By Jacques Fuselier, DVM, DACT, DABVP, Technical Services Manager, Merck Animal Health

There is no doubt that the weaning process is a stressful part of a calf’s life. There are several things we can do to lessen the severity and duration of stress, which also helps decrease the risk of calves getting sick when shipped. These protocols also can increase the value of your calves.

Rethink abrupt weaning

It’s been well documented that abrupt weaning causes stress, which results in reduced function of the calf’s immune system and impaired ability to fight disease. Cortisol, which naturally releases under stressful conditions, suppresses the immune system. White blood cells – called neutrophils – are the first line of defense against disease yet their functions are decreased for the first 7 days post weaning. If the calf is vaccinated during this time, its ability to respond properly to a vaccine is limited.

Vaccinate preweaning

A better option is to vaccinate calves 4 to 6 weeks prior to weaning. This allows the calf’s immune system to appropriately respond to the vaccine while on their cow, plus provides time prior to their next vaccination, which likely will occur when they arrive at a backgrounder or feedlot. It’s good to discuss vaccine protocols with your veterinarian and make a plan based on your operation’s goals, where the calves are headed post weaning and the disease risk in your area.

PrimeVAC™ by Merck Animal Health focuses on respiratory and clostridial vaccinations, as well as protection against internal parasites. Both injection and intranasal vaccines can be considered with intranasal options providing an extra layer of safety while still providing the benefit of a modified-live vaccine immune response.

Creep feed and water training

Nutrition is the building block of health and performance. Providing creep feed – formulated based on the calf’s life stage – helps get them used to eating on their own and prepares the rumen for the next stage.

Fresh, clean and cool water supplied via a water trough or automatic waterer versus water on the ground helps improve health and performance. Incorporating water training techniques where calves learn where the water trough is located and how to use it prior to weaning is helpful.

Proper deworming

Calves with subclinical worm infections can have decreased feed intake, feed efficiency and poor immune response to vaccines. Deworming preweaned calves on pasture doesn’t require gathering and processing cattle, and can be highly effective. Using creep feed and feed-through forms of Safe-Guard^® (fenbendazole) require relatively little time and labor.

Implants

If retaining any ownership or selling and/or trying to get gains on calves pre and post weaning, then giving an implant preweaning is very beneficial.

Low stress cattle handling

There are lots of resources on low stress cattle handling. Temperament impacts the health and performance of animals. If calves have been handled using low stress methods and learned to be comfortable around people, they will go on to be calmer in the next phase. 

Developing a group of calves properly and preparing them for the weaning stage can help to minimize disease outbreaks and maximize profits. Administering vaccines and dewormers in the least stressful times – and incorporating good nutrition and handling protocols – sets calves up for success in the backgrounder or feedlot stage.

To learn more, contact your veterinarian and visit MAHCattle.com.

By Eric Bailey for Cattlemen's News

A beef calf is going to encounter many stressful events during its time on Earth. Many of the stressors occur around weaning. Weaning, the transition from farm/ranch of origin to a new environment, and change in diet are some of the important ones. Let’s discuss setting calves up for success as they transition from forage and milk to a new diet.

I am not aware of data about the impact of pre-weaning supplementation (creep feed or to the cows while giving calves a chance at the supplement as well) on feed intake post-weaning.  However, it is intuitive that calves might learn from more experienced animals. Some folks will put older cattle in pens with new calves. One reason is to help calm the animals. Another important reason is to teach new calves where feed and water are. 

The best feed to start these calves on is what they know how to eat, forage. High-quality grass hay is something I will always start cattle on. When I receive cattle, I like to give them only hay on the first day. While they may not eat much, at least it is something familiar. Calmly herd the calves towards bunks until most of them figure out where the feed is. You can also bunk a portable bunk perpendicular to the main bunk line. In my experience, the portable bunk will help break the flow of calves pacing around the pens and allow them to run into the feed. 

If I’m working with unfamiliar or just weaned calves, I will take a few days to adapt cattle to the new diet they’re going to be fed. Feed the calves a little hay in the bunk along with the supplement for a few days. I like to tell folks to feed half a percent of their body weight in hay. On day two, feed half a percent of body weight in the new feed as well. The important part is to put the new feed at the bottom of the bunk. Then put the hay over it. Let them eat down into the new feed, rather than pick through the new feed to get to the familiar one. Each day they clean it up, increase the new feed by a pound per head while maintaining the hay offered at half a percent of body weight.  Sometime after day 3, put the hay on the bottom and the grain on top. Eliminate the bunk hay by day seven.

Do not fret about being precise with hay offered during adaptation. If all you have is small square bales, just estimate the weight. This is one case where my preferences differ with common practice in Missouri. Many folks will offer unrestricted access to round bale hay and feed a supplement in the bunk. Free-choice hay is the most convenient (and for many, the only option), and I acknowledge that. However, most people are going to feed 3-5 lb of supplement to the calves each day. In this system, forage quality is going to determine the weight gain of the calves. Feed the best hay you have to the calves for optimum performance if you’re doing free choice hay and supplement. 

My best advice to cattlemen is to spread stressful events out over time. Castrate bull calves well before weaning, if at all possible. Wean calves and keep at home for a while before sale. Give the calves a chance to adapt to new feeds and invest the time to ensure that calves learn the new feeding system. The first few days are critical, and research shows that the eager consumption of new feeds is not automatic. Your industry and your pocketbook will thank you for giving the calves a leg up as they enter the marketing and cattle feeding system. If you have any questions or follow up, send me an email at baileyeric@missouri.edu.

By Justin Sexten for Cattlemen's News

Recent food marketing campaigns brought beef cattle diets back to the top of social media discussions. We know the marketing efforts surrounding what cattle eat is certainly not new to the consumer, as a quick trip through any meat case highlights the continual efforts made to differentiate beef as well as the other proteins based on the diet consumed in addition to a host of other management aspects. Beef with a side of adjectives is not limited to the grocery, food service menus are just as descriptive.

We know cattle diets influence end product quality as well as production efficiency. In general corn-fed cattle produce beef with higher quality grades while grass-fed cattle produce a leaner product. Grain feeding is more efficient than grass finishing due increased energy density and less energy losses associated with fermentation.

In my observation, the debate around methane outside the beef industry fails to recognize methane production represents a loss of energy to fermentation, ranging from 2-12% of the total energy potential of the diet. Wouldn’t most cattlemen consider an alternative production practice that improved energy availability of the diet? The beef industry is constantly evaluating viable opportunities to reduce methane production and capture more of this potential energy, this occurs independent of the politics and marketing surrounding climate change.

There are countless factors beyond diet and fermentation products influencing the efficiency of forage and feed nutrient conversion into muscle and fat. A recent paper in the Journal of Animal Science by Ira Parsons and his Texas A&M co-workers used growing cattle fed a grain-based finishing diet to look at the relationship between feed consumption patterns and feed conversion.

Cattle and the related behaviors were sorted into one of three residual feed intake groups, for ease of reading we will call these efficient, neutral and inefficient and focus on the differences between efficient and inefficient. For context the efficient group consumed 20.3 lbs of dry matter / day and converted at 5.3 while the inefficient group ate 24.2 lbs / day and converted at 6.5.

The efficient steers visited the bunk less often and consumed 1.2 less “meals” each day. In addition to fewer bunk visits, efficient cattle spent less time at the bunk, a total of 11.5 minutes less each day.  Spend much time at a feedyard and it doesn’t take long to hear the concern from cattle feeders that low intake cattle don’t perform as well. In this report there were no differences in gain despite lower feed intake and less time spent eating by the efficient cattle.

The authors suggested the comparable gains may be attributed to the efficient cattle having less energy lost as heat due to the combined effects of reduced feed intake and fewer meals. The inefficient cattle may have consumed more total energy but lost more energy as heat due to digestion of larger meals more often.

One assumption we make in feeding experiments is the diet fed and the diet consumed are the same. In this experiment the efficient cattle took 5.6 minutes longer to approach the bunk after the feed truck dropped feed. Perhaps the inefficient cattle consume more roughage after feed delivery leaving more grain for the later arriving efficient cattle? This is one aspect we cannot sort out in a pen feeding experiment, but knowing there are behavioral differences associated with eating, opens up the possibility of individual animal feed consumption preferences.

Another theory suggested to outline how lower feed intake and similar performance was achieved was related to improved “rumen health”. This trial didn’t test rumen pH to monitor digestive health but the experiment did report inefficient cattle having more variable feed consumption patterns.

Combine greater feed intake with variable consumption patterns and the possibility of rumen upset may also increase. No health differences such as bloat or acidosis were reported suggesting the difference in efficiency could have been caused by suboptimal fermentation rather than rumen upset. This research highlights how animal differences in feed intake patterns may affect performance and serves as a reminder to feeders that we should work to ensure consistency in feed mixing and delivery so we do not compound these challenges.

The knowledge base around feeding behavior and the relationships to performance and efficiency continues to expand. As technology advances, our ability to monitor behavior in a normal feeding environment will help determine if efficiency causes the behavior or the behavior makes cattle more efficient. Further discoveries looking at what and how cattle eat will offer cattlemen selection and management opportunities to improve efficiency.

By. B. Lynn Gordon for Cattlemen's News

If we have learned anything from COVID-19, it is that we need to be nimble and creative. As the world shifted into “quarantine”, the way we did business changed. It forced many to uproot their traditional business model and find ways to adapt. For young men and women who want to be involved in production agriculture, it requires being agile and innovative as well.

The 2017 USDA Census data reported 3.4 million producers, a 6.9% increase over 2012 as more farms reported multiple individuals involved in farm decision making. The complexity of agriculture is demanding a more diverse and broader knowledge base. It is nearly impossible for one individual to be an expert in operating a farming business.

Besides, how does a producer enter the business when the capital investment needed is daunting. The average U.S. farm acre sells for $3,140 and in Missouri, it is even higher at $3,700 per acre. All land values, whether for crop or pasture, continue to increase, also impacting higher cash rentals; meanwhile, record commodity prices have eroded. Young men and women seeking to develop an agricultural enterprise, have not had enough time or opportunity to build the capital needed nor are they able to start with the scale of operation to result in a profit, that provides a viable living.

“Their biggest fear entering the business is the debt load and understanding the dollar value associated with the debt load,” said Lori Tonak, a farm and ranch management advisor in South Dakota. Tonak explains their fear grows even more if the individual or their spouse did not come from a farm. “When they see the financial numbers associated with the needed investment, it’s hard to wrap their thoughts around that kind of dollars,” she says. Add in the challenge to identify enough margin to have an affordable lifestyle, most young farming couples must work off the farm. The result; 20-hour days to try and make their dreams work.

Facing uncertainty

One of the greatest impacts on stress is uncertainty, says leadership expert John Maxwell. Believe it or not, failure is easier to digest than living with uncertainty because there is an ending or resolution. Building a business from the ground-up means producers are dealing with continual uncertainty, but Maxwell believes within every challenge is an opportunity to learn, grow, and lead.

A young producer I have visited with and watched start his ranching business is a testament to dealing with uncertainty by focusing on the opportunity. Here are a few things he did.

Build a team of experts. Your team may consist of a banker, nutritionist, veterinarian, financial management advisor, accountant, etc. These professionals can serve as a resource in their areas of expertise providing critical information to impact the business plan and goals. Identify team members willing to spend time working with you, that have a stake in your success. Then your role is being open and honest with them. Don’t be afraid to discuss your fears, concerns, or finances with them. You should be in this together as a team.

Seek out mentors. He not only built a professional team but sought out mentors representing additional areas of expertise applicable to goals he set for his operation, e.g. rotational grazing. These mentors were innovators who thanks to Twitter and Facebook, he can easily follow and dialogue with, even without ever meeting them face-to-face.

Don’t overlook retired producers. The agricultural community is unique. Competition is often left at the door. The older generation has great pride in agriculture and thrives on sharing their experiences and supporting the next generation. Take the time to ask questions and learn from their trials and errors.

Capitalize on opportunities. Incorporate technology into decision-making, record-keeping, and accessing new initiatives. This young producer researched ways to find partners willing to help him learn and achieve his goals. He started to run trials for a major agricultural company that was seeking to learn more about the regenerative agriculture process. By working alongside an industry leader, he was able to test out cutting-edge initiatives plus receive financial support. He could experiment with these practices, protecting his liability. If these practices were effective, he was then already further down the pipeline with methods to apply to business plan.

Get involved. Free time is limited but getting involved may prove to be more fruitful than you might think. He joined many local and regional livestock and industry organizations and started to build a network with like-minded individuals. Not only was he learning about topics and policies directly impacting his business, but he was creating a network of individuals that were also his customers. Trust is important in any relationship and when it comes time to market your calves or sell bulls, having already built a relationship with a potential customer will go a long way.

by Justin Sexten, Vice President of Strategy - Performance Livestock Analytics for Cattlemen's News

Farming and ranching simulators can be found on the digital devices of kids and adults across the country. Some suggest these games have led to a consumer's view that food pops out of the ground and can be harvested with a swipe of the finger. Coupled with the row and  vegetable crop technology showcased on social media one can easily imagine a digital farm.

Cropping systems are relatively uniform in management with straight rows, singular crops and similar management applied across the field. This consistency is often cited as the reason cropping systems are more digitized than livestock. The plant’s inability to move makes for simpler system design, note simpler not necessarily easy.

Precision farming is often focused on offering solutions to variable soil and plant conditions or minimizing labor needs. Two recent articles highlight technology advances graziers may someday implement to digitize pasture management addressing variable pasture conditions and labor needed to manage them.

Adrien Michez and Belgium co-workers reported pasture monitoring results in the Remote Sensing journal where they used several drones to quantify forage availability and quality of pastures. Forage researchers are always interested in both forage quality and quantity whereas producers tend to have different focuses depending on animal performance goals.

For grazing dairy and pasture finishing systems quality is key. In most beef cattle grazing systems the amount of forage drives stocking and grazing management decisions long before quality becomes an issue. High quality forage is of little value if there isn’t enough grass to graze, regardless the system, so the ability to quantify grazable forage is a key metric of the technology.

The drones were flown over the test pastures at solar noon to minimize the effects of shadows and the pastures were a single species, timothy, to minimize prediction variation. To implement the technology we would agree the prediction models would need to evolve to evaluate multiple forage pastures and allow for morning and evening flyovers to combine pasture and cattle checking.

The drones used in this test were off-the-shelf models fitted with common sensing equipment to demonstrate the ability to use readily available and cost effective technology. The test was successful at predicting forage height, biomass and various measures of quality. Forage availability predictions were better than some more refined manual methods such as a rising-plate meter.

Another interesting grazing focused article was a virtual fencing report from Animals by Dana Campbell and Australian co-workers who tested the eShepherd^® virtual fence’s ability to create exclusion areas to prevent grazing of an environmentally sensitive area. The concepts outlined in this report combined with the drone experiment highlights how we can integrate technology  advancements to develop actionable data driven grazing management plans.

This electronic fencing test was implemented over a 44 day grazing period in a 34.5 acre pasture. The exclusion zone was changed slightly over time to  train the animals and had an irregular boundary. The irregular boundary is significant as cattle were forced to respond to the audio cues rather than respond to a site line of exclusion. The ability to implement irregular boundaries will be key to commercial adoption of virtual fencing.

During the grazing period forage availability within the included pasture declined while the exclusion increased, suggesting the grass was greener across the virtual boundary. The cattle proved this by continually encountering the virtual fence.

Despite this increased forage availability, cattle remained outside the exclusion 99.8% of the grazing period. Additionally the cattle received a greater number of audio warnings than electrical corrections. These results suggest the cattle were responding to the cues when they did enter the exclusion area.

There were a couple animals that persisted in entering the excluded area despite the cues. I suspect regardless of the fencing type many of you will agree there is always “the one” who finds the weak link in the fencing system.

These experiments offer us a look into the future of ranch management technologies. A way to remotely monitor pasture conditions, set up exclusion areas based on forage quantity and quality and deploy a virtual fence while setting at the pasture gate. For many automated pasture allocations may not be in your immediate future however the technology is advancing.

Today grazing management is limited to permanent fences, our ability to set up temporary paddocks and moving animals when we can. Imagine the day where we set up a weekly pasture flyover, weather data are integrated, waterers are waypoints and stocking rates are adjusted by virtual fencing. What we consider a simulation today could be tomorrow's routine management.

By Eldon Cole for Cattlemen's News

Have you ever been around farmers as they discuss local, national and world events? If you have, there’s a good chance the topic of the future of agriculture comes up. It may involve “where will your food come from in 2050?” Perhaps it’s something regarding “where will ag leadership come from?”

The first thing you know there’s a real pity-party going on, and everyone questions if there’s any light at the end of the tunnel.

Even though the older generations may be skeptical, we have to admit that today’s youth will help lead the way for a bright future. They always have in the past, and they will in the future whether they’re baby boomers, millennials, Gen Xers, Gen Zers or whatever the next generation is known as.

We have great organizations that help in agricultural leadership development through 4-H, FFA, Young Cattlemen or Pork Producers, Young Farmers and Ranchers from MFA or Farm Bureau. Also, the various beef breed associations have great leadership opportunities at the state and national shows. Just think of some young people from these organizations. With their talent and enthusiasm, you’ll decide, “The sun will come up tomorrow.”

As I look around southwest Missouri I see beneficial evidence of the above programming beginning with eight-year olds entering 4-H for the first time. As they mature, they may not be directly involved in production agriculture, or they might have a small acreage and raise a few beef cattle. Several will evolve into leaders. In my early years of Extension in southwest Missouri, I helped a young boy and his family find a Hereford steer to show as a 4-Her. Recently, I read that this same boy had retired from an administrative position with Mercy in Springfield. You just never know where leaders might come from.

Missouri has an organization Agricultural Leadership of Tomorrow (A LOT) that’s been around since 1983, which takes some of these young agricultural leaders into graduate training. ALOT’s mission is “to provide advanced leadership experiences that will make a positive impact to the future of agriculture and agribusiness in Missouri and beyond.” The two-year adult leadership training is aimed at rural leaders and agricultural producers.

The alumni of ALOT is impressive with members serving on many boards of Missouri agricultural organizations. Moreover, fifteen have served in the Missouri legislature, one in U.S. Congress and five as Missouri Directors of Agriculture.

Agriculture has been and will continue to be a big part of the state’s economy. Young leaders are in demand, and it all begins in the elementary schools, moves to high school, colleges and universities and for a select few, ALOT every couple of years. A new class will be chosen beginning with the application process beginning in August for the 2021-2022 group.  For more details you may contact Kristin Perry, Bowling Green, Missouri, at 573-324-6538.

USCA Webinar Pushes For 30/14 Regulations

 By Lisa Henderson

Amid the coronavirus market meltdown, some cattle groups have begun calling on new regulations for beef packer transactions. The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) has proposed that each packing facility must purchase 30 percent of their cattle needs each week on a negotiated cash basis for delivery within 14 days.

To provide cattlemen with more information about the proposal, USCA held a webinar April 23 with Lia Biondo as host and featuring USCA vice president Justin Tupper, St. Onge, SD, and Corbitt Wall, Feeder Flash market reporter on DVAuction.

It began at a USCA meeting in Billings, MT, Tupper said. The group decided to seek “a minimum of 30% of the negotiated sales of all cattle in the plants.” Tupper said the proposal would affect every plant that is currently under mandatory price reporting regulations.

USCA chose the 30% cash trade number after research into current regional cattle marketing trends.

“When we look at the northern trade, Nebraska and Iowa, they negotiate cash sales on an average probably at least 30% or higher,” Tupper said. “But as you go south (the trade) is nowhere near 30%.”

Wall said those seeking 30/14 regulations on packers are not opposed to more negotiated cash trade, but “that’s our floor. We would love to negotiate for more than that.

Several of the larger corporate feedyards have entered into formula pricing contracts with packers, Wall said, and some of the larger yards even purchased feeding facilities from packers, which, he says, came with the understanding those packers would get the cattle from their old yards, and purchase them on a formula basis.

Those purchases “make up more than half” of the cattle purchased, Wall said. “So, if they make up more than half, it's going to be a little bit hard for us to get half of the volume. And so we just figured that at 30% negotiated trade it would be a little bit hard for the packers to resist.  It’s not much of an argument to say, we shouldn't have to negotiate for less than a third of the cattle that we buy. That seems like kind of a weak argument.”

Wall said the minimum 30% negotiated cash trade would still allow the larger corporate feedyards plenty of opportunity to market cattle through formulas.

“There’s nothing wrong with what they are doing,” Wall said. “The 30% rule gives them room to operate. It gives your guys that are on some kind of a branded program or grid program some room. And then it gives us enough room for a real robust, competitive cash market.”

Wall believes the 30/14 rule would encourage packer buyers to look at cattle and bid on cattle earlier in the week.

“You know, we're at the time now the cash sellers if they get a bid, they better damn well take it or they're not going to see those guys again for the rest of the week and probably going to get punished next week and have to sit on those cattle for longer,” he said.

Tupper said some feeders in the norther regions have told him they already sell 30% on a negotiated basis. He said increasing the negotiated trade in the south would encourage even more negotiated trade in northern yards.

“The packer has all the leverage right now,” Tupper said. “We’ve got to get that leverage pendulum moved back toward the producer somehow.”

Wall said much of the problem with current markets is the large corporate feeding companies are often not affected by market price fluctuations the same as smaller, individual operators.

“They put out orders to buy feeder cattle that will hedge, then they’ll put those cattle in the lot,” Wall said. “They then charge those cattle yardage and feed and that’s how they make their money. So those cattle are paying the feedlot’s way.”

Sales of hedged cattle in recent months have often enjoyed a wide basis – the difference between the futures price and the cash price. More incentive, Wall says, for the large corporate feeders to move cattle on formula pricing. Owners of hedged cattle are encouraged by a wide basis to sell their cattle, but that scenario hurts the cash seller, Wall says.

“They jump at the basis, which limits any opportunity you have in the cash market to gain $1. They don't really care what the feeder cattle are costing they don't really care what the fat cattle are bringing. It's all about the paper trade in the basis,” he said.

Ranchers producing feeder cattle and calves, however, need “to have real money,” Wall said, “and it’s not working for them. Many ranchers are frustrated and say as long as we continue to buy feeder cattle in a competitive market and sell fat cattle in a non-competitive market, this deal doesn’t work.”

Wall said a continuation of such a system will threaten feeder cattle demand and competition at some point.

By Justin Sexten for Cattlemen’s News

We all experience unexpected expenses from time to time. Even the best financial analytic teams suggest their past performance is no indication of the future. What we often forget when budgeting is every prediction has a confidence variation surrounding it. A good example is weather predictions. Each channel tries three times per day to predict the same thing, but I suspect each of you have a different confidence in the prediction depending on the television channel.

A recent paper in the Journal of Animal Science by Claudia Blakebrough-Hall, and her Australian co-workers, highlights some novel methods to confidently diagnose bovine respiratory disease (BRD).

The initial method for (BRD) diagnosis used in the experiment was not all that different from what you consider normal - depression, nasal discharge, or even coughing. 

There were two additional components to the visual diagnosis used in the experiment. First, a visually healthy pen mate was also pulled with each visual BRD diagnosis animal. 

Second, the initial visual BRD diagnosis was confirmed by evaluating lung damage at harvest.

Using this treatment and diagnosis “protocol” calves were sorted into five groups: healthy; visually healthy pen mate treated due to high temperature or lung sounds with no severe lung damage; visually diagnosed and treated, but no lung damage; visually healthy and untreated, but damaged lungs; and confirmed BRD due to visual symptoms accompanied by treatment and damaged lungs.

Not surprising, the calves with visual symptoms and severe lung damage were least profitable, slowest growing, and yielded the lowest quality carcasses. As expected, the greater the number of BRD treatments the poorer the cattle performed.

There were 145 calves (18%) treated at least once for BRD due to visual diagnosis, therefore 145 visually healthy pen mates were pulled for comparison. Of these randomly selected healthy appearing pen mates, 63 head, or 7.2% of all calves in the experiment, exhibited elevated temperature or lung sounds consistent with BRD when evaluated at the chute. 

This diagnosis and treatment process occurred before the calves exhibited any visual symptoms resulting in comparable growth and carcass performance to the 67.5% of cattle that remained healthy. This suggests two possible outcomes: these randomly selected calves were actually sick and responded to early treatment, or they were healthy and have a higher than normal temperature and/or noisy lungs.

The idea that over 40% of healthy appearing, randomly selected pen mates were in early stages of BRD, demonstrates an opportunity for technology using process control, animal monitoring or even health history to assist with quantifying each animal’s normal behavior patterns and potentially limiting unnecessary treatments.

The calves visually diagnosed and treated during the feeding period, who didn’t exhibit lung damage at harvest (10%), were considered a treatment success. Despite having clear lungs, these calves were unable to perform as well as healthy calves but did exceed the 6.7% of clinically ill calves who exhibiting lung damage in addition to visual symptoms.

All cattle were sourced via auction markets, so no previous health history accompanied calves at arrival. Without history, the researchers could not determine the cause of lung damage at harvest, could be from sub-clinical BRD, a previous BRD infection or a combination. A 951 pound placement weight suggests the opportunity for previous respiratory disease certainly existed.

With this in mind, there were 8.4% of the cattle who were never pulled due to visual symptoms yet showed severe lung damage at harvest. These calves were described as sub-clinical, due to lack of visual symptoms. Performance and carcass merit of the sub-clinical group was less than healthy but better than the clinically ill.

When the research team evaluated the financials there was a wide range in net returns per head due to health, -$16 for clinically ill to $127 for the healthy calves. For many of you this is not an unexpected difference. The unexpected expense the authors highlighted was the $45 per head opportunity cost of diagnosing the sub-clinical group.

 When considering technology cost and use we often consider the obvious saving or revenue opportunities. This data is an example where the unexpected opportunity lies in the middle, preventing unnecessary treatment or finding calves we didn’t know were ill. 

 Process control and advanced diagnosis technology aside, imagine a simple solution where we spend part of the $45 to prevent subclinical disease with management and vaccines and then digitally communicate health history beyond the gate.

 Justin Sexten is the V.P.of Strategy - 

Performance Livestock Analytics

By Lisa Henderson for Cattlemen’s News

If you’ve held fall-born calves over with intentions of taking them to grass, you’ve obviously watched as the coronavirus has erased much of their value. Your best option is likely to follow through with those grazing plans, and give the markets time to shake out.

“If you’ve wintered those calves you are now probably close to seeing more grass than you’ll know what to do with” says Missouri Extension Beef Specialist, Eric Bailey. “Grazing calves can be a good way of harvesting this grass.”

In normal years, calf and feeder prices reach a peak in April or early May before declining 13% to 15% by the summer slump. Market analysts and everyone else has been left scratching their heads this spring by the unprecedented reactions to the coronavirus outbreak. Seasonal patterns are out the window, yet, producers can still count on seasonal production from their grazing programs, even if the markets are volatile.

“Calves will have to deal with the summer slump in tall fescue forage systems from June 1 to September 1,” Bailey says. 

He recommends supplementing stockers with 1% of their bodyweight as a minimum while on those pastures after June 1, 2020. 

“That supplement should contain greater than 12.5% crude protein,” Bailey says. “The goal is to keep protein and energy up in the diet. Feed the lower quality forages to the cows that are not growing. Save the good forages for the calves.”

If those fall-born calves are not yet weaned, Bailey says to remember to spread stressful events out over time. 

“Weaning, castration, vaccination, transportation and significant diet changes are examples of stressful events a calf will face around weaning,” Bailey says.

He urges producers to graze the calves while feeding a supplement equaling 1% of bodyweight.

“I might increase that to 1.5% of bodyweight if the quality of the grass is poor,” Bailey says. “I would choose a supplement blend based on cost. Corn is cheap right now. A 50:50 mix of cracked corn and dried distillers’ grains would be cost effective, if you have the equipment to store and feed it.”

If pelleted feed is the only option, Bailey says to “price corn, soyhulls, wheat middlings and gluten pellets, make a third mix out of some combination. Corn should always be in it.  Gluten or middling’s should always be in it (both if they’re cheap) and then soyhulls as the third component if it is cheap. If not, either go with a three-way blend or even just a two-way blend of corn and gluten or middlings. Bottom line, it is price dependent.”

Cattle market analysts expected 2020 to bring better calf and feeder prices, largely because the January Cattle Inventory numbers were nearly 0.5% lower than in 2019. In Jan.1 inventory of feeder cattle outside feedlots was estimated at 105,000 head (0.4%) lower.

During the CattleFax “Industry Outlook” at the NCBA Cattle Industry Convention at San Antonio in early February, analysts expected increases in 2020 beef production to be consumed by 5% higher beef exports. Those expectations are obviously derailed by the black swan that is the coronavirus. 

“Producers who are grazing calves this spring and summer must pay constant attention to the markets,” says Bailey. 

 When contacted in early March, he noted the value of gain to take a 500-pound steer to a 700-pound steer is terrible. The value of gain is the difference in price between two weight categories of calves, divided by the amount of weight gained. That’s often very different than price-per-pound.

Whether agricultural markets stabilize and recover remains is up in the air, as this issue goes to press. Producers best plans are to remain flexible if possible, and continue to provide feed and care to their animals.

By Chris Hagedorn, ADM Animal Nutrition Beef Business Manager

Building a Foundation

Forage is the foundation for grazing beef cattle diets. Unfortunately, the perfect forage simply doesn’t exist even given ideal growing conditions. Depending on season and species, forage may provide sufficient energy and protein to meet brood cattle nutrient needs, yet that’s not enough for even the healthiest of animals to attain the best performance genetically possible. What’s lacking? Minerals - it’s the plain and simple facts. 

Minerals? 

Yes, minerals, and that’s more than just salt. Overall, body mineral status influences growth, reproduction, milk production and health. That’s a proven fact. These amazing elements are crucial for a myriad of body processes (see Amazing Mineral Functions). The importance of mineral nutrition cannot be overstated…without adequate mineral nutrition, production and health are compromised. The degree to which production and health are impacted will be dictated by forage mineral content/bioavailability and mineral needs based on production stage. Stress, whether it is from calving, weaning, shipping, immunological challenges or environment, places a greater demand on the body for minerals, particularly trace minerals. More often than not, mineral deficiencies go undetected because they typically are manifested in sub-clinical forms in terms of lower forage intake, slower gains, poorer feed efficiency, lower reproductive efficiency and lower immunity. One must also consider the fact that minerals interact with each other, often not in a friendly manner. Too much of a good thing (specific mineral), just might actually create a deficiency by tying-up another mineral, making it unavailable. Consequently, it’s not only the amounts, but the ratios of various minerals that must be taken into account when formulating mineral supplements.

The rumen environment also impacts mineral availability. While there are rumen microbial mineral needs, these needs are small in comparison to the amounts needed by the body. One exception is the need for cobalt by rumen microbes for synthesis of vitamin B12 (more about that later). Rumen-soluble minerals interact with other components during rumen fermentation, resulting in forms of minerals that are less available for absorption from the small intestine into the blood stream for distribution throughout the body. How well a chosen mineral supplement can fill the gap between what the forage supplies and what the animal needs will be the deciding factor impacting production and health.

 Won’t just any mineral source work?

Not really. Mineral sources vary greatly in terms of bioavailability and concentration. Sulfate, oxide and carbonate-based trace mineral sources have been the industry standard for years. Oxide forms tend to be the least bioavailable with the degree of availability varying by mineral source. Magnesium oxide can be fairly available, but availability varies tremendously, and, to add insult to injury, magnesium oxide is not palatable to cattle, creating the need to “mask” its taste. Organic (chelates, complexes, proteinates and polysaccharides) minerals offer higher bioavailability; however, the cost is substantially more. Due to cost, the use of organic minerals, namely trace minerals zinc, copper, manganese and cobalt, are limited to periods where the animal is subjected to more stress, such as calving or weaning, and often a combination of inorganic and organic trace minerals are used in the mineral supplement.

The Pay Back

Mineral supplementation pays. Return on investment can be evaluated in terms of better gains and reproductive efficiency, the ability to digest forages more thoroughly and efficiently, and better immune response. In stocker cattle an average increase of 0.1 lb average daily gain due to mineral supplementation will overcome a $6.00 per bag price difference and still provide a 3:1 return on investment, and better reproductive response in terms of conception rates also yield dividends. Don’t forget about better body condition score due to extracting more energy from available forages. Cows in better body condition have better reproductive efficiency and feed cost may be reduced as less energy supplementation is required.

The production returns for adequate and effective mineral supplementation far outweigh the cost. While cost will always be an important factor dictating mineral supplement selection, the “cheapest” product doesn’t mean it will provide the greatest economical return. Producers need to consider the following factors: 

•  Mineral sources used in the product

•  Research, formulation and manufacturing expertise backing the product

•  Consistency of product

•  Palatability

•  Consumption rate and reliability of consumption

•  Weatherization

•  Results

You really do get what you pay for. Can you afford to give your herd less than what they need? Mineral know-how is not new to ADM, with roots in mineral manufacturing (MoorMan’s®) dating back to the late 1800s. AMPT Mineral formulation and manufacturing is based on the expertise that can only be attained from a hundred plus year history of making minerals that cattlemen have relied on for decades.

By Tim Parks for Cattlemen’s News

We are upon that time of year again. The fall cattle processing has been done, hay and protein supplementation throughout the winter is still ongoing, and the heifers are calving. The cows will soon follow, and we have successfully started another production cycle in the cow-calf industry. The vaccinations that we give to our cow herd have multiple roles as we look at the health of our herd. Not only are we trying to protect the breeding females from disease, but we are also trying to set them up to be able to make high quality colostrum. We rely on the colostrum to help those newborn calves fight off clinical illness from pathogens they are exposed too early in life, but we also need to start considering what we are going to do to help these calves succeed through suckling and grazing phases until the time of weaning.

There are many different vaccination strategies utilized in our industry, but no one knows the challenges your herd will face better than your local veterinarian. Spending time with your herd veterinarian prior to spring processing, can help you to best set up your cows and calves for success in the spring and summer grazing season. Each herd is a little different in the level of disease challenge, as well as the type of disease challenges that they face. Keeping this in mind helps to formulate health programs utilizing the best types of vaccinations to meet the need. Modified live versus killed viral vaccines in the cows may be determined by the goal of the herd. Modified live vaccines tend to create a more robust immune stimulation and result in better fetal protection, specifically against Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD). However, due to timing and management schemes, herds may not be set up for safe use of modified live vaccines. There is always a little give and take when designing herd health programs so let your veterinarian help with those decisions.

When it comes to the vaccination of those calves, injectable vaccines have been the standard, realizing that the maternal antibodies that these calves received from colostrum may have an effect on the vaccine’s ability to stimulate the immune system. However, the presence of intranasal (IN) vaccines really create opportunities to stimulate the immune system of these young calves, not only to recognize an invading pathogen but also stimulate active antibody production. Recent studies have demonstrated that vaccination with Nasalgen IP, a modified live infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and PI3 intranasal vaccine, not only stimulates antibodies at the mucosal surface of the nasal cavity where the vaccine is administered, but also can stimulate the production of circulating antibodies that are still elevated at preconditioning time a few weeks prior to weaning. Being able to have these circulating antibodies present at preconditioning allows us to have a booster, or anamnestic, response when we give our preweaning vaccines that can enhance the protective levels of the calf at the time of weaning.

If summer pneumonia is a problem in your herd, the addition of Pasturella and Mannheimia vaccines can also benefit these calves. There are both parenteral and intranasal vaccines available for these pathogens, but visit with your veterinarian to select the vaccine that is going to work best in your herd. Intranasal vaccines, like Once PMH IN, create local immunity in the nasal cavity and reduce the number of needles that we put into these calves at pre-turnout vaccination. We can’t forget about clostridial diseases like Blackleg either. Coming out of extremely wet environmental conditions, clostridial spores that have been hanging out in the environment may have been disturbed and brought closer to the surface where our cattle can more easily encounter them. Pinkeye is also a concern, so be sure to take appropriate steps to reduce the chance of the negative economic impact from this disease. Vaccination against Moraxella bovis and Moraxella bovoculi, along with good pasture management and fly control can go a long way toward helping to reduce the impact of pinkeye in your herd.

There are numerous different products out there to help you with preparing your cattle for the disease challenges of summer. Work with your veterinarian to put a health program in place that has a realistic chance of helping reduce the impact of the various diseases cattle encounter. Reduction of disease, whether it be pneumonia or pinkeye, means that your calves continue to graze and continue to grow, and every pound will pay.

 Tim Parks, DVM

U.S. Beef Cattle Technical Services

Merck Animal Health

By Rebecca Mettler for Cattlemen’s News

Farm liability insurance can be a tricky topic to understand, but one that’s best not to avoid. In fact, have you reviewed your liability coverage within the last six months? Have you communicated with your insurance agent recently and asked, “Do I have insurance for—fill in the blank—risk?” The “blank” being whatever risk is unique to your operation because it’s important to understand if the farm and its activities are covered or not. 

“A lot of people will ignore their insurance until they actually file a claim, and they find out that this didn’t work right. It’s not doing what I had hoped,” said Ray Massey, agricultural business specialist, University of Missouri Extension. 

Liability insurance is one of the several types of insurance needed on a farm or ranch. General liability insurance covers the insured when the insured is legally responsible for damages to others caused by the insured entity’s negligence. 

“I meet a lot of farmers that put up some kind of land poster expressing, do not trespass, danger, or beware of dog signs. These are ways of managing some risk, but it’s probably not the only way you’d want to manage it because you might still be liable even if you have a sign posted.” 

Again, Massey reiterates the importance of asking insurance agents these specific questions relative to each producer and their unique situation. 

How much general liability insurance should you buy?

If producers are actively looking for insurance coverage, again, there could be a lot of questions surrounding the amount of coverage needed. Producers need to look at the aggerate limit, specifically the maximum amount the insurance company is willing to pay for a single accident. Then, look at the maximum amount for a term, generally one year. 

“When I talk to insurance companies and to farmers, they frequently have $1 million for a single accident and $2 million for the term. That’s very common, but is that what you should look into buying?” 

A lot of the decision making to determine the amount of coverage comes down to the value of the assets, which the farm or ranch is trying to protect in case of a lawsuit. What might be suitable coverage for one farm, may not be suitable coverage for another. Each farm or ranch is unique, so treat the operation’s liability coverage accordingly. 

Another question when considering coverage amounts is defense costs and if there were to ever be a lawsuit filed against the operation. Ask if defense costs cover inside or outside of the limits.

“Do you know how much it costs to defend yourself in a lawsuit?” said Massey. “It’s amazingly expensive.”

Discuss and review the liability coverage areas with the insurance provider. For example, when the insured is found liable and the insurance company pays the injured, coverage areas include property damage, bodily damage, and financial liability. Each category has its own limits. 

“If a person who incurs an accident doing business with you can’t work for the next month it may, or should, cover their lost wages,” said Massey. 

What’s not covered? 

Sometimes, people don’t know what’s covered under their insurance policy and assume that liability insurance covers everything, and that’s just not true.

“You’re a farmer and you happen to sell your product to a farmer’s market. Are you covered? Probably not, unless you had bought an endorsement,” Massey said. 

The same goes with custom work. If a producer is going out and doing a custom activity for someone, such as spraying chemicals, those activities are frequently excluded from normal insurance policies and aren’t covered unless specifically requested as an endorsement added to the policy. 

Say what? 

As mentioned previously, understanding liability insurance is a tricky subject to master, and there are details within the realm of liability coverage that make a person scratch their head. Trespassing is one such topic. 

“Even if someone trespasses you can have liability, but there’ll be different types of liability,” Massey said. “So, if someone came on your property unbeknownst to you, and if they get hurt while on your property, it is still a liability concern.”  

Tips for Producers

Scenarios arise that may make a person question whether they are covered under liability insurance. For example, what happens when someone hires a contractor to do work on the farm or ranch? Massey encourages producers to ask for a copy or proof of insurance each time they hire a contractor. 

“Again, when things go wrong, everybody’s going to look for as many people as possible to collect from, so when you hire a contractor, ask for proof of insurance because it will go a long way in helping you out,” said Massey.

Another topic on liability centers around the current fence law. In 2016, the fence law changed to provide producers different protection by law in some areas, which means producers should, again, assess liability. 

Bottom line, insurance companies insure their clients in different ways. The best way for producers to learn about what coverage they have versus what they need is to ask their insurance provider plenty of questions. 

By Will Gentry for Cattlemen’s News

I want to start off this topic by making myself clear that I don’t want this article to come across politically charged in anyway, but I would like to address a topic that’s become a household term over the last couple weeks - coronavirus. In the wake of this nationwide public health issue, it may sound strange, but my passion for the American beef and agricultural industries have been reignited. I want to take this opportunity to give American farmers, ranchers, and producers a well-deserved thank you! 

Over the years I have cringed listening to consumer’s concerns of antibiotics and hormones in our meat and GMO crops. The power of the media may not have ever been more apparent than over the last month. Misinformation about the improvements we have made in livestock and crop production have hurt the American producer. I want to thank our nation’s producers who have continued to pursue science-based advancements in agriculture, despite media and celebrity backlash. It is because of you that our American-made food supply is among the safest and most efficient in the world. We can produce more safe, usable beef from the carcass of one individual animal giving us the ability to feed more families than ever before. In a time where our nation’s food supply has come into question, thank you!

Thank you for weathering the undeserved media and celebrity spread of misinformation about your product. Thank you for loving what you do so much that you took the consumers’ concerns about our already incredible product and made it even better. Thank you for not backing down from developing more efficient beef producing animals with your genetic selection. Thank you for the hard work you have put in daily to make sure that our nation is fed despite often feeling attacked for your hard work. You are so incredibly appreciated. 

It’s my hope that as we restock the shelves of our supermarkets we not only choose to eat beef, but we understand just how important it is to pay a premium for those products made in the USA. By supporting American-made products we are helping to ensure our nation’s own food supply. We are making sure that the American farmer, rancher or producer receives the financial incentives to continue to expand and improve their current operations. In times like these, there should be pride in our nation’s ability to feed itself, not doubt. Be aware that by supporting imported products, you are not supporting your neighbor. Recognize the importance of product labeling for American versus imported products if not for the safety, then for who it is directly supporting. 

I am so proud to say that I was raised a part of the American beef industry. I have dedicated my career to being a part of its continued progress by helping my producers become more efficient while ensuring the health of cattle. I’m far from a market guru and have no claims on where this will take us over the next season, but I am and always will be thankful for the American cattlemen (and women!).

With viral outbreak in mind, let’s transition to those fall-born calves that will be entering the spring run. I do the majority of my work with stocker calves, and respiratory viral outbreaks happen to be the world I am most versed in. Pre-weaning vaccine programs and wean/vac programs have always been important. Premiums aside, the unvaccinated individual is entering a very high-risk period of their life. In reverence to national beef supply and demand, we owe it to these calves to set them up for success in the stocker phase they are entering. At minimum, we should be giving our calves a clostridial vaccine along with a modified live respiratory vaccine pre-weaning or at the time of weaning. In a more ideal situation, these vaccines would be boostered and producers would take advantage of the increased gains associated with the use of  implants and dewormers. 

This year’s market may look a little different, and I can’t help with much insight on that. I did, however, pull some numbers for you to mull over from 2019. The way I’m presenting this the Vac24 calf is considered to be the base(premium=0.00) for the following sets of numbers. These figures are consistent with calves from our region or similar. 

Premiums from this data from 2019 were as follows:

  Vac34 combo $2.758/cwt premium over the Vac24 

  Vac45 combo $5.974/cwt premium over Vac24 

  Vac60 combo $6.163/cwt premium over Vac24

  Vac PreCon $7.196/cwt premium over Vac24

Regardless of where the boards are, there will continue to be a premium associated with preconditioned calves. When you are marketing these individuals ensure that you are vocal about what they have received and how long they have been weaned. You put in the work, make sure it is known! Once again, a huge thank you to our producers! Eat (American made) Beef!

By Lisa Henderson for Cattlemen's News

Producers who use a fall calving program often cite improved calf health as a major advantage. Fall calving usually offers better weather conditions and improved forage grazing for the cows than late-winter or early-spring calving. Those factors usually decrease the risk of contamination and a buildup of pathogens that may infect a newborn calf.

Further, newborn calves born in the fall are less likely to be stressed due to weather. Under wet, muddy and cold conditions, calves’ energy requirements are greater and have been shown to diminish the ability of the calf to absorb colostral immunoglobulins. 

Even with those advantages, however, fall-born calves require management to maintain health. With winter approaching, Randal Spare, a veterinarian at Ashland Veterinary Center in Ashland, Kansas, says producers should, “Use a vaccination program that minimizes risk of disease for their particular geographic areas, and then also prepares calves for the next major stressor in their production cycle, which is most likely weaning.”

Sandy Johnson, a livestock specialist with K-State Extension says combating winter’s stressors starts when the calf is born.

“Making sure a calf is prepared for any winter weather stressors starts with adequate intake of high-quality colostrum from a dam that has the nutrients she needs to build good immunity and has received timely vaccinations appropriate for the region,” Johnson says. 

Calves born in September and October are less likely to experience wet and cold weather conditions common in spring calving systems. Consequently their health and survival may exceed spring-born calves.

“The beauty of fall-born calves is that they are born when cows are rarely supplemented, and the cows are in more than adequate body condition,” Spare says. “This sets the calf up to receive more than adequate levels of colostrum because it is born in a time of non-environmental stress.”

Calving in the fall allows your cows to roam to find comfortable surroundings to calve. When cows are able to find their own calving grounds, it will likely be a long distance from other cows and calves. The chances of spreading pathogens from one pair to another is greatly diminished when space is not restricted.

Healthy calves are better able to reach their growth potential, too.

“It is apparent when fall-born calves are subjected to winter or weaning stressors, they are much more likely to remain healthy and exhibit their genetic potential,” Spare says. “Using an immunization program that minimizes risk of disease for the particular geographic location and starts to set the calf up for weaning process later in the production cycle is critical.”

Even though fall calving can improve health, Spare says producers must continue to be proactive against bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), the viral disease caused by the bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), which can be transmitted in a number of ways.

“BVD management is an absolute must, no matter if spring-born or fall-born,” Spare says. “When BVD control is maintained as the cornerstone of the health management, other disease challenges are less likely to overwhelm the calf’s immune system. The cow herd manager must certainly be aware that BVD control is a three-pronged approach of testing, vaccination and biosecurity.”

Still, Spare, who works with many ranches that use fall calving, says the practice offers significant health advantages.

“If we were to look at the literature and practical experience, it is apparent that fall-born calves have less morbidity and mortality while they are on the cow than spring calving cow herds,” he says. “Because of the intentional supplementation programs for the cows, the calves are consuming the same diets as the cows and rarely are they nutritionally stressed. When these calves can eat and consume, they will not become disease challenged.”

Fall calving means your cows will be lactating during the winter, and getting ready for rebreeding. Spare says it will be critical to understand your cows’ needs and have a winter feeding plan.

“Hopefully producers have assessed their cows’ body condition scores prior to calving and have a plan to feed going forward,” he says. “Being in the middle or end of fall calving, our next production event is breeding season. From the cow’s perspective, this is the physiologic taxing time period as she is hitting peak lactation, and we are asking her to cycle quickly so that she will have the opportunity to conceive early in the breeding season.”

This time of year, Spare says, production is about knowing what forage is available to feed the cow herd.

“It is imperative to know the level of nutrient content in the stockpiled forages or in the baled forage,” he says. “By taking samples for nutrient analysis, we can know for sure what the moisture content, protein, energy and digestibility of the available feed. After knowing this, a supplement plan can be implemented to meet the cows’ nutritional needs for lactation and breeding. As the weather changes and becomes colder and or wetter, the nutritional requirements will increase.”

By Jordan Thomas 

Fetal programming is a broad term. For the most part, it refers to this idea of something that happens before birth impacting an animal after birth. Usually, we are talking about nutritional restriction during pregnancy. 

You have probably also heard the term epigenetics, which is a related concept referring to silencing or overexpression of genes. Both topics are trendy areas of research right now, but beef producers hear more about them than the average person does. 

This is because of a couple reasons. The first is that this kind of data is hard to collect in human beings, and it would be unethical to collect this kind of data in a controlled research project. Nobody would restrict nutrition of a pregnant mom in order to look at negative effects on a child. Of course, we don’t want to do that to a cow and calf either, but cattle provide an opportunity to look at this question because nutrient restriction can sometimes happen in cow-calf management systems. 

Of all of the animal agriculture industries, our industry is probably the most sensitive to environmental effects. Poultry, swine and conventional dairy are raised in somewhat controlled environments, but beef cattle go through droughts, blizzards or even seasonal periods of undernutrition. When a cow is pregnant during those events, is the calf affected? That is what fetal programming research is all about. 

We still don’t know much about fetal programming, but here is some of what we do know. First, stressful events will have different impacts depending the stage of pregnancy. That is because different parts of the fetus are developing at different stages, and also because the nutritional requirements of the cow are different based on the stage of pregnancy. 

When a cow’s nutritional requirements are high, it means it is easier for her to be in a deficit. We used to talk about the third trimester as the really critical stage of pregnancy, since nutrient requirements associated with fetal growth are highest during this time. But while those higher nutritional requirements do mean it is easier for cows to be in a deficit in the third trimester, negative effects of undernutrition exist at all stages of pregnancy. 

For example, some studies have shown negative effects on lung function if nutrient restriction occurs in early gestation, or negative effects on development of reproductive organs if nutrition occurs mid gestation. Restriction in the third trimester is most easily studied and has shown effects on growth, carcass merit and rates of puberty attainment. But overall, nutrient restriction at any stage has consequences, and probably far more consequences than have been discovered so far. 

Certainly, some strides have been made in understanding how fetal programming works. The hard part is what we actually do about it. What can you do differently in your operation to manage some of these potentially negative effects of fetal programming? The easy answer is just to say, “Always make sure you are meeting the nutritional requirements of your pregnant cows.” 

That’s simple, but as someone with a cow-calf background, I realize that is also a little too simplistic. This is really an economic question. Pouring thousands of dollars into feeding cows to maintain body condition during a drought might help you avoid those effects of fetal programming, but it might also drive you right out of the cattle business. Producers have options to avoid negative effects of fetal programming in a cost-effective way.

When I think about fetal programming and nutrient restriction, I think more about the whole management system than I do about the one specific event. Droughts happen. Variation happens. “Hundred-year floods” don’t seem to know they are supposed to happen only every hundred years, and I am not sure Missouri has ever actually got her average annual rainfall. As odd as it sounds to say, average isn’t normal; extremes are normal. That is just a part of this business. 

The question is whether your management system is capable of adapting to what Mother Nature throws at you this year. Here are my tips for a drought-tolerant system.

• Manage your forage base. The best thing you can do to have a bomb-proof management system is to manage for the maximum carrying capacity possible on your farm. To do that, you have to have a system, avoid overgrazing and be adaptable. 

• Monitor forage availability, regrowth and rainfall to quickly identify if or when the carrying capacity of your land is decreasing. Some studies have demonstrated a relationship between precipitation during gestation and performance of those calves. The forage a cow does or does not have available to her will affect her calf. 

• Know who your least profitable grazing animals are and have a plan to get them off of your farm as quickly as possible when your carrying capacity drops. That might be stockers, less profitable cows or both. Know who you will sell before you ever need to sell them, and commit to actually selling those animals at the first sign of pasture quality loss. If you are paying attention and being proactive, you will actually beat the market decline that happens during droughts.

• Have a defined breeding season and have your veterinarian pregnancy check your cows. Do it early enough that you can accurately determine fetal age and expected calving date. Your cows that have conceived late in the breeding season are by definition your less profitable cows. They will be calving late, weaning lighter calves and will be less likely to re-breed next year. If you get in a situation where you need to sell pregnant cows, those should be the first to go.

• Supplement strategically. If you can pay for it and you have a way to store commodities (bins, commodity barns, etc.), buy those feeds when the market is right and have them on hand. A sacrifice paddock, hay and supplement in July and August might be exactly the right financial move in a tough drought year. It’ll hopefully minimize any negative fetal programming of calves, and it will also give pastures time to recover. Work with your regional extension livestock specialist to make a plan.

That is how to be proactive, but what if the damage is already done? What do you do about those calves that you know went through a drought or tough spell? Not much research answers that question from a management standpoint, but again, I think it is more of an economic question. Make an informed decision, and make some choices that minimize risk. For example, growth and carcass merit can be impacted by fetal programming, so that load of steers from the drought year might be one you want to sell rather than retain ownership on all the way through finishing. Heifers may have delayed puberty. I would be especially sure to have them developed to an adequate target weight before breeding, and I would also encourage you to use a progestin-based estrus synchronization protocol (MGA or CIDR) to get them jump-started cycling. 

If you find you still can’t get a number of those heifers pregnant early in the breeding season, those heifers should become feeders. Heifers that become pregnant late in their first breeding season will fall out of the herd faster as cows, and they may not even wean enough calves to cover their development costs. Don’t let poor performance of some drought-stricken heifers compromise your standards. Keep only your early-conceiving heifers.

Nobody wants to be hit with a drought, but actively managing your herd through it has a lot of silver linings. By culling out low-performing cows, maintaining your top performers in the best condition possible, and making sure you avoid overstocking, you do far more than just minimize some of the negative effects of fetal programing. You come out the other side of the drought with a better cow herd than you started with and an opportunity to market high-quality calves as the market returns. 

—Source: Jordan Thomas is assistant extension professor, animal science, University of Missouri-Columbia. 

By Kelsey Harmon for Cattlemen's News

Winter is quickly approaching, and much needs to be done on the farm before it gets here. Jed Heilig, service manager at S&H Farm Supply weighs in on the value of properly winterizing farm equipment. 

According to Heilig, winterizing equipment is part of owning equipment. “This is an investment you’ve made for your farm to help you do the job at hand,” says Heilig. “It’s an investment that costs a lot of money and taking care of it and winterizing it will help your bottom line in the long run.”

In fact, Heilig sees firsthand the delay in productivity for farmers that have not winterized equipment come spring. “Every year, customers call me at the first sign of dry weather, and they are wanting to get in the fields for that first cutting of hay,” says Heilig. “They hook onto their hay cutter or baler, and they have a bearing out, or they have known that the clutch on their tractor has been getting weak all winter but didn’t address it during the winter.” 

Heilig lists a few common consequences he sees when farmers do not winterize equipment. He says tractors will have starting issues from low or dead batteries and running issues from not having the fuel filters changed or bad fuel. Balers will have chains and bearings damaged from not being lubed and water rusting them.

The main advantage of properly winterizing farm equipment is extending the life of the equipment. “To me, winterizing equipment to me is the same as maintenance,” says Heilig. “The better you maintain, service or winterize your equipment the longer it will last.” He notes that break downs and down time is something that farmers will not get back and adds the solid, relevant metaphor, time is money.

Heilig suggests farmers begin the process of winterizing equipment on Oct. 1 as a good rule of thumb. He highlights that usually during this time, most of the hay is already done, and the weather is starting to change. Farmers are starting to get a little relief from the hustle and bustle of summer.

Heilig recommends the following tips for winterizing farm equipment:

1

For tractors, Heilig says to check the antifreeze and ensure that it is covered for the low winter temperatures in your area. In Southwest Missouri, he says we do not typically see temperatures drop below 0 to -5 degrees. At S&H Farm Supply, they recommend antifreeze coverage at -30 to 40 degrees. Heilig also suggests running a good additive in fuel during the winter months.

2

 If farmers buy fuel in bulk, Heilig suggests having it delivered to their farm because most places already have additives in the fuel. If that is not the case, he recommends using a fuel additive to protect the fuel from jelling. Heilig says that a lot of fuel has some amount of water in it. In the cold temperatures this water gels trying to freeze, but the additive will help prevent this and help to dissipate the water. 

3

 Heilig also recommends checking tractor batteries. He explains in colder temperatures it takes more amps to start a tractor. He says farmers should check tractor belts and hoses for any cracking. He notes it is also important to protect equipment against rodents since they love chewing on wiring, and this can cause equipment failure and possibly even fire damage.

4

 Heilig advises to store equipment under a roof if at all possible. This will help protect investments against the winter elements and preserves the paint from fading. He says that when farmers begin to get equipment ready in the spring for harvest, they should raise the hoods of tractors daily and to check for bird nests. He cautions that birds will build nests on top of engines overnight, and when tractor engines gets hot it will ignite the nest and cause a fire.

For balers, Heilig suggests cleaning out any loose hay left in the baler. He explains that loose hay draws moisture, which causes rust and in turn can keep your baler from performing like it should. He says that lubing the chains well before parking it for the winter will keep the chains from rusting. Greasing the bearings will keep any moisture from getting into the bearing and causing a bearing failure when farmers begin to use it the next season.

For sprayers, Heilig suggests draining any spray left and adding some RV antifreeze to it, running the antifreeze throughout the system.

It may be tempting for farmers to buy the cheapest winterizing products, but Heilig advises using quality products, as there is a difference in performance.

5

 One last bit of advice that Heilig offers is for farmers to ask questions and to call their local dealer about proper winterization maintenance for farm equipment. “Here at S&H Farm Supply, we say, ‘service doesn’t cost, it pays’,” says Heilig. “It pays because the farmer is productive and can take care of his family, farm and livestock, rather than be broken down because of something that could have been prevented.”

By Kelsey Harmon for Cattlemen's News

Once calves are loaded on the trailer for the first time, they often travel long distances and experience changes in lifestyle. Bunk breaking calves can help prepare them and keep them healthy for the journey ahead. It also make calves more appealing to buyers. Andrew McCorkill, field specialist in livestock, and Eric Bailey, assistant professor and MU Extension state beef extension specialist, offer expert advice on the best practices for bunk breaking calves.

According to Bailey, hand-feeding supplement on pasture (multiple times a week) and confinement in a pen or barn providing feed in the bunk are two common types of bunk breaking cattle. “If you ask 100 cattlemen how they go about bunk breaking their calves, you’re likely going to get about as many unique answers,” says McCorkill. “The wise ones look for a method that keeps stress levels low and the calves healthy.”

Bailey says that bunk breaking is more than just putting out the most palatable feed possible and hoping they’ll take to eating it. It is a process of showing calves something they’re used to and introducing something new. His preferred method for bunk breaking is to put hay in the bunks when weaning calves. “For the first three days, I’ll put the new feed underneath 3 to 4 pounds of hay per head,” says Bailey. “For the next three days, I’ll put 3 to 4 pounds of the new feed on top of the hay. He says he takes the hay away on day seven and notes that ideally, the new feed is a total mixed ration. 

Bailey also highlights that bunk breaking can be used as a management tool for diagnosing sick calves. “If your calves are aggressive to the bunk (come running when you feed and all eat immediately), anything that is not rushing to get fed is worthy of closer examination.” 

McCorkill’s preferred bunk- breaking method consists of rotating the herd around so they are close to the catch pen and working facilities. He will feed the cows a little grain there, even just a few times ahead of weaning day to allow the calves to acclimate to the environment without even knowing it.

He says the creep feeding method also helps to get them used to eating feed and reduces stress on the calves at weaning. At the same time, it can be cost-prohibitive in some instances. He recommends figuring the costs before extended periods of creep feeding. 

“Most of the calves I deal with have had at least some exposure to feed prior to the dry lot, so my perspective is probably a little different from some folks,” says McCorkill. “I like to allow calves free-choice access to good, quality hay from a ring or rack and just make sure they’re all up and to the bunk and eating together.”

According to McCorkill, the placement of the bunks in the weaning pen is another aspect of importance. “Feed and water both need to be positioned in a heavier traffic area where calves will naturally find them, mostly along the fence,” says McCorkill. “It can be helpful to put a slight amount of pressure on the calves to push them towards the bunks in the beginning as well.” 

He says that some producers that handle a lot of high-risk cattle will even have one or two old, gentle steers around to turn in with a fresh set of calves and help train them.

As far as automatic waters go, “You have to assume that no calf entering your farm knows how to drink water from anything but a pond,” says Bailey. “This seems like a simple deal, but it is very important for success.” His tips are to let the waterers overflow the first day and take the balls out of the ball-top waterers. 

When it comes to calf nutrition tips during bunk breaking, McCorkill says that regardless of the operation, calves should be started on a nutrient-dense feed source as quickly as possible once they hit the weaning pen. “Going 48 hours without feed can reduce the microbial population of the gut to as low as 10% to 15% of normal levels, adding yet another hurdle to the weaning process,” says McCorkill. He recommends using good, quality forage whether it be quality grass, legume hay or haylage and a good grain-byproduct-based feed to get them off to a good start at the bunks. 

Bailey also weighs in on nutrition. “What I highly encourage is to make sure cattle are eating a minimum of 1% of body weight in supplement in a system where they have free-choice access to hay or pasture,” says Bailey. “If you’re trying to make more money by growing calves out, they need to gain 2.5 pounds per day.” 

He says that he has experienced producers holding their operations back worrying about calves getting too fleshy. “Our genetics are much better these days and we need to push calves to grow more,” says Bailey. “That’s a major low hanging fruit in generating more income from cattle operations.” He notes that if calves are getting too fleshy, it is because they’re not eating a properly balanced diet. 

“High-quality grass hay is my secret to a successful transition from pasture and milk to a total mixed ration,” says Bailey. “Young calves learn to graze from their momma early in life, and forage is the first thing the learn to eat other than milk. This happens on farms across the United States. Regardless of where the calves come from and if you put good hay out, they’re going to try to eat it.”

The last bits of advice Bailey offers are for producers to get a feeder for their pickups or UTVs and to remember that the best investment in bunk breaking calves is your time. “Take the time to handle the calves and gently coerce them toward feed for the first couple of days,” says Bailey. “That will help the stragglers take to it faster.” 

A new online tool can help farmers and ranchers find information on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm loans that may best fit their operations. USDA has launched the Farm Loan Discovery Tool as the newest feature on farmers.gov, the department’s self-service website for farmers.

“Access to credit is critical in the agriculture industry, especially for new farmers,” said Bill Northey, Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. “This new interactive tool can help farmers find information on USDA farm loans within minutes. We are working to improve our customer service, and part of our solution is through improving how farmers can work with us online.”

USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) offers a variety of loan options to help farmers finance their operations. From buying land to financing the purchase of equipment, FSA loans can help. Compared to this time last year, FSA has seen an 18 percent increase in the amount it has obligated for direct farm ownership loans, and through the 2018 Farm Bill, has increased the limits for several loan products.

USDA conducted field research in eight states, gathering input from farmers and FSA farm loan staff to better understand their needs and challenges.

How the Tool Works

Farmers who are looking for financing options to operate a farm or buy land can answer a few simple questions about what they are looking to fund and how much money they need to borrow. After submitting their answers, farmers will be provided information on farm loans that best fit their specific needs. The loan application and additional resources also will be provided.

Farmers can download application quick guides that outline what to expect from preparing an application to receiving a loan decision. Four guides cover loans to individuals, entities and youth, as well as information on microloans. The guides include general eligibility requirements and a list of required forms and documentation for each type of loan. These guides can help farmers prepare before the first USDA service center visit with a loan officer.

Farmers can access the Farm Loan Discovery Tool by visiting farmers.gov/fund and clicking the start button. Follow the prompts and answer five simple questions to receive loan information that is applicable to your agricultural operation. The tool is built to run on any modern browser like Chrome, Edge, Firefox or the Safari browser, and is fully functional on mobile devices. It does not work in Internet Explorer.

About Farmers.gov

In 2018, USDA unveiled farmers.gov, a dynamic, mobile-friendly public website combined with an authenticated portal where farmers will be able to apply for programs, process transactions, and manage accounts.

The Farm Loan Discovery Tool is one of many resources on farmers.gov to help connect farmers to information that can help their operations. Earlier this year, USDA launched the My Financial Information feature, which enables farmers to view their loan information, history, payments and alerts by logging into the website.

Source: USDA release.

By Justin Sexten for Cattlemen's News

Fair to say we live in a time of more. Larger equipment, increased stocking rates, bigger cattle, and that’s only naming a few. Most increases in size or scale are made in the name of efficiency. Cover more acres in less time, spread risk across more cattle or dilute cost with greater weight gain. 

A recent paper by Tyler Spore and co-workers offers an interesting look at an alternative model where efficiency was achieved using less. Over the years, the K-State Beef Stocker Unit has explored a number of ways to improve growing cattle health and performance. In this experiment they revisited a concept first explored in the 1970s: feeding high-energy diets to receiving calves.

This approach is based on the greatest challenge of starting high-risk calves: low energy intake due to stress. Our first goal should be to reduce stress. After that, only two ways exist to increase energy intake: consume more feed or increase the feed’s energy density. 

This experiment used four diets with a range of energy concentrations achieved by replacing hay with rolled corn. The highest energy diet was 39% rolled corn and 13% forage while the lowest energy diet was 45% hay and 8.5% corn. All diets contained 40% sweet bran. The group then limited feed intake to target a 2.2 ADG.

Limit feeding, or in this case program feeding, is where less was more. There were no differences in ADG (as expected based on programmed feeding for 2.2 ADG), yet feed efficiency was improved by 22% by using the high-energy diet. Over the 55-day experiment, the high-energy fed calves consumed 120 pounds less feed than the low-energy diet. 

This improvement in feed efficiency could be attributed to improved dry matter digestibility and more favorable rumen fermentation products for gain. I realize few readers get as excited about rumen dynamics as the author, but you can do the math on the feed savings it caused above.

What should not go unnoticed in this efficiency discussion is the labor savings offered by program feeding. With improved diet digestibility and lower dietary forage, total manure output is reduced in this system. While a valuable fertilizer, few will argue with the labor and machinery savings of handling less manure, especially those of you who recall the bedding challenges of the most recent long, wet winter.

Another labor efficiency you might find in this model is an improved ability to find calves breaking with respiratory disease. While the authors didn’t report on such data, if we think through the behavior of a limit-fed calf who gets fed once daily, it’s not hard to see how this could work to your advantage. With adequate bunk space, you expect all cattle to come to the truck when limit or program fed. 

Feed truck drivers with a keen eye can then make some of the best cowboys, whether feeding yearlings or starting calves in confinement. Once you start supplementing calves, they come to the truck. Then, you start looking for those who don’t because something is not normal. In a program-fed system you can feed and check calves at the same time taking advantage of this natural behavior.

Most feeders cite two drawbacks to program or limit feeding, and both are related to knowing how to limit or program feed the cattle. In the '70s and '80s, program feeding was challenging because acidosis was more common in higher energy diets. Now with co-product feeds like sweet bran (in this experiment) or distillers grains, this risk of acidosis can be reduced.

The challenge of developing a programmed feeding plan can be overcome by consulting with your nutritionist. Work to develop an energy-dense diet but perhaps more importantly, discuss a feeding and bunk management plan. With cloud-based feeding technologies like Performance Beef, both nutritionist and feeders can communicate in real time as feed intake changes over the feeding period.

Making a plan to do more with less makes sense in a normal year, yet this year appears anything but normal. For some, high-energy corn diets may give way to an abundance of prevent plant cover-crop feed options. In those areas where a corn crop is made, consider feeding systems that offer feed and labor efficiencies.

—Justin Sexten is vice president of strategy, Performance Livestock Analytics.

Fifty years ago, the face of farming and ranching looked very different. Families that owned an operation had expectations that their sons would stay on the ranch and continue to work alongside their fathers. It was rarely discussed but always expected. Overall, the general population had an idea of where their food came from. 

In 50 short years, how did we get to here? It seems like the vast majority of the population has no clue about how their food is grown and produced. They don’t know any producers. If you polled a room of 100 people and asked if they personally know a farmer or rancher, you’d only see a few hands raised. 

In those same 50 years, the ranching and farm scene has changed drastically, also. Family members rarely stay on the farm. Instead, they would rather pursue a college education and transition to a job off the farm. Because of this, when you visit a ranch or farm, it’s rare to find multiple generations working side by side. It’s not like it used to be. Fifty years ago, you’d see three generations all working together. Generally it was all men and their wives stayed home to care for their children. Today, that does not even seem possible. Can a ranch or farm truly support three generations without any outside income? Maybe, but not very often. 

Several things have caused this shift. The cost of living has increased. The supply is not what it once was. Beef consumption is down. Dairy consumption is down. Plant-based alternatives are on the rise. The cost of health insurance has skyrocketed out of sight. Technology has improved efficiency. 

One of the most positive changes is the opportunity to seek a job in the agriculture field off the farm. Fifty years ago, those options were limited. Today, those options are endless. 

Taking a job off the ranch doesn’t mean you’re abandoning the family operation. More times than not, it means you’re working hard to keep the family operation going. If that means stepping off the ranch and finding outside employment so you can continue to operate, then that is what you do. Technologies and modern efficiencies mean we can do more with less. Less land, less inputs, less time. 

It used to take four people to run a ranch of average size. With modern technologies, that same ranch can be managed by one. So, just because three generations are no longer working side by side doesn’t mean that the ranch life is gone. It just means it is changing with the times. I would personally rather see one family member running an entire farm and succeeding than seeing three family members running the same farm and struggling to make ends meet. 

The ranching and farming life is no longer what it used to be. My family is a perfect example of that. I have three brothers. None of them stayed on the family operation. Yet I did. I was raised to work right alongside the boys and that hay bales and cows didn’t care what gender you were. That translated to work meant work no matter who you were. I was taught to drive tractors before I could drive a truck. I was driving grain trucks before I graduated high school. I will admit you get very odd looks when you step out of a grain truck at the mill as a 17-year-old girl. 

Over the last 50 years, our operation never looked typical, but we still had three generations working (begrudgingly at times) side by side. As our family has grown, we’ve had to make changes to keep our operation going. One example: We used to make all small square bales of hay and hire a crew of high school kids (I say kids because it was always a mix of boys and girls) to stack them in the barn. As our ability to secure a hay crew slipped away due to the lack of willing participants, we had to make changes. We chose to make almost all large round bales because it was less labor-intensive. So, a new baler was bought. 

It hurt a little at first, and our market was a bit different, but it all worked out. Minor changes have major impacts. Things that my grandfather did “back in the day” just aren’t applicable any more due to time, money, technologies, etc. Technology has progressed and because of that, we as producers must progress also. We should be thankful that technologies and efficiencies are improving so that family members can seek employment elsewhere and still come home to the family ranch.

My husband’s motto has always been “We should want our children to be more successful than we are.” If that means my children leave the farm and seek a job (hopefully in agriculture) that doesn’t look like the traditional face of farming, that’s okay. It is our job to instill a sense of pride so they appreciate where their food comes from and want to continue to return to the family farm.

Sidenote: I always struggle with ranch versus farm. As someone who lives east of the Mississippi River, all operations are farms, regardless of what you grow. You grow 2,000 acres of corn and hay? You’re a farmer. You milk 50 cows? You’re a farmer. You raise 1,000 head of beef cattle? You’re a farmer. I know that is not true of locations west of the Mississippi River. So, when I say farm, I mean any agriculture operation whether it be crops or cattle. 

—Source: Erin Luchsinger Hull owns and operates Lucky 13 Beef in Tully, New York. She is a board member of the New York Beef Council and the 2017 Beef Promoter of the Year for New York state. Follow her online at www.facebook.com/lucky13beef.

Let mother nature and the bull select your replacement heifers?

Sounds simple enough. 

Burke Teichert, strategic planning consultant for ranches and writer for Beef Magazine, discussed the management approach at this year’s Spring Forage Conference, held in Springfield, Missouri.

Teichert opened his discussion by noting that management principles are eternal and unchanging, but the practices around those principles are different based on location. He says those practices must fit the given circumstances without violating the principles.

Teichert has managed operations in different locations in the U.S., including Washington, Southern California, Montana and Wyoming. Internationally, he has worked in Canada and Argentina. He explains that there are four areas of management: production, economics/finance, marketing and people. He also notes three ways profit can be improved by increasing turnover, decreasing overhead and improving gross margins.

Teichert suggests focusing on improving profit-per-acre or whole-ranch profit rather than focusing on production or profit-per-cow. “We can talk about profit or production per animal but it can be highly distortive of what happens in a whole ranch situation,” he said. 

He also lists major determinants of profits as enterprise mix and choices, overhead (including people), stocking rate (affected by cow size, milk production and grazing and pasture management), fed feed versus grazed feed, calving season, realized herd fertility, wise input use for optimum production and marketing. 

Teichert says for producers to improve profitability they should reduce overhead, market well and improve these three ratios: acres-per-cow, cows-per-man and fed feed versus grazed feed. “Those three ratios have tremendous economic power and if we can do that (improve them) we can be profitable,” Teichert says. “Heifer development is one of the keys of all of those (ratios).”

For profitable decision-making, Teichert encourages producers to become systems thinkers. He defines this as taking all of the potential positives and negatives of a decision into account prior to actually making and implementing the decision. “We need to think beyond the immediate effect of our decision and look at what goes on beyond (the initial decision),” he says. “(We need to be aware of) the cascading and compound effects that happen on down the line.”

Teichert adds that continuous improvement of livestock and a recipe for letting mother nature (your environment) and the bull select your replacement heifers begins with cows that are selected for the most challenging times of each year wherever your herd is located. “If you can pick out that time, (the toughest time of the year for your cattle) and then you select cattle that will fit that (time) and will deal with it, you are going to have better cattle all the way around and they can get by with lower input beyond what is produced,” he explains. “You will have lower inputs, lower medicine costs, lower health problems, lower death losses and everything else if you can get cows selected for this (the toughest time of the year for your cattle).”

The next step after cutting inputs is to cull the right cow, Teichert says. He defines this as cows that are open, dry, require individual attention or help, are wild, have a poor calf, or are ugly based on the producer’s definition. He notes for producers not to be too hard on what they define as ugly. 

When selecting the right bull, Teichert advises to look for a mature size that is moderate or small, has excellent cow fertility and minimal care requirements. 

For more efficient calving, he suggests changing the calving season to be more closely in sync with nature and does not recommend calving in winter. Another tip Teichert  gives is to increase the grazing days and reduce feeding days. His approach is minimal development of replacement heifers. He focuses on cows that fit his environment, providing them with the correct level of supplement just to take the edge off of the elements and calving in the right season. 

“If you are calving in the right season and they are the right kind of cattle that fit your environment, they (can be) 50 to 55% of expected mature cow weight to get pregnant,” says Teichert. “Perhaps not in the highest percentage, especially in the first years, but they will get pregnant in a pretty good percentage.” He also says to buy small replacement cows that fit your environment or raise replacement heifers from bulls and cows that fit your environment, rather than buying replacement heifers. 

Teichert says to cut inputs, then cull the right cow. He highlights that longevity is a result of fertility and fertility is a result of environmental fit. “We cull most of the animals because they are either open or dry (yes we cull a few wild ones, a few that raise a poor calf, a few that are ugly or a few that we have had to handle, doctor, pull calves, etc.) but fertility is the main reason that cows leave our herd,” Teichert says. “If they fit where they are, they will get pregnant. It’s the best gauge where you have an environmental fit.” 

Grazing management comes in all shapes and sizes, or, as Natural Resource Conservation Service Area Soil Health Coordinator Drexel Atkisson, says, it comes in “all heights.”

Spring turnout has been anxiously awaited by many cattlemen. “The cattle want grass, and we want grass,” Atkisson says. “Cattlemen are ready to stop feeding hay. It’s time to do something else.”

That something else, he says, needs to focus on management. Many producers suffered greatly from drought in 2018, which led to a severe shortage of forage and hay. 

“The way we manage our pastures greatly effects the soil health,” Atkisson says. “Soil health may be summed up by simply how efficient our soil is at receiving and storing rain water and cycling nutrients. Many times last year during our drought, I would show the rainfall simulator and demonstrate how management determines the amount of runoff during a rain event. Overgrazed pastures would typically run off 80% of an inch of rain, while well-managed pastures only lost 20%. This means if you did not do a good job of grazing management, you only used two-tenths of every inch of rain that fell.”

According to NRCS, grazing management is the manipulation of animal grazing to achieve optimum and sustained animal, plant, and environmental and economic results while ensuring a continuous supply of forages to grazing animals. When well-managed, grazing systems allow healthy grasslands to be sustained and livestock operations to meet economic requirements.

Atkisson says cattle producers can have a dramatic effect on grazing performance and can also impact soil health through their management of pastures.

“Managing for taller grass heights allows the plants to maintain more leaf area,” he says. “More leaf area means collecting more sunlight that will be turned into simple sugars through photosynthesis. Plants leak these sugars from their roots, and we call them exudates. These syrup-like exudates feed the living biology in the soil. In turn, the exudates and biology make what are called aggregates. Aggregates are small soil particles joined together to make little blocks. When the soil is well aggregated it allows water to infiltrate and be stored by the soil organic matter. Good grazing management provides times of rest from grazing that allow plants to recuperate, build root matter and leak energy into the soil.”

Atkisson says rotational grazing is an essential management strategy to building soil health and resilience into your soil resources and thus your farming operation.

“Allowing extended periods of rest occasionally during different times of the year favors diversity among the plants present in the pastures,” he says. “Diversity is another essential item to good soil health. Introducing legumes and other species of grasses is always a good idea as long as the grazing management is present to support the survival and longevity of those plants. We expect our soil to do great things for us and supply an abundant supply of forage to our grazing animals. This does not happen without energy. Everything needs energy to function. We are lucky because we have the sun, the ultimate source of all energy. Plants have a perfect mechanism to harvest this energy and turn it in to forage.”

Rotational grazing is the practice of moving cattle strategically to fresh grazing paddocks to allow vegetation in previously grazed paddocks to regenerate. NRCS says an excellent rotational grazing system has a higher number of paddocks that provide both (1) longer rest periods between grazing bouts, affording plants and their roots the longest recovery time; and (2) more control over where and when cattle graze, which offers opportunities to both optimize livestock production and achieve conservation goals such as sustaining and restoring water quality and important wildlife habitats.

“If we want to build soil health, which will in turn allow our soils to receive the rain when it comes, store it for future use and cycle nutrients needed for good plant growth, we must understand it is a give-and-take system,” Atkisson says. “We need to give plants a break; nobody likes to work continually. Beyond what we like, when we do not get enough rest, we usually end up sick or non-productive. The forage plants in our fields are no different. It cannot go without saying, if you are overstocked, you are overstocked, and the fix is a trailer. A take-only system is expensive to keep going and has little resilience when adverse weather comes.”

Atkisson encourages producers who want to know more about grazing management and soil health to attend one of the area grazing schools. Soil health workshops that focus more on the grazing techniques that really promote healthy soils and sustainability can also provide valuable information for farmers. Visit your local Natural Resource Conservation Service office for a list of schools and workshops being offered this year. 

Emerging technologies have to overcome several barriers for successful product adoption. Not only do they have to work better than the current option, but they also have to be cost-effective and easy-to-implement.

A recent Journal of Animal Science article from Rebecca Poole and others at North Carolina State and Clemson Universities looked at proven and new technologies to address fescue toxicosis while raising an interesting implementation question. Stay with me. You need not have fescue pastures for this to be relevant.

Fescue is a persistent and drought-tolerant forage that causes reduced weight gain and reproductive performance due to toxicosis. One characteristic of toxicosis is a rough hair coat and increased heat stress. Despite these detrimental traits, producers maintain fescue pastures because of drought persistence.

Poole and her co-workers compared a novel endophyte that has the beneficial agronomic traits of traditional fescue without the downside of toxicosis. Yearling heifers fed novel endophyte forage were faster to shed their hair and maintained a slicker hair coat. This likely contributed to the reduced body temperatures ultimately reducing heat stress.

The interesting part of the study was the use of Angus and Senepol crossbred cattle with a slick-hair gene mutation to address heat stress using the animal rather than forage. These Bos taurus cattle have similar heat tolerance characteristics as Bos indicus due to their slick hair without the challenging temperament and delayed maturity found in Brahman-influenced cattle.

Cattle with the slick hair gene were faster-shedding, maintained this slick haircoat and exhibited reduced skin temperatures, leading to slightly greater body condition and improved reproductive rates. While not enough heifers were in the study to determine if the traits were additive, the study affirmed novel endophyte forages or selection for slick hair offers producers options to address fescue toxicosis and/or heat stress.

Some may suggest these technologies are not novel as we know novel fescue enhances performance and cattle that shed quickly are better equipped to handle heat stress. Yet both technologies require considerable time investment to implement.

For those looking to renovate fescue pastures, now is the time to begin the process by establishing a summer smother crop with the goal of complete renovation by next summer. Selection for hair shedding begins now by scoring cows as they transition into summer coats. Incorporating slick hair into your selection program will show progress over the long term.

Now imagine if that process or another desired trait was accomplished in a generation. 

A recent example from salmon offers us a look to the future of genetic change. This rapid change only took 30 years to develop. The AquAdvantage Salmon cleared the final policy hurdle for production and sales in the U.S. this March. This salmon combines the flavor of Chinook salmon with growth rate of an ocean pout, reducing days to market by half.

What does the first U.S.-approved genetic modified animal have to do with fescue toxicosis and slick-haired cattle? AquAdvantage is an example where the time production barrier was overcome by technology, combining favorable traits from two fish into one product. However a new time barrier to product adoption was introduced, policy.

Regardless of your interest in politics, policy should remain an area of interest for several reasons. Today the U.S. produces the safest and highest quality beef supply in the world. Such a safe and affordable food supply tends to favor food policy with an abundance of caution.

Consider a commodity beef-producing country or region that lags behind the U.S. in high-quality beef production. Their new technology-focused policy allows genetic modification to enhance the carcass merit of their environmentally adapted native cattle. This region could make years of genetic progress in a single generation by adopting technology when others do not.

With restrictive genetic technology policies in place elsewhere, a new beef supplier emerges in the market or at a minimum becomes self-sufficient, no longer needing to import high-quality beef.

To some the policy example sounds far-fetched, to others not impossible to imagine. What you need to guard against is making sure the policy of “We’ve always done it that way” isn’t limiting your operation from adopting technologies that are better, cost-effective and easy-to-implement.

—Justin Sexten is vice president of strategy for Performance Livestock Analytics.

Mother Nature hasn’t been the least bit forgiving lately. The four-state area is coming off a particular rough winter that followed an extremely dry summer and fall. With that said, beef producers are rejoicing in spring—even though it was late in coming—and are likely jumping at the chance to get into the hay field to replenish their hay stockpiles. 

Here are three tips for boosting hay production this year to make the most of what Mother Nature will provide. 

1 Focus on Fertility 

The key to fertility is to put back the nutrients taken during hay harvest, according to Tim Schnakenberg, University of Missouri Extension regional agronomy specialist located in Stone County. 

It’s not uncommon for Schnakenberg to evaluate a soil test submitted by a producer that shows soil nutrients are depleted. For every ton of fescue hay taken off of a field, 45 pounds of potash are removed. Over time, the removal depletes the soil nutrients if fertilizer isn’t applied and results in lowered yields and added weed pressure. 

“You just can’t compromise fertility when you are wanting to make hay, regardless of the forage species,” Schnakenberg said. “Your fertilizer dollar usually pays off. You usually get back what you put into it.” 

From the standpoint of fertility, Schnakenberg often sees producers put a lot of emphasis on applying nitrogen. However, phosphorous and potassium levels must be addressed, too. 

“Nitrogen is the icing on the cake,” he said. “Phosphorus and potassium are needed to build the cake. You have to build the cake before you can ice it.” 

The law of diminishing return applies to nitrogen application if phosphorus and potassium aren’t addressed. Phosphorus is needed for root development and potassium helps build the structure of the plant, which are obviously both essential to growing a healthy stand of hay. 

2 Look to Renovate

Schnakenberg believes that 2019 might be the year to consider renovating hay fields if the stand is in poor enough shape. When evaluating the forage variety to come back with, Schnakenberg urges producers to consider introducing a warm-season grass variety. 

“In our area we are missing something, especially in hay production because we’ve struggled over the years to harvest good quality fescue on time,” Schnakenberg said. “The climate in Missouri is not conducive for harvesting high- quality fescue hay.”

Instead, an addition of a warm-season grasses, including bermudagrass and crabgrass, or native warm-season grass species such as big bluestem or Indiangrass, can provide a better window for hay production to get away from the late-spring rains that plague fescue hay harvest. 

“You can retain the hay quality in a warmer environment with warm-season grasses,” Schnakenberg said. 

Native warm-season grasses can be very productive compared to cool-season varieties with nearly double the tonnage and good quality if harvested in the boot stage. Native grasses must be managed properly and cannot be abused with overgrazing. Native species can be planted from April through June.

Bermudagrass, another warm-season grass option, is also very productive but requires a lot of fertility to maintain. This variety can be planted late April through May. 

Schnakenberg says there’s still time to introduce crabgrass into a cool-season grass stand in late April, and it’s not that expensive to establish. 

If considering renovation, Schnakenberg recommends that producers start small, say 15 or 20 acres at a time since a lot of producers don’t have the land resources to renovate too much at one time. 

Bottom line, producers need to take the time to evaluate the stand. If a full renovation isn’t needed, but the grass stand needs beefed up, plan to come in around the first of September and drill fescue and/or orchardgrass seed, or red clover seed to boost next year’s hay production in cool season fields. For producers with warm-season grass stands, drilling wheat or triticale in the fall will provide some early spring forage. 

3 Weed out Weeds

“I do think that weed control may be a bigger issue this year,” Schnakenberg commented. 

Droughts have a way of weakening a stand of grass and allowing weeds to enter. Producers need to watch for weed pressure, especially if the field was used as a cow pasture over the winter. Schnakenberg predicts that some hay fields won’t be as thick as they once were, so added attention may be needed. 

A little optimism is necessary 

While the later start to spring has Schnakenberg a little nervous, not all is lost because the season can catch back up in a hurry. After all, aren’t farmers and ranchers the eternal optimists of the world; we plan for the worst but hope for the best! 

Stay on top of fertility and weed control to get in shape for the forage growing season. And, have hay equipment greased and waiting for the first dry spell in the weather. The first cutting of fescue hay can be harvested as early as late April to capture fescue in its optimal high-quality stage of growth. 

“Take a few risks to get hay harvested early,” Schnakenberg said. “The quality will be so much better. You will get less tonnage, but higher quality. Then 40 to 45 days later take a second harvest when some people are starting their first. You will have two harvests of good quality forage instead of one harvest of lower quality.” 

At what rate should you stock your pastures? It’s one of the most important decisions a livestock producer has to make.

That’s what Hugh Aljoe, director of producer relations for the Noble Research Institute, told attendees at the annual southwest Missouri Spring Forage Conference held in late February in Springfield, Missouri. 

Aljoe said stocking rate should not be a static decision nor should it be made without due consideration for the variability in weather and management.

Aljoe began his presentation by defining both stocking rate and carrying capacity in simple, memorable terms. He said stocking rate is essentially the number of cattle on a given piece of land at a given time. He explained stocking rate is expressed in three main measurements: animal units (AU), number of head and pounds of live weight per acre. Aljoe said to think of it as the amount of forage demand.

Carrying capacity is defined as the amount of forage pounds of production, or the amount of forage supply. He explained this is usually expressed as total dry matter production or pounds per acre within a growing season or year.

Aljoe noted that carrying capacity is a function of both weather and past management. As a result, carrying capacity changes continuously and the stocking rate should be adjusted. He said most producers don’t think about the implications of not managing the stocking rate once it has been established. Producers, then, incorrectly use the stocking rate they set as a goal to be reached or maintained and not as a metric to be adjusted based on the outcome of management inputs, climatic conditions and weather, he said. Grazing land resources suffer as a result of not adjusting the stocking rate.

“What you did last year and the years preceding are going to have implications on the carrying capacity,” Aljoe said. “If you take care of your soils, land and forage types, you’ll have more production potential the next season. Carrying capacity is not just a function of rainfall. It is also influenced by pasture management.”

Aljoe explained that indications of being overstocked are based on experiences and observation. Often, bare soil in a temperate to high-rainfall climate, a body condition score less than 5.5 for mature cattle during most of the growing season and a cow herd conception rate of less than 85 percent (calves should be born in the first half of the calving season) are signs that an operation could be overstocked.

If overstocked, Aljoe said a method for determining how much the carrying capacity is over in an operation. If the producer’s records show that winter hay feeding periods are exceeding management and resource goals, the stocking rate is exceeding carrying capacity. For every month of hay feeding over planned or intended, the producer is at least 8.3 percent overstocked. Multiply 8.3 by the number of months overstocked to determine the percent overstocked. 

For those grazing native grasses during the winter, for every month that a producer forces cattle to hustle (consume plant material other than the leaves) the pasture is overstocked by 8.3 percent. Multiply 8.3 by the number of months cattle hustle to determine the percent overstocked. 

“When you think about all of the things that we have influence over as operation managers, there’s a lot of decisions to make,” Aljoe said. “Stocking rate is one of those decisions we need to make on a regular basis to ensure our stocking rate is not exceeding our carrying capacity.” 

To estimate stocking rate, Ajoe said to begin by estimating the carrying capacity of a property, which requires a good quality map of the land. Assistance could also be needed from a pasture and range professional like the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) grazing land specialists to ensure that it is a reasonable estimate. 

Aljoe suggested using a table of information, such as the Excel spreadsheet pictured below created by the Noble Research Institute, to help determine the proper considerations for calculating carrying capacity and then converting it to a stocking rate. Important columns for a cow-calf operation in this table of information are pasture name, total acres, grazable acres, forage type, estimated pounds of production per acre, units of nitrogen applied, total production per acre with nitrogen, utilization percentage, total available for grazing, total animal units, animal unit equivalents and total mature cows.  

Once the spreadsheet is completed, producers can use this information to estimate the carrying capacity, which can then be converted to stocking rate. Using this method to calculate the proper stocking rate will help ensure a feasible cattle-per-acre ratio exists, which can result in efficient grazing and help producers save money.

“A conservative stocking rate provides for flexibility, opportunities and risk management,” Aljoe said. 

Many would suggest the answer to the question in this article title is, "Yes, I’ve been doing it my whole life." Perhaps a better question is, “Can we predict respiratory disease (bovine respiratory disease or BRD) onset using behavior monitoring technology?” A research group headed up by Will Kayser at Texas A&M University looked to answer this very question in a recent article in the Journal of Animal Science. 

To some, the question might not seem new. Several groups have validated technology systems to predict BRD using a retrospective approach. Monday morning quarterbacking is not that useful when what we need is help deciding what cattle to treat before they are three days into a BRD outbreak.

The group’s approach to answering the question was unique in a couple of ways. First, rather than using high-risk, weaned calves, they used vaccinated and weaned Angus bulls sourced from multiple operations. These moderate-risk cattle allowed the group to test the other novel idea of using statistical process control charts to evaluate predictions.

This charting method is common in manufacturing, where a machine is continuously watched for abnormal behavior. Another way to think about these charts is the movie scenes using a lie detector where deviations from a straight line indicate something is not right.

The bulls were monitored for behavior changes in real time, and the researchers used these changes to predict BRD. You could already use a similar process to identify when something is amiss in the pasture or feedlot. The difference between what you do today and where technology is headed is your system considers changes from the group’s behavior. 

Consider an example. You feed a group of yearlings, and they all come to the bunk to eat except one. You know something is wrong. In this case the action of not eating is different from the average of the group. What you don’t know is if that behavior is different from the animal’s average.

This trial evaluated those behavior changes an individual animal undergoes you might not see when BRD is just getting started. Evaluators looked at several bunk-related measurements including time to approach, time eating, time with head down and time between bunk visits. They also looked at eating rate and feed intake in addition to time between and variation around the non-eating periods.

GrowSafe feed intake bunks were used to measure bull feeding behaviors. After four days of determining what each bull’s normal behavior looked like, the computers went to work predicting BRD. Each day an animal wasn’t sick, new normal data were added making the model more sensitive and accurate after a relatively short training period.

While all the measured behaviors helped predict BRD, the key variables were time spent at the bunk, time with head down in the bunk and the variability of time spent not eating. The model predicted BRD onset about 2 days before cowboys could detect illness via observation. 

While many suggest feed intake change as the key metric for BRD detection, when added to the behavior model, prediction barely improved. This may be due to the relationship between feed intake and time spent with head down in the bunk. 

Regardless the cause, limited prediction gain from adding feed intake to the model offers the promise of behavior technology reaching the farm gate sooner, since intake is so difficult to measure, and high-risk calves don’t historically start on feed easily.

Key model metrics are sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, or simply put, can the model accurately detect a large enough change to signal treatment. The model was accurate over 83 percent of the time, correctly diagnosing BRD before visual symptoms. 

Sensitivity measures the number of bulls missed that are indeed sick while specificity determines which animals are called sick but are really healthy. Most would say the reason for using technology to predict BRD is to improve antibiotic use. However, imagine the day when you can adjust the sensitivity and specificity settings on your feed bunk to optimize the labor available for sorting and treating potential pulls.

Respiratory disease represents the largest drain on labor and resources in all segments of the beef industry. We are closer than ever to technology that enhances animal well-being while improving operation efficiency.

—Justin Sexten is vice president of strategy for Performance Livestock Analytics.

I wrote about this subject back in April 2009 and wanted to revisit it. A Kansas State University study showed that bulls castrated and implanted at an average of 3 months of age weighed 2 pounds more at 7.5 months of age than did the intact bull calves in the same study. At 7.5 months, the bulls were castrated, and both groups were weighed 28 days later to assess gain. The steers castrated as calves gained 48 pounds while the bulls that were cut at an average of 578 pounds only gained 33 pounds. That is a lost potential gain of 15 pounds as these late-castrated bulls deal with the stress of healing from surgery. 

The fallacy is that a positive testosterone effect justifies not castrating until bulls weigh 500 pounds or more. This is a myth. When bull calves were blood tested to measure testosterone levels, significantly high levels did not occur until 8 to 9 months of age. Studies show that bulls castrated over 500 pounds will lose weight for two weeks after castration. How can that be beneficial? While many reasons exist to be in the cattle business, two that generally lead the list are to provide best care for the animals and to have a successful and profitable business. Castrating calves late accomplishes neither of these goals. 

In five studies that examined weight at weaning, the bulls averaged only 7 pounds higher than steers that were cut early (< 3 months). Studies also show an average gain from implanting the suckling calf with a low-dose implant at 18 to 24 pounds. Add the weight with none of the stress with a suckling calf implant. 

Castration Guidelines: 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Cattle Care Working Group Guidelines: “Early castration improves animal performance gain and reduces health complications. Castration prior to 120 days of age or when calves weigh less than 500 pounds is strongly recommended.” (http://www.neacha.org/resources/CattleCareGuidelines.pdf) 

Beef Quality Assurance guidelines on castration: “All bulls that are not herd sire prospects should be castrated as early in life as possible. Early castration is less stressful on bull calves. Preferably, castration should occur between birth and four months of age.” (https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/nationalmanual.pdf) 

American Veterinary Medical Association policy on castration and dehorning: “Both dehorning and castration should be done at the earliest age practicable.” (https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration-and-Dehorning-of-Cattle.aspx) 

This is the science of when to castrate. Our leading advisors all recommend castrating early. 

As a cow-calf producer, don’t we want the stocker/backgrounder and feedlot owners to make a very healthy profit on our calves? The more profit made up the supply chain the more money they have to buy again next year. Every business transaction needs to be win-win or that relationship won’t last. 

What are additional reasons to castrate early? 

• Improved health for the calf as he moves to the next segment of the industry

• Increased price/cwt for steers vs. bulls

• Improved gain and feed efficiency

• Increased carcass marbling/quality

• Improved carcass tenderness. 

The reasons to castrate late: none.

On the health side, KSU has kept data on 2,762 head of high-risk steers and bulls that they have purchased in their stocker research trials over the past years. While the steers have had a 0.72 percent death loss, the bulls that were castrated at the yard had a 2.28 percent death loss. On a 1,000 head basis, that is a loss of 7 steers and 23 bulls. That is a 300 percent increase in death loss. If you are a cow-calf producer selling feeder bulls, this number should make you wince. I know it does me. 

I heard Dr. Dave Daley from Chico State speak at an NCBA meeting a few years ago, and he said we need to stop saying things like “Well, I take good care of my animals because it makes me money.” That does not resonate with the public. He suggested a more heartfelt answer of, “I take great care of my animals because it’s the right thing to do. I love working with livestock and caring for them regardless of the conditions – season, weather or time of day.” Many times we do profit from ‘doing the right thing’ and castrating early is one of those ‘right things’ that also improves our profits.

—Source: Elanco Animal Health. W. Mark Hilton, D.V.M., is senior technical consultant with Elanco.

The preconditioning process can be accomplished at several levels, but at its basis, the management practice adds value to feeder cattle. Weaning, proper vaccination and other management tools provide the beef supply chain with a healthier calf that is set up to perform well in the feedyard and on the rail. Here’s what the value of preconditioning means to three industry professionals: 

Wes Spinks, Order Buyer

Wes Spinks, Jerico Springs, Missouri, is an order buyer for a major feedyard in Nebraska. Before he started buying cattle full-time in 2013, he spent a large amount of time buying cattle for his and his father’s backgrounding operation. 

Today, Spinks receives bids every day for cattle ranging from 400 up to 1,000 pounds, and of those bids, only a small fraction of the cattle he buys are un-weaned and non-preconditioned. On average, he will pay anywhere from $10 to $15/cwt more for preconditioned cattle, depending on the market and his order for that day. 

In 2018, only 3.5 percent of the 28,000 head of cattle Spinks bought for his major buyer were non-preconditioned compared to 75 percent of the cattle bought in 2014. 

Spinks says the biggest reason for the shift for his buyer is that they can pay the premium up front and still get along better in the long run with preconditioned cattle. 

“When you buy cattle you know the month that you’re going to kill them,” Spinks says. “If they don’t finish on time because they’ve been sick, that puts them out another month. For example, if you drop off of April into May, the price drops $5/cwt or more (for finished cattle).” 

In the above scenario, feeders put more money into cattle for feed, treatment, yardage and labor. Plus, if the timing of harvest is unfortunate, the feedyard loses money due to the seasonality of the markets.  Bottom line, paying the premium for the preconditioned calves upfront is more profitable and provides more consistent results. 

If he does get an order for a bawling calf, Spinks is looking to take advantage of someone else’s mistakes. Before working as an order buyer, that’s exactly what he did on his home ranch. He bought bawling bulls and added weight and value to those cattle by capitalizing on what someone else didn’t do. 

“From my perspective, the discount for not being preconditioned is going to get deeper,” he says. “There are less and less people that are willing to put the work in on a non-preconditioned calf. The American rancher is getting older, and it’s a dying art.”

Jackie Moore,

Joplin Regional Stockyards

Jackie Moore, co-owner of Joplin Regional Stockyards (JRS), defines the goal of preconditioning as adding value to cattle so they can make a more dependable product for the next person in line who purchases them. 

“In the big scheme of things, being weaned is one of the biggest things that adds value to cattle,” Moore says. “So from that standpoint, a guy just putting the (JRS calf-vac sourced) white tags in and selling them off their mothers, in my opinion, is not the best way to go about it. At least wean them.”

Moore has also backgrounded a lot of calves, and he’s found that backgrouding for 60 days is much better than 45 days. Buyers just have more confidence that the calves are going to stay healthy and perform well. 

Capturing the added gain that is accompanied with a longer backgrounding period is another major benefit of preconditioning. If placed on a good nutrition program, producers could expect calves to gain 30 to 45 pounds per month. If it’s costing them $.70 to $.85 cents per pound of gain, and they will receive $1.50 per pound for the gain, it’s almost doubling their money and adding $40 to $50 on to their bottom line, according to Moore.

“I’m not here to tell people to do this or do that, I’m just here to tell you about the tools that are here for you to use to add value to your calves,” Moore says. 

From Moore’s position as a cattle marketer, preconditioned cattle are much easier to sell. Most all buyers sitting ringside will buy preconditioned (weaned, vaccinated and castrated) calves, but as cattle come into the ring missing those management practices, buyers are less and less excited. 

“You eliminate people standing in line to buy when cattle come in and we don’t have any records on them,” he says. 

Will Gentry, DVM, 

Animal Clinic of Diamond LLC,

Will Gentry, DVM, Animal Clinic of Diamond in Diamond, Missouri, says that one of the keys to preconditioning is to plan ahead and act early. 

“You need to start planning while the calf is nursing; it’s a lot easier in the long run,” Gentry says. “Castration early in life and the first set of boosters are important. Plus, if producers are planning on marketing the calves, they are missing out on potential gains if they make the decision not to implant.” 

Gentry has experience with stocker cattle both as a producer and through his education and occupation. He’s developed a specific mindset when dealing with preconditioned versus non-preconditioned calves. 

“To me, as a consulting vet and a producer with a vested interest in a stocker herd, those are two completely different animals. I don’t approach the preconditioned calf with the same steps at arrival and don’t criticize them in the same standard as I do a non-preconditioned animal.” 

In this example, Gentry might delay vaccinating preconditioned cattle until they’ve had time to rest and adjust to the new environment. Whereas, non-preconditioned cattle will have his attention from the time they arrive. 

In his observation of producers in the area, Gentry thinks producers are becoming much more aware of the value of preconditioning. 

“I find most of the producers that I work with are actively looking for ways to do better and produce a better product,” Gentry says. “That’s something to take pride in. It takes a progressive way of thinking to be looking for ways to improve and be open to the critiques I offer and it makes my job a lot more enjoyable. I like working with prideful people. It’s not like that in other parts of the world.”

The Bottom Line

In the end, preconditioning is a practice that adds value to feeder cattle in a way that rewards producers in each sector of the beef industry. The feedyard is willing to reward the cow-calf producer for giving the calf the opportunity to perform well and stay healthy throughout its trip in the beef supply chain. Preconditioning is a win-win for everyone. 

Dr. Justin Sexten, vice president of strategy for Performance Analytics, opened his presentation at the annual Monett Beef Cattlemen’s Conference with an impacting point: — data is transforming our lives.

“Today connectivity is expanding,” Sexten said. “What people don’t know is there are more connected devices today — more than 9 billion — than people—7.6 billion.”

Sexten attributes part of the connectivity expansion to the improvement in technology. Today we can communicate faster than ever before and can access information anywhere at any time. Sexten calls this access, collection and interpretation of data the next revolution.

Certainly, agriculture isn't what it used to be. Two hundred years ago, 80 percent of the population was involved in agriculture, while today’s number is just 1.5 percent of the population. Sexten says the technological revolution has made the analog world more digitized. In the agriculture industry, farmers now know what every acre can and should produce and their records are becoming digitized for efficiency. Today’s data is stored in the cloud, a vast network of remote servers, which enables all data from an operation to cross over and be stored in one place. This differs from the past when paper records were stored in a separate place and not all segments of an operation had access to them.

Sexten illustrates a relatable, everyday example of a technological advancement within the data revolution. Until the late 1990s, using The Road Atlas was common for navigating routes for driving. Today, Global Positioning System (GPS) applications on smartphones are used for directions. Many of these applications use real-time crowdsourced information, even to show users the whereabouts of police officers.

Along with the changes in technology, consumer desires for beef products have also changed. “The consumer is the number one source of new money in the beef industry,” Sexten said. “Quality assurance is more of a concern now than ever before because the packer’s consumers are demanding changes.” 

He highlights that Wendy’s, McDonald’s and Costco all made announcements within a span of two days regarding the future improvement of beef quality assurance to appease consumer demands. In the announcements, the companies focus on cattle care, food safety, antibiotic use and environmental sustainability concerns. Sexten predicts that these companies will drive change in the beef industry due to the power of shareholders within these companies. 

It is widely known that antibiotic use is a concern among consumers. Sexten said consumers are supportive of animals being treated with a drug for an illness, but not of medicine being administered for prevention measures. According to Sexten, “In the next 50 years, the idea that you are going to give an animal an immunization because you think it’s going to get sick will limit your ability to market that product.” He notes that consumers are linking medically important antibiotic use in cattle with antibiotic resistance in humans. 

Another important takeaway: a consumer preference simulation conducted last year indicates that consumers are concerned with the environmental impact of the animal products they consume. “You’re already doing a lot of things on your operation from an environmental sustainability standpoint,” Sexten said. “The key is to document and generate revenue from it.” He also pointed out that consumer preferences are on a spectrum. Most consumers fall somewhere between preferring a plant-based protein substitute and 100 percent animal beef. 

Sexten said cattle producers can leverage data and technology to become more competitive and to serve the consumer. He encourages farmers to be predictive in their cattle marketing strategy by using data to evaluate things like the worth of their cattle, previous cattle performance, the true cost of gain of steers versus heifers and the optimum times to buy and sell cattle.

“Don’t be compelled by bias because it’s what you’ve always done; everything is for sale every day,” Sexten said. “Be ready to market cattle in a proactive manner.” 

He said when cattle producers use a proactive data-based approach, they should keep the optimum endpoint in mind, make sure workflow and enterprise management is relevant to the return of investment and determine if the current markets allow producers to lock in a profit. Sexten also said that in the future, traceability will be a significant opportunity for beef producers to capture market share. 

Sexten leaves cattle producers with a final tip, empower your advisors such as nutritionists, veterinarians and lenders using connectivity to help them excel while using the data to help meet growing consumer demand for traceability. 

Fall- and spring-calving herd managers don’t often find themselves facing the same decision as those who buy calves for backgrounding, but this is one of those times. Should you implant the calves, and if so, what product should be used? Answers will vary, of course.

It’s simple if increasing gain is the singular goal. Given adequate nutrition, the return on investment in growth-promoting implants makes it one of the best ways you can spend your dollars. But let’s examine that given: are there adequate dietary resources to support the implant? Data suggests calves need enough nutrition to gain at least a pound per day to make any implant pay. Few operations plan for gains lower than that, but for those who try to hold calves back to change marketing windows, this might be a consideration.

Another reason implants might not make sense is a contradiction with your marketing plans, such as those who sell natural or nonhormone treated calves (NHTC) at a premium. Implanting would limit marketing to conventional outlets, where facts might not support perceptions. I hear of ranchers forgoing the calf performance from implants because they think nonimplanted calves bring more in the everyday market, but the evidence does not support that. Calves that are verified Natural or NHTC might indeed receive premiums, but simply assuming buyers pay more for nonimplanted calves goes against data from Superior Livestock from 2010 to 2017. Calves were not discounted because of implanting.

Bull calves and replacement heifers are other cases for consideration. Bulls should never be implanted unless they are very young and steered at the same time. Debate as to the benefits and risks of implanting replacement heifer prospects exists; a practical option is to implant only lateborn females, whether on the cow or at weaning. They benefit most from additional gain and are least likely to be retained.

With considerations as to the IF behind us, now on to the WHAT. New research from the University of Nebraska bolsters previous work on implant protocol development. In that older study, Colton Oney and coworkers evaluated the influence of aggressive implant protocols in feedyard cattle. It might seem like a large jump from a discussion of implants for nursing and weaned calves to feedyard protocols, but it’s really the next step. This work and previous data from Henry Hilscher’s work at Nebraska looked at the effects of using increasingly aggressive implants in long-fed calves starting shortly after weaning.

Previous data recommends using implants that match nutrition and stage of life, with potency growing progressively as nutrition improves and calves mature. In other words, use the least potent implant while calves are still nursing, and advance hormone levels as those cattle approach finished harvest. Some have argued that genetic improvement and advancing implant technology could present opportunities to use more potent implants earlier for faster gains, sooner. This collection of recent Nebraska work explored that idea in 500- to 600-pound beef steers and heifers as well as Holsteins.

A variety of implant combinations were evaluated as the groups looked at the concept of using terminal implants earlier in the feeding period. It didn’t work. Even with improved genetics, nearly ideal nutritional conditions and improved implant options to administer increased hormone levels early in the feeding period, neither cattle performance nor feed efficiency improved. The only achievement was a depression in quality grades, and that outcome fits very few programs.

This work reaffirms previous data where failing to match implant with nutrition and animal maturity results in lower marbling scores. For those who do not own the cattle from weaning through harvest, these results also support an idea we can borrow from wider use: it takes a village. People at each step in the supply chain must do their parts to ensure management in their segments doesn’t negatively impact those at a later step. While not the researchers’ goal, this data demonstrates a model where aggressive implant programs designed to enhance early performance not only failed to deliver – they cost a later segment by the loss of carcass merit opportunities.

—Justin Sexten is director of supply development for Certified Angus Beef LLC.

When you think of a “quality” cowherd, I suspect you see easy-fleshing cows with 500- to 600-pound calves, each born unassisted in a 60-day window. A dream to handle, docile in every case, never a stray missing the gate. Calves top the market, and feeders fight over who will own them every year
That’s a pretty good picture, but let’s widen the view to a quality survey reported by McKensie Harris and others in the 2016 Market Cow Report of the National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). It does not conjure picturesque or pastoral scenes, but some interesting quality trends did emerge.
Market cows, the culls you sell, are a key source of lean trimmings to the beef supply chain and often represent 15 to 25 percent of gross income. However, the decision to sell a cow is not an active management choice in most operations. Commercial cattlemen market cows as a byproduct of the cow’s inability to remain productive, not because they want to increase income from cull cows.
That’s certainly different from the feeder and fed cattle scene. For one thing, those cows reflect delayed genetic trends in the herd, assuming the culls are older than average. The previous market cow NBQA was in 2007, conducted prior to a significant drought and culling across the U.S. The 2016 report offers insight as to how genetics within the commercial herd have changed relative to type and carcass characteristics, due to management and drought-induced culling.
Today, the percentage of Angus-type fed cattle hovers around 68 percent, a comparable number to the 2016 market cow report that suggests 68 percent of cows and 67 percent of bulls were Angus type. That’s a sizable increase in Angus influence, considering the 2007 report from John Nicholson and others indicated 44 percent of market cows and 52 percent of market bulls were predominately black-hided—just nine years earlier.
The genetic trend for marbling has increased for most breeds regardless of hide color. While neither market cows nor bulls are managed to express genetic potential for marbling, the 30-unit increase in average marbling score (about 1/3 of a quality grade) from 2007 to 2016 confirms the commercial cow herd has improved in quality potential. Besides that 30-unit marbling increase, distribution of marbling scores also improved, moving a greater percentage of cows toward higher scores.
While skewed toward quality, cows fit every marbling category with 2.8 percent with enough to grade Prime, between slightly abundant to abundant marbling. It’s hard to argue the Prime target is too lofty a goal for fed cattle when nearly 3 percent of cull market cows achieved that level of marbling for prime. Remember, they likely represented a delayed genetic trend, and the report is already two years old. Market cows cannot qualify for Prime due to advanced maturity, but today’s overall genetic and herd management signal the potential for continued increases in average quality grade.
NBQA herd changes were not limited to marbling potential. Market cow carcass weights increased by 50 pounds over the nine years, with ribeyes increased by 0.45 square inches. That’s a product of the larger carcass rather than more heavily muscled cows.
Cows can still get better, obviously: 21 percent of them were marketed at a light muscle score, reducing beef yield and increasing the chance of harvest lameness. The fall season offers benefits for a short-term feeding period in which cows can put on weight quickly and generally move to a more favorable marketing window. Keep in mind, feed efficiency tends to worsen with older cows and the longer length of feeding, so have a marketing plan in place.
Before entertaining a cow-feeding enterprise, check two things: teeth and pregnancy. Fourteen percent of the market cows in the NBQA had worn or broken teeth, which makes them poor feeding candidates. Better candidates but perhaps wrongly classified were the 17 percent of cows pregnant when sold. A short feeding period may not only improve cull-cow quality, but also offers a chance for one more pregnancy check before marketing. If these late-discovery bred cows don’t fit your ideal 60-day calving window, they certainly have more value for somebody as bred rather than thin, open cows.
Cull cows can serve as a good indicator, given the NBQA data, of where the beef community has improved and what challenges remain. In your herd, cull cows are a reflection of what doesn’t work in your system. Understanding how she got there offers a path to a higher quality cow herd.
—Justin Sexten is director of supply development for Certified Angus Beef, LLC.

Recently, I received a call from a young veterinarian that I mentor asking about a plan that a producer she works for had for his cowherd this fall. Long-term, she did not believe the plan seemed sound, so she was seeking advice on how to respond to the producer. This producer was facing wet weather causing fall harvest and wheat planting to be delayed. His plan for the cowherd was to leave the calves on the cows until the first of the year so he did not have to deal with weaning and feeding calves while dealing with fall crop work. My reply was based on the premise that when evaluating plans such as this, one must look at the impact of the plan on the entire production system and not just on that small part of the system that deals with weaning and post-weaning care.
Systems thinking, which looks at impact of proposed change in a system by evaluating the intended and unintended consequences of the change. The more common way of thinking is linear thinking, which says, “We want this outcome, so we are making this change.” Linear thinking does not look at consequences of change other than the desired one.  
If we look at the plan mentioned earlier using systems thinking, the intended consequence of leaving the calves on the cows for an three extra months is to reduce cowherd labor requirements during fall harvest and planting. The unintended consequences of leaving calves on cows grazing dormant native pasture or crop residue include: 1. The calves are not going to gain as much weight and in some cases might actually lose weight.  2. The cows will most likely lose weight. This means the cows will go into calving in a less than optimal body condition score, which will impact colostrum quality and affect calf health next year. 3. Fetal stress created in this scenario can impact lifetime health and performance of the in-utero calves.  4. Thin cows going into calving usually results in thin cows as breeding season begins, resulting in delayed conception or more open cows.  5. Delayed conception will result in lighter calves next year.
In another example of systems thinking, let’s take a look at weaning-associated respiratory disease that occurs each year in certain herds with high morbidity and varying mortality. While this example looks at respiratory disease, the same type of discussion could apply to reproductive or any other nagging problem in a herd.
We have become a generation of bug chasers in that we believe Mannheimia causes bovine respiratory disease (BRD), Mycoplasma causes chronic pneumonia and arthritis, Moraxella causes pinkeye, and the list goes on.  As a result, we tend to look for new vaccines or new, more powerful antibiotics as the solution to our issues. Mannheimia, Mycoplasma, Moraxella and Pasteurella are all normal inhabitants of the bovine respiratory tract starting at an early age, as early as day two in a study I saw this summer. If these pathogens are associated with disease, then what allows a normal inhabitant to be involved with disease?  I have come to realize that calves get sick for two reasons. They are either overwhelmed with a pathogen or they have a suppressed immune system.
It seems unlikely that calves weaned on the ranch are overwhelmed by a pathogen, so the challenge becomes figuring out the cause of the immunosuppression. Many discussions related to the causes of immunosuppression include topics such as persistently infected bovine viral diarrhea (BVD-PI), trace mineral levels and cowherd vaccination. These chronic cases require looking critically at the entire production system, not just the weaned calf portion of the system.  Ask a lot of questions. Is late gestation nutrition adequate?  Is protein being supplemented? Is trace mineral being supplemented?  What are the sources of trace mineral? If a cow is trace mineral deficient in late gestation, will the calf be trace mineral deficient at birth, and will immune system function be sub-optimal? This can impact calf health through the feedyard. What is the cow’s body condition score at calving?  What’s the water quality?  Are high iron or sulfate an issue?  Does the cow have shelter during calving? What about biosecurity? What’s her nutrition program post-calving?  What about forage quality and mineral consumption during summer? In regard to the calf, what viral vaccines are given at spring branding? Is Endotoxin stacking from too many Gram-negative vaccines in close proximity to one another?  Is antigen interference created by modified live vaccines in a naive calf creating poor Gram-negative response? What’s the impact of internal parasites on immune function? Is too much viral vaccine given in close proximity to one another? 
Developing the mindset that herd-level problems such as BRD are clinical signs that there is an underlying problem in the production system and investigating in this manner is critical in solving these chronic problems.
My goal with this column is to get you to look at the big picture. In other words, I hope to stimulate systems thinking. Many details could be added to this discussion. If you experience a respiratory disease break in your calves, then the key is to not only manage the break but also ask the question, “What was the first domino that fell?” Many times, scours breaks or respiratory disease breaks can be traced to an event during pregnancy. Usually, they are multifactorial.
Implementation of sound animal husbandry practices can many times be done with little or no additional cash expenditure. It’s about managing the ranch resources while providing for the basic needs of the animal. If attention is paid to basic needs from conception to weaning, the number of calves weaned per cow exposed can be raised, thus creating more value for you—the producer. Improving reproductive performance in the cowherd should offer a quicker change in supply than changing supply by heifer retention alone.
Ask a lot of questions. Be cognizant of the details. Look for the arrow and the measuring spoon in the FedEx logo. Find a veterinarian that understands systems thinking and shows he or she truly cares by being willing to ask the tough questions.
—Source: Dr. David Rethorst is a veterinary practitioner and consultant, BeefSolutions, Wamego, Kansas.

Successful management of replacement females can be likened to a child’s game of tower building with alphabet blocks. So many blocks are stacked high and begging for gravity to bring them down. A solid foundation is critical for survival in the game, and one wrong move can bring the whole stack tumbling to the ground.
A solid foundation in heifer management begins long before weaning and stretches well past the calving date.  But, let’s back up to somewhere in the middle and talk pre-breeding. Have you done everything you can to make sure those heifers are ready to take the next step in becoming a valued asset in your cowherd?
Reproductive tract scoring and pelvic measurements are relatively easy and cost-effective actions to ensure yearling heifers are capable of becoming pregnant and then calve without difficulty. It also allows producers to identify heifers who might already be pregnant and those freemartins. Heifers can be old enough, weigh enough and look the part, but that’s not a guarantee that they are ready for breeding season.
“Producers should be reproductive tract scoring to make sure heifers are ready to go and get bred in a timely fashion,” said Voyd Brown, DVM, Barry County Veterinary Service, Cassville, Missouri. Brown spends a lot of time in the fall performing pre-breeding heifer examinations, which includes reproductive tract scoring and pelvic measurement.
Data clearly shows that heifers that get bred during the front end of the breeding season are more likely to have a longer lifetime in production, so knowing the pubertal status of a heifer prior to breeding gives her a better shot of conceiving earlier.
“The advantage almost gives you an extra calf by the time she leaves the herd,” Brown said.  
Palpating for reproductive tract scores (RTS) requires a trained professional to make an objective decision regarding the maturity of a heifer’s reproductive tract by examining the uterine horns and ovaries. Scores are ranked from 1 (immature) to 5 (cycling).
Pre-breeding heifer examinations should be completed when heifers reach 12 to 14 months of age and 30 to 45 days before the breeding season begins. The timing allows for producers to get an accurate snapshot of where the heifers’ maturity will be once the breeding season begins while allowing for enough time to make management changes if heifers aren’t where they need to be.
Before going into the breeding season, Brown suggests producers target 100 percent 3, 4 or 5 RTS as a basis, but the goal gets more specific depending on the breeding scenario.
“If I’m going to do a 5-day CIDR protocol, I want all of those girls to be 4s and 5s,” Brown explains. “With a 14-day CIDR protocol, we can handle 50 percent 3s and the rest 4 and 5.”
Nutrition is a critical component to the pubertal status of a heifer and can make the difference between cycling or not. Poor nutrition can also affect the female’s pelvic size, which can increase the incidences of or degree of calving difficulty.
“A lot of the times producers will have a group of heifers and put them on the backburner,” Brown says. “They may have been feeding them, but not enough and their tract scores will point that out.”
Brown reports a 5 percent pre-breeding heifer examination fail rate with his clients who stay on top of the nutritional component and do a good job developing heifers. The statistic includes culling for tract scores, free martins, pregnancy and pelvic size.
“Clients who don’t pay as much attention to nutrition can have much greater than 5 percent cull rate,” he says. “It’s not unusual to see 30 percent cull rate due to nutrition.”  
While a high cull rate is not ideal, in some cases the problem can be remedied before the breeding season. Heifers with RTS of 2 or 3 can be moved to 3, 4 and 5 with a nutritional boost during the 30- to 45-day window prior to breeding, according to Brown.
What’s the holdup?
Brown believes that producers’ hesitancy to perform heifer examinations is due to lack of understanding the value this added information brings to the table. He said one of his clients said it best when they calculated that the cost of $5 per head for heifer examinations on 30 head costs less than one emergency call for calving difficulty.
A large percentage of calving difficulty within a group of first-calf heifers, provided the producer made an appropriate bull selection decision, could indicate that pelvic measurements aren’t up to par.
Paying close attention to the calving distribution throughout the calving season can also indicate mismanagement prior to the breeding season. Ideally, producers should target at minimum 70 percent of calves to be born within the first 21 days of the calving season followed by 20 percent in the second 21 days and 10 percent or less during the last 21 days. Several factors can be to blame when herds don’t fall into this trend line, including the heifers’ sexual maturity.
“Maybe you had bull trouble or your heifers weren’t ready when the bulls were turned in,” Brown said.
In the end, heifer management is hard enough, why make it a bigger game of chance than it has to be. The information gathered from reproductive tract scores and pelvic measurements can keep producers from making a miscalculated judgment that sends their herd’s building blocks crashing down. 

Missouri Farmers Care’s Ag Education on the MoveTM (AEOTM) program continues to expand, with a mission to share the important message of agriculture with young people.
“We are several generations removed from the farm,” says Luella Gregory, director, Ag Education on the Move. “It is so important to plant a seed with young people to create a foundation of facts and learning experiences early. We want students and adults to connect the dots and think about the journey of their hamburger and carton of milk and how technology has played a positive role for all.”
AEOTM is a 10-week third-grade education program that teaches students about crops, livestock, nutrition, soil and water conservation and careers in agriculture. Through member resources and collaboration, passionate educators serve as a vehicle to ensure the important message is delivered to students. Participants receive one hour of agriculture education once a week for 10 weeks. Missouri FFA members serve as AEOTM Educators in Agri-Ready counties, providing a unique opportunity for both FFA member and student.
The program’s lessons meet standards and objectives in the classroom, while integrating technology, STEM activities and virtual farm tour experiences. Participants plant soybean seeds, make butter, explore beef byproducts and nutrition, calculate feed rations and more.
In addition to in-classroom programming, AEOTM teams up with the Department of Education to host a unique career in agriculture series. This day of professional development offers a glimpse into agronomy, meat processing, trade, mechanical, engineering, marketing and more. Tours also highlight entrepreneurial opportunities in rural communities and give educators a chance to visit agribusiness employers in their region.
To learn more about the program or to explore ways you can get involved, please contact Luella Gregory at info@agmoves.com
AEOTM is an educational effort through Missouri Farmers Care, funded partially by Missouri soybean farmers and Missouri beef producers and their checkoffs.
—Source: Missouri Farmers Care is a joint effort by Missouri’s farming and agriculture community to stand together for the men and women who provide the food and jobs on which our community depends. Missouri Farmers Care implements activities to promote the continued growth of Missouri agriculture and rural communities through coordinated communication, education and advocacy.

While fall brings payday to many cattlemen with annual calf sales, beef extension agents encourage you not to overlook the sale of your cull cows. Typically, the sale of cull cows accounts for 15 to 30 percent of the yearly gross revenues of U.S. cow-calf operations. That’s why beef specialists urge you to push a pencil on some marketing options that might increase your returns.
Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Specialist Glenn Selk says Beef Quality Audits shows that cull cows, bulls and cull dairy cows make up about 20 percent of the beef available for consumption in the U.S. About half of that group – about 10 percent of the supply – comes from cull beef cows.
Many producers cull open cows in the fall, often sending them direct to an auction market. But, that strategy sells those cows into a market that is historically the lowest of the year.
“Historic cull cow prices over the past 30 years have been the lowest in the months of November, December and January,” says Dennis Bauer, Nebraska Extension educator. “The highest price levels are historically seen in March, April and May.”
Summer prices are typically near the year’s average, he says, but “past records indicate that on a percent of the annual selling price for cull cows set at 100 percent over a 12-month period, prices can vary from 93 percent in the November-December time frame to 106 percent in months of April and May.”
This suggests producers could increase their returns by holding fall-culled cows for sale at a later date.
The 2018 slaughter cow market has been impacted by the large supply of beef in storage and an increase in cow slaughter volume compared to 2017, says South Dakota State University Extension Specialist Heather Gessner. Data from the Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) shows Breaker grade cow prices 4.3 percent lower than last year.
“August is historically the high for slaughter cow prices,” Gessner says. “Using seasonality (of prices), combined with cost of production budgets, producers can make informed decisions to increase the profit generated from cull cows.”
Realizing increased profits, however, is closely tied to cow condition.
“Producers that sell cull cows should pay close attention to the market news reports about the price differentials of the cows” in various classes, Selk says. “Cull cows that can be fed enough to gain body condition from the Lean class to Boning Utility class can gain weight and gain in value per pound at the same time. Seldom, if ever, does this situation exist elsewhere in the beef business.”
Therefore, Selk says, producers should market cull cows in the fall and early winter while those cows are still in good enough body condition to fall in the Boning Utility grade.
“If cows are being culled while very thin, consider short-term dry lot feeding to take them up in weight and up in grade,” Selk says. “This usually can be done in about 50 to 70 days with excellent feed efficiency. Rarely does it pay to feed enough to move the cows to Breaker class. There is very little, if any, price per pound advantage of Breakers over Boning Utility and cows lose feed efficiency if fed to that degree of fatness.”
Gessner warns that not every cow should be held and placed on feed for sale at a later date. She says cows in a body condition score (BCS) of 5 or higher should not be held for sale later.
“One reason to keep the cow on feed is to increase the BCS, thus increasing muscle mass, the fat layer and total pounds available for sale,” Gessner says. “Cows that are already in good condition will not gain additional pounds in an efficient manner and will likely eat more in feed than the return to feeding them.”
Selk says cull cows are graded by their fleshiness, with the fattest cows called Breakers. Moderately fleshed cows are Boning Utility. Thin cows are called Leans or Lights, depending upon the weight of the cow.
“Within each grade, large variation in prices per hundredweight will exist because of differences in dressing percentage,” Selk says. “Cow buyers are particularly aware of the proportion of the purchased live weight that eventually becomes saleable product hanging on the rail. Dressing percentage is (mathematically) the carcass weight divided by the live weight multiplied by 100.”
Key factors that affect dressing percentage include gut fill, udder size, mud and manure on the hide, excess leather on the body, and anything else that contributes to the live weight but will not add to the carcass weight.
“As producers market cull cows and bulls, they should be cautious about selling cattle with excess fill,” Selk says. “The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight.”

Whether you call them excitable, ornery or just plain mean, no cattleman wants to keep a cow with a temperament problem. Whether she’s a safety problem or just a nuisance, a cow with bad disposition is a constant headache.
But temperament or behavioral problems in beef cows go much deeper than owner safety. Animal scientists say research suggests such cows have lower pregnancy rates, lower calving rates and lower weaning rates. In short, those ornery cows cost you money.
Texas A&M University (TAMU) animal scientist Cliff Lamb says a measurable economic impact exists of excitable cows compared to adequate cows.
“Adequate cows return more dollars to the operation than excitable cows—about $60 per cow per year more,” he says. And, he suggests that return might be greater if you consider that excitable animals incite stress among herd mates and hinder their performance, too.
Lamb shared research on the implications of temperament conducted largely by TAMU researcher Reinaldo Cooke during the Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle Workshop held earlier this fall.
Temperament, he said, defines the fear-related behavioral responses of cattle when exposed to human handling. As cattle temperament worsens, their response to human contact or any other handling procedure becomes more excitable.
Temperament, or behavioral response to stimuli, is a stress factor with physiological and genetic effects. Lamb said extreme temperatures, disease and injuries are examples of stress. Agitated or aggressive responses from cattle with an excitable temperament when exposed to human handling is attributed to their fear and consequent inability to cope and is classified as a stress response.
To study cattle’s temperament, TAMU researchers assessed cattle based on how they reacted under restraint (chute score) or the speed with which they left restraint (exit velocity score). Those measurements were combined into a single value or temperament score, ranging from 1 (docile) to 5 (aggressive).
Lamb described the five levels of cattle temperament in a chute:
1 Calm with no movement
2 Restless movement
3 Frequent movement with vocalization
4 Constant movement, vocalization, shaking of chute
5 Violent and continuous struggling
In general, females are more temperamental than males, and young animals are more temperamental than older cattle. Lamb said cattle temperament is influenced by sex, age and horn status, but the greatest source of temperament is breed. He identified Brahman-influenced cattle as more excitable.
Temperament is a moderately heritable trait, and producers can use docility EPDs as part of a selection program to make improvement in a herd’s temperament. Lamb said temperament scores can be used in sire selection and for culling overly temperamental females. However, producers should note that at least some degree of temperament should be maintained in cow-calf operations so that cows are protective of calves. In a feedlot environment, it is desirable for the cattle to be aggressive enough to compete for bunk space.
Regarding reproduction, Lamb says higher temperament scores among heifers are associated with later age at puberty. Additionally, cattle with excitable temperament have “altered metabolism and partitioning of nutrients in order to sustain the behavioral stress response, which results in further decreases in nutrient availability to support body functions.”
And nutritional status largely determines reproductive performance in cattle. “Therefore, Lamb says, “excitable temperament may indirectly impair reproduction in beef heifers and cows by decreasing nutritional balance.”
Further, he says, the hormones produced during a stress response, particularly cortisol, directly disrupt the physiological mechanisms that regulate reproduction in beef cows, such as ovulation, conception and establishment of pregnancy.
Recent research demonstrated that beef heifers with calm temperament reached puberty sooner than temperamental heifers, and Brahman-influence cows with excitable temperament had decreased chances of becoming pregnant during the breeding season compared to calmer cows. Further, Angus-Hereford cross cows with excitable temperament had reduced pregnancy rate, calving rate, weaning rate and pounds of calf weaned per cow exposed compared to cows with adequate temperament.
While selecting for calmer cattle is recommended, Lamb said one alternative to improve temperament is to adapt them to human handling. Studies suggest that cattle accustomed to human handling had a calmer temperament, reduced blood cortisol concentrations and increased luteinizing hormone concentrations. Replacement heifers exposed to an acclimation process to human handling for four weeks after weaning showed improved temperament, reduced cortisol and reached puberty and became pregnant earlier.
“However, no beneficial effects on temperament and reproduction were detected when mature cows were exposed to human handling,” he said. “Therefore, adapting beef females to human interaction early in their reproductive lives is important to improve their temperament and hasten their reproductive development.”

As camouflage and coveralls make their debut and white precipitation appears in forecasts, many producers’ anxieties intensify.  After several unexpected months of hay usage brought on by an especially untimely summer drought, said to be the worst in more than 30 years, the question of how to sustain a herd through the coming months looms in the minds of many cattlemen and cattlewomen. Thankfully, though, Missouri’s state beef nutrition specialist says to put your worries aside.
“Producers have options,” says University of Missouri Extension’s Eric Bailey.  “But the way they’ve always done things doesn’t mean that’s the way it needs to be done in the future.  We’ve got a culture of baling hay, making hay and overstocking our pastures in Missouri.”
Producers have an idea of ritual and convenience. However, Bailey says, when it comes to underserving conditions, those are not always possibilities. It is with a positive outlook, feed alternatives and helpful resources that winter subsistence will occur with ease.
“Having a better attitude about the whole situation is important,” says Bailey.  While the situation is less than ideal for anyone within agriculture, a total lack of options doesn’t exist. That thought alone should lend comfort to any worried producer. However, it is not always that simple, and many times in this type of situation, some producers have a can’t-do attitude. Even when it seems like options are absent, the key is to use those resources and alternatives most helpful in inferior conditions.  
“Distiller’s grain, soy hulls, gluten, wheat midds—those are all commodity grain byproducts that really fit well into this type of scenario.”  Bailey says.  Each of these options is viable for producers large or small.  Bailey says that producers could easily incorporate each of these into a daily diet, especially when stretching hay.  Producers could use as little as 10 pounds of hay per cow per day when used in conjunction with any of these supplements and starting at five pounds of supplement per head per day, doubled for cows and calves, is a great place to start regardless of hay availability.  
In addition, in times of low hay availability and high hay costs, it can be gracious to the farm budget.  “I promoted the use of soy hulls and corn this summer because those were by far the two cheapest byproducts to purchase for producers, especially where corn is still $3.50ish per bushel, depending on co-op and location, but that’s $133 per ton,” Bailey says. “You really can’t beat that when we have producers paying more than $133 per ton for hay that had half the energy that corn does.”
Bailey says cost should be the deciding factor when considering a feed supplement.  The price will reflect availability, depending on operation location, and it should ultimately make the decision. More details on this can be found at your local grain cooperatives.
“The difference between (commodity byproducts) and some of the other supplements you might hear about, like protein supplements, is we’ve got to feed these every day so there definitely is more input required as far as labor and time relative to some of these other options,” Bailey explains. He says that goes back to the often-desired convenience factor.  While family matters and off-farm jobs are frequently and understandably prioritized above farm operations, convenience is not always an option, Bailey says.
Another important operation decision emphasized by drought and addressable by supplement feed is how to manage land and capitalize on its production potential, particularly after drought.  “Rather than the idea of maximizing production for the land they have, many producers have an idea of the number of cows they want to run,” Bailey says. “A lot of times, the forage base doesn’t support the number of cows they have, even in a good year.”
With a wide diversity of Missouri cattle operations come a vast array of needs and the overflow of information affecting such decisions can prove to be overwhelming. To support producers and ease decision-making, Bailey says he and others at MU Extension are available as a resource. “Extension is here to help,” he explains. “There are some tremendously talented extension specialists across the state who are doing a phenomenal job of helping a lot of people through this scenario.”
Finding feed for the coming months can undoubtedly be an intimidating task. However, Bailey is optimistic for farmers and ranchers and says it will probably be the biggest cause for concern this winter season. “Energy is the No. 1 factor that we should be focusing on. I don’t foresee anything other than making sure we have enough calories in our cows’ bellies as coming even close to that this winter. Hay supplies, feed availability, body condition, weight loss, those are all things that are going to be on the forefront of producers minds this winter.”
Bailey says with a can-do attitude, an economical feed supplement, and resources for support, producers should have nothing to worry about when it comes to sustainable winter-feed. To find more information on feed supplements or to contact your local extension specialist for support, visit https://extension2.missouri.edu/.

At any time, Shealy Farm in Fair Grove, Missouri, can hold cow-calf, backgrounding, and even confinement herds.  A research farm for Missouri State University’s Darr College of Agriculture, teaching and investigating a variety of production techniques is the site’s purpose.  Behind many of those studies is Dr. Phillip Lancaster, professor of beef cattle production, cattle nutrition researcher and ruminant nutrition expert. His use of feed supplements in these herds proves to be an invaluable asset to their success.
“Forage is your cheapest source of nutrients, so you’re first goal is to maximize utilization of that forage,” explains Lancaster. “When necessary, you provide minimal amounts of supplemental feeds to meet nutrient requirements of the animal and aid in digestion.”
Lancaster says just a pound or two of high protein supplement per day can maintain digestibility and body condition, when low-quality forage alone would likely lower it.  “From an economic perspective, that’s a good return on investment with very little input,” he says.
Lancaster notes not one supplement can meet every need, but that a combination of supplements is always a good choice.
“The best supplement is not one or the other, it’s a mix of different ones,” he says.  “Different supplements have different benefits. I look at those feed supplements with regard to what nutrients they’re going to supply to the animal. Distiller’s grain is a highly digestible fiber but fairly high in protein compared with something like wheat midds and soybean hulls, highly digestible fibers but relatively low in protein. You’ve got to balance those out when putting them together.”
Lancaster has seen positive response from grower calves when using a blend of protein-rich distiller’s grain and intake-stimulating cottonseed hulls. Because of its nitrogen-rich quality, he foresees a diet of cottonseed meal being implemented for his cows grazing low-quality stockpiled fescue in the coming months.

The agriculture department at Crowder College hosted the third annual veterans dinner on Sept. 20, 2018, on the Neosho Crowder College campus.  
Crowder has a rich history in military service and tradition. In fact, the campus was originally designated as the Camp Crowder Army Base during World War II, so it’s fitting for the college to honor America’s heroes.
“Our goal is to create a culture of service here at Crowder,” said Jorge Zapata, agriculture division chair. “Servant leadership is one of the tenets of Crowder College, and we work to embody that philosophy.”
The night was filled with old friends, new acquaintances, good food and live music. Each veteran has a story—a story important to the fabric of our society and our rural communities.
A story like Bruce Benson’s is one that is worth passing on to the next generation.  
Bruce Benson of Webb City, Missouri, served in the Air Core from the early ‘40s until 1945 when World War II ended. The Ohio native was stationed at Camp Crowder prior to being deployed to the Philippines. He was on a signal team responsible for repairing and installing communications lines serving under General Douglas McArthur.
Music is one of Benson’s passions and a connection to Jane, his late wife. Each night for the past three or four years, Benson steps out of his house at sunset, stands on his front porch and sounds taps before saluting the flag. On this particular evening, he performed taps for the 7:20 p.m. sunset surrounded by fellow veterans.
Benson met his wife at Camp Crowder when he was playing in a pick-up band one night entertaining the servicemen. Jane was in a U.S.O. dance group. She asked him if he’d play a particular song, and the rest was history.
“It’s an unforgettable experience,” said Cheston Stacy, sophomore and member of the Crowder College Aggie Club from Stockton, Missouri. “They’ve done so much for us yet they are the ones that are thanking us throughout the night. We should be the ones thanking them!”
As the evening progressed, it was clear to see that the event was made possible by young adults stepping up, lending a hand and dedicating several hours of volunteer service to show appreciation for the group of individuals for whom we owe our freedom.
As Chance Wallace, Crowder College sophomore and past Missouri State FFA officer, said in his address to the veterans, “Thank you for the things I have witnessed, and thank your for the things that I hope I never have to see.

While fall brings payday to many cattlemen with annual calf sales, beef extension agents encourage you not to overlook the sale of your cull cows. Typically, the sale of cull cows accounts for 15 to 30 percent of the yearly gross revenues of U.S. cow-calf operations. That’s why beef specialists urge you to push a pencil on some marketing options that might increase your returns.
Oklahoma State University Extension Beef Specialist Glenn Selk says Beef Quality Audits shows that cull cows, bulls and cull dairy cows make up about 20 percent of the beef available for consumption in the U.S. About half of that group – about 10 percent of the supply – comes from cull beef cows.
Many producers cull open cows in the fall, often sending them direct to an auction market. But, that strategy sells those cows into a market that is historically the lowest of the year.
“Historic cull cow prices over the past 30 years have been the lowest in the months of November, December and January,” says Dennis Bauer, Nebraska Extension educator. “The highest price levels are historically seen in March, April and May.”
Summer prices are typically near the year’s average, he says, but “past records indicate that on a percent of the annual selling price for cull cows set at 100 percent over a 12-month period, prices can vary from 93 percent in the November-December time frame to 106 percent in months of April and May.”
This suggests producers could increase their returns by holding fall-culled cows for sale at a later date.
The 2018 slaughter cow market has been impacted by the large supply of beef in storage and an increase in cow slaughter volume compared to 2017, says South Dakota State University Extension Specialist Heather Gessner. Data from the Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) shows Breaker grade cow prices 4.3 percent lower than last year.
“August is historically the high for slaughter cow prices,” Gessner says. “Using seasonality (of prices), combined with cost of production budgets, producers can make informed decisions to increase the profit generated from cull cows.”
Realizing increased profits, however, is closely tied to cow condition.
“Producers that sell cull cows should pay close attention to the market news reports about the price differentials of the cows” in various classes, Selk says. “Cull cows that can be fed enough to gain body condition from the Lean class to Boning Utility class can gain weight and gain in value per pound at the same time. Seldom, if ever, does this situation exist elsewhere in the beef business.”
Therefore, Selk says, producers should market cull cows in the fall and early winter while those cows are still in good enough body condition to fall in the Boning Utility grade.
“If cows are being culled while very thin, consider short-term dry lot feeding to take them up in weight and up in grade,” Selk says. “This usually can be done in about 50 to 70 days with excellent feed efficiency. Rarely does it pay to feed enough to move the cows to Breaker class. There is very little, if any, price per pound advantage of Breakers over Boning Utility and cows lose feed efficiency if fed to that degree of fatness.”
Gessner warns that not every cow should be held and placed on feed for sale at a later date. She says cows in a body condition score (BCS) of 5 or higher should not be held for sale later.
“One reason to keep the cow on feed is to increase the BCS, thus increasing muscle mass, the fat layer and total pounds available for sale,” Gessner says. “Cows that are already in good condition will not gain additional pounds in an efficient manner and will likely eat more in feed than the return to feeding them.”
Selk says cull cows are graded by their fleshiness, with the fattest cows called Breakers. Moderately fleshed cows are Boning Utility. Thin cows are called Leans or Lights, depending upon the weight of the cow.
“Within each grade, large variation in prices per hundredweight will exist because of differences in dressing percentage,” Selk says. “Cow buyers are particularly aware of the proportion of the purchased live weight that eventually becomes saleable product hanging on the rail. Dressing percentage is (mathematically) the carcass weight divided by the live weight multiplied by 100.”
Key factors that affect dressing percentage include gut fill, udder size, mud and manure on the hide, excess leather on the body, and anything else that contributes to the live weight but will not add to the carcass weight.
“As producers market cull cows and bulls, they should be cautious about selling cattle with excess fill,” Selk says. “The large discounts due to low dressing percent often will more than offset any advantage from the added weight.”