have more time to recover before breeding again as first calf heifers, and have a greater opportunity to maintain an early caving interval throughout their lives.
A similar study was done at the University of Florida by Cooke, this time with mature cows. One group had the same worker walk the pen twice a week offering the cows a small treat (range cubes), while the control group was left alone on pasture. In this case, the group that was worked with showed no difference in Cortisol levels or pregnancy rate at the end of the breeding season. However, when disposition score was looked at alone regardless of treatment, cows with the most agitated and aggressive scores had lower pregnancy rates at the end of the 90 day breeding season.
Putting a temperament score to your own stock is rather easy. Use a scale of 1 to 5, with one being calm, and five being very excited and / or aggressive towards people. This scoring scale can be used while animals are in the chute and when they are in the pen. A chute exit speed score and also be assigned as animals leave the chute, with one being the slowest and five the fastest. These three scores can be averaged to give an overall score to each animal.
While a definitive link between disposition and reproduction has not been made yet, research is starting to show tendencies that one may exist. A key point of this early research is temperament and fertility is not just a concern for A.I. breeding. Studies using natural service bulls have shown the same tendency for poorly tempered cows to have poorer fertility. Bottom line, there are already many good reasons to cull cattle with bad temperaments, to consider disposition as part of your breeding criteria, and train your stock to be handled. If you don’t already do so, improving reproduction is one more reason to reconsider adding these management practices to your herd.

Europe says US-made cheeses can't use Old World names

Published March 12, 2014

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Errico Auricchio produced cheese with his family in Italy until he brought his trade to the United States more than 30 years ago. Now, the European Union is saying his cheese isn't authentic enough to carry a European name.
As part of trade talks, the EU wants to ban the use of names like Parmesan, feta and Gorgonzola on cheese made in the United States. The argument is that the American-made cheeses are shadows of the original European varieties and cut into sales and identity of the European cheeses.
Auricchio, president of Wisconsin-based BelGioioso Cheese Inc., says he has no idea what he would call his Parmesan if he had to find a new name.
"I Can't Believe It's Not Parmesan," he jokes.
The Europeans say Parmesan should only come from Parma, Italy, not from Auricchio's plant or those familiar green cylinders that American companies sell. Feta should only be from Greece, they say, even though feta isn't a place. The EU argues it "is so closely connected to Greece as to be identified as an inherently Greek product."
So, a little "hard-grated cheese" for your pasta? It doesn't have quite the same ring as Parmesan.
U.S. dairy producers, cheesemakers and food companies are all fighting the idea, which they say would hurt the $4 billion domestic cheese industry and endlessly confuse consumers.
"It's really stunning that the Europeans are trying to claw back products made popular in other countries," says Jim Mulhern, president of the National Milk Producers Federation, which represents U.S. dairy farmers.
The European Union would not say exactly what it is proposing or even whether it will be discussed this week as a new round of talks on an EU-United States free trade agreement opens in Brussels.
European Commission spokesman Roger Waite would only say that the question "is an important issue for the EU."
That's clear from recent agreements with Canada and Central America, where certain cheese names were restricted unless the cheese came from Europe. Under the Canadian agreement, for example, new feta products manufactured in Canada can only be marketed as feta-like or feta-style, and they can't use Greek letters or other symbols that evoke Greece.
Though it has not laid out a public proposal, the EU is expected to make similar attempts to restrict marketing of U.S.-made cheeses, possibly including Parmesan, Asiago, Gorgonzola, feta, fontina, grana, Muenster, Neufchatel and Romano.
And it may not be just cheese. Other products with traditional ties to European countries that could be affected include bologna, Black Forest ham, Greek yogurt, Valencia oranges and prosciutto, among other foods.
The trade negotiations are important for the EU as Europe has tried to protect its share of agricultural exports and pull itself out of recession. The ability to exclusively sell some of the continent's most famous and traditional products would prevent others from cutting into those markets.
Concerned about the possible impact of changing the labels on those popular foods, a bipartisan group of 55 senators wrote U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this week asking them not to agree to any such proposals by the EU.
Led by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Pennsylvania Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., the members wrote that in the states they represent, "many small- or medium-sized, family-owned businesses could have their businesses unfairly restricted" and that export businesses could be gravely hurt.
Schumer said artisanal cheese production is a growing industry across New York.
"Muenster is Muenster, no matter how you slice it," he says.
Trevor Kinkaid, a spokesman for the U.S. trade representative, said that conversations on the issue are in the early stages but that the U.S. and E.U. have "different points of view" on the topic.
The agency wouldn't disclose details of the negotiations, but Kinkaid said the U.S. government is "committed to increasing opportunity for U.S. businesses, farmers and workers through trade."
Large food companies that mass produce the cheeses are also fighting the idea. Kraft, closely identified with its grated Parmesan cheese, says the cheese names have long been considered generic in the United States.
"Such restrictions could not only be costly to food makers, but also potentially confusing for consumers if the labels of their favorite products using these generic names were required to change," says Kraft spokesman Basil Maglaris.
Jaime Castaneda works for the U.S. Dairy Export Council and is the director of a group formed to fight the EU changes, the Consortium for Common Food Names. He says the idea that great cheese can only come from Europe "is just not the case anymore."
He points out that artisanal and locally produced foods are more popular than ever here and says some consumers may actually prefer the American brands. European producers can still lay claim to more place-specific names, like Parmigiano-Reggiano, he says.
"This is about rural America and jobs," he says.
Auricchio and other producers say they are angry because it was Europeans who originally brought the cheeses here, and the American companies have made them more popular and profitable in a huge market.
"We have invested years and years making these cheeses," Auricchio says. "You cannot stop the spreading of culture, especially in the global economy."

Liability Risk Is Beginning To Flow Down The Beef Production Chain

by Troy Marshall in My View From The Country
Mar 6, 2014

The whole topic of liability is a frustrating one for cow-calf producers. After all, a cow-calf producer has no way of controlling what happens to the product once it leaves the ranch. However, in today’s litigious world, someone is going to be sued if a problem develops.
Retailers, packers, and feeders tend to be much larger enterprises; thus, they’re much more appealing targets from a trial lawyer’s viewpoint. That doesn’t mean, however, that cow-calf producers are immune from such legal action.
Lawyers at the retailer and packer levels understandably work hard to protect their clients. Increasingly, they are asking for affidavits or some other form of guarantee that the products or cattle they procure haven’t been fed animal byproducts and that withdrawal guidelines, etc., have been followed.
Meanwhile, the hotel, restaurant and institutional (HRI) sector has created additional value by making specific claims regarding those product. That value, however, has potential risk associated with it, as one misstep can create big problems. That means the HRI trade and retailers are demanding assurances from packers in order to limit any liability exposure.
Sign up now for BEEF Daily and get all the latest hot topics straight to your inbox!
Not surprisingly, as the packers have been forced to accept that liability, their lawyers are demanding assurances from their suppliers. Now, the feedlots and auction markets are going to be demanding those assurances from their suppliers as well.
It can be argued that this is a good thing, and it’s certainly understandable. Thus, everyone will be very cognizant of meeting standards while animals are under their control; they’ll also demand that guidelines have been followed prior to their taking control of the animal. Of course, it also means that liability will be pushed back to the cow-calf sector as well.
The challenge becomes making sure these assurances can be made, while not impeding the rate and flow of commerce. I don’t envy the logistics and paperwork of a sale barn, for instance, that sells a load of cows and must have 25 different owners sign an affidavit and store it on file.
Eventually, it will be understood that any time an animal changes hands, assurances will have to be made; it will simply be seen as a necessary cost of doing business – like brand inspections and health papers. In the short term, it will pose challenges, especially for the sale barns across the country.
Perhaps, to make it easier, the industry needs to standardize and create such forms. Currently, we have different buyers with different forms, even though they are essentially the same. Perhaps some entrepreneur will come up with a phone app that will enable producers to fill out and sign these forms electronically and store them on a cloud somewhere so they can be easily accessed.
This week, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service announced its plans for moving forward with its traceability initiative. There’s been a lot of concern in the country about traceability, but the marketplace is beginning to demand it to a degree that the argument is shifting.
Without question, there is a cost associated with this degree of record keeping. But the debate is no longer about whether or not it is going to be required, as the consumer has spoken. The question is how do we create a system that minimizes the costs and does not impede the flow of commerce?
With mandatory country-of-origin labeling, the great debate was whether it should be voluntary or mandatory. In regard to traceability, we have debated how the data should be stored, who will have access, and the degree to which the government should be involved. The marketplace is answering those questions by instituting a mandatory/voluntary program.
Of course, you have a right not to sign the affidavits. However, if you exercise that right, you also have to understand that those buyers will exercise their right to not buy your cattle.

Gender-sorted semen and the commercial herd

Mary Soukup, Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 03/10/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

The current spring calving season is still in full swing but it’s never too early to make plans for next year’s calf crop – from deciding when to turn out bulls to selecting semen to use for artificial insemination service and more. For commercial producers who already use AI service in their herds, according to researchers at the University of Idaho, it’s also time to consider whether it makes sense – from a management and economic standpoint – to consider using gender-sorted semen.
The commercial availability of gender-sorted semen from beef bulls is relatively new to the scene and the number and genetic diversity of beef bulls with gender-sorted semen is limited compared to that of AI beef bulls with conventional semen. As with any new technology, there are some limitations producers should consider when weighing the pros and potential cons of utilizing gender-sorted semen. First, pregnancy rates are decreased between 10 and 20 percent compared to conventional semen. While fixed-time AI systems (FTAI) work with gender-sorted semen, cows or heifers that are inseminated based on estrus or exhibit of estrus before FTAI have a greater pregnancy rate to gender-sorted semen the researchers say. According to the researchers from Idaho, there is considerable variation in pregnancy rates from bull-to-bull with gender-sorted semen, which could be due to low number of inseminations per bull.
There are multiple potential benefits that could come from utilizing gender-sorted semen in commercial herds, ranging from enhancing genetic progress and shifting gender ratios for marketing purposes.
The use of gender-sorted semen provides commercial producers the opportunity to dedicate a small number of “elite” cows to produce replacement heifers while breeding the remainder of the herd to terminal sires. Over the past five years, the research station at the University of Idaho has used X-sorted semen on 20 percent of its cows to produce Angus-Herford crossbred heifers. The elite cows are identified based on performance records, visual appraisal and, in the near future, custom EPDs. Cows that achieved pregnancy from the gender-sorted semen consistently produced 90 to 92 percent heifer calves. This strategy allowed them to use X-sorted semen to need fewer cows to produce replacement females.
Another potential use on a commercial operation is to use X-sorted semen on all replacement heifers, allowing mature cows to be bred to terminal type sires. According to the researchers from the University of Idaho, genetically, the use of X-sorted semen in replacement heifers could decrease the generation internal, potentially enhance genetic progress and reduce dystocia in heifers.
While more information is needed and it is a high-risk application of gender-sorted semen, the technology could be used to shift gender ratios to enhance marketing potential. Steers weigh more at weaning and are worth more per pound than their heifer counterparts, according to USDA. Thus, using Y-sorted semen to increase the ratio of steers to heifers could increase return per cow. In smaller operations, those with less than 200 cows, this application may allow a producer to offer single-gender trailer loads. At the University of Idaho, while they achieved a 65:35 ratio of steers to heifers, pregnancy rates were just 38 percent. Further, they are still gathering information related to the impact of the repeated whole herd use of gender-sorted semen on cow retention.
While producers should consider these management strategies, economics is an important factor to also consider. Estimation of the economic cost or benefit is variable and dependent on factors ranging from other production costs, current AI use, pregnancy rates, long-term herd impacts, production environment and potential marketing opportunities. Each commercial operation is different, so producers are encouraged to conduct their own cost/benefit analyses and utilize potential benefit calculators available by semen service providers.
This paper was presented at the 2013 Range Beef Cow Symposium

It’s not too late to get heifers to target weight by breeding

Elaine Grings, South Dakota State University | 

Depending on your calving season, breeding may be only a few months away. Will your replacement heifers be ready?
There has been much talk over the years about the proper weight for beef heifers at first breeding, with estimates ranging from about 55 to 65 percent of mature body weight as the target goal.
To be able to hit that target, you need to know the average weight of your mature cows. On average, mature cow weight seems to have increased by about 12 percent over the last 25 years. Be sure you have a reasonable estimate of cow weights for your current herd.
Once you know your target breeding weight, you can plan for the average rate of gain needed for your heifers between weaning and breeding. But does it matter when heifers add weight between weaning and breeding?
Over the years, a number of studies have shown that as long as heifers reach their target weight, the timing of the gain may not be critical. Development strategies that take advantage of low cost feeds early in development, followed by feeding heifers to make faster rates of gain in the last 60 to 90 days before breeding have been successful.
Let’s take a look at examples:
A heifer calf weaned at 550 lbs needs to gain between 1.0 and 1.6 lbs per day from weaning to breeding, depending on your goal weight (55 to 65 percent of mature weight) and your mature cow weight. If your cow size is 1400 lbs, your heifers need to gain between 220 to 360 lbs between weaning and breeding.

• 1400 lbs mature weight at 5-years of age x 0.55 = 770 lbs at breeding – 550 lbs at weaning = 220 lbs gain
• 1400 lbs mature weight at 5-years of age x 0.65 = 910 lbs at breeding – 550 lbs at weaning = 360 lbs gain
• Assume 230 days between weaning and breeding:
  • 220 lbs gain/230 days = 1.0 lb/d
  • 360 lbs gain/230 days = 1.6 lb/d

These rates of gain can be continuous for the entire 230 day period or altered such that heifers gain at slower rates for the first 140 to 170 days, followed by more rapid gains in the last 2 to 3 months before breeding. Several research studies have reported that this delayed gain strategy can be used to help save heifer development costs without impacting reproductive performance.
At USDA-ARS Miles City, one group of heifers in an early spring calving herd were raised on pasture with supplemental hay for 130 days after weaning and then moved to drylots where they were fed a diet based on corn silage and barley for 91 days. Gain during the pasture phase averaged 0.6 lb/d and during the drylot phase heifers gained 2.5 lb/d (for an average of 1.4 lb/d).
These heifers were compared with another group that was fed a corn silage and hay based diet in the drylot from weaning to breeding and gained an average of 1.5 lb/d. The number of heifers cycling at the beginning of the breeding season and the proportion pregnant at fall pregnancy check were not different for the two groups.
In this study, feed costs were similar for the two groups of heifers, but other diets could be formulated that might save on feed costs.
When using a delayed gain strategy, it is important to have enough time on the high gain diet to ensure that heifers will reach the target weight. Researchers in Kansas who fed heifers low gain diets that resulted in gains of 0.33 lbs/d followed by 2.7 lbs/d for the last 50 days before breeding for an overall average gain of 1.1 lb/d observed a decreased number of heifers cycling at the beginning of the breeding season but pregnancy rates were similar to heifers that gained at constant rate of 1.2 lbs/d from weaning to breeding.
Because heifers that conceive earlier in the breeding season will have greater lifetime productivity, this difference in cyclicity at the beginning of the breeding season may be quite important. Aggressive estrous synchronization protocols may help to get heifers bred earlier in the breeding season and these programs may be combined effectively with delayed gain strategies.
It is important to be realistic about the rate of gain heifers can make during the last few months before breeding. Heifers that had been making slow rates of gain may be more efficient in their gains when initially shifted to the higher gain diets.
However, this effect will be short-lived and should not be counted on for the entire period of greater gain. The chance of adverse environmental conditions also needs to be taken into account. Excessive mud in a drylot could cause sufficient performance losses to either cause heifers to miss the target, or wipe out any cost savings that might occur earlier in the development period.
If your heifers haven’t gained as well as you’d like this winter, there is still time to get them ready for the breeding season. Take a good look and evaluate whether you should step up their gains during this last few months before breeding.

Farm Bill Program

March 2013: Did you know...

Larry Corah, Vice President, Certified Angus Beef LLC | Updated: 03/04/2014
BEEF Online

Is ground beef the favorite American meat today? Well, many would say so, and a recent white paper suggested it could amount to 55-60 percent of all foodservice and retail beef sales.
Ground beef offers great taste and cooking flexibility in tacos, spaghetti sauce, casseroles, meatballs or burgers. While its cost has risen greatly in recent years, it still offers a price point competitive with pork and poultry.
But, there is a lot about ground beef sales that you probably did not know. In the past five years, new companies like Five Guys and Smashburger have created a whole new category (premium grinds) that now competes with fast food restaurants and white-tablecloth restaurants for the away-from-home diner. Their ground beef often comes from Prime or Premium Choice carcasses, prepared in ways so different from fast food restaurants as to create a whole new dining experience.
That has changed the price point for this grind category. Low Choice and Select grinds sell at the same price, but premium grinds have sold for 10¢ to 23¢/lb. more. For a brand such as Certified Angus Beef (CAB) that sells 50 lb. per carcass as premium grinds, it adds up to $12 to each qualified CAB carcass. In the ground beef world, that’s a huge economic impact.
The other part of ground beef sales you likely did not know is how grinding companies are starting to create blends that might include a percentage of ground brisket with ground chuck, ground sirloin and ground round. That’s because grinds from various regions of the carcass have a varying taste profile, creating the ultimate gourmet burger, unmatched for flavor.
Yes, the days when hamburger was hamburger are gone, and the beef industry has benefited greatly with grinds helping to maintain a competitive demand for beef.
Can this growing demand be met? Again, the answer is clearly yes, especially if the price of ground beef stays as strong as it is today. Sure the population of cull cows and bulls has shrunk, but the industry can use more of the fed steer and heifer carcass for grinding. Within the CAB brand, the opportunity to increase current sales from 50 up to 100 lb./carcass is attainable as the premium grind market continues to grow.
Bottom line, all this is a positive for beef demand and the beef producer.
click image to zoom

The Mt. Pony Special – Double-barrel baler

Written by Carl C. Stafford   
Extension Agent, ANR Animal Science
Virginia Tech 
Progressive Forage, E-Newsletter

A Virginia farmer has successfully built an operational hay baler proven to do the work of three square balers. According to builder, inventor and farmer Rusty Inskeep, this revolutionary machine is constructed from two conventional square balers.
This alone more than doubles efficiency, and with fewer turns needed in the field by this single unit, accompanied by its increased plunger stroke count per minute, Inskeep has proven it can bale more pounds of hay per hour than three individual balers can.


The “Mt. Pony Special” is capable of baling 5,000 bales per day, or 900 60-pound bales per hour in heavy first-cutting hay. In Culpeper County, Virginia, hay can be baled around noon and must cease with dewfall by early evening.
The Inskeeps have counted output from the baler at 140,000 bales over two seasons or about 70,000 bales of hay and straw per year.

The idea was to assemble two balers together to operate as one unit, joining them in the middle at the pickup head. One of the balers was left mostly intact as it came from the factory – other than being joined with the other baler.
But the second baler needed significant modifications to allow it to work as a unit with the first baler. It was cut apart and reassembled conjoined at the pickup head and by the custom hitch to allow the unit to operate. It spits out two rows of small square bales.

This is a story of two generations of thinking and doing, two generations of smarts, hard work and inventive uses of technology and skill coming together in a modern-day improvement to small square hay-baling efficiency.

Paul Inskeep joins his uncle Rusty as a fourth-generation operator at Mt. Pony Farms, a 2,000-acre crop and hay farm located in Culpeper County; his brothers and cousins also have and do participate in the operation.
As is the case on most farms, it comes naturally and is often a requirement of the occupation to engineer, design, modify and build better equipment.
The Mt. Pony Farm shop is always busy with a project or two under construction, supervised by three primary operators – brothers Rusty, Bill and John. They work as a team and specialize in their own areas of expertise, while constantly striving to improve efficiency, timing and reduce costs.

Over two winters working together, Rusty and Paul (Bill’s son) managed to design and build an amazing machine they call the “double-barrel” baler, later christened the “Mt. Pony Special.”
The younger generation stepped up as the hitch was being designed and assembled. Paul brought his skills with computer programming to engineer and assess design strength, materials tolerance and stress points, which allowed many “iterations” to be run on paper to avoid making more permanent mistakes in the long run.


The hitch is a critical element of the entire machine. It must carry and distribute the load, while arching over a huge windrow of hay being force-fed into the 7-foot 4.5-inch pickup head (standard width 6 feet).

The complex and heavy, arching hitch is connected to a 140 hp tractor running dual wheels for stability. The baler is 13 feet wide and weighs 11,000 pounds with a tongue weight of 2,640 pounds.
The 1,000 rpm drive shaft turned by the tractor reduces down to 540 rpms after passing through right-angle gear boxes, turning the power through standard flywheels and into the dual chambers cutting and compressing hay into bales.
The unit has scales to allow for adjustment in bale size and density needed by the three self-propelled bale wagons which pick up the hay.
Moisture testing is on-the-go and twine is dispensed from a custom 16-ball twine box. Two super single-trailer tires (24 ply) keep the heavy machine on a straight track during operation and carry the bulk of the machine’s weight.
Timing is everything at Mt. Pony Farms, and the Inskeeps excel at efficiency. This baler follows a long list of other innovations supportive of the principles they live by. FG

Commentary: Reduced-fat phenomenon

Dan Murphy | Updated: 03/03/2014
BEEF Online

After decades of inexorably rising rates of obesity among American youth, a new CDC analysis reveals a reversal of the trend. And best of all? The word ‘meat’ never appears in the report.
Ask any public health official about the most urgent challenge they face, and most of them would immediately identify the problem of obesity that has been a particularly intransigent problem among the youngest generation.
About the only thing that outnumbered the percentage of Americans of all ages considered overweight or obese has been the strident opinions about which magic bullet that government/schools/businesses/advertisers/food processors were supposed to fire to cure the problem.
We’re too sedentary of a nation, with too many drive-thrus and video games, so the solution is to get people to take up exercising, to stop watching and start playing more sports. But even as recreational and adventure sports have become billion-dollar businesses and gym membership grew to record levels, obesity continued to increase.
Others pointed to the fast-food purveyors and the decidedly unhealthy products that too many people consumers too many times a week — if only Americans would stop patronizing those restaurants, we’d see a big change in the statistics. But even as the entire industry reinvented its menuboard, offering salads and fruit cups and even vegetarian options, obesity continued to increase.
Veggie activists used the crisis to insist that there’s not an overweight vegan alive on Earth, and if only the entire world would abandon the foods that have sustained humanity for all of recorded history, the problem would be solved. Yet despite the somewhat modest growth in the numbers of people claiming to be vegetarians, obesity continued to increase.
Until now.
According to a comprehensive data collected by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the national obesity rate among 2- to 5-year-olds dropped by almost half over the past decade, suggesting that a new generation of Americans may (finally) be able to avoid the risks of heart disease and diabetes linked to obesity.
Officially, obesity among young children fell from 14 percent in 2003 to 2004 to 8.1 percent in 2011 to 2012, according to a summary of the CDC data published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The results expanded on data initially reported by CDC officials in October 2013.
In children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years, obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95^th percentile of CDC’s gender-specific, age-adjusted BMI growth charts. In adults, obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 30.

Why, you ask, has obesity declined so dramatically in the last several years, after decade upon decade of increasing incidence? Well, the CDC researchers were careful to state that “the reason for the decline in obesity among 2- to 5-year-olds was not clear.” But there are some helpful indicators.
A comprehensive plan
First of all, despite the rhetoric of single-issue activists, obesity is a multi-factorial, highly complex phenomenon with a constellation of causes that impact the incidence rate. That’s why the specific, seemingly positive changes noted above hadn’t made much of a dent in the problem.
Here’s a great example: Consider this list of undertaken in school districts across King County (Washington), where Seattle is located. The programs were part of a two-year federal obesity-prevention program called Communities Putting Prevention to Work.
Which one(s) on this list do you think had the most impact on obesity rates?

• The Seattle School District replaced older equipment and supplies in its Physical Education programs.
• Another school district began participating in the Commit 2B Fit campaign, in which 6,000 students and staff tracked and logged their monthly activities, with a point system awarding gold, silver and bronze “medals.”
• In Auburn, Wash. (King County’s most obese community, by the way), a high school teacher and students belonging to DECA, a national student group that fosters entrepreneurship and leadership, put up signs in the cafeteria promoting the importance of breakfast and good eating habits, visited all the district schools to promote the initiative and brought in experts to talk about nutrition and fitness.
• A Seattle elementary school promoted a “Stop Pop” movement.
• The principal of a high school began riding his bicycle to work, swapped Coke for water in the school’s vending machines and began eating alongside students in the cafeteria.
• About 100 students in one district got involved in CrossFit training in the middle and high schools, and many of them participated in a recent 5K run.
• One school stopped giving doughnuts to students when someone did something good.

The answer: Nobody knows. In one sense, they’re all good. Are some programs better than others, or is it the collective impact of several overlapping initiatives that moves the needle? Are there combinations of program components that act synergistically? Do certain populations respond better to certain interventions?

No one has definitive answers.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 mandated that USDA set guidelines for local schools’ nutrition education and physical activity policies, and beginning in July of this year, more than 22,000 schools across the country serving low-income students will be eligible to provide free lunches and breakfasts to all students.
That’s all helpful and productive. But if there is one single measure that should rise to the top of obesity’s priority list — sorry, Coke and Pepsi —it’s a ban on soft drinks all day, every day in every school in the country.
If we’re going to get serious about rolling back the obesity crisis among children, it will take concerted action in a number of areas to affect their lifestyles. But for starters, how about a lot less bombast about “unhealthy” burgers and fries and more tough talk — and decisive action — to dry up the oceans of soda that kids and adolescents are swimming in?
Know how that works?
We’ve got to stop buying and drinking the stuff ourselves.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.

COW/CALF CORNER

COW/CALF CORNER

The Newsletter

From the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

March 3, 2014

Don’t Buy Calf Scours!
Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Emeritus Extension Animal Scientist

 

South Dakota State University researchers examined the cause of a scours epidemic in one spring calving herd back in 2000.  Results of the retrospective, record-based investigation suggested that introduction of foster calves was associated with the calf scours outbreak.  Prior to April 5, no scours cases had been observed, despite 39 calves being born.  The calf scours epidemic was clearly in swing by the 45th day of the spring 2000 calving season and first cases of the epidemic were observed between the 31st and 40th days (April 5, 2000 through April 14, 2000).  Following April 5, records indicated there was the introduction of at least 2 foster calves. The outbreak commenced shortly after the introduction of foster calves.  Foster calves can introduce pathogens to a herd, and can shed calf scours pathogens in their feces even when feces appear normal.  Because of this risk, the introduction of foster calves is not usually recommended.  If introduced into a herd, foster calves (with their foster dam) should be isolated from the remainder of the herd until all calves are at least 4 weeks old.  At that time, it is generally regarded as safe to commingle foster calf pairs with the remainder of the herd.  Source: W. B. Epperson. 2003 South Dakota Beef Report.

New Mexico February State USDA Bulletin

The 2014 Farm Bill, formally known as the Agricultural Act of 2014, makes the Livestock Forage Program (LFP) and Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) permanent programs and provides retroactive authority to cover eligible losses back to Oct. 1, 2011.

LFP provides compensation to eligible producers who suffered grazing losses due to drought and fire. LIP provides compensation to livestock producers who suffered livestock death losses in excess of normal mortality due to adverse weather and attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the Federal Government or protected by Federal law, including wolves and avian predators.

USDA is determined to make implementing the livestock disaster programs a top priority and plans to open program enrollment by April 15, 2014.

As USDA begins implementing the livestock disaster assistance programs, producers should record all pertinent information of natural disaster consequences, including:

• Documentation of the number and kind of livestock that have died, supplemented if possible by photographs or video records of ownership and losses
• Dates of death supported by birth recordings or purchase receipts
• Costs of transporting livestock to safer grounds or to move animals to new pastures
• Feed purchases if supplies or grazing pastures are destroyed
• Crop records, including seed and fertilizer purchases, planting and production records
• Pictures of on-farm storage facilities that were destroyed by wind or flood waters
• Evidence of damaged farm land.

Many producers still have questions.  USDA is in the process of interpreting Farm Bill program regulations. Additional information will be provided once the enrollment period is announced. In the meantime, producers can review the LIP and LFP Fact Sheets. Thanks for your patience as USDA works diligently to put Farm Bill programs into action to benefit the farmers and ranchers of rural America.

Thanks for your patience in this process.

Cattle Outlook: Cattle futures reach new record highs

Source - Ron Plain and Scott Brown
Fed cattle prices set new records this week. Live weight prices for slaughter steer reached $130/cwt for the first time ever in October. They made it to $140/cwt for the first time in January, and this week they went above $150/cwt for the first time ever. Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $150.66/cwt, up $8.66 from a week ago and up $22.82 from a year ago. Steer sales on a dressed basis averaged $239.98/cwt this week, up $9.98 from a week ago and up $36.68 from year ago. Sales volume was heavy.
Cattle futures also established new record highs this week. The February live cattle futures contract closed at $151.95/cwt today, up $7.40 from last week's close. April fed cattle settled at $144.97, up $3.52 for the week. June settled at $134.20/cwt, up $1.48.
The March feeder cattle futures contract ended the week at $171.70/cwt, up $1.00 for the week. April feeders closed at $173.07/cwt, up $1.87 from the previous Friday. The May feeder cattle contract ended the week at $173.70.
This morning, the boxed beef cutout value for choice carcasses was $224.56/cwt, up $9.78 from the previous Friday and up $37.07 from a year ago. The select carcass cutout is $221.66/cwt, up $9.84 from last week and up $36.41 from last year.
U.S. beef demand was up 1.7% in 2013 to the highest level since 2008. Domestic beef demand is 7.4% higher than 15 years ago, which is a bigger increase than for pork, chicken or turkey.
Overall meat demand in 2013 was up 3.0% to the highest level since 2007, which was before the last recession.
Export demand for U.S. beef in 2013 was up 4.9% compared to the year before and was 24.2% greater than 15 years ago. Beef export demand in 2013 was 2.6% lower than in 2003, the last year without BSE.
This week's cattle slaughter totaled 567,000 head, up 5.2% from the previous week and up 5.3% from the corresponding week last year.
The average steer dressed weight for the week ending on February 15 was 862 pounds, down 9 pounds from the week before, and down 8 pounds from a year earlier.
Feeder cattle prices at this week's Oklahoma City auction were $2 lower to $2 higher in good volume. This week's prices for medium and large frame #1 steers by weight were: 400-450# $210-$237, 450-500# $210-$237, 500-550# $210-$223, 550-600# $183-$212, 600-650# $176-$199, 650-700# $170-$184, 700-750# $166.50-$175.25, 750-800# $162.25-$169.85, 800-900# $151-$164.50, and 900-1000# $146-$156.50/cwt.