Fueling your cows

It takes grass to grow grass on the foundation

by Morgan Marley

April 20, 2020

If you’ve built a powerhouse cow herd, its best fueled with robust grass.

“We all understand that a ranch has to be economically viable in the short term to have any opportunity to be economically viable in the long term,” says Hugh Aljoe, director of producer relations for Noble Research Institute.

That’s why management needs to adapt quickly to uncontrollable changes like drought. Record keeping and monitoring are key.

Understanding the basics

In planning for available forage, Aljoe contrasts carrying capacity versus stocking rate: “There’s a difference.”

Capacity is a measure of the forage supply or how much grass is being produced. Stocking rate is a measure of forage demand, or how much grass is being grazed.

“Carrying capacity changes from year to year or season to season based on moisture and our pasture management,” he says. “The better we manage, the more opportunity we have for production.”

Monitoring carrying capacity throughout the year helps determine where adjustments should be made to stocking rate.

It’s a supply-and-demand relationship based on what the pasture produces and what the cattle need.

Rain gauge

Across the country, rainfall varies in amount and timing, which affects growing patterns and pasture management.

The first thing Aljoe looks at is historical annual precipitation. Start by studying rain at the end of the growing season in October “when the water begins to recharge the soils,” Aljoe advises.

By the end of March, the Southern Great Plains should already have 40% of its annual rainfall, he says. The amount of precipitation accumulated in the soil will determine whether it’s going to be an early or delayed spring.

“Did we receive abundant rainfall and can add more numbers?” he asks. “Or did we receive less rainfall and need to de-stock in order to preserve our pastures?”

Regardless of where a ranch is located, 30% to 35% of annual forage production should occur by the end of May. That increases to 65% by the end of June when the water year rainfall should reach 65% to 75%, Aljoe says, referring to water-table records.

“If we’re not there in the spring, we’re probably never going to catch up,” he says. Livestock can have compensatory gain, but unfortunately pastures are limited.

Another important component is variance, or how much rainfall is normal, positive or negative? Small differences are less critical than those above 10 to 15 percentage points.

Aljoe shares one example when forward-looking management saved the ranch. Charting a major drought as it developed in the spring, management at the typically 1,000-cow ranch sold down to 700 head before major downward price pressure. By September, those pastures stood out for not showing much drought stress.

“The land resource was maintained,” Aljoe says. “That’s what is possible when you use the water table.”

Look down

“Take half, leave half” is a good starting rule, but grass growth rate and forage type help set rotation plans and grazing-pressure thresholds.

“In the South there’s Bermudagrass or fescue in the North,” Aljoe says. “On those introduced pastures, we can take as much as 50% to 65% of the production every time we graze, because they’ll recover rapidly. On the other hand, on native range pastures we only want to take 25% at best.”

How often do you walk across your pasture and look down and score your pastures? Is the ground cover highly unfavorable, unfavorable, favorable or highly favorable?

“You want to rate it on a system where there is no middle ground,” Aljoe says. Even numbers make it easier to see if land needs improvement or maintaining.

Building small exclusion plots with wire panels and T-posts is another way to monitor the amount of forage grazed.

“We never want to take more than half,” he says. “And in the early growing seasons, we don’t want to take but the top third in a good grazing program.”

During the dormant seasons, some cattlemen like to make cattle “hustle,” eating what’s probably better left as residual ground cover, Aljoe says. Forced “cleanup” grazing may damage the forage’s ability to come back and leave soil unprotected. It can take years to recover.

Photo points

Sometimes it’s hard to see the changes, so Aljoe suggests visual evidence from the same “photo points” each year.

Take pictures at the peak and end of growing seasons, marking locations with a simple T-post or through a downloaded global positioning system (GPS) app.

“We had a producer that bought a degraded resource and through management planning he took it from poor condition to what we would consider excellent condition in just five years,” he says, noting the photos played a key role.

Aljoe shares those pictures with others, “to help them see what their future could look like.”

Doing something is better than doing nothing. Be consistent and only make it as complicated as you’re willing to stand, he says.

It can be as simple as these examples, or customized with free consultation from resources like the Oklahoma-based Noble Research Institute or the government’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

A powerhouse cow can’t grow a calf of the same caliber without the grass to match.

Aljoe shared these tips for cattlemen at the 2020 Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio.

Don’t wince

Scientific evidence, economic incentive for sustainability

by Abbie Burnett

April 15, 2020

William Shakespeare wrote about every plot line ever told—betrayal, love, mystery, drama, tragedy, comedy—but he didn’t invent them.

Humanity has been telling the same stories for ages. But as each new generation walks the earth, they find new twists on the same basic tales. And we don’t grow tired of them.

Sustainability is an old story to cattle producers all over the world, but they’re finding new ways to talk about it.

Protein upcycling is a recent term that adds science to the narrative.

“The vast majority of what we do is take a resource that is largely un-utilizable by humans and turn it into something that humans can utilize,” Tryon Wickersham, Texas A&M University ruminant nutritionist, said at the 2020 Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio.

“Everybody in the room knows that,” he said, “but the majority of people outside of this room don’t know it—so we need to speak to that.”

Humans need essential amino acids, and a shortage can stunt physical or mental development.

Corn, wheat and soybeans contain amino acids and human edible proteins (HEP), but meat provides more per calorie, Wickersham said.

Protein sources’ capacity to meet nutritional needs are ranked by digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIASS). Animal proteins tally more than 100 DIASS versus corn at 36.8, so you need much less from animal sources to meet requirements, he said.

But at what cost? Are the resources consumed worth what those animals deliver?

No question, really. Wickersham calculated that a 1,000-head cow herd is fed just 24 pounds (lb.) of HEP during an entire year while producing more than 62,000 lb. of HEP.

“For every pound of HEP we put into the system, we get 2,600 lb. out,” he said. Taking that times beef’s protein quality ratio gets to a net protein contribution of 8,000. “Anything greater than 1 means the industry is not competing with humans for human edible protein.”

While it may take 770 lb. of corn to finish a steer, he put that in perspective.

“If I took that corn and I fed it to children, how many children could I feed?” he asked the audience.

Three. That would meet the toddlers’ amino acid requirement, but it would be difficult to consume that many calories from the grain and would lead to obesity.

Through protein upcycling—feeding that HEP to livestock—beef cattle feed 17 children with much fewer calories.

“We’re contributing to society by converting these low-quality sources of protein that humans can’t utilize into something that tastes amazing and does a great job of meeting their nutritional requirements,” he said.

But there are other measures and “sustainability is a balancing act,” Wickersham said. So his team tracks methane production per unit of HEP, too, demonstrating higher quality diets in feedyards help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Anything we do from a production efficiency standpoint generally improves net protein contribution and the ability of cattle to feed people,” he said.

The underlying themes are timeless, but evolving technology and discoveries mean it’s time to share the story again.

Not only are consumers devouring it, but stakeholders are pressing for it, according to Wayne Morgan, Golden State Foods executive and president of the company’s protein products and sustainability branch.

As a $5 billion supplier to more than 125,000 restaurant chains and retail stores on five continents, Morgan feels the pressure sustainability questions are putting on companies like his and those it serves.

“Consumers say a lot of things and they don’t always respond with their wallets the same way they answer questions, but still, we can’t deny they’re an important part of this beef industry. We need to listen to what they’re saying,” Morgan said.

Investors, on the other hand, are responding with their wallets.

One of the biggest investor groups is BlackRock, controlling $7 trillion of the $80 trillion on earth.

“So when they announced they’re going to avoid investments in companies that present high sustainability-related risks, well, that ought to get your attention,” he said. “Anytime a major player in any business makes a shift, everybody else comes along.”

Morgan gets regular calls on Golden State Foods’ sustainability initiatives.

“How are we going to do better? How are we going to make improvements on greenhouse gas emissions? Save water? Reduce packaging?”

The Golden State Foods plan includes logistics, environmental scorecards, third-party audits, pilot projects and new data tracking technologies through IBM Blockchain.

How does he want the cattle community to answer those questions?

For starters, “don’t wince” every time you hear the word sustainability, Morgan advised.

Shakespeare wasn’t the first storyteller and neither are producers.

“We want you to embrace it,” he said, challenging the audience to change the sustainability narrative and make it their own.

Beef up the dinner table

Consumer insights say beef is doing well at staying at the center of the plate

by Morgan Marley

April 1, 2020

Cattlemen respond to consumer demands, even as they evolve from the call for premium quality to transparent production practices.

We know that, thanks to ongoing work from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

Insights and perceptions derived from 2019 Consumer Beef Tracker data, presented by Rick Husted, NCBA vice president of strategic planning and market research, at the 2020 Midwest American Society of Animal Science meeting in Omaha.

Overall, beef is doing well.

When the supply was low in 2014 and 2015, Husted said beef consumption per capita in the U.S. was 54 pounds (lb.) per person but has steadily increased. Cattlefax projects that number to reach 58 lb. this year.

It isn’t just beef, but all proteins. USDA’s 2019 estimate of 219 lb. per capita consumption of all meat and poultry is projected at 223 lb. in 2020.

“That’s a lot of meat consumers are continuing to eat,” Husted said, noting it proves demand is more than just volume—it’s volume and price.

The value consumers see in beef continues to rise, too.

“The total U.S. consumer expenditure for beef is projected to hit $112 billion,” he said. While the supply hasn’t grown considerably, continued movement at steady to higher prices speaks to value perception.

NCBA gathers and analyzes data to help keep beef a top protein source. Every month, more than 500 people take an in-depth survey about their daily diet and lifestyle so analysis can segment today’s consumers and find the most favorable beef messaging.

“We focus on the whole population, but we’ve learned through our research that Millennials are our target, and Gen Z’s,” Husted said. “The kids, for the most part, of those older Millennial parents are the ones who are becoming more and more the drivers of purchasing power.”

And those kids want to know more about how their food is raised.

The survey asks consumers about all proteins from beef, chicken, pork and even meat substitutes. The positive perceptions of beef are high at 66%, Husted said, but beef’s biggest competitor is even higher.

“We dig deeper and get a lot more diagnostic about what they like or don’t like about chicken,” he said. “We see that perceptions among consumers for chicken are more positive when it comes to health and being more affordable.”

Beef has to meet high standards to make it to the center of the American plate. The top consideration is taste, Husted said, followed by value. For consumers, food safety is always a given, and health ranks closer to the middle for meal choices, especially when dining out.

Only 37% had positive perceptions of beef production, with 41% neutral, and the greatest concern was animal welfare. Generational distance from farming and misinformation in the media don’t help, he noted.

“Producers just have to make sure they are always thinking about raising beef responsibly, doing it the right way,” Husted said.

For years, producers have been called to “tell their story.” That’s why beef.org launched a Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) ad series to explain some details. Learning about BQA produced increases in confidence of 70% for beef safety and 67% for humane treatment, Husted said.

The data is supportive of strong beef demand. Yet the rising awareness and headlines surrounding substitute animal proteins has many producers on edge. Several years ago, Husted and his team sought to understand the threat it holds to the industry.

“When you look at all animal proteins and animal substitutes, most recently that percent of market share is less than 1%, closer to 0.4%,” he said. “And then on the beef and beef substitutes where Beyond (Beef) is really trying to make it in, it’s still not quite 0.7%.”

People aren’t changing their diets as these alternative proteins are becoming more available. They’re just “working them in,” Husted said.

“Is the percent of vegans or vegetarians increasing? It’s not. Are folks replacing beef or other meat proteins with these substitutes? They’re not,” he said. “When you think about all the things that consumers eat on a daily basis, there’s a huge variety. Meat substitutes are just one of those things.”

Beef is doing well. And Husted argues it will continue to do well while half of consumers rank it as a great source of protein.

“People love beef. They select it over other proteins, not just for the taste and enjoyment, but as a great source of protein, and they continue to love it,” he said.

That’s a solid foundation to keep building on.

The Porsche of beef

Consumers are willing to pay a high price for beef if it’s worth it every time

by Morgan Marley

March 30, 2020

If USDA Choice were a basic Volkswagen, U.S. cattlemen should be producing the Audis and Porsches made by the same company.

That’s according to Robbi Pritchard, speaking at the recent Midwest American Society of Animal Scientists’ Harlan Ritchie Symposium in Omaha. He was one of five who presented on evolving cattle production to align with consumer demands.

Superior products require superior attention to detail, including shifting demand signals.

“Those consumer preferences seem to be focused on the increased demand we’ve seen for the higher quality products,” Pritchard said. “And the wellbeing of the animals—which gets around to animal husbandry, our environmental impact and how well we manage though the entire supply chain.”

Consumers have proven they’re willing to pay the “Porsche price,” but if the eating experience doesn’t match, then that brand of beef will get scratched off the buy-again list, he said.

Generic cattle have limited potential in today’s branded and specialized marketplace, where the average load is 75% Choice or higher. That’s also the threshold for reward premiums.

Borrowed approach

Learning from others can save a lot of time, worry and money.

Take notes from hog farmers on replacement females, Pritchard suggested.

“In the ’80s, swine producers started to receive letters from packers that their hogs no longer met market specs and they would not buy their hogs anymore,” he said.

The problem? Lack of uniformity and quality in the sow herd. The quickest and most efficient way to make a turnaround was to buy commercial F1 females with a proven record of consistency.

“We can do that in the cattle industry if we’re willing to take that step,” he said.

Leading beef producers are there now, but many more would benefit by following their lead.

Maternal function and carcass quality can be delivered in one package with focused selection. But it doesn’t work if half of your steer calves have maternal sires and half have terminal sires.

Humans have a competitive nature that drives toward “best,” whether that’s luxury cars or premium beef production.

“If we’re building a Porsche, do we buy the cheapest brakes to put in it?” Pritchard asked. Unintended consequences proliferate when losing sight of the end goal.

Cattlemen have built highly efficient cows. Commercial producers should focus on improving the bottom end of the herd for the fastest results.

There are different ways to evaluate efficiency. Some compare weaning weights as a percent of cow weights. Others optimize carrying capacity, which keeps downward pressure on frame size.

“Both of these select for smaller cows,” Pritchard said. “But in the end, we’re still trying to see how many servings of beef we can produce per cow per year.” That’s why he prefers to compare cows on their progeny’s hot carcass weight, times age at harvest, divided by cow body weight.

Efficiency benefits the environment, too. Cattle used to enter the feedyard at 15 to 18 months of age, but today most Northern Plains cattle are harvested by then.

“When feeder cattle go to the feedyard sooner and are harvested sooner, there’s less carbon footprint,” he said.

Some consumers want grass-fed cattle and decreased greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously, Pritchard noted. But the longer an animal walks the earth, the larger its carbon footprint.

“It just doesn’t fit,” he said, while allowing, “We still have to work on finding sustainable solutions.”

Breaking old habits

As for the next challenge, Pritchard asked, “How can you build an entire pen of uniform feeder calves?” Start with how you want to market them and plan backward from there.

Nothing holds more value than a relationship with a cattle feeder to gauge genetic improvement needs in successive calf crops.

“Having that relationship is when you get rewarded for it,” he said.

All of it, starting with those first investments leading up to a breeding season that may include artificial insemination (AI).

“If the AI sires have superior genetics and your cleanup bulls don’t, then you no longer have a uniform, superior calf crop,” Pritchard said. All bulls used have to meet at least average specs. The payback for that comes when the calves sell, whether at weaning, after backgrounding or through retained ownership.

If we can break some old habits, he said, a uniform calf crop decreases the need for sorting and mixing into shared pens at the feedyard; if we do less of that, we will use less antibiotics.

“When we co-mingle, it’s like daycare,” Pritchard said. No amount of vaccinations and health precautions can prevent disease in every animal.

Technology has provided assistance in monitoring animals and streamlining chores, but he said it’s increasingly used as a substitute for choices and husbandry skills. Those require persistent practice.

“Husbandry is kind of like marriage,” he said. Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a successful marriage, so “it’s really hard to define the good ones.”

Animal welfare is the biggest concern from consumers, and husbandry is a key component.

Technology and husbandry intermix during heat detection, Pritchard said. He noted a commonly listed advantage of timed AI is that it eliminates the need to identify which cows are in heat.

“But,” he asked, “if we are challenged to find help that can recognize estrus, how capable are we of identifying early signs of illness in feeder cattle?

There’s more to raising a good steak than what meets the eye. It has to have superior attention from first plans to the dinner table.

Stay connected with the brand

Stay on top of the quality beat by subscribing. Updates from your favorite beef brand delivered straight to your inbox.

Beef AI can pay

Capturing the value of artificial breeding from ranch to rail

By Natalie Jones

March 9, 2020

Most dairymen use a breeding technology also proven profitable for beef cattle enterprises, but no more than 10% of commercial cattlemen bother with it.

Why? Lack of facilities, labor, confidence and convenience lead the list of reasons artificial insemination (AI) hasn’t become commonplace on the ranch.

Idaho Extension Beef Cattle Specialist John Hall led producers to reexamine barriers and capitalize on the value of AI at last fall’s Range Beef Cow Symposium in Mitchell, Neb.

Developed more than 80 years ago, with frozen technology since 1945, AI has included sex-sorting options for a dozen years.

Rather than just turning bulls out for natural service and moving on to other ranch projects, Hall urged producers to consider the value they could capture with AI. That’s because consumers are calling for more high-quality beef, and the call must be answered.

“AI certainly gives us the opportunity to do that, because we can use those highly proven sires that have carcass information that we know are going to give us the kind of cattle the consumer wants,” Hall said.

But before going all-in with investments in synchronization and semen costs, technician fees and the labor associated with roundup and processing, he suggested making sure basic management is on track.

A successful AI season begins with heifers at a body condition score (BCS) of 6 and cows at BCS 5, after a closed and short calving season so that they can cycle back before insemination.

Costs and benefits

The average cost of a commercial bull is about $5,000, Hall said, and the cost of natural breeding continues to rise. That’s why few commercial producers buy above-average bulls for growth and carcass merit; they simply can’t afford their natural service, which Hall put at $90 to produce a live calf.

On a 300-cow herd and a 50% pregnancy rate, he said each AI calf would cost about $95. With a more typical preg rate at 55%, that AI calf is cheaper than the one from natural service. It also carries superior genetics from bulls in the top breed percentiles that most cannot afford for natural service.

The use of fixed-time AI helps keep labor costs down and can shift calving seasons earlier, with more born in the first 21 to 30 days. Calves in the first 21 days compared to three weeks later result in 35 to 50 pounds, but that’s mainly an advantage for feeder calf value, Hall said.

“What we normally see when using fixed-time AI,” he said, “we’ll pick up a 3 to 5 percentage-point increase in the number of cows pregnant at the end of the year, compared to natural service.”

Another opportunity is replacement heifers.

“You can capture a big advantage in the females created, because of their enormous value to a commercial operation,” Hall said. “You can breed a certain percentage of them to more maternal bulls to fit the environment that you work in.”

Retained ownership

Beyond the cow-calf herd is the potential value capture at the feedyard and packinghouse.

“Taking calves all the way to harvest is arguably the best way to realize return on the AI investment,” Hall said. That’s because carcass traits are the most heritable and high-quality carcasses continue to command premiums that go straight back to producer pockets when they retain ownership.

Data from a 600-head Virginia operation retaining ownership on calves shows having both AI sire and AI-sired dam increased returns to each cow by 22%. It also increased the share of carcasses grading Choice by 38 percentage points compared to calves with no AI genetics.

“What we see is not only an increase in hot carcass weight, but we see an increase in marbling and therefore an increase in quality grade,” Hall said.

Calves sired by high carcass-merit sires have proven greater feed efficiency and growth rate, which adds up to smaller feed bills, he said, “or you’ll receive greater returns for the cost of feed you put in them.”

Greater feed efficiency, higher marbling and higher quality grade score wins for cattlemen and consumers.

Proactive animal health means a genetic approach

by Miranda Reiman

February 27, 2020

Imagine a world where you could breed cattle that never get sick.

It’s not reality today, but the American Angus Association is taking the first step toward tools that can help select for greater immunity.

“As we continue to refine genetic selection, we realize that genetics contribute to animal health in ways we probably don’t fully understand today,” said Mark McCully, Angus CEO. “As we start identifying genetic lines that are less likely to get sick, that has ramifications across the entire industry.”

In a world where breeders can place pressure on everything from fertility and growth to end-product merit, “It is kind of the missing link at the moment,” said Stephen Miller, director of genetic research, Angus Genetics Inc. (AGI).

At last fall’s Angus Convention in Reno, Nevada, the Association talked about possible future projects that will likely include the Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Angus Association to get at more data more quickly.

“We’ve had increasing scrutiny around the use of antibiotics, so we need to be ready,” said Brad Hine, CSIRO research scientist. “Our ability to use antibiotics in our food-producing animals is, in the next few years, going to be rapidly reduced. A really good strategy is to try to breed animals that have improved disease resistance.”

Over the next two years, 3,000 U.S. cattle will get three trips through the chute: one to administer a test antigen intramuscularly—similar to a vaccine trial—one to gauge response and administer a second antigen, and a final trip to measure response to that second stimulant.

“It’s a way for us to measure healthfulness, or an animal’s ability to respond with antibody production,” Miller said, that will help identify DNA markers for immunity. “The goal down the road is that we would have a genomic EPD [expected progeny difference] for immune response, based on these phenotypes.”

It’s all part of a larger project, working with immunologist Bonnie Mallard, University of Guelph, and her team along with Semex. (This work was funded in part by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and Ontario Genomics.)

The Australians have already measured 4,500 and it is the long-term intention that their dataset could be combined with the North American project’s findings in the future.

Hine said their project showed the industry needs to “rethink” health predictions.

“It’s easy to make the assumption that the most productive animal is the animal with the best immune system,” Hine said. “Obviously, the healthiest animal grew the fastest.”

But in some instances disease resistance is negatively correlated with production. For example, high-milking Holstein cows are often more at risk for mastitis, he noted.

“The research tells us, if we select for productivity alone, we increase susceptibility to disease,” Hine said.

Different types of pathogens are dealt with in different ways. There’s a cellular response for viruses that live inside the cells and antibodies that fight those outside the cells. CSIRO tested for both.

“The risk you run if you select animals that are very good at one arm of the immune system is that sometimes those animals are not as good at handling pathogens that require the opposite arm,” he said, noting they measured animals at their most stressful points.

“It’s about breeding animals with a really strong immune system so they can handle whatever challenges they face,” Hine said.

The heritability appears to be moderate. Correlations to other traits were weak but followed as expected: temperament was favorable while production traits like growth were negative.

Following indexed animals through the feedlot, the Australians recorded a $3.50 animal-health cost for every animal that scored high for immunity. Those in the low group accrued $103 per head.

Hine said those are conservative estimates that don’t account for labor.

“If we can identify low-immune-competent animals and get them out of the system, there is a huge economic benefit for us as an industry,” he said.

The low-immunity group, just 11% of the population, accounted for 35% of health costs.

“As tools are developed, I think the adoption rate will be pretty significant,” McCully said. “A slight change in the improvement of animal health has huge economic ramification across the industry.”

The technology is “in its infancy,” he said, but the long-term goal would be to create genetic tools for Angus breeders and their commercial customers, such as genomic tests for replacement heifers or to prescreen cattle bound for the feedyard.

“I could definitely see this as a way of being better able to characterize risk,” McCully said. “You could modify your management to the risk level.”

Protocols at the yard could differ according to test scores. Eventually, market signals should follow, he said.

“If I’m a feeder, I’m still going to want those cattle vaccinated—it doesn’t change anything about good calf management we do today,” McCully said. “But if I can look at a set of cattle that has all of that, plus the genetics that give them the likelihood of staying healthier, that becomes an economic signal back to the producer to make more of those cattle.”

Programs like AngusLink^SM could potentially convey information through the chain.

“I really do see immune competence as just one part of the puzzle when we start to think about the resilience of the animal,” Hine said.

Cattlemen still need a focus on management and environments that control pathogens, giving cattle less exposure in the first place.

“We can breed the animals that are the most disease-resistant, but if we put them in a really bad, high-disease environment, then they will eventually succumb,” Hine said.

Even with improved tools, cattle will still get sick, although less often. That allows for less antibiotics in the system.

“There are obvious benefits for producers, economically, from breeding for improved immune competence, but I think the biggest benefit is maintaining consumer confidence in our beef,” Hine said. “We need to be proactive rather than reactive.”

The most important meal

Complex issues, simple solutions for a timed event

by Morgan Marley

December 13, 2019

The most important meal of each calf’s life is its first.

Colostrum serves as a loan of immunity from its mother until the calf has time to build its own, Brian Vander Ley said. Calves are born having “almost no antibodies,” but the ability to make them.

“Some of the immunity is short lived—which makes it critically important,” said the University of Nebraska veterinary epidemiologist. “Because if it doesn’t receive that passive transfer, it is without protection for about two weeks.”

Two weeks of at risk of damage that can never be made up.

Vander Ley shared his take at the 2019 Range Beef Cow Symposium last month in Mitchell, Neb., based on his ongoing work at the Great Plains Veterinary Educational Center in Clay Center, Neb.

Ensuring your cows are prepared to produce adequate colostrum is just as important as their calves receiving it. Body condition scores are the top indicators.

“Cows that are in good condition, at least a five, give birth more quickly,” Vander Ley said. “They make better colostrum and their calves get up and nurse faster because they’re stronger and tend to have better immune function.”

Those aren’t the ones to worry about. It’s the calves you help bring into the world.

If a cow or heifer is experiencing dystocia, the chances of the newborn calf getting up and nursing decreases significantly.

“The longer a calf spends in anaerobic metabolism without oxygen, the lower its blood pH goes. So it goes into acidosis,” Vander Ley said. “Acidosis in calves has the direct effect of depressing their brain function.”

If you’re going to assist with a delivery, “then you better go through the trouble” of making sure the calf gets colostrum.

“If that calf isn’t standing in a half hour and nursing then you better get its mother in the chute and milk her out,” he said, adding it’s a missed opportunity to not guarantee the calf received colostrum.

While there is still absorptive capacity up to 24 hours, the most optimal timeframe is four hours. After that, their ability to absorb quickly declines.

And nursing is better than tubing. Calves have a reflex pathway called the esophageal groove. Whenever a calf nurses, it’s the reflex response in their forestomach that creates “a straight shot from the esophagus to the small intestine.”

“If we tube, that doesn’t happen,” he said. “When we tube, we think it pools in their rumen or in that forestomach, somewhere. Then they don’t access all of it.”

Even nursing a bottle is preferred to tubing if possible, though he acknowledged not all calves are up for it. In that case, it’s better to get colostrum in the calf.

“One of my favorite sayings is ‘don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,’” Vander Ley said. “This is a great example where to apply that.”

But if you are going to tube, there are two things to avoid. One is tubing a calf on its side, where a bad event is much more likely. Sit the calf up so its “sternal” side or chest is touching the ground.

The other error would be stretching a calf’s neck out so that the tip of the tube naturally wants to go into the trachea. Vander Ley suggested bending the calf’s head as much as 90 degrees to the right, which lets the tip of the tube bypass the trachea and go into the esophagus on the left side of the calf’s throat.

Sometimes you may suspect a calf didn’t nurse enough or soon enough and the window for absorption is closing. In that case it’s better to give it the whole dose of colostrum rather than just a “boost.”

“Because of gut closure, if we create any kind of satiety in calves, they don’t feel like they have to get up and nurse,” Vander Ley said. “And we’re going to miss that opportunity pretty quickly; it makes me feel a lot better to get that calf a full dose immediately,” he said, noting the satisfaction of doing everything possible.

If that means tubing a calf, do it preferably with its mother’s colostrum because “she makes as close to perfect antibodies that her calf needs.”

But if you can’t get the milk from the cow, replacer products are better than supplements, Vander Ley said. Replacer is made from dried colostrum from dairy cows, while supplements are often “spray-dried bovine plasma from slaughter plants.” Both have useable antibodies, but replacers contain more and from analogous origins.

Read the label of replacer products to make sure you give the calf an adequate amount, he directed. Most products recommend 100 to 120 grams of antibody for adequate passive transfer, but that can take two packages of a colostrum replacer.

Dairy industry research says calves that don’t get enough passive transfer have more pre-weaning problems like scours and infections. Other data suggest respiratory disease becomes a greater problem at the feedyard.

Vander Ley’s conclusion: The issues are complicated, but management is simple. Feed your spring calving herd well through the winter. Make a plan for when calving starts, so you know what you’re going to do. Have products and tools available.

Four hours comes and goes quickly for each calf, but those are the windows that get your calves off to the right start.

Capturing value for calves

by Morgan Marley

December 5, 2019

The way we market fed cattle has changed. Better formula and grid-based pricing structures channeled greater returns to cattlemen, which led to higher quality in the American cow herd.

It trickles down to the cow-calf producer and how they choose to sell calves. Consumer dollars favor adding value to the end product, and it pays to start down that road while still on the ranch.

That’s the consensus of panelists at the 2019 Range Beef Cow Symposium in Mitchell, Neb. Those included the Certified Angus Beef ^® (CAB^®) brand’s Paul Dykstra, Nebraska feeder and rancher Gary Darnall and South Dakota Angus cattleman Britton Blair.

“As a cow-calf producer, we have more opportunities to receive value at different segments, or different points in our operation than any other segment in our industry,” Darnall said. “But we really find out when we retain ownership.”

All the panelists echoed that message. So why don’t more producers retain ownership of their calves all the way to the packer?

Risk.

There’s a higher death loss once calves leave your ranch. But Blair said, “that comes back on you” and making sure of your vaccination and management program.

“The longer you own the animal, the longer you’re at the mercy of the market,” Darnall said.

Market swings also bring opportunity to alert watchers who can hedge to lock in a profit.

“But you have to be ready to pull the trigger,” Blair said.

When you get past the risk, advantages await for those who try.

Many cattlemen don’t operate in commercial feeding areas, and it takes effort to contact feedyard managers. But there aren’t a lot of secrets in the cattle business, the panelists said. Just ask the right people the right questions.

“The good part is, the livestock business is a people business,” Blair said. “And I think it’s easy to talk to those guys. And those guys want customers and they want to talk to you. They want the opportunity to do business with you.”

Deciding to retain ownership is a dynamic commitment involving how and when.

“The market is a moving target,” Blair said, and it may not fit every year. “It makes more sense to retain ownership in a bad market than a good one, even though that’s the hardest time.”

When the market is high, you’re going to be profitable no matter how you market your calves. But when times are tough, retaining ownership can buy time for the market to go up and capture more dollars.

“A lot of people don’t know that some feedyards will finance the cattle, the feed and the risk protection,” Blair said. “It makes it pretty easy when you send your cattle there. They’ll send you back around 75% of the value of your calves and keep 25% as essentially money down. They’ll finance the rest.”

That takes care of some cash-flow concerns, perhaps offering significant payment in the fall and another when calves are finished a few months later.

Another advantage is the information from packer harvest reports.

“The carcass data you get back can be very valuable to you,” Darnall said. “You can take it back home and use it in your management program to help increase whatever traits you want, to add more value to your product.”

Blair later said knowing both feedyard and carcass performance helps in choosing a packer grid to market through. After a few years of success, dollars may argue for staying the course.

“Once you’ve retained ownership, and if you have those above-average cattle, you’ll never get paid for their total value on a commodity market,” Blair said. “Whether you’ve sold them at the highest price at the sale that day or not.”

Adding value matters to your bottom line, but also to consumers. They expect the beef on their dinner table to be worth its relatively higher price.

“As we increase marbling and quality grade substantially, then we also increase the percentage of satisfied eating experiences for consumers,” Dykstra said.

Cattle have changed in recent years, he noted with a nod to the widespread drought several years ago.

“Since then, cow herds have built back with replacements that genetically improved quality grade,” Dykstra said, resulting in more Choice and higher grading carcasses than ever.

Demand, however, “remains robust.”

Grid pricing reflects a portion of the cutout values, which have increased dramatically for premium quality, he added. In early November, a typical Prime carcass was worth nearly $300 more than Select. The CAB premium was $218 and Choice was $127.

If you retained ownership, had above-average cattle and sold on a grid in fall 2019, you should have received a hefty paycheck.

“Packers will only add Choice premiums to our pocketbook if we beat the average of cattle harvested on a weekly basis,” Dykstra explained.

It’s natural to think of the individual animals, and grids even pay on a per-carcass basis, but some value calculations come from load and plant averages. The Choice premium is a case in point.

“When we talk about the Choice-Select spread at $25 and $26 here most recently, we don’t get all of that,” Dykstra explained. “We get 30% of it because the packer expects 70% Choice on a weekly basis.”

Producing average quality isn’t the goal.

In the last four years, 30% of CAB sales growth has come from Prime alone.

“Most of us don’t think about a grocery store as an area where we’re going to see a lot of folks wanting to pay for something like Prime quality grade product,” Dykstra said, “but we certainly have seen that happen.”

Consumer demand is there. Cattlemen just have to keep aiming for higher quality to meet it and reap the premiums.

Visit the Range Beef Cow Symposium website for more event coverage, http://www.rangebeefcow.com/2019/newsroom.html.

Read more about retained ownership here.

The search for stockmen

By Kylee Kohls

The future of food is in our hands, but do we have enough hands to help feed the world?

Courtney Daigle, assistant professor of animal welfare at Texas A&M University, shares ideas on the narrowing supply of quality stockmen and how cattlemen might find more top hands.

“There are fewer people working in agriculture, so there’s a limited awareness that stockmanship is a potential occupation,” she says. “A lot of our workforce is made up of immigrants, and some of the challenges we have in retaining and recruiting are influenced by our current policies associated with immigration reform.”

Once a stockman is hired and gets good at their job, it’s hard to keep them because of the low pay and long workdays.

“But it’s really important to keep them in place because a critical component of quality care is consistent animal care,” Daigle says. “The animals notice whenever stock people change; not just who’s working, but what kind of relationship they had” and the individual animal history.

Quality and consistent care help drive profit and acceptance rates for the Certified Angus Beef ^® brand, which climb highest for calves that never had a bad day.

“A good stock person is worth their weight in gold, but a bad one can break the bank,” Daigle says.

One issue is typically low pay for long, hard days, and it matters if one is paid by the hour or by the number of animals handled.

“Pay strategy can sometimes motivate people to perform quickly, not carefully,” which can lead to “sub-optimal handling” and negative perceptions of the occupation. Stock people can also suffer from “compassion fatigue.”

“They may have thousands of animals that they’re responsible for in a day – that can be overwhelming – and the people get tired themselves,” Daigle says.

Growing up in cities, she dreamt of working with animals, which is why her BS and early career was in zoology, working with African lions.

“It wasn’t until I started working at Texas A&M that I knew what a pen rider was, and I’ve worked with animals my whole life,” Daigle says. “People can’t help that they’re born in the cities and so even if they want to work with animals, they may not know there are other opportunities [besides the zoo].”

As her work continued at Texas A&M, she kept bumping into what she calls the “stockman/zookeeper conundrum.” With many similarities between the two occupations, the divide begins with the demand.

For every rural stock person available, there are two job openings; for every zookeeper position, there are 150 applicants.

“Although they are very different scenarios, the occupations and pay are very similar,” says Daigle, noting cities could be viable recruiting areas for those offering jobs in stockmanship.

“We are having a hard time finding people who will be stewards of our food animals. When we start looking around and asking ‘Where is everyone?’ –- they are in the cities.”

She suggests advertising in urban centers for positions such as animal technicians, opportunity to work with a large number of animals.

“Then provide incentive,” Daigle says. “Highlight quality of life based on pay structure, cost of living and geographical locations. By advertising in some of these areas and targeting people who want to work with animals, producers might find a more diverse and better-qualified suite of applicants to fill those open positions.”

Fetus to feedyard

Immunometabolism’s impact on animal health

by Kylee Kohls

This isn’t a research topic you’d find at the middle-school science fair.

It’s so new, research is just beginning to explore this 16-letter term for immune cells sharing nutrients with major organs: immunometabolism. So far, there are still more questions than answers.

Barry Bradford, animal scientist at Kansas State University, presented his work with cattle at the American Society of Animal Scientists annual meetings in July.

That interaction of cells competing, sharing and utilizing nutrients is especially key in times of illness, he said.

“The body makes a lot of adaptations to make sure the immune system has what it needs to combat infection,” Bradford said. The same systems collaborate with metabolism for growth, development and health throughout life – from fetus to feedyard or pasture.

The cost of disease, he said, includes increased metabolic activity, reduced nutrient availability, altered priorities for nutrient utilization, increased turnover rates in the immune system, damage to tissue and a “genetic loss” to offspring. Logic says easing the impact of stress helps more cattle realize their genetic potential for premium carcass merit, too.

Bradford’s research focus is the inflammatory response during times of stress and that impact on liver health.

“To combat potential invading organisms quickly, the immune system uses cells like macrophages,” he said. “These are the cells looking for any signs of bacteria.”

Unlike many immune cells, macrophages live in tissues – not swimming around the bloodstream – and they are present all the time, monitoring for abnormalities.

“What we are learning now is they’re not just looking for signs of bacteria or infection, but they’re also playing really important roles in regulating how the tissue works day to day,” Bradford said. “Turning on a breakdown of body fat when the animal doesn’t have enough energy is actually influenced by these immune cells.”

Traditionally only thought to play a role in infectious scenarios, Bradford said, “The interactions between normal organ function and the immune system are becoming much tighter than we used to think.”

Research animals faced with an immune challenge have a dramatic change in nutrient availability in the bloodstream. That affects the building blocks of protein synthesis available for normal growth and development.

“There’s interest in how this might affect a growing fetus, say a cow that’s carrying a calf,” the scientist noted. “But also, what nutrients might be important and effective in helping an animal fight off an immune challenge like scours.”

He said research doesn’t know exactly what those nutrients look like yet. The same questions surround the impacts on feedyard efficiency and nutritional supplements.

“It’s tricky to nail down,” Bradford said. “When we see differences in efficiency, is it, to some extent, due to immune-system activation stealing nutrients?”

We know cattle become less efficient when they are sick.

“What we don’t know as much is this: If you try to ramp up the immune system all the time so that they’re less likely to get sick, does that actually cost you enough calories and nutrients that it doesn’t pay off?” Bradford wonders. “Or does preventing disease have that benefit, enough benefit, to pay for the extra immune-system cost?”

It probably depends on the environment they’re in, he suggests.

“The low hanging fruit is nutritional support of sick animals,” Bradford said. “Obviously if you’ve got cows out on a thousand acres, you know it’s not that easy to go give one some supplement that’s specifically for her.” But preventing illness for the whole herd might be an option in the future.

Take a feedlot for simpler example.

“If you’re pulling cattle to treat for respiratory disease, it wouldn’t be that hard to have a pen where you keep them for a while and maybe feed them a different diet that’s intended specifically to enhance immune response to that infection,” Bradford said.

By managing cattle through times of stress to reduce the effects of the immune system’s response to inflammation—linked to metabolic changes—producers can prepare cattle to perform.

Researchers are continuing to dig into this “new” topic. Feedyard efficiency, fetus development, long-term cow health – all remain on Bradford’s radar. “It kind of amazes me, actually, that we haven’t dug into that to this day.”

Fueling your cows

It takes grass to grow grass on the foundation

by Morgan Marley

You may also like

Don’t wince

Scientific evidence, economic incentive for sustainability

by Abbie Burnett

You may also like

Beef up the dinner table

Consumer insights say beef is doing well at staying at the center of the plate

by Morgan Marley

You may also like

The Porsche of beef

Consumers are willing to pay a high price for beef if it’s worth it every time

by Morgan Marley

You may also like

Stay connected with the brand

Success!

Beef AI can pay

Capturing the value of artificial breeding from ranch to rail

By Natalie Jones

Costs and benefits

Retained ownership

You may also like

Proactive animal health means a genetic approach

by Miranda Reiman

You may also like

The most important meal

Complex issues, simple solutions for a timed event

by Morgan Marley

you may also like

Capturing value for calves

by Morgan Marley

you may also like

The search for stockmen

By Kylee Kohls

you may also like

Fetus to feedyard

Immunometabolism’s impact on animal health

by Kylee Kohls

you may also like