Curry County Grasshopper Workshop

Grasshopper Workshop

Posted: 17 Sep 2014 08:58 AM PDT

 

New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service – Curry County will be hosting a Grasshopper Workshop from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on September 30, 2014 at Allen Hall in Grady, NM.  Shawn Carson from Plant Protection & Quarantine-Aphis will be on hand to discuss the current grasshopper situation and what we may be looking at in the future.  PPQ will also discuss what options we have when it comes to controlling the grasshopper populations. 

 

               There will be 1 General CEU for producers that hold a pesticide applicator license.   To register for this event please contact the Curry County Extension office at (575)763-6505

Ray Rice Incident Underscores To Cattle Industry The Power Of Video

I have posted this article because I found the point to be interesting.  If consumers are looking to verify the information that they receive on a daily basis; it begs the question what does an animal rights video do to the credibility of the industry?  Videos and pictures of problems occurring in agriculture certainly don't help us instill confidence in the consumer.
Just something to think about.
Patrick


by Troy Marshall in My View From The Country
Beef Magazine Online

One of the biggest national stories of late in the sports world is the indefinite suspension of Ray Rice from the National Football League (NFL). The penalty came down after a video surfaced showing the Baltimore Ravens running back punching his fiancé, who is now his wife, in an elevator of an Atlantic City casino.
Sadly, domestic violence is a pretty common occurrence, and the NFL currently has several active players who are accused of such abuse. The Rice case initially gained headlines because of the video showing him nonchalantly dragging the unconscious woman from the elevator. That drew a two-game suspension for Rice and sparked a national discussion on domestic violence.
Then the second video was released that showed the actual punch and the dynamic of the story changed again, even more dramatically. The Ravens released Rice, the NFL suspended him indefinitely, and even the Canadian Football League announced it would not allow Rice to play north of the border. And the story became headline news everywhere.
The episode illustrates the power of video and the way today’s society processes information. The first video pretty much clued everyone into what had occurred in that Atlantic City elevator; after all, Rice and his then-fiance essentially had confirmed it. Society shouldn’t have needed to see the second video of Rice actually throwing the punch to fully appreciate the situation. However, that second video changed the way people processed the event and stoked the heightened response.

Obviously, domestic violence is a real and serious problem; and such high-profile incidents underscore the need to address this kind of abuse. What I found fascinating, however, is that the key to really stoking national concern and anger seemed to be the video.

Running back Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens addresses a news conference with his wife Janay at the Ravens training center on May 23, 2014 in Owings Mills, Maryland. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)

National surveys indicate a declining trust and growing skepticism among Americans regarding government and media. As consumers of information, we’ve become so aware of being manipulated on a daily basis with spin and propaganda that we tend to be skeptical of anything we can’t see or hear directly. There is more news and event coverage today – both commentary and editorial – than ever before, but there are also more sources producing it.

There are more and varied media through which we can receive information today, but there’s also a tendency today for consumers to seek out the sources that confirm what we believe. So, in many ways, we are consuming more information than ever before, but in more of a one-sided manner.
For instance, you might be a fan of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow or prefer to follow Fox News’ Sean Hannity, but you likely realize that you’re consuming a biased perspective. In part, it’s refreshing because when the bias is admitted, you don’t get the feeling that you’re being manipulated.
Mainstream media has had a hard time adjusting to this reality. We live in a world today where I think most discerning people understand that all information is filtered in one way or another. This means that it takes hard evidence – and our own ears and eyes – to really move us.
From an industry standpoint, I think it illustrates just how much we have to change and revamp the way we get our message out to consumers. For instance, to the average consumer, an industry spokesman quoting accurate science is often received as little more than a paid individual advancing an agenda with half-truths. Much more effective is for consumers to experience it directly. Barring that, they must connect, and must have a relationship, with the individual sharing the information if it is to get past our filters.
The opinions of Troy Marshall are not necessarily those of Penton and the Farm Progress Group.

 

Cost Of Developing 2014 Heifer Calves Will Be Record High

by Harlan Hughes in Market Advisor
BEEF Magazine Online

With cattle prices up and feed costs down, many producers outside the major drought areas are contemplating holding back additional replacement heifers from their 2014 calf crop. But what are the economics of doing so?
I currently project the total economic cost of developing 2014 heifer calves into preg-checked females in fall 2015 to be $1,989/head. These heifers’ first calves will be born in spring 2016, with the heifers potentially being marketed that fall, or grown out and sold as feeders in summer 2017. In either case, it takes two years to increase the number of calves sold.
Let’s briefly review how I calculated the costs of raising a replacement heifer. I went into substantial procedural detail in my two previous articles on the cost of replacement heifers; therefore, this month I’ll summarize my latest 2014 calculations. If you want the procedural details, read my July 2012 column, “What’s The Real Cost Of Heifer Development?”
Figure 1 summarizes this year’s projected cost of raised replacement heifers. My analysis is based on 1,300-lb. cows producing 554-lb. weaned heifers in fall 2014. My current projection for 2014 weaned heifers sold in the fall is $254/cwt., or $1,407/weaned heifer calf. Thus, the opportunity cost for raised replacement heifers is this $1,407.

The winter growing period is projected to be 181 days (six months), and the winter feed costs are based on wintering the heifer calves on corn grain, hay and supplement. I used $4.10/bu. corn and $120/ton hay, which generates a winter feed cost of $192/head.
Non-feed wintering costs include the lot costs ($37), interest cost ($33), vet and medicine ($9), and death loss ($17) — all on a per-head basis. Total non-feed wintering costs totaled $96/head, while winter feed and non-feed costs totaled $288/head.
The heifers were moved to pasture on May 1, at a pasture rent of $30/animal unit month (AUM). These young heifers were assumed equal to 0.8 AUM for a monthly grazing cost of $24/heifer month. They were on grass for 153 days (5.1 months). Breeding costs were based on a $5,000 heifer bull used for four years and then culled, generating a breeding fee of $49/heifer.

Can You Tell Profit When You See It?
Enter our 2014 BEEF Efficiency & Profit Contest & you could win $1,000 cash (indvidual) or $5,000 in Merial product (feedlot group). Enter here!

The projected total economic cost of a raised replacement heifer came to $1,910/head before culling. After adjusting for an 85% conception rate, the total cost is $2,247/preg-checked heifer. A final adjustment was made for the market value ($1,719) for the open heifers sold, which reduces the final cost of raising replacement heifers to $1,989/preg-checked heifer.
After all the adjustments, the development cost of each preg-checked heifer averages $582/head. If we add the $1,407 opportunity cost at weaning, we have a projected total economic cost for raising a replacement heifer of $1,989/head — an all-time record.
Of course, the cost of growing replacement heifers through the winter varies from ranch to ranch, so I’ll share a more generalized procedure (Figure 2) designed to help individual ranchers tailor my projected cost of raised replacement heifers to their own ranch situation.

The light blue cells in Figure 2 represent the specific case discussed earlier in this article. The winter feed bill for heifer development was $192/head, and the summer grazing cost was based on $24/heifer month pasture cost. Note the $24 pasture cost on the left-hand side and the $192 winter feed cost along the top of the table. The intersection of the appropriate row and column gives the projected $1,989 cost/preg-checked heifer developed.

Related

7 Heifer Development Tips

Effective Heifer Development Means Thinking Early & Long Term

Let’s assume you’re a Southeast rancher who can graze replacement heifers all year long. Let’s assume you can winter your heifers on grass for $28/heifer month for a total winter feed bill of $152. Summer grass on your ranch has a market value of $20/heifer month. If you input those parameters into the table, the projected cost of raised replacement heifers is $1,920/preg-checked heifer raised.
This table is designed for ranchers with winter feed costs ranging from $152-$252/head/winter season. Summer grazing costs can range from $18-$30/heifer month. I hope this range covers most ranch situations. For ranchers with numbers between those in Figure 1, you can easily extrapolate between my published numbers.
I encourage each reader to estimate his own winter feed costs and summer grazing costs, and then use Figure 2 to project his cost of raising replacement heifers. Whatever winter and summer feed costs you use, I predict your raised replacement costs for your 2014 heifer calves will be record-high.
Harlan Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, ID. Reach him at 701-238-9607 or harlan.hughes@gte.net.

NASDA members say 'withdraw' to EPA’s Waters of the U.S. Rule

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture | Updated: 09/15/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Burlington, VT, September 12, 2014 – At the Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), NASDA Members unanimously called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule. The action item, submitted by North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Doug Goehring, also urges the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers to collaborate with state departments of agriculture and other stakeholders on the appropriate scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

“As it stands, this proposed rule dramatically expands EPA’s jurisdiction and creates too much uncertainty for our farmers and ranchers. This rule must be withdrawn,” said NASDA CEO Dr. Barbara Glenn. “It is critical that the agencies engage state regulators and stakeholders to work together to find a path forward before the agencies move towards implementation or further rulemaking.”

NASDA previously submitted comments expressing concerns about the highly controversial Interpretive Rule for Agricultural Conservation Practices.

“Conservation and environmental protection are among our members’ chief responsibilities as state regulatory agencies. We feel the agencies’ proposals will dissuade the use of critical conservation practices needed to preserve American farmland,” said Glenn.

NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture in all fifty states and four U.S. territories. To learn more about NASDA, please visit www.nasda.org.

Caution: Prussic acid poisoning can be a problem during grazing

Mark Arnold, Texas A&M Extension | Updated: 09/11/2014\
Drover's Cattle Network

Prussic acid poisoning
Use caution when grazing sorghum/sudan grass during periods when these forages may be experiencing stress, whether drought or frost stress, as prussic acid poisoning is one of the most toxic and rapidly acting of any common poison. It is also called hydrocyanic acid or cyanide poisoning. Cyogenic compounds can develop in plants that are stressed. In the rumen the compounds are converted to cyanide, which can kill livestock.
Symptoms
Livestock can show symptoms of intoxication within 5 minutes of eating plants with the poison, and may die within 15 minutes. Salivation and labored breathing occur first, followed by muscular tremors, uncoordinated movements, bloating, convulsions and death from respiratory failure.
Prussic acid accumulations
Although there is usually little danger of prussic acid poisoning, it can accumulate in plants in the sorghum family, such as Johnson grass, sudan grass, forage sorghums and grain sorghum. It is also found in bahia, corn, cocklebur, white clover and other minor plants, but seldom at toxic levels.
One problem with prussic acid is that it tends to “come and go” in the plant: It may be present for a short time and then dissipate. It appears to occur when plants are injured by herbicides or frost. Severe drought stress can also cause prussic acid to form.
High concentrations of prussic acid may be associated with rapid cell division or rapid growth, such as shortly after a rain or irrigation on previously drought-stressed fields, or warm weather after a cool period. Under good conditions, toxic concentrations can also form in young, rapidly growing plants.
On the positive side, prussic acid dissipates from plants properly cured for hay. However, in hay baled early at high moisture or plants chopped for immediate feeding, the prussic acid may not have had a chance to dissipate.
Preventing losses
To prevent prussic acid poisoning:

• Do not graze any of the cyanogenic-accumulating plants (sorghums) that have been subject to drought or injury, unless they are tested for hydrocyanic acid.
• If plants have been damaged by herbicides or frost, defer grazing until they either are well recovered from injury or cut for hay, or after a killing freeze and the plants have been allowed to dry.
• Do not graze plants in the sorghum family until they are 2 to 3 feet tall.
• Graze second-growth sorghums with caution if growing conditions are poor.
• Remove all livestock from the feed source when an animal is found to have died suddenly after grazing forages under poor growing conditions.
• Prevent animals from grazing wilted plants or those with young tillers.
• After plants have grown rapidly, such as shortly after a rain or irrigation on previously drought-stressed fields, or warm weather after a cook period, wait at least 2 weeks after the plants begin to grow before grazing.
• When turning livestock into new pastures containing cyanogenic-accumulating plants, don’t turn in on cloudy days, or early in the morning.

Prussic acid testing:

• Cyanide begins to leave the sample as soon as the plant begins to die. Therefore, it is critical that producers hand-carry or ship overnight all samples to be tested for prussic acid.
• The plant sampling method is similar to that for nitrate. A good sample for prussic acid testing consists of leaves from 10 to 12 plants. Refrigerate but do not freeze the samples in transit to the lab.
• Sampling and handling baled hay presents problems, because prussic acid is lost rapidly after the bale is opened. Use a hay probe, empty the sample immediately into a pint canning jar (only one probe per sample jar), seal the jar and send it to the lab overnight.

For further information, contact Mark Arnold, County Extension Agent-Agriculture/Natural Resources, 701 South I-35 E, Suite 3, Waxahachie, or call 972/825-5175 or email: wmarnold@ag.tamu.edu
Educational programs of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service are open to all people without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information or veteran status. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating

BeefTalk: Have some bulls to cull?

Kris Ringwall, North Dakota State University Extension | Updated: 09/12/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Now is a good time to look at the bull pen, even though it probably is empty. In fact, one would have to wonder why if there is a bull in the pen.
For many, the bulls are left on pasture and rounded up with the cows and calves as fall progresses. Throughout the summer, various bulls are moved around or brought home. In some cases, they are injured. In other cases, they simply won’t stay in the pasture. Wandering bulls are a liability and don’t make for good neighbor relations.
Although the weather is very dry in places or sopping wet in others, fall followed by winter is quickly approaching, so thoughts of feeding cattle, especially bulls, come to mind. What is the reason for feeding cull bulls? For the most part, the quicker the bulls go to market, the less stress.
As producers prepare to round up cattle, a change in management is triggered by a change in weather, usually snow. As colder weather sets in, grass may not be actively growing and feed resources are quickly utilized. As fall work becomes more pressing, the most neglected group often is the bulls. The bulls usually are pulled from the cows and placed in an out-of-the-way place for the remainder of the season.
Bulls often are the last group of cattle brought home for winter feeding because most of the attention and time is placed on the freshly weaned calves, calves in the backgrounding lots or sorting cows.
However, don’t ignore the bulls. On one of those less than busy days, review the bull herd. Rather than keeping problem, inferior or old bulls through the winter, give some thought to marketing the culls.
Reviewing the inventory of bulls is a wise move. How many of those bulls will be needed or used next year? The Dickinson Research Extension Center needs 18. However, a quick review of needs for the spring of 2015 would indicate extra bulls are needed. The center did reserve three bulls in May as backups but can look at not overwintering all the bulls.
Why maintain bulls you don’t need? Cull the obvious bulls to start the process. Although none of the bulls have obvious male reproductive problems, now is a good time to check for other abnormalities or injuries that may have occurred during the breeding season. Bulls with behavioral and structural problems should go to town. Also, a review of the expected progeny difference values should be done to scrutinize for future issues.
However, one of the biggest issues is temperament. As the bulls get older, they develop pretty strong territorial boundaries and can become difficult to move. With the replacement price of bulls, one tends to think twice before marketing a bull, but with excellent cull prices, bulls can bring more than $3,000 as market beef. That certainly will put some money in the bank for a replacement bull this coming winter.
The center’s bulls still are breeding in early to mid-September, but come October, they are pulled and have some restful months ahead. The bulls should gain about a pound a day as they rest, so they will add about 300 pounds to their mature weight.
Searching for the nutrient requirements of beef cattle on the Web, I came upon the Oklahoma State University publication “Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle” by David Lalman. It notes the nutrient requirements for a bull that is predicted to weigh 2,000 pounds as a mature bull.
To get to that weight, a bull that weighs 1,400 pounds and is gaining 0.5 pound a day needs a daily intake of 31 pounds of dry matter (hay or grass) that is 7 percent protein and 50 percent total digestible nutrients (TDN). If those same bulls were to gain 1.7 pounds a day, their daily intake would need to increase to 32 pounds of a higher-quality ration. It would contain the same crude protein level, but the energy content of the ration would need to increase to 60 percent TDN.
A grain-based supplement would need to be added or some very high-quality forage would need to be found. Those feed resources should be available this year. However, is the bull worth keeping for another year?
Because a good selection of young yearlings will be available next year, those bulls that are struggling to gain and recover from the breeding season should be sold. In addition, as with any management decision, one has to weigh the present genetic value of the sound bulls versus what the anticipated price will be for replacement bulls next spring, as well as their genetic value.
Can one buy better genetics? How are your bulls doing? Have some to sell?
May you find all your ear tags.

Red meat and exercise increases muscle longevity

Chelsea Mies | Updated: 09/12/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Eating lean red meat three to four times a week along with regular exercise could be the key to keeping both the body and mind at their peak as people age, a study from Deakin University in Australia found. The study found that, in combination, the two worked to reduce age-related muscle loss in elderly subjects. Now, the study is being extended to focus on the effects the diet plan has on mental capacity.
The study focused on effects the diet and exercise program had on women ages 60 to 90 compared to those who were using exercise alone. The women who were eating the lean read meat had greater muscle strength and mass. They also saw an increase in a hormone that is key to muscle growth, along with other benefits, Oli Haenlein of Meat Trades Journal reports.
“It is no secret that we are living longer and that this is placing an increased burden on society in many ways, including the healthcare system,” said Robin Daly, professor of exercise and ageing at Deakin. “This protein/exercise combination could provide the greatest benefits in terms of ensuring that older adults can live independently and relatively disease- and disability-free into old age.”
Read more here.

Review: Transportation shrink in beef cattle

K. P. Coffey, W. K. Coblentz, J. B. Humphry, and F. K. Brazle, Ohio State University Extension | Updated: 09/10/2014

A better understanding of factors affecting shrink should help buyers and sellers of cattle to arrive at a fair pencil shrink under specific marketing conditions.
Types of Shrink. There are two types of shrink. One is excretory which is the loss of urine and feces. When ambient temperatures are low (below freezing, urine and fecal output can comprise 30-35% of shrink. When temperatures are hot, urine and fecal losses account for about 15-20% of shrink. Much of this loss is replaced when cattle are again allowed to eat and drink.
The second type is loss is tissue loss. It is the loss of fluid from the cells. Tissue shrinkage occurs after holding cattle off feed and water. It also occurs when cattle are subjected to stresses such as hauling. It becomes more important than excretory shrink the longer the shipping time. Since it is actual loss of tissue weight, it is harder to replace.
Easy handling during the loading process and minimizing quick starts and stops in the hauling process can reduce shrinkage. Most of the shrinkage occurs during loading and in the first part (25 miles) of a trip. Cattle may lose half as much in 25 miles as they do in 200 miles. As the time increases, so does shrinkage, but at a slower rate than the first few miles.
Professional cattle buyers may ask for a pencil shrink on cattle weighed on the farm, on a truck or after a very short haul from the farm to the scales. Pencil shrink is a percentage deduction from the weight of the cattle. This makes the weighing condition similar to cattle that were processed through a market. Pencil shrink is usually 2 to 3 percent for feeder cattle and 3 to 4 percent for finished cattle.
Difference in shrinkage between steers and heifers is variable but heifers shrink slightly more. Finished cattle shrink more than feeder cattle in the first eight to 10 hours. Feeder cattle shrink about 2 percent more on long hauls, up to 7 or 9 percent. An overnight stand of 12 hours without feed or water can cause 4 percent shrink in cattle on lush grass or silage. The same cattle on a high grain ration may lose only 2.5 to 3 percent.
Length of Shrink Period. Cattle begin to lose body weight (BW) at the time they are moved; the greatest proportion of BW loss occurs during the early hours (h) of feed and water deprivation. Coffey et al. (4) reported that steers that were gathered at daybreak from pasture and placed in holding pens without feed or water shrank at a rate of 1.25% of BW/h during the first 2 to 2.5 h, 0.61% of BW/h during the next 2.5 to 3 h, and only 0.16% of BW/h during the next 2-h period. In that study, almost one-half of the BW loss occurred during the first 2 to 2.5 h. Therefore, shrink is generally greater early in the feed and water deprivation period and appears to range from about 0.75 to 1.25% of BW/h during the first 3 to 4 h.
Environmental Conditions. Self and Gay (11) reported a tendency for stocker calves to shrink more when shipped in the summer compared with those shipped in the fall or spring if the calves were shipped directly from the farm to the feedlot. Feedlot cattle have also been reported to have a tendency to shrink more during the summer and fall compared with those shipped during the winter and spring (6). Both fecal and urine outputs were actually lower when ambient temperature was higher. Therefore, the increased BW lost during higher ambient temperatures is a result of a greater proportion of respiratory loss, presumably at the expense of fluid from body tissue (11). It is concluded that shrink under higher ambient temperatures is therefore much more serious and also costly to the cattlemen receiving the cattle.
The composition of the BW loss and the impact of the stresses on long-term animal health and performance are as critical as the actual BW losses themselves. Cole et al. (5) reported greater nitrogen loss from both the urine and feces in transported calves compared with non-transported fasted calves.
Effect of Handling Procedures. Self and Gay (11) indicated that cattle shrank less when they were handled as quietly as possible upon removal from pasture. A typical research practice is to weigh pasture cattle on 2 consecutive d to arrive at a beginning and ending BW for studies. Cattle that are hard to remove from pasture (i.e., more excited during pasture removal) typically weigh less on the second day than cattle that are easily removed from their pasture and handled more calmly. It is believed that handling procedures that create more stress on cattle will have a negative impact on cattle BW, shrink, and recovery time.
Effect of Previous Diet. Many producers feed grain prior to shipment to help cattle retain BW and reduce shrink. However, definitive research evaluating pre-shipment diets and management has produced variable results. Based on the summary information in the article, it is questionable whether feeding concentrate prior to shipment will reduce shrink.
Effect of Preconditioning. Preconditioning has been used in an attempt to provide better quality cattle at the livestock auction through reduced sickness and subsequent medical expenses; however, a consistent reduction in shrink should not always be expected based on available data.
Effect of Feed Additives. Certain feed additives may have an impact on feed intake, fill, and mineral status, and these factors may also impact shrink. Feeding ionophores for extended periods before shipment may help reduce shrink.
Forage Effects. The time of the morning that cattle are removed from pasture before weighing can have an impact on both their BW and the amount of shrink they incur. Heitschmidt (7) reported that cows grazing native range were 2.5% heavier in late morning than in early morning. In another grazing study, steers were removed from pasture at different times of the morning during the fall (4). Steers that were allowed to graze 3 h before gathering were 1.9% heavier than those gathered at daybreak. Rate of cattle shrink throughout the day was also affected by length of morning grazing before removal from pasture (4). Steers allowed to graze for 3 h before removal from pasture shrank at a rate of 0.86%/h less during the first 2.2 to 2.6 h following removal from pasture than those steers removed as grazing began at daybreak. Cumulative rate of shrink at any length of time following pasture removal, as well as total shrink, was lowest from steers allowed to graze for 3 h before being gathered from pasture. Therefore, allowing cattle to graze for an extended period before shipping not only allows them to gain additional BW, but also reduces their rate of shrink during the early shrink period.
Dietary Manipulation of Shrink. Hutcheson et al. (8) reported a positive response to supplemental potassium in the receiving. Cattle given either an electrolyte solution or glucose solution in the drinking water before slaughter had improved meat quality traits and carcass yield compared with those given no water or water only (9). Electrolyte supplementation before slaughter also reduced urine concentrations of sodium and potassium and increased urine chloride concentration, indicating that electrolyte supplementation during this time reduced the normal response of electrolyte elimination into the urine during transportation and fasting. In another study, cattle provided an electrolyte solution during holding for slaughter retained a greater percentage of live BW as carcass weight (10). Others have reported a response to supplemental chromium (3) in receiving diets, indicating that the body may be eliminating this element during transportation as well. Therefore, it appears possible to provide animals with a diet balanced for energy, protein, and electrolytes before transport that would help reduce shrink by providing storage of essential nutrients. However, this hypothesis needs to be evaluated because the body tends to reject and eliminate nutrients provided in excess.
Literature Cited:
1. Brazle, F. K. 1992. Effect of feed additives on shipping shrinkage of yearling heifers. Rep. Prog. 651. p 82. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn., Manhattan, KS.
2. Brazle, F. K., G. L. Kuhl, C. E. Binns, K. O. Zoellner, L. R. Corah, and R. R. Schalles. 1991. The influence of limited-creep feeding on preand post-weaning performance of springborn calves. J. Anim. Sci. 69 (Suppl. 1):76 (Abs.).
3. Chang, X., and D. N. Mowat. 1992. Supplemental chromium for stressed and growing feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 70:559.
4. Coffey, K. P., F. K. Brazle, J. J. Higgins, and J. L. Moyer. 1997. Effects of gathering time on weight and shrink of steers grazing smooth bromegrass pastures. Prof. Anim. Sci. 13:170.
5. Cole, N. A., W. A. Phillips, and D. P. Hutcheson. 1986. The effect of pre-fast diet and transport on nitrogen metabolism of calves. J. Anim. Sci. 62:1719.
6. Harman, B. R., M. H. Brinkman, M. P. Hoffman, and H. L. Self. 1989. Factors affecting in-transit shrink and liver abscesses in fed steers. J. Anim. Sci. 67:311.
7. Heitschmidt, R. K. 1982. Diurnal variation in weight and rates of shrink of range cows and calves. J. Range Manage. 35:717.
8. Hutcheson, D. P., N. A. Cole, and J. B. McLaren. 1984. Effects of pretransit diets and post-transit potassium levels for feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 58:700.
9. Schaefer, A. L., S. D. M. Jones, A. K. W. Tong, and B. A. Young. 1990. Effects of transport and electrolyte supplementation on ion concentrations, carcass yield and quality in bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70:107.
10. Schaefer, A. L., S. D. M. Jones, A. K. W. Tong, B. A. Young, N. L. Murray, and P. Lepage. 1992. Effects of post-transport electrolyte supplementation on tissue electrolytes, hematology, urine osmolality and weight loss in beef bulls. Livestock Prod. Sci. 30:333.11. Self, H. L., and N. Gay. 1972. Shrink during shipment of feeder cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 35:489.

Will Quality Beef Be The Industry’s Nirvana?

by Burt Rutherford in BEEF Editors' Blog

If there’s one truism that always holds true in a commodity market, it’s that the cure for high prices is high prices. Inevitably, producers respond by overproducing, thus driving prices to unprofitably low levels.
Will that happen in the cattle market as producers respond to record-high calf and feeder prices that will lead to record high cash returns/cow for this year, 2015 and most likely even longer? It doesn’t have to. At least that’s one economist’s outlook.
“We’re probably not done with record prices,” Scott Brown, University of Missouri ag economist, told cattle feeders at a recent Certified Angus Beef Feeding Quality Forum. Brown, like just about everybody else in the industry, thinks we are going to grow cattle and beef supplies over the next 5-10 years. While he thinks that growth will be slow, it will occur and will ultimately change the price and profitability picture for producers.
Given that, here’s his question: “How do we prepare ourselves for 5-10 years down the road to be best equipped to survive?”
In short, Brown argues that focusing on producing quality beef— upper 2/3 Choice and Prime—is the ticket for all segments of the industry to remain profitable going forward.

Related

 

Like any good economist, Brown dove head first into the numbers. And what he showed made some interesting points. The first is that, over time, more beef is graded Choice. While there is a definite seasonal pattern to the amount of Choice beef that is produced, with a peak typically in the spring, the trend line from 2008 through the first six months of 2014 is clear—from 2008 forward, each peak in the percentage of beef graded Choice was a little higher, starting around 62%-63% to now hitting 70% and higher.
At the same time, the percent of carcasses graded Select fell, which makes sense. However, the amount of Prime beef remained very steady, at around 3% to 4%.
Because the amount of Choice varies seasonally, the Choice-Select spread varies as well, sometimes running almost neck-and-neck and sometimes widening. “But we never have seen the spread between Prime and Choice or Select narrow much,” Brown says. “It’s been much more constant.”
When he looks in terms of dollars, he says Select has shown a fairly flat trend line when looking at percentage change year over year. Choice and Prime, on the other hand, have trended upward. “I’m more interested in hitting that market that is growing the most in wholesale value. For me, the Select market is not nearly as interesting as hitting Choice or Prime. That’s where the growth has been.”
That’s not to discount the role that Select beef plays in the marketplace. Somewhere around 60% of all the beef produced in the U.S. is consumed in the form of ground beef. So that market is important.
But Brown wonders what would happen to the cattle industry if it provided more supplies of a higher-quality product? The answer, he says, is that the higher-end beef would carve out its own place in the consumer market.
“Pork and chicken are better substitutes to that Select market than they are to Choice or Prime,” he says. What’s more, he argues that Select isn’t even a substitute for Choice and Prime within the beef segment.

Related

 

Brown urges cattle producers to pay attention to those trends, because they show the way forward. “We’re getting the most growth in Prime and in branded products,” he says. “We’re actually seeing a negative trend in Select. If that continues, what do we need 10 years from now? More Prime product out there and less Select.”
He fully realizes that producing more upper Choice and Prime doesn’t come without a cost, both in terms of dollars and in terms of management. “But looking at the data, I recognize that cost is a lot less than I would have anticipated if I’m willing to invest in the genetics side of that herd to help me hit those quality targets,” he says.
The data he refers to are results from university-produced steers fed at a commercial feedyard in Kansas that show careful attention to genetics can not only produces cows that work on the ranch, but calves that work in the feedyard, in the packing plant and on the plate. “When I see 30% on average of those steer calves hitting Prime over the past few years, it tells me we can hit those targets; genetics can play a role in helping the industry as we build back,” he says.

Few differences in health, milk content between organic and conventional dairies

Progressive Dairyman Written by Daniel Robison

Thursday, 21 August 2014 13:28

Cows raised on organic and conventional dairy farms in three regions of the U.S. show no significant differences in health or in the nutritional content of their milk, according to a new study by Oregon State University researchers and their collaborators. Many organic and conventional dairies in the study also did not meet standards set by three commonly used cattle welfare programs. "While there are differences in how cows are treated on organic farms, health outcomes are similar to conventional dairies," said Mike Gamroth, co-author of the study and professor emeritus in OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences. "Few dairies in this study performed well in formal criteria used to measure the health and well-being of cows." Nearly 300 small dairy farms – 192 organic and 100 conventional – in New York, Oregon and Wisconsin participated in the study, which was funded by a $1 million grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture in the USDA. The five-year project looked at many aspects of dairy cow health, including nutrition, lameness, udder cleanliness and other conditions. Milk samples were screened for bacteria and common diseases, and farmers were asked about their operations, including the use of veterinarians and pain relief when removing horns from cattle. Researchers found the following: One in five herds met standards for hygiene 30 percent of herds met criteria for body condition 26 percent of organic and 18 percent of conventional farms met recommendations for pain relief during dehorning Four percent of farms fed calves recommended doses of colostrum 88 percent of farms did not have an integrated plan to control mastitis 42 percent of conventional farms met standards for treating lameness Cows on organic farms produced 43 percent less milk per day than conventional non-grazing cattle, the study found, and 25 percent less than conventional grazing herds Milk from organic and non-organic herds also showed few nutritional differences, researchers found. Organic milk can occasionally contain more omega-3 fatty acids, which may improve heart health. However, those increases come from seasonal grazing and are not present when cattle are fed stored forage, according to Gamroth. To become USDA-certified, organic dairy farms must allow cows access to grazing, and the grain cows consume must be grown on land free of pesticides and fertilizers. Organic farmers are not allowed the use of antibiotics, hormones or synthetic reproductive drugs. "Nearly seven in 10 organic farms previously operated conventional herds, which explains the lack of differences between them," said Gamroth. "Many organic farmers operate in a similar fashion to when they raised conventional herds, from milking procedures, to using the same facilities, to caring for sick cattle." The study also found more conventional farms (69 percent) used veterinarians than organic dairies (36 percent). Organic dairy farmers often perform their own veterinary work, Gamroth said, because they feel vets do not always know or follow organic standards for care. Some organic herds in the study also showed a strain of bacteria, commonly known as Strep. ag., that conventional herds eliminated long ago by using antibiotics. Cows had fewer hock lesions on organic farms, and calves on organic farms were fed a greater volume of milk and were weaned at an older age than on conventional farms. Results were based on criteria from three commonly used cattle welfare programs: the American Humane Association's Animal Welfare Standards for Dairy Cattle, Farmers Assuring Responsible Management and the Canadian Codes of Practice. However, the dairies surveyed for the study were not committed to these standards, said Gamroth. "Our data shows there is room for improvement in dairies and sets a benchmark to measure progress in the industry," said Gamroth. "We believe adopting animal welfare standards is part of the solution, as are increases to educational efforts to improve the care of cows." Milk is Oregon’s fourth-largest agricultural commodity, with dairy farmers grossing $528 million in sales in 2013. The state's dairy industry contributes more than $1 billion to Oregon's economy each year thanks to its approximately 350 dairy farms and 123,000 dairy cows. The study included 24 organic and 24 conventional dairies in Oregon. Articles from the study have been published in the Journal of Dairy Science and the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Other project collaborators include Pamela Ruegg of the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Linda Tikofsky and Ynte Schukken of Cornell University, and Charles Benbrook of the Organic Centre in Oregon. PD