The Brazos Valley CEU Conference Will Be Conducted on Friday, January 25Th at the Burleson

The Brazos Valley CEU Conference Will Be Conducted on Friday, January 25Th at the Burleson

100 West Buck Street, Suite 105

Caldwell, Texas 77836

(979) 567-2308

fax (979) 567-2370

Burleson County

Beef Cattle & Forage News

October - 2012

2012 Burleson County Beef and Forage Program

The 2012 Burleson County Beef and Forage Program will be conducted Tuesday, October 23rd at the Caldwell Livestock Commission. Registration will begin at 6 pm with a stew and cornbread at 6:30 followed by the program at 7pm. Dr. Jason Cleere, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Beef Cattle Specialist, will discuss strategies of herd rebuilding. Next, Dr. Marquis Gordon, owner of Caldwell Veterinary Clinic, will address beef herd health management. Ms. Veronica O’Donnell with the NRCS will provide an update on federal programs available through her office. Two (2) continuing education units (CEU’s) will be offered to TDA pesticide applicators. Participation in this program costs $10 per participant. We do request an RSVP by Friday, October 19th so that an accurate head count can be provided to the caterer. Additionally, anyone needing special assistance in order to participate in this educational program should contact Texas AgriLife Extension in Burleson County at 979/567-2308 by April 27th so accommodations can be arranged.

41st Annual South Central Texas Cow Calf Clinic

The 41st Annual South Central Texas Cow Calf Clinic will be held on Friday, October 26, 2012 at the Washington County Fairgrounds Sales Facility in Brenham. The registration fee is $20.00 per person. Registration will begin at 7:15AM. The program will begin at 8:00AM. Cow-calf clinic participants who hold a private, commercial, or non-commercial pesticide applicators license will receive continuing education toward recertification. Beef cattle producers certified under the Texas Beef Quality Producer Program will receive beef quality credits for attending the clinic. Some of the other special attractions for everyone’s enjoyment at the clinic will be commercial exhibits, equipment displays, refreshment breaks, BBQ beef and sausage lunch, social hour, proceedings and much more. For more information, contact Texas A&M AgriLife Extension in Washington County at 979/277-6212 or Burleson County at 979/567-2308.

Soil Testing Campaign

The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Soil, Water and Forage Testing Lab will offer discounted soil testing through November 16th for soils used in agricultural production in Burleson, Milam, Lee and Brazos Counties. Test #1 will cost $10 per sample (normally $7) and test #2 will cost $14 (normally $17). A special submittal form must be utilized and the samples need to be left at the appropriate Extension office. Completed reports will be sent to the Extension office where landowners can pick them up. For more information, contact Texas A&M AgriLife Extension in Burleson County at 979/567-2308.

E-mail Mailing List

If you would like to be included on an e-mail “Mail List” for the purpose of advertising educational programs please e-mail me at indicating you want to be added to the list. Also, if you wish to be removed from this paper newsletter list indicate that too. When anything is sent or forwarded to the group e-mail list, it will be sent “blind copy” to prevent unnecessary sharing of e-mail addresses.

The following articles were taken from the Beef Cattle Browsing Newsletters series prepared by the Extension Animal Science Department. Editor: Dr. Stephen Hammack, Professor & Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Emeritus.

ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT TRAITS FOR COMMERCIAL COW HERDS – REPRODUCTION

By Milt Thomas, Colorado State University

Thomas, formerly of New Mexico State University, used long-term research conducted in the Chihuahuan desert of New Mexico using Brangus cows. The study involved selection of herd replacements for increased weight. Over time, reproduction declined slightly as cows became larger. Highest reproduction was seen in cows somewhat below average in size. Thomas suggested that, especially in marginal environments, more attention should be paid to selecting females that mature early.

ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT TRAITS FOR COMMERCIAL COW HERDS – WEIGHT AND CARCASS MERIT

By Bob Weaber, Kansas State University

Weaber said a commercial cow-calf producer should ask themselves three questions: What is my source of replacement females? How do I sell calves? How do I generate revenue? The answer to these questions should determine genetic selection emphasis because traits have different value to different producers. A producer selling all calves at weaning and bringing in replacement females from outside should primarily emphasize moderate calving ease and growth when selecting sires. If the producer sells at weaning but saves heifers for replacements, some emphasis should be given to maternal traits. But if a producer retains ownership all the way through selling carcasses on a value-based grid, then carcass value should be a part of sire selection. Weaber said Dollar Value Index EPDs can be useful if the index applicable to a particular herd is used. But important single-trait EPDs should still be evaluated because sires with the same Dollar Value EPD can vary significantly in those traits. He also reminded the audience that reproduction and longevity are the most important traits in profitability of a cow herd.

SIZE, EFFICIENCY AND COMPLEMENTARITY

By Dr. Stephen Hammack, Texas AgriLife, Texas A&M System

Hammack traced the variation of cattle size over the last 200 years, from large to small and then, starting in the 1960s, back to large. At that time producers began selecting larger cattle and this continues. Today, the U. S. Meat Animal Research Center calculates that all breeds are continuing to increase in size, as estimated by genetic evaluation of yearling weight, and all of the major breeds are now similar. But research also has showed no biological advantage in efficiency due to larger size.

Emphasis on bigger cattle has been largely due to emphasizing performance of individuals as opposed to that of the total herd. (Larger cows can potentially wean heavier calves, but fewer larger cows can be maintained on the fixed forage resource of most herds.) Improved herd efficiency is possible through what is termed complementarity; this can be accomplished by breeding relatively smaller cows to larger sires, resulting in more calf weight relative to cow weight. Similarity in size among major breeds has reduced the opportunity to exploit complementarity due to size. However, complementarity due to differences in type will probably continue in the South and Southwest by using B. taurus sires on B. indicus crossbred cows.

STATE OF GENOMICS

By Dorian Garrick, Iowa State University

Garrick noted that EPDs of old, highly used sires are highly accurate and will not change much with genomic information. So, the primary benefit of genomic tools is to improve evaluation of potential breeding value of young individuals, along with evaluating traits difficult to measure or that are manifested later in life. Research has shown that genomic prediction is most effective in the population from which it is derived, so predictions developed in one breed are much more useful when restricted to cattle in that breed. In fact, predictions from one breed may be essentially useless and misleading in predicting breeding value for individuals in another breed or crossbreds. Genomic techniques are most useful when incorporated into breed EPDs to increase accuracy. Angus have produced so-called genomic-enhanced EPD for the last two years, Simmental have just begun, and Hereford will soon do so. Other breeds could follow as effective levels of genomic data are accumulated within the breed.

ESTROUS SYNCHRONIZATION IN BOS TAURUS AND BOS INDICUS

Dr. Joel Yelich, University of Florida

Yelich said that effective estrous synchronization protocols have been developed for Bos taurus but that the same procedures have not resulted in similar pregnancy rates in Bos indicus. Slight differences in endocrine responses and follicle dynamics may be involved. Modified protocols for use in Bos indicus show potential, but require and additional step involving more handling and greater cost. However, the trouble and cost may be more than offset by the level of increase in conception rate.

HOW MUCH DO IMPLANTS RETURN FOR SUCKLING CALVES?

Many years of research have shown that one growth implant in a suckling calf will average increasing weaning weight by about 20 pounds without adversely affecting postweaning performance. The cost of calf implants has remained relatively stable for a good many years at $1.00-$1.50 per treatment. When calves brought $0.50/cwt that meant a return of about $7-10 to 1. Today, with calves bringing $1.50 to $2.00 (depending on weight and quality) the return is somewhere between 20:1 and 40:1. Few if any management tools will equal that return, but it’s estimated that no more than 20% of cow-calf producers implant.

PERFORMANCE OF ANGUS, BRAHMAN, AND ROMOSINUANO PUREBRED AND CROSSBREDS

Many cows in the subtropical region of the U. S. have some heat tolerant genetics, usually from Brahman or Brahman-derivative breeds. Most of the steers and heifers not retained for breeding are finished in large feedyards located in more temperate regions, i. e., from the Texas Panhandle and northward.

In this study, purebreds and all possible reciprocal crosses were produced in central Florida using Angus (AN), Brahman (BR), and Romosinuano (RO), a tropically-adapted non-Bos indicus breed originating in Venezuela. Steer calves (n = 473) born over three consecutive years were weaned in September, backgrounded for at least three weeks, and shipped to central Oklahoma, a distance of 1255 miles. After a four-week preconditioning period, steers were turned out on wheat pasture from November to May, placed on full feed, and slaughtered after feeding for either 95, 125, or 155 days.

Tropically-adapted steers had higher weaning weights and background gain, as did crossbreds compared to purebreds and crosses among BR-RO compared to AN crosses. Loss of weight during shipping was 9% (48 lb), and crossbred steers lost 7 lb more than straightbreds. During preconditioning, shipping loss was recovered plus an additional 18 lb was gained; AN gained more and BR-RO crosses less.

On wheat, ranking of ADG was AN>AN crosses>BR-RO crosses or RO>BR. During finishing, ADG was similar among groups (AN crosses were slightly higher) except that BR was lower. (In both wheat-pasture and finishing phases, crosses out of BR dams gained less.) AN were lower in feed efficiency (gain:feed) and AN and AN-RO were numerically higher (less efficient) in Residual Feed Intake. As might be expected, highest heterosis for weaning, wheat-pasture, and finishing weight was found in AN-BR crosses, the most genetically diverse breeds in the study.

The authors concluded that performance was lower for tropically-adapted groups during winter-early spring on wheat but not during finishing in summer-early fall. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is reflected in the larger discounts commonly seen for tropically-adapted types for either grazing or finishing through winter in areas with large acreage of wheat and commercial feedyards. (J. Animal Sci. 90:1955; USDA-ARS in Brooksville, FL and El Reno, OK and Univ. of Florida)

NUTRITIONAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS VS. MEAT QUALITY

In a beef cow herd, some 60 to 65% of feed energy is required for body maintenance. Some breed association genetic evaluation programs now include EPD for cow nutritional maintenance requirements. A study was designed to compare meat quality from progeny of Red Angus sires with high and low EPD for maintenance, which is calculated by considering cow weight, body condition score, and milking potential. The analysis showed that EPD for maintenance was not related to tenderness of either strip loins or bottom rounds. The authors concluded that genetic selection for reduced nutritional requirements for body maintenance should have no effect on meat quality. (J. Animal Sci. 90:1617; Univ. of Idaho)

TIMING OF DE-WORMING AND VACCINATION IN YOUNG CALVES

Calves averaging 288 lb at about three months of age were inoculated with stomach and intestinal larvae on day 1, 7, 10, 14 and 18. One group was dewormed on day 21, one group was dewormed on day 35 and one group was not wormed as a control. All calves were vaccinated on day 35 with modified live virus respiratory vaccine. Fecal egg counts, blood samples, and rectal temperatures were taken weekly. Control calves always had higher fecal egg counts. On day 88, blood samples were taken, all calves were challenged with IBR virus, and 7 blood samples were taken during the next 14 days.

All calves had elevated rectal temperatures during the last 7 days but temperatures were higher for control calves. The authors concluded that de-worming reduced parasite levels and decreased rectal temperatures after viral challenge, regardless of whether de-worming was done two weeks before or at vaccination. (J. Animal Sci. 90:1948; Colorado St. Univ., USDA-ARS Lubbock, TX and Beltsville, MD, Intervet – Schering Plough Animal Health)

2011 National Beef Quality Audit

The first National Beef Quality Audit of fed cattle was conducted in 1991, with subsequent audits in 1995, 2000, and 2005. Findings of the 2011 audit have been reported by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association. The audit was conducted in three phases: Phase I to evaluate how different segments of beef production view quality, Phase II to assess current status of quality, and Phase III to determine how producers are implementing principles of Beef Quality Assurance.

Phase I revealed that industry segments often use different terms to define beef quality, which hinders communication between segments. Consumers want to know more about how beef is raised and its origin. Food safety is paramount to packers, food service, and retailers. Beef is generally recognized as being safe and of high quality, but the entire industry should continuously strive for improvement. Packers, food service, and retailers are under pressure to ensure consumers that animals are treated humanely. The industry should improve communication with the public.

In Phase II, it was found that almost all animals arriving at the packer have identification; 86 % had visual lot tags applied by the feedyard and 51% had some individual identification. Carcass trait averages (and ranges) were as follows:

hot weight 825 lb (310 to 1203)

fat thickness 0.5 in (0 to 1.6)

ribeye area 13.8 sq in (7.8 to 23.0)

marbling score Small40 (Practically Devoid100 to Abundant60)

The percent of Choice and Prime had been 50-55% in the previous four audits but increased to 61% in 2011. Instrument grading has become common; it was found to result in about 3% higher percent Choice-Prime than visual grading. Carcass weight has increased; almost 95% of carcasses weighed within 600-1000 lb, the range within which price is generally not discounted. However, about one-fourth of ribeyes were outside the generally preferred range of 12-16 sq. in, most outliers being too large. Some 13-14% of carcasses qualified for branded programs which require quality grades of upper 2/3 Choice or higher, such as Certified Angus Beef. Percentage of black-hided cattle increased from 45% to 61%.

In Phase III surveys, almost 80% of producers said they use individual animal id to track health treatments, ranging from 62% for stocker operators to 89% for seedstock. About 90% of producers said they had a working relationship with a veterinarian, but about 25% said they would use medications off label without veterinarian approval. Almost nobody reported still using electric prods as their primary means of handling cattle; more than 40% of producers use prods less than 10% of the time.

When how asked how they intentionally influenced quality of the product, proper animal handling and preventative health procedures ranked highest, followed by nutrition and implementing best management practices such as method of administering vaccines and antibiotics. It appears that producers are implementing principles of Beef Quality Assurance but some education is still needed. Seedstock and cow/calf producers ranked genetics high, but backgrounder/preconditioners, stocker/yearling operators, and feeders did not. Overall, the survey ranked quality challenges, in decreasing order of importance, as being food safety, eating satisfaction, how and where cattle are raised, percent lean-fat-bone, weight and cut size, and genetics. (

EFFECT OF CASTRATION TECHNIQUE ON PERFORMANCE

Calves averaging 200 days of age and 471 lbs were allotted to one of five groups:

castrated surgically using an emasculator

castrated with a Callicrate Bander

castrated surgically with a Henderson Castrating Tool

left intact as bulls

castrated surgically at 52 days of age (controls)

After 14 days, calves castrated earlier at 52 days of age and intact bulls had gained significantly more than the other groups, among which there was no significant difference. However, by 84 days, when the study was concluded, there was no significant difference among all groups in gain, nor in daily feed intake, daily water intake, gain:feed ratio, or residual feed intake. Surgical castration at the start of the study resulted in a short-term inflammatory response and banding resulted in a delayed response. NOTE: Other research has shown that pain due to castration is more acute and lasts longer as age, weight, and testicular size increase, so early castration is more humane and is strongly recommended as a part of Beef Quality Assurance. (J. Animal Sci. 90:2345; Univ. of Florida)

INCREASED RESIDUE TESTING OF MEAT, POULTRY AND EGGS

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service plans to increase residue testing of meat, poultry, and eggs. Up to now, testing has been for one chemical at a time. Under the proposal, as many as 55 pesticide chemicals, 9 kinds of antibiotics (approved and unapproved), various metals, and eventually over 50 other chemicals will be tested on a single sample using multi-residue methods. Industry groups have expressed support of this change in order to reassure consumers of product safety. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_070212_02/index.asp).

Extension programs serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, US. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating. A member of the Texas A&M University System and its statewide Agriculture Program.