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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
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:
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 |
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
It’s only natural, but what does that mean?
Suzanne B. Bopp | Updated: 08/27/2014
Drover's Cattlework
What does “natural” mean when it appears on a food label? A recent survey shows consumers really don’t know.
Drover's Cattlework
What does “natural” mean when it appears on a food label? A recent survey shows consumers really don’t know.
Nevertheless, the survey, conducted by Consumer Reports, showed that consumers do want, and are willing to seek out, foods that are natural. Fifty-nine percent of consumers take time to look for the natural label, and those foods created a $40.7 billion market last year, according to Nielsen.
The survey showed that what consumers thought they were getting from “natural” meat and poultry was products from animals not given growth hormones (89 percent) or antibiotics and other drugs (81 percent), and animals whose feed did not contain genetically engineered organisms (85 percent) or artificial ingredients (85 percent).
But the natural label neither promises, nor has any bearing whatever on, any of those factors. According to the USDA (which regulates meat, poultry and egg products), any meat item can be called natural if it contains no artificial ingredients or added color, and it is only minimally processed — meaning that processing did not fundamentally alter the product. Just about all fresh beef meets that definition.
For the FDA, which regulates all other foods, a formal definition for use of the term natural does not exist. In 1993, after giving up on trying to form such a definition, the agency decided to “not restrict the use of ‘natural’ on products. It is a very complex term,” said the FDA’s Ritu Nalubola in a press release from the Institute of Food Technologists. According to the FDA’s own website, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.”
Even in the absence of a definition, the FDA does not object to the term being used if "nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives, regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food." But the FDA discourages food manufacturers from using it. “Natural may unjustifiably imply that a food is of superior quality or safety compared to other similar foods,” Nalubola added.
Based on their survey results, which clearly reflect the confusion over “natural” foods on the consumer side, Consumer Reports is joining with digital magazine TakePart in a campaign called “Know your labels, know your food,” calling for a ban on the natural label. Part of the objection, as they describe it, is the fact that “Meat labeled as ‘natural’ can come from animals that were raised with daily doses of antibiotics and other drugs, given artificial growth hormones, fed genetically engineered soy and corn feed and other artificial ingredients and continually confined indoors,” according to the TakePart website.
The Consumer Reports survey did also illuminate some of the other attributes of interest to consumers: An overwhelming majority — 92 percent — want to support local farmers when they purchase food. Eighty-nine percent want to protect the environment from chemicals; 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.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
’Local’ and ‘organic’ has a jumble of meanings to consumers
University Of Illinois' Agricultural Communications Documentation Center | Updated: 08/13/2014
Drover's Online Network
Recent research among consumers in Canada and the U.S. helped identify perceptions about the terms "local" and "organic." An online survey of 2,511 consumers revealed communications challenges and opportunities such as:
•23% of the total sample incorrectly perceived "local" as having been produced organically (locally).
•17% perceived "local" as involving no use of synthetic pesticides.
•20% perceived "local" as involving less pesticide residue on product.
•21% perceived "local" as involving natural fertilizer used.
•17% incorrectly associated "organic" with being produced locally.
•Some perceptions of Canadian and U.S. consumers differed substantially, especially with regard to "local."
"Sadly, 'local' and 'organic' have had the misfortune of entering our vocabulary as separate concepts and then getting jumbled into one, unclear concept." Researchers suggested adding education throughout the marketing process to help plant producers clarify and correct terminology for all consumers.
Drover's Online Network
Recent research among consumers in Canada and the U.S. helped identify perceptions about the terms "local" and "organic." An online survey of 2,511 consumers revealed communications challenges and opportunities such as:
•23% of the total sample incorrectly perceived "local" as having been produced organically (locally).
•17% perceived "local" as involving no use of synthetic pesticides.
•20% perceived "local" as involving less pesticide residue on product.
•21% perceived "local" as involving natural fertilizer used.
•17% incorrectly associated "organic" with being produced locally.
•Some perceptions of Canadian and U.S. consumers differed substantially, especially with regard to "local."
"Sadly, 'local' and 'organic' have had the misfortune of entering our vocabulary as separate concepts and then getting jumbled into one, unclear concept." Researchers suggested adding education throughout the marketing process to help plant producers clarify and correct terminology for all consumers.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
EPDs benefit terminal production systems
Robert Wells, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation | Updated: 08/11/2014
Drover's Cattle Network
Surprisingly, I still find that many producers do not use expected progeny differences (EPDs) as a primary selection tool for their bull. Many select their next herd bull based only on physical appearance or a perceived ability to perform, or low birth weight. In other words, does he have a well-balanced body with plenty of muscling, yet look like he will be easy on calving? Several purebred breeders have said that the only question most of their customers have is "Is the bull calving ease?" These buyers typically complain that EPDs are confusing to use or that they don't work. With some basic knowledge, however, utilizing EPDs can be easy and beneficial to all cattle operations.
Typically, when a producer reports that EPDs don't work, it is usually because they selected a bull with the wrong expectations for a particular EPD. The first thing one must determine is in which direction, higher or lower, a particular trait is desired.
The following is a brief list of some EPD traits and the typical target direction for terminal production systems. Each breed association has numerous other EPDs they measure. The inclusion or exclusion of traits does not necessarily imply significance of a particular trait. However, the following list is common among most breeds and is important to consider in a terminal production system. A terminal production system does not retain and develop replacement heifers, and typically sells off the ranch to the next segment of the industry or retains ownership through the feeding phase.
Performance EPD Traits
Calving Ease, Calving Ease Direct (CE, CED): A high CE score will indicate less potential for dystocia or calving problems. This trait takes into account both calf birth weight and calving score data, which ranges from one to four. The higher the value, the better. Use this EPD instead of just the birth weight EPD since it takes into account other factors such as frame size of the calf and relative difficulty of the calving process.
Birth Weight (BW): Lower numbers are more desirable. Birth weight EPD is an indicator trait in pounds of calving ease in heifers. The differences between two bull BW EPDs is the average expectation of difference in pounds of calf weight. The genetic relationship between birth weight and calving ease is high (0.76); however, it is not perfect. This is the reason CE is a better indicator for calving ease than birth weight.
Weaning Weight (WW): Typically for most terminal production systems, a higher value is more desirable. A production system developing and retaining its own replacements would typically want to moderate this trait. This indicator is measured in pounds and is an indication of the sire's ability to pass on weaning growth to his offspring.
Yearling Weight (YW): Typically for most terminal production systems, a higher value is more desirable. However, a production system developing and retaining its own replacements would typically want to moderate this trait. This indicator is measured in pounds and is an indication of the sire's ability to pass on growth between weaning and a year of age to his offspring.
Carcass EPD Traits
Marbling (Marb): This is the difference between marbling scores of progeny for one sire compared to another. Typically, a higher Marb EPD value is more desirable in a terminal production system.
Fat Thickness (Fat, BF): This is the measure, in inches, of the 12th rib external fat difference from one sire compared to another. Typically, a moderate value is better, depending on the breed of choice.
Ribeye Area (RE): This trait is measured in square inches and is the difference in ribeye area of a sire's offspring relative to another sire of the same breed. Smaller-framed breeds would benefit from larger values, while larger continental breeds will want to moderate this trait but remain above breed average.
EPD values are not directly comparable across breeds. However, across-breed EPD adjustments can be made to compare a particular bull in one breed to another bull in a different breed.
Remember, single trait selection is dangerous and can have unintended consequences. Furthermore, recognize that selection for extremes in a specific direction for any trait can change mature cow size or production efficiency over time. Select multiple traits that have economic significance for your operation, and develop a plan to use them to meet market goals of the ranch.
Drover's Cattle Network
Surprisingly, I still find that many producers do not use expected progeny differences (EPDs) as a primary selection tool for their bull. Many select their next herd bull based only on physical appearance or a perceived ability to perform, or low birth weight. In other words, does he have a well-balanced body with plenty of muscling, yet look like he will be easy on calving? Several purebred breeders have said that the only question most of their customers have is "Is the bull calving ease?" These buyers typically complain that EPDs are confusing to use or that they don't work. With some basic knowledge, however, utilizing EPDs can be easy and beneficial to all cattle operations.
Typically, when a producer reports that EPDs don't work, it is usually because they selected a bull with the wrong expectations for a particular EPD. The first thing one must determine is in which direction, higher or lower, a particular trait is desired.
The following is a brief list of some EPD traits and the typical target direction for terminal production systems. Each breed association has numerous other EPDs they measure. The inclusion or exclusion of traits does not necessarily imply significance of a particular trait. However, the following list is common among most breeds and is important to consider in a terminal production system. A terminal production system does not retain and develop replacement heifers, and typically sells off the ranch to the next segment of the industry or retains ownership through the feeding phase.
Performance EPD Traits
Calving Ease, Calving Ease Direct (CE, CED): A high CE score will indicate less potential for dystocia or calving problems. This trait takes into account both calf birth weight and calving score data, which ranges from one to four. The higher the value, the better. Use this EPD instead of just the birth weight EPD since it takes into account other factors such as frame size of the calf and relative difficulty of the calving process.
Birth Weight (BW): Lower numbers are more desirable. Birth weight EPD is an indicator trait in pounds of calving ease in heifers. The differences between two bull BW EPDs is the average expectation of difference in pounds of calf weight. The genetic relationship between birth weight and calving ease is high (0.76); however, it is not perfect. This is the reason CE is a better indicator for calving ease than birth weight.
Weaning Weight (WW): Typically for most terminal production systems, a higher value is more desirable. A production system developing and retaining its own replacements would typically want to moderate this trait. This indicator is measured in pounds and is an indication of the sire's ability to pass on weaning growth to his offspring.
Yearling Weight (YW): Typically for most terminal production systems, a higher value is more desirable. However, a production system developing and retaining its own replacements would typically want to moderate this trait. This indicator is measured in pounds and is an indication of the sire's ability to pass on growth between weaning and a year of age to his offspring.
Carcass EPD Traits
Marbling (Marb): This is the difference between marbling scores of progeny for one sire compared to another. Typically, a higher Marb EPD value is more desirable in a terminal production system.
Fat Thickness (Fat, BF): This is the measure, in inches, of the 12th rib external fat difference from one sire compared to another. Typically, a moderate value is better, depending on the breed of choice.
Ribeye Area (RE): This trait is measured in square inches and is the difference in ribeye area of a sire's offspring relative to another sire of the same breed. Smaller-framed breeds would benefit from larger values, while larger continental breeds will want to moderate this trait but remain above breed average.
EPD values are not directly comparable across breeds. However, across-breed EPD adjustments can be made to compare a particular bull in one breed to another bull in a different breed.
Remember, single trait selection is dangerous and can have unintended consequences. Furthermore, recognize that selection for extremes in a specific direction for any trait can change mature cow size or production efficiency over time. Select multiple traits that have economic significance for your operation, and develop a plan to use them to meet market goals of the ranch.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Preparing the beef calf for weaning
Russ Daly, South Dakota State University Extension | Updated: 08/05/2014
Drover's Cattle Network
One fact on which cattlemen, veterinarians, and animal scientists can agree is that of all the events in most calves’ lives, weaning is the most stressful of them all. If a calf can weather this stress unscathed, they have cleared a major hurdle to a productive future in the feedlot or as a replacement in the breeding herd.
Prolonged stress in a calf’s life results in elevated levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, in his bloodstream. High cortisol levels affect many parts of the immune system. The reproductive capability for lymphocytes -- the white blood cells that produce antibodies or kill infected body cells -- becomes limited. Activity of lung macrophages – the white blood cells that engulf germs in the depths of the lungs – is reduced. The immune response shifts away from actions that combat viral infections.
In other words, a calf undergoing prolonged stress is now more susceptible to bacteria and viruses that previously were not problems. Add in the effects of low energy intake and dehydration due to feed and water disruptions, and the physical conditions are just right for illnesses like shipping fever (Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex).
Preparing a calf for weaning can therefore be broken into two different goals: reducing stress and preparing the immune system for what stress might still occur.
While stress reduction at weaning is usually thought of in terms of the actual weaning process itself, how the calf is treated pre-weaning can also help. Making sure stressful procedures are completed well before weaning is an example. Three to four weeks prior to weaning is a good time to work cattle in preparation for weaning. This allows the calf to recover from stressful procedures before the next stress – weaning – occurs.
If not yet done, bull calves should be castrated at pre-weaning processing. The calf benefits the most when castration is performed as early as possible: shortly after birth or at branding time is better than waiting until pre-weaning. Likewise, if calves need to be dehorned, it should be done at pre-weaning processing time. This timing allows enough time for healing prior to weaning. In addition, the stress of the procedures is diminished when the calf can reunite with his mother.
Castration and dehorning are less stressful at pre-weaning time compared to at weaning. Stresses are considered additive: cortisol levels are higher and take longer to recover when multiple stressful events (like castration plus dehorning plus weaning) occur at once. An increasing number of veterinarians are addressing pain relief and prevention as additional measures to combat stress. Lidocaine nerve blocks and anti-inflammatory medications in conjunction with castration and dehorning are examples.
Even when we do everything in our power to eliminate stress on calves, these animals will still face some stress and immune suppression in the days to come. For those reasons, it’s necessary to bolster the immune system through vaccinations.
The three-to four week interval prior to weaning will afford calves enough time to respond to vaccines such as those against respiratory viruses (e.g. IBR, BRSV, BVDV, and PI-3) and bacteria (e.g. Mannheimia hemolytica). This is especially true when calves have had previous vaccinations (at branding or turnout time, for example). When a calf sees a vaccine for the second time (compared to the first time), the immune response is quicker and stronger. If pre-weaning processing is the time of first vaccination, it may be necessary to provide a booster dose around the time of weaning.
The choice of pre-weaning vaccines should be discussed with a veterinarian. Some modified-live vaccines will caution against vaccinating calves nursing pregnant mothers if the mothers have not been recently vaccinated. While most veterinarians have not noted problems with this practice, every operation and situation is different, so veterinary input is important.
The timing of pre-weaning processing may also be good for other procedures such as implanting and deworming, especially when calves will be weaned and backgrounded at home. Regardless of whether calves will be kept or marketed, reducing stress and preparing the immune system prior to weaning are things we can control and will result in a healthy transition through weaning.
Drover's Cattle Network
One fact on which cattlemen, veterinarians, and animal scientists can agree is that of all the events in most calves’ lives, weaning is the most stressful of them all. If a calf can weather this stress unscathed, they have cleared a major hurdle to a productive future in the feedlot or as a replacement in the breeding herd.
Prolonged stress in a calf’s life results in elevated levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, in his bloodstream. High cortisol levels affect many parts of the immune system. The reproductive capability for lymphocytes -- the white blood cells that produce antibodies or kill infected body cells -- becomes limited. Activity of lung macrophages – the white blood cells that engulf germs in the depths of the lungs – is reduced. The immune response shifts away from actions that combat viral infections.
In other words, a calf undergoing prolonged stress is now more susceptible to bacteria and viruses that previously were not problems. Add in the effects of low energy intake and dehydration due to feed and water disruptions, and the physical conditions are just right for illnesses like shipping fever (Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex).
Preparing a calf for weaning can therefore be broken into two different goals: reducing stress and preparing the immune system for what stress might still occur.
While stress reduction at weaning is usually thought of in terms of the actual weaning process itself, how the calf is treated pre-weaning can also help. Making sure stressful procedures are completed well before weaning is an example. Three to four weeks prior to weaning is a good time to work cattle in preparation for weaning. This allows the calf to recover from stressful procedures before the next stress – weaning – occurs.
If not yet done, bull calves should be castrated at pre-weaning processing. The calf benefits the most when castration is performed as early as possible: shortly after birth or at branding time is better than waiting until pre-weaning. Likewise, if calves need to be dehorned, it should be done at pre-weaning processing time. This timing allows enough time for healing prior to weaning. In addition, the stress of the procedures is diminished when the calf can reunite with his mother.
Castration and dehorning are less stressful at pre-weaning time compared to at weaning. Stresses are considered additive: cortisol levels are higher and take longer to recover when multiple stressful events (like castration plus dehorning plus weaning) occur at once. An increasing number of veterinarians are addressing pain relief and prevention as additional measures to combat stress. Lidocaine nerve blocks and anti-inflammatory medications in conjunction with castration and dehorning are examples.
Even when we do everything in our power to eliminate stress on calves, these animals will still face some stress and immune suppression in the days to come. For those reasons, it’s necessary to bolster the immune system through vaccinations.
The three-to four week interval prior to weaning will afford calves enough time to respond to vaccines such as those against respiratory viruses (e.g. IBR, BRSV, BVDV, and PI-3) and bacteria (e.g. Mannheimia hemolytica). This is especially true when calves have had previous vaccinations (at branding or turnout time, for example). When a calf sees a vaccine for the second time (compared to the first time), the immune response is quicker and stronger. If pre-weaning processing is the time of first vaccination, it may be necessary to provide a booster dose around the time of weaning.
The choice of pre-weaning vaccines should be discussed with a veterinarian. Some modified-live vaccines will caution against vaccinating calves nursing pregnant mothers if the mothers have not been recently vaccinated. While most veterinarians have not noted problems with this practice, every operation and situation is different, so veterinary input is important.
The timing of pre-weaning processing may also be good for other procedures such as implanting and deworming, especially when calves will be weaned and backgrounded at home. Regardless of whether calves will be kept or marketed, reducing stress and preparing the immune system prior to weaning are things we can control and will result in a healthy transition through weaning.
Friday, August 1, 2014
No Advantage To Late Cattle Castration; Is Chemical Castration An Option?
It’s always better for the calf buyer if the calves are steers rather than young bulls. Daryl Meyer, a practicing DVM in North Platte, NE, reminds stockmen they need to remember that the next owner is a customer. “You want the customer to be happy with what you’re selling.”
Mark Hilton, a Purdue University DVM, says people who buy bull calves, even at a discounted price, aren’t getting a good deal. “They’re making less money than if they had bought steers, and good research backs this up. There are setbacks in growth – and health risks – if calves are castrated late. The health is better, carcass quality is better, welfare of the calf is better, and profit for the feedlot is better, with early castration,” he says.
He adds that the notion of better gains on calves as bulls because of testosterone is a fallacy. “Studies show that a calf must be about 40 weeks of age before he gets a boost from testosterone, and that’s 10 months! It’s not enough reason to leave them as bulls, and it’s not fair to that animal to castrate that late,” he says.
There is no excuse for waiting, unless you intended for them to be bulls and then decide to make steers of the bottom end of the group. “There should be more incentive to producers to do it early. Bull calves are not discounted enough at market,” Hilton says.
“But we can’t just look at dollars. If you are selling a 500-lb. calf, instead of looking at money you lost because he’s a bull rather than a steer, you should consider the calf and realize that you did wrong for that calf – and the buyer who has to take the risk.”
Meanwhile, the buyer is making a mistake, too, thinking the 500-lb. calf is a bargain because it’s discounted $5/cwt. “Bull calves should be discounted at least $10/cwt.,” Hilton says.
Of course, discounts between bulls and steers vary by region, but there’s always a discount. “By the time he is 500 lbs., a bull calf will be about 30 lbs. heavier than if he’d been castrated and not implanted as a baby,” Meyer says. “It would be logical to assume that if you castrate and implant the calf when he’s young, he’ll be the same size as a non-castrated calf, and worth more per pound. Plus, he’s undergone a lot less stress, and with a little implant in the ear, he’ll weigh just as much as the intact male at 500 lbs.”
Castration at this stage of growth, no matter the method, will set big calves back for a while in growth. “Even though you buy them at a discount, you’re losing days of weight gain,” Meyer says. Plus, it’s more stressful on the calf the later that castration is performed, and more potential of bleeding and infections.
Castrating calves late always entails more risk, Hilton adds. He had a client last year who got into a problem because of weather. “He was planting corn when he ordinarily would be working calves, and then harvest was late. This affected his weaning date, and he didn’t get calves castrated or vaccinated before weaning.
“In November, when he put the calves through the chute for their first vaccination, he castrated them at that time – at 500-600 lbs. He put them back on pasture with their mothers, on poor fall pasture. He weighed the calves at initial vaccination/castration, and again two weeks later when he gave final vaccinations and weaned them. The average calf had gained nothing during that period,” Hilton says.
In addition, about 35% of those calves came down with bovine respiratory disease (BRD) after weaning. “The vaccines didn’t work because the calves’ immune systems were compromised by inadequate nutrition, stress of castration, weaning, etc. It takes protein and energy for the body to heal, so castration was one more challenge.”
He says that had those calves been castrated earlier in life, they wouldn’t have undergone the additional stress at weaning and might not have had as much problem with BRD. “This was an example of the compounding effects we see time and again with disease problems. Many small negatives lead to a big problem,” he says.
Hormonal castration
There’s renewed interest today in hormonal castration as a way of eliminating some of the potential issues with pain, infection, etc. It’s not a new concept. Hilton recalls one such product being available in the U.S. several decades ago. “I was in private practice when Chem-Cast® came out, about 30 years ago,” says Hilton. "We used it in some herds and it worked, but it never caught on across the industry,” he says.
David Rethorst, a DVM and director of outreach for Kansas State University’s (KSU) Beef Cattle Institute, says the injections didn’t provide consistent results. “It didn’t work as well as people had hoped, and that product was taken off the market,” he says.
Jerry Reeves, who retired from Washington State University as emeritus professor in 2008, says there’s currently a vaccine being used in Brazil for pigs, and a cattle product recently debuted in the same market. He says the vaccine alters the cascade of events in hormone production necessary for reproduction.
Under normal conditions, the hypothalamus in the brain produces GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone), which acts on the pituitary to release LH (leutenizing hormone) and FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone). These act on the testes to produce testosterone and create spermatogenesis, and on the ovary to produce estrogen and create follicular development. The hormonal vaccine alters this sequence by blocking GnRH, and is effective on all mammalian species, and in both sexes.
“Before I retired from WSU, one of my graduate students, Jennifer Hernandez, did a study with me in Brazil in 2003. We vaccinated one group of bulls, castrated another group, and left a third group intact. The vaccine was 95% effective in the vaccinated group,” Reeves reports.
Rethorst hopes to conduct trials with the vaccine, but gaining clearance for use in the U.S. may be a hurdle. “I think we can do it, but part of our concern is consumer acceptance and human safety. When Europeans started using a similar product, they encountered consumer opposition,” he says.
“The vaccine is a monoclonal antibody against natural hormones. It is a manmade antibody, and people in Europe didn’t want meat from an animal that had been injected with this antibody. Due to consumer resistance, the vaccine currently isn’t being used very much over there,” he explains.
“The main concern we’ve had is safety and handling issues. This vaccine works in all mammals. There is risk of accidental injection, or risk of it falling into the wrong hands and someone intentionally injecting another human. We need a product like this, but the challenge is to figure out how to come up with one that is specific for cattle and more foolproof,” Rethorst adds.
“Here at KSU we hope to do a project but that plan is on hold as we try to decide how to approach it,” he says.
Another problem with vaccines is none are 100% reliable. There are always some animals that, for whatever reason, don’t mount an adequate immune response. “A problem with using a sterilization vaccine is that you want it to be 100% sure, and it won’t be. Some animals just don’t have the immune system to make it work,” Reeves explains.
“The vaccine is beneficial to ranchers in Brazil because they raise bulls on grass until they are three years old and then slaughter them. They’d like to castrate at two years, after getting the benefit of growth from testosterone – since they can’t use growth implants. Then – after using immunocastration – by three years of age the meat would be more like that of a steer. They don’t want to cut or band two-year-old bulls. Not only is there more risk for bleeding, infection and complications when castrating mature bulls, but in Brazil there are also screwworms,” he says. The vaccine would be a solution to that problem.
“The concept is appealing, and with pressure on the U.S. livestock industry from animal welfare and human groups to use analgesia for pain management, there may be more interest in this vaccine. It’s easier to use a pocket knife, but if someday we have to use anesthetic to castrate calves surgically, it becomes more complicated and expensive. The drawback to immunization is that it takes two shots – a primary vaccination and a booster. Some people may not be able to run the animals through twice,” Reeves adds.
“Brazilians can’t use growth implants and are interested in the vaccine – for both males and females. They can’t use MGA in feed, or hormones. They have to raise beef naturally and are starting to feed heifers in feedlots. The heifers are cycling, and this creates a challenge. The Brazilians are excited about the vaccine to keep heifers from cycling and prevent stress and bruising.” The heifers gain better if they are not constantly riding one another.
Reeves says there are indications that the vaccine product works well in Bos indicus cattle, but not as well in Bos taurus. This makes sense, as Bos indicus cattle have more disease resistance – a stronger immune system – and the vaccine works because of how well they are able to build an antibody. He adds that the immune system is always stronger in a crossbred animal, and especially strong in the Bos indicus Nelore cattle in Brazil.
Heather Smith Thomas is a freelance writer and rancher based in Salmon, ID.
David Rethorst, a DVM and director of outreach for Kansas State University’s (KSU) Beef Cattle Institute, says the injections didn’t provide consistent results. “It didn’t work as well as people had hoped, and that product was taken off the market,” he says.
Jerry Reeves, who retired from Washington State University as emeritus professor in 2008, says there’s currently a vaccine being used in Brazil for pigs, and a cattle product recently debuted in the same market. He says the vaccine alters the cascade of events in hormone production necessary for reproduction.
Under normal conditions, the hypothalamus in the brain produces GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone), which acts on the pituitary to release LH (leutenizing hormone) and FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone). These act on the testes to produce testosterone and create spermatogenesis, and on the ovary to produce estrogen and create follicular development. The hormonal vaccine alters this sequence by blocking GnRH, and is effective on all mammalian species, and in both sexes.
“Before I retired from WSU, one of my graduate students, Jennifer Hernandez, did a study with me in Brazil in 2003. We vaccinated one group of bulls, castrated another group, and left a third group intact. The vaccine was 95% effective in the vaccinated group,” Reeves reports.
Rethorst hopes to conduct trials with the vaccine, but gaining clearance for use in the U.S. may be a hurdle. “I think we can do it, but part of our concern is consumer acceptance and human safety. When Europeans started using a similar product, they encountered consumer opposition,” he says.
“The vaccine is a monoclonal antibody against natural hormones. It is a manmade antibody, and people in Europe didn’t want meat from an animal that had been injected with this antibody. Due to consumer resistance, the vaccine currently isn’t being used very much over there,” he explains.
“The main concern we’ve had is safety and handling issues. This vaccine works in all mammals. There is risk of accidental injection, or risk of it falling into the wrong hands and someone intentionally injecting another human. We need a product like this, but the challenge is to figure out how to come up with one that is specific for cattle and more foolproof,” Rethorst adds.
“Here at KSU we hope to do a project but that plan is on hold as we try to decide how to approach it,” he says.
Another problem with vaccines is none are 100% reliable. There are always some animals that, for whatever reason, don’t mount an adequate immune response. “A problem with using a sterilization vaccine is that you want it to be 100% sure, and it won’t be. Some animals just don’t have the immune system to make it work,” Reeves explains.
What's The Best Time To Castrate Calves? Vets Say The Earlier, The Better
The key to effective and minimally painful castration is to do it early in life. Here’s a rundown on timing, tools and techniques.
The key to effective and minimally painful castration is to do it early in life. Here’s a rundown on timing, tools and techniques.
“The concept is appealing, and with pressure on the U.S. livestock industry from animal welfare and human groups to use analgesia for pain management, there may be more interest in this vaccine. It’s easier to use a pocket knife, but if someday we have to use anesthetic to castrate calves surgically, it becomes more complicated and expensive. The drawback to immunization is that it takes two shots – a primary vaccination and a booster. Some people may not be able to run the animals through twice,” Reeves adds.
“Brazilians can’t use growth implants and are interested in the vaccine – for both males and females. They can’t use MGA in feed, or hormones. They have to raise beef naturally and are starting to feed heifers in feedlots. The heifers are cycling, and this creates a challenge. The Brazilians are excited about the vaccine to keep heifers from cycling and prevent stress and bruising.” The heifers gain better if they are not constantly riding one another.
Reeves says there are indications that the vaccine product works well in Bos indicus cattle, but not as well in Bos taurus. This makes sense, as Bos indicus cattle have more disease resistance – a stronger immune system – and the vaccine works because of how well they are able to build an antibody. He adds that the immune system is always stronger in a crossbred animal, and especially strong in the Bos indicus Nelore cattle in Brazil.
Heather Smith Thomas is a freelance writer and rancher based in Salmon, ID.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)