Brent Meyer, D.V.M., beef cattle technical services manager for Merck Animal Health
Drover's Cattle Network
Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) is the leading cause of death in beef calves 3 weeks of age or older. A recent multi-university survey of 61 veterinarians in six states provides insights into practitioners’ experiences with BRD in nursing calves. Eighty-seven percent of respondents recommended vaccination of nursing calves to prevent BRD or to shorten the duration of outbreaks. New Once PMH IN from Merck Animal Health is enabling producers to vaccinate calves for BRD as young as one week of age.
Terry Engelken, D.V.M., M.S., associate professor at Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, was involved with the survey, and says it identified risk factors, as well as practitioner recommendations for preventing and managing the disease. A key risk factor mentioned was inadequate colostrum, which could be caused by anything that interferes with the calf standing up rapidly and nursing aggressively.
“We know from extensive research and practical experience that calves not receiving enough colostrum run a higher risk of developing calf scours early in life followed by BRD while they are out on pasture,” says Dr. Engelken.
The losses associated with BRD in nursing calves include both the obvious and those that are not so apparent. Medical expenses, labor costs and death losses are straightforward and easy to calculate. It is more difficult to track weaning weight losses in individual calves after they recover from a bout of BRD.
“Research indicates calves that get sick for any reason during the suckling period will weigh from 20 to 35 pounds less at weaning compared to their healthy herd mates,” says Dr. Engelken.
In addition to the impact on performance, researchers are looking into the effect of nursing calf morbidity on carcass ultrasound characteristics at a year of age.
“Recent work that analyzed the affect of morbidity due to pinkeye,” says Dr. Engelken. “The ultrasound results found that calves that were treated for pinkeye during the nursing period showed a decrease in marbling and ribeye area when measured via ultrasound at a year of age. I would expect similar results for nursing calves that had morbidity due to BRD.” Developing a BRD vaccination program
No single vaccination program fits all, so it’s important to work with a veterinarian to help create a vaccination plan for both dams and calves. The goal of the program is to reduce the disease pressure of the group, which should have a positive impact on the bottom line.
“A veterinarian can identify the risk factors for BRD that reside within the management scheme on an individual farm or ranch, and once they are identified, recommend how to mitigate them,” says Dr. Engelken. “They also will get a handle on the disease pathogens – bacteria or viral – that are circulating and help determine the best timing to vaccinate for these pathogens.” This process may require sampling of individual calves with BRD or collecting tissues from dead calves and sending the samples to a diagnostic laboratory.
Summer turnout, preweaning and/or weaning are opportune times to prevent disease. Many veterinarians start with a modified-live, five-way viral vaccine (IBR, BVD1, BVD2, PI3, BRSV) and a dose of “blackleg” vaccine. Other vaccines may be recommended depending on: the potential health challenges present on the ranch; if the operation is on a preconditioning marketing program that requires a certain set of vaccinations; and, how the calves will be managed after weaning, such as if they will be retained through the feedlot.
“Typically, the first additional vaccine would protect against bacterial BRD pathogens, such as Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida,” explains Dr. Engelken. New vaccination technologies
Earlier this year, Merck Animal Health introduced Once PMH IN – the only intranasal vaccine to deliver dual bacterial pneumonia protection in healthy beef and dairy cattle, including calves as young as 1 week of age. The new vaccine aids in the control of respiratory disease caused by Mannheimia haemolytica and in the prevention of disease caused by Pasteurella multocida.
The intranasal administration stimulates a strong immune response because vaccine antigens are delivered directly to mucosal surfaces in the nose – the major sites of immune response in cattle.
Dr. Engelken was involved with research comparing the intranasal vaccine to a commercially available subcutaneous pasteurella vaccine. Three variables were evaluated: body temperature; weight gain; and, inflammatory protein level response, which is an indicator of infection and inflammation.
“These three variables are related,” explains Dr. Engelken. “If a vaccine is more irritating to a calf, the animal will run a higher temperature, have an increase in inflammatory protein levels and, as a result, will not grow as fast. We are literally seeing the calf's protein being directed away from animal growth and toward an unwanted vaccine reaction.”
The results of the studies demonstrated young calves given an intranasal administration of Once PMH IN performed better on body temperature and weight gain measures when compared to calves given a commercial subcutaneous pasteurella vaccine. Calves given Once PMH IN also had a dramatically reduced inflammatory protein level response.
“There are advantages to intranasal BRD vaccines in terms of a rapid onset of immunity, not having to worry about interference from maternal antibody, and these vaccines may be less stressful on the calves than vaccines that are given under the skin,” says Dr. Engelken. “These advantages result from the intranasal vaccines working at the point of attack against BRD pathogens – directly in the nose and upper respiratory tract – to provide protection.”
Regardless of what vaccine is used, it’s important to stimulate that calf's immune system at branding time or grass turnout so that we have that protection against BRD on board prior to the time of disease challenge. To learn more about building a BRD prevention program for calves and Once PMH IN, visit www.CattlePrimeVAC.com.
John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 06/16/2014
Based on survey results showing American consumers often misunderstand what “natural” means on food labels, Consumer Reports is calling for an end to the designation. Unlike the “organic” designation, which comes with the backing of strict U.S. government specifications and verification of production practices, food companies use the “natural” term largely at their own discretion.
For meat products, the USDA defines “natural” as containing no artificial ingredient or added color and only minimally processed, a description that fits virtually all products in the fresh meat case. Meat companies have, however, extended the definition to identify products from livestock raised without antibiotics, growth promotants or other specifications, and several natural brands have become well accepted and established in the marketplace.
According to results of the Consumer Reports national survey, 59 percent of consumers check to see if the products they are buying are "natural." However, the survey results also indicate significant misunderstanding of what the term means, with more than 80 percent believing natural means food grown without pesticides and containing no genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Also according to the survey results, 92 percent of consumers want to support local farmers when purchasing food, while 89 percent want to protect the environment from chemicals, 87 percent want to reduce exposure to pesticides, 86 percent want fair conditions for workers, 80 percent want good living conditions for animals and 78 percent want less use of antibiotics in food production.
Based on their survey results, Consumer Reports is joining with TakePart, a digital news & lifestyle magazine, in a campaign called “Know your labels, know your food,” calling for a ban on the "natural" label on food. According to the TakePart website, the organization is a division of Participant Media, the company behind films such as An Inconvenient Truth, Food, Inc., Contagion and The Help.
Financial summary says Jerseys don’t just compete, they excel.
by Dennis Halladay, Hoard’s Dairyman Western Editor
Steady growth in the number of Jersey herds in the U.S., particularly among large dairy owners in the West, naturally leads to the question of how do they do financially?
It’s not an easy question to answer, because many individual farms have to be willing to share their precise financial information in order to form a clear picture. Fortunately, one such database does exist.
In addition to the annual dairy income and expense reports that Genske, Mulder & Co. LLC, the largest dairy accounting firm in the U.S., prepares summarizing all of its clients as a group, it also does a separate summary for its Jersey clients.
Jersey summaries represent relatively few herds in relatively few states and average herd size is gigantic by Jersey standards, although nearly identical to all of its clients. Even with those qualifications, it is perhaps the only such set of Jersey financial data that exists.
What the 2013 Jersey summary shows is enlightening and perhaps surprising to owners of black and white cows. It says that Jerseys don’t just compete, they excel.
As seen in this table, Jerseys did make less milk per day than did all of the firm’s clients. But Jersey herds had much higher protein and fat tests, which resulted in significantly higher milk price per hundredweight. As a result, Jersey herds’ bottom line was much bigger – they made 45.7 percent more net profit per head.
All herds
Jerseys
Average cows milked
2,091
2,036
Average lbs/cow/day
73
60
Average fat test
3.69%
4.47%
Average protein test
3.17%
3.51%
Average turnover rate
38.8%
36.9%
Milk price per cwt.
$19.92
$22.18
Total income per cwt.
$20.54
$22.66
Total feed cost per cwt.
$11.69
$12.50
Replacement cost per cwt.
$306
$314
Production cost per cwt.
$19.38
$20.54
Profit (loss) per head
$267
$389
The author has served large Western dairy readers for the past 37 years and manages Hoard’s WEST, a publication written specifically for Western herds. He is a graduate of Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo, majored in journalism and is known as a Western dairying specialist.
A wave of concern spread like wildfire through the U.S. artisan cheese community last week as it appeared the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was putting a halt to the long-standing technique of aging certain cheeses on wooden shelves.
Storing cheese on wooden boards has been an integral part of the aging or ripening process for centuries, but fear that the practice was going to be prohibited stemmed from comments made by the FDA, stating that the wooden surfaces were unsanitary and posed a health risk.
However, uproar from cheesemakers and state officials across the nation prompted the FDA to release this statement to clarify their position on the topic: “The FDA does not have a new policy banning the use of wooden shelves in cheesemaking, nor is there any FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) requirement in effect that addresses this issue. Moreover, the FDA has not taken any enforcement action based solely on the use of wooden shelves. In the interest of public health, the FDA’s current regulations state that utensils and other surfaces that contact food must be “adequately cleanable” and properly maintained. Historically, the FDA has expressed concern about whether wood meets this requirement and has noted these concerns in inspectional findings. FDA is always open to evidence that shows that wood can be safely used for specific purposes, such as aging cheese. The FDA will engage with the artisanal cheesemaking community to determine whether certain types of cheeses can safely be made by aging them on wooden shelving.”
In Wisconsin alone, the nation’s top cheese-producing state, a minimum of 20 million pounds of cheese rest on wooden boards, reported the Wisconsin State Journal. The state’s cheese producers are allowed to use wooden boards if they follow protocol approved by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Cheesemakers across the U.S. feared that a ban against the use of wooden shelves would not only impact domestic cheese production but would also limit what cheeses could be imported into the country, as they would be held to the FDA regulations as well.
John Winder, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Drovers Online Network
Although we hear a lot more about growth rate and beef quality and consistency these days, reproductive efficiency is easily the most important factor determining profitability of cow-calf operations. Improving reproductive efficiency is not an easy task, but I cannot imagine any other area where financial rewards are greater. There is an old saying that goes something like, "A dead calf has a very poor growth rate." I think that we can extend this concept to an "un"-conceived or unborn calf. It is impossible to profit from an animal that isn't. With this in mind, let's consider reproductive management "challenges." Furthermore, let's examine how to avoid pitfalls as we address these challenges. Breeding Yearling Heifers
Yearling heifer management is one of the most trying aspects of cow-calf production. Reasons for breeding failure among yearling heifers usually fall into two categories: 1) the heifer is simply not old enough at breeding time or 2) the heifer is not big enough at breeding time. The age at which heifers reach puberty varies by breed. Typically, smaller breeds reach puberty earlier than larger breeds. Furthermore, breeds from Europe (Bos taurus) generally reach puberty at younger ages than Bos indicus breeds such as the Brahman. As a rule of thumb, heifers should be at least 12 months old at the beginning of the breeding season. Keep in mind this is a minimum not an average.
Average age should be 13-14 months. Heifers also need to reach a specific target weight before they reach puberty. We use a fairly simple rule to establish this target. Heifers should weigh at least two-thirds of their weight at maturity at the onset of breeding. For example, if your mature cows weigh 1200 pounds, heifers should weigh 800 pounds at the onset of breeding. Achieving adequate body weight at breeding requires careful planning. When heifers are selected at weaning, managers should conduct the following exercise. Nutritional Management of the Cow Herd
Inadequate nutrition is also the most common cause of delayed breeding among mature cows. A reproductively efficient cow should calve every 12 months. But in order for her to accomplish this feat, she must breed back within 80 days of calving. Think about it, she will be pregnant for 285 days of the year, so there are only 80 left to recover from calving and to breed again (365 - 285 = 80). This doesn't leave much room for error. Any nutritional stress from late gestation until breeding can lengthen the postpartum interval. Cows should be in good flesh at calving and maintain this condition through the breeding season. Cows that are thin at the time of calving and those that lose body condition from calving to the onset of breeding will either breed late or end up open at the end of the season. Breeding Soundness of Bulls
The incidence of infertility among bulls of breeding age has been estimated to be as high as 20%. In other words, one of five bulls is either sub-fertile or sterile! Most reproductive problems of bulls can be diagnosed by a standard breeding soundness exam (BSE) conducted by a veterinarian or qualified technician. Every breeding bull should be tested annually. As I mentioned, most problems can be detected with a BSE, but not all. Recently a new test has become available that can be used along with the BSE to help diagnose an additional problem. Reprotest WB is a procedure that is used to test for the presence or absence of a specific protein attached to sperm cells. The protein, also known as the fertility associated antigen (FAA) appears to affect the ability of individual sperm cells to bind to the egg immediately before conception.
In research trials directed by Dr. Roy Ax at the University of Arizona, bulls that passed traditional BSE were evaluated for the presence or absence of FAA. Bulls that possessed the protein (FAA positive) produced 18% more pregnancies than bulls that lacked the protein (FAA negative). Researchers surveyed bulls in the US, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and Holland and discovered that 12% of bulls were FAA negative. The test is now commercially available from ReproTech, Inc. in Tucson, Arizona (580-888-0401). Cost per bull is approximately $35 plus the cost of collection and shipping containers. One cautionary note: this is not a substitute for traditional breeding soundness exams. The test should be used along with BSE to better assess the reproductive potential of the bull. Prevention of Reproductive Diseases
There are numerous diseases that affect reproduction. Fortunately, all of these can be prevented by vaccination and/or management practices. Reproductive diseases cause fetal death or abortion. The list of diseases is lengthy and includes diseases such as infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), leptospirosis (Lepto), vibriosis (Vibrio), trichomoniasis (Trich), and brucellosis (Bangs). Some reproductive diseases are very "dynamic", genetically changing over time. Our highly mobile industry has also created opportunities for disease organisms to move into clean areas with relative ease. Producers should consult a local veterinarian annually and follow his or her advice religiously. If you do not adopt a preventative strategy, you are gambling with the future financial viability of your herd. Improvement of Genetic Potential
Genetic potential also plays a pivotal role in the reproductive process. Vast differences exist in reproductive potentials among cattle. However, improvement of potential for reproduction is not as straight forward as most other traits because animals do not express reproductive deficiencies until later in life. Researchers, however, have developed techniques to improve fertility indirectly. Let me give you a few examples. First, genetic differences exist within breeds for age at puberty. This trait is very difficult to measure in females (you have to watch them for months to determine when they first cycle). However, in the male, it is easy to establish the relative time he reaches sexual maturity. This can be established by simply measuring the circumference of his scrotum. In most breeds, puberty occurs when scrotal circumference exceeds about 32 cm.
When cow-calf producers select yearling bulls with large scrotal circumference (> 32 cm), daughters tend to reach puberty earlier. Furthermore, daughters of bulls with large scrotal circumferences tend to be more reproductively efficient throughout their productive lives. Another method for enhancing reproductive performance potential is to simply breed heifers as yearlings in a short breeding season (45 days). In other words, if you make it difficult for heifers to breed the first time, only the most fertile will enter the herd. Of course, it is always a good practice to cull non-pregnant cows at the end of the breeding season. However, this has only a minor effect on genetic potential. Cows have often produced daughters that are kept as replacements before being culled.
In general, we need to address reproductive potential early in life. Some new approaches are currently under investigation at various locations including the Noble Foundation.
Finally, remember cows are very much like a factory. Raw materials that enter the factory include grass, supplements and water. The product of the "cow factory" is a calf at weaning time. As with any factory, efficiency is measured as outputs relative to inputs. Our "cow factory" is extremely inefficient when she fails to breed.
Nevil Speer, Professor Animal Science, Western Kentucky University
BEEF Daily
This column has been focusing recently on some pertinent results from USDA’s 2012 Ag Census data. One such important piece of data is the categorization detailing the age of principal owner of cattle operations in the U.S. Within that data there are some surprises.
The conventional wisdom has been that the ongoing cow liquidation in the U.S. has come at the upper end of the age distribution for producers. The thinking is that older producers, encouraged by higher prices and/or drought conditions, have taken the opportunity to retire from the business. However, the data indicate that’s not really the case. Interested in more beef news? Subscribe NOW to Cow-Calf Weekly for the latest industry research and news straight your inbox.
Not surprisingly, there was a decline in the number of farms maintaining cattle and calves. However, the number of farms operated by younger and older individuals didn’t really change very much. Rather, the loss of cattle operations came in the heart of the age distribution. In fact, operators aged 35-44 and 45-54 comprised almost the entire reduction between 2007 and 2012.
There’s likely any number of reasons to explain this. Perhaps most significant are the ramifications surrounding rebuilding the cowherd, which could probably go both ways. On one hand, those individuals still have plenty of active career left to enjoy restocking/rebuilding their cattle operations. On the other hand, perhaps they’ve turned their attention and committed resources to other enterprises.
Either way, for now, it appears the U.S. beef industry remains solidly represented by individuals in the 65+ age group – comprising over 40% of all operations.
What’s your perception of the age demographic in the U.S. cattle industry? How do you perceive this development during the past five years? How does it bode for the future direction of the industry?
Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
For months, we’ve been hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposal to expand their federal authority over “waters of the U.S.” While the agencies contend that the proposed rule change is just a “clarification,” many landowners, including ranchers, are worried about the potential impact on property rights if oversight is extended beyond the traditional “navigable waters” definition. For instance, under the proposed rule, could that puddle of water alongside the ranch driveway soon fall under federal control?
In a recent op-ed piece, Bob McCan, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) president, asks the EPA if that puddle is really “navigable.”
McCan writes, “The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are taking public comments on a proposed regulation that would expand the federal government’s authority over waters; private property rights be damned. Many in the agricultural community have called this proposal the largest land grab in history, and I don’t think that is far off the mark. If landowners are required to get a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for spraying pesticides, applying manure, or simply grazing their cattle, there is no way to describe it but ‘land use planning.’ Once a responsibility of city and county governments, the federal agencies will now have the power to either give you a permit or not and thereby dictate what activities you can perform on your property.
“How did they do it? Through vague terms such as ‘neighboring,’ ill-defined terms like ‘floodplain,’ and expansive definitions such as ‘tributary.’ The agencies also leave most of these important key terms up to the ‘best professional judgment’ of the federal regulator. These legal terms give the regulatory agencies the loopholes they need to find your pond, puddle or ditch to be a ‘water of the U.S.’ and leave landowners with more confusion than ever before.”
McCan urges folks to tell EPA to ditch the rule. There is still time to comment on this rule, and I’ve rounded up eight resources and articles to read, so everyone can have a better understanding of exactly what this rule entails and how it might impact cattlemen. 1. BEEF Poll: Is EPA's Proposed Rule Good For Producers? 2. EPA Moves To Exert Control Over Virtually All U.S. Water 3. EPA Opens Comments On Waters Of The U.S. Language 4. A Closer Look At EPA Water Rule Proposal 5. Farm Groups Request More Time To Comment On EPA's Waters Rule 6. Cattleman Testifies On EPA's Waters Rule For House Small Business Committee 7. Beef Industry Is Focused On Fighting Off Regulatory Onslaught 8. Submit Your Comments On EPA’s Water Grab
What do you think about the proposed rule? Are you worried about how it might limit what you are able to do on your land? Is the regulatory environment in Washington, D.C., spinning out of control? What can we in the country do about it? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. The opinions of Amanda Radke are not necessarily those of Beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.
An old saying goes something like this: "When things are not going well, watch out, and when things are going well, watch out more."
From a market perspective, a host of factors have things going well for cow-calf producers. • Cattle inventories are the smallest in more than 60 years, severely restricting feeder cattle available to place and keeping feeder cattle prices at lofty levels. • Nationally, feedlots have surplus bunk space. Feedlots lose less by operating at capacity as long as revenues cover variable costs and leave something to apply toward fixed costs. That fuels competition to buy feeder cattle. • Feedlot managers do not like to see empty pens. Their psychological desire to fill pens further intensifies competition to buy feeder cattle. The road to cow herd expansion is fraught with pitfalls.• Beef profits entice cow-calf producers to retain heifers to expand cow herds, which further tightens feeder cattle supply. • Corn prices retreating from earlier drought-induced highs trim costs to feed cattle. Feedlot managers have a long-standing propensity to bid feed cost savings into feeder cattle prices. • Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus has kept supplies of competing pork lower than they could have been. • Despite ample chatter about how rapidly the broiler industry can turn an egg into a chicken breast, boosting the broiler breeding flock to get the eggs to hatch to up broiler output takes a bit longer. • Rising incomes in Asia, particularly China, bolster US meat exports
Those factors all suggest stock cows and calves will remain valuable property for the foreseeable future. Optimists see nothing but blue sky from now on, which lures cow-calf producers to up output. Still, the earliest producers can put more beef on dinner plates is 2016. Doing so by then could well turn out to be a stretch. Uncertainties loom Huge uncertainties spell more risk. As a result, cow-calf producers need higher expected profits to justify herd expansion. Some considerations are: • The challenging decision as to whether to retain heifers to generate potentially higher, but unknown, income later vs. selling them to feedlots and taking a sizable, and known, amount of cash now. • How 2014 and 2015 crops develop, which will guide costs to finish cattle and, in turn, determine how much feedlots are willing to pay for feeder cattle. • Grazing conditions will regulate the rate of heifer expansion and cull cow sales to determine herd expansion. Good grazing would entice cow-calf producers to hold more heifers, further tightening near-term feeder cattle supply and buoying prices. Eroding grazing would divert heifers to feedlots. That would up intermediate beef supply, but make supplies even tighter in the out years. • Competition from pork and broilers is certain to rise. • Spring cow-calf pair prices knocked on the $3,700 door. Now is a good time to own cows. Whether now is a good time to buy cows is a different proposition. Just as feedlot operators have a strong propensity to bid their expected cattle feeding profits into feeder cattle prices, cow-calf producers may have an equally strong inclination to bid expected feeder cattle profits into cow prices. • Those same forces bid up prices and rents of grazing land. Fixed costs are slow to retreat when prices sour. • When and how strongly consumers may push back against high prices is unknown. • Events such as last year's beta-agonist use controversy or the 2012 lean finely textured beef media debacle are nearly impossible to predict. • Trade deals matter. A BSE-type event can disrupt exports overnight. The bottom line Producers can manage the things that might go wrong if they can anticipate them. Not so with unexpected upsets, which leads us to another old saying, "The only true risk management strategy is to have something stashed away in the sock."
Producers who are long on equity and short on debt are best positioned to weather the tough times that are bound to come.
