Fed Cattle News

Are We Seeing Signs of Herd Rebuilding?

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:41:54 GMT

The U.S. beef cow inventory has reached its lowest point since 1962, marking what appears to be the bottom of the current cattle cycle. Tight supply is driving the strong pricing environment beef producers are enjoying today.

“For cow-calf producers right now, things are as good as they’ve probably ever been,” says Troy Rowan, University of Tennessee assistant professor. “Even though things are really good, producers are conscientious and vigilant about potential challenges,” Rowan summarizes.

Agreeing with Rowan, South Dakota cattleman Ken Odde adds while profits are currently strong, inflation quickly erodes economic gains. He stresses the importance of risk management and diversification.

Early Signs of Herd Rebuilding?

This is the million-dollar question: Are there encouraging signs of expansion?

“The beef industry is not currently in herd expansion mode, with producers hesitant to retain heifers due to high costs and economic uncertainties,” says Dave Weaber, Terrain senior animal protein analyst.

In Drovers State of Industry Report to be released the week of Sept. 15, we breakdown the July USDA cattle inventory and cattle on feed reports. While the USDA reports showed the smallest U.S. herd in history and continuing tightening numbers on feed, analysts predict producers have not experienced the highest cattle prices, yet.

“Our national herd size has the industry at an interesting point,” Rowan says. “Prices are at all-time highs, inputs are reasonable and more cow-calf enterprises are profitable than ever. When the industrywide rebuild will happen remains up in the air, but producers are keeping in mind that the high-flying industry right now is not going to stick around forever. They’re starting to adopt new technologies, leveling up their crossbreeding programs and expand opportunities for non-cattle related income on their ranches.”

Weaber adds producers need to be intentional about herd expansion, understanding the financial implications of adding new cattle.

Beef-on-Dairy Fills the Beef Supply Gap

“The current dynamics of supply is going to be a challenge,” says Jarrod Gillig, Cargill senior vice president, managing director for beef.

Gillig summarizes the cattle industry is experiencing a critical period of transition. He doesn’t expect the cow herd to return to previous peak levels of 32 million head. Instead, he predicts the gap in supply will be filled by beef-on-dairy calves.

Nick Hardcastle, Cargill senior director of meat grading and technical specialist, explains how the beef-on-dairy calves are an upgrade to the traditional Holstein steer and the positive impact they are making on beef supply.

“Beef-on-dairy is more desirable because it helped overcome several Holstein difficulties,” he says. “Improvements include red meat yield — more meat to a consumer — as well as improved acceptance in branded programs.”

Hardcastle says the beef-on-dairy cattle are filling the supply gap by filling pens in the Plains states where feeders are needed, and they are widely accepted by feeders and packers.

Defining Future Beef Producer Success

Odde says the beef industry is not just surviving but positioning itself for significant transformation.

“Producers who remain flexible, technologically savvy and strategic in their approach will be best positioned to thrive in this changing environment,” he says.

Weaber agrees saying successful producers will be those who can adapt, manage costs effectively and align themselves with evolving market trends.

“Don’t let cost get away from you,” Weaber warns, emphasizing that “being a low-cost, high-productivity producer means you get to make money seven, eight or nine years of the cycle.”

He stresses the importance of understanding financial implications, particularly during market transitions.

“If we’re not working on the business, we can’t work in the business,” Weaber adds, summarizing his philosophy regarding producers’ need to adopt more strategic, data-driven approaches.

The State of the Beef Industry Report includes input from nearly 500 beef producers. The annual report provides information to help producers when making decisions. Click here to download the full report.

Your Next Read: 47% of Beef Producers Plan to Increase Herd Numbers

Understanding Potassium’s Role in the Ruminant Diet

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:36:35 GMT

By: Adele Harty, Cow/Calf Field Specialist, SDSU Extension

Potassium may often be an underappreciated mineral in the world of ruminant nutrition, but it plays key roles in the body. Potassium is involved in acid-base regulation, osmotic pressure maintenance, nerve impulse transmission, muscle contraction, and carbon dioxide and oxygen transport. Potassium works with sodium and chlorine to maintain the acid-base balance. We often hear of an animal’s salt requirement, but why don’t we hear about potassium? The concentration of potassium inside cell walls is nearly equal to that of sodium in the extra-cellular fluid, therefore the diet requirements are significant.

The answer is that potassium is more abundant in forages. Recently balanced rations for backgrounded calves have indicated excessive or toxic levels of potassium. Upon review of the feed analysis, potassium levels are often in excess of 2.5 percent on a dry matter basis and readily available for absorption. Requirements are approximately 0.65 percent for 550 lb steers, therefore forage based diets have excess potassium. What result do these excess levels have on cattle over an extended period of time? Some minerals have very detrimental effects when they are fed in excess or at toxic levels. One example is when excessive or toxic levels of sulfur are supplied, cattle can develop polioencephalomalacia.

So what happens with toxic levels of potassium? Unfortunately the answer is not clear cut. Dr. Terry Engle, a Professor at Colorado State University has a research focus on trace minerals. I asked him some questions regarding potassium and at what point do we need to be concerned about toxicity and what potassium toxicity looks like. Dr. Engle referred to the “Mineral Tolerances of Animals” Second Revised Edition 2005. This book discusses the chemistry of minerals and how they work in the body. Potassium is key to body function, but deficiency is outlined better than toxicity. In most cases toxicity is rare as excess potassium is excreted in urine, however this document also states 3 percent potassium as the maximum tolerable level. As the levels of potassium increases, magnesium absorption in the gastrotintestinal tract will decrease, which could have a resulting effect of milk fever or grass tetany depending on the forage situation. Aside from the issues with magnesium absorption, levels up to 6 percent potassium have been added to the diet of non-lactating animals with no toxicity symptoms being evident.

Why have potassium levels increased in forages? There have been some recent trials from the University of Illinois evaluating soil potassium levels and how they increase in the soil. They did a four year trial with bi-weekly testing of potassium levels to see how the levels change over time. The study showed that in order to produce a 200 bushel corn crop, 46 lbs of potassium is removed with the grain, while the residue puts 180 lbs of potassium back into the soil. This is three times more than the next crop needs and is all readily available. So as the plants go through their life cycle, a small portion of potassium is taken into the seed, with a larger portion going back into the soil from the residue.

There are a few take home messages with potassium:

Potassium is crucial for many metabolic systems in the body, but excess potassium is readily excreted in the urine.
The excess levels will have a more negative effect on lactating females than on non-lactating cattle.
Potassium fertilization of grains is not necessary in many situations as the grain takes a smaller portion of potassium out of the soil than the residue puts back in.
Most potassium sources are readily available, therefore when there are higher levels in forages, that potassium will be nearly 100 percent available.

Study Confirms Facial Recognition Technology’s Success in Disease Prediction

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 18:14:04 GMT

A collaborative study between animal agtech startup MyAnIML and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) successfully corroborated the technology’s predictive ability to proactively manage devastating disease outbreaks in cattle production.

MyAnIML used proprietary facial recognition and deep learning technology to accurately predict Infectious Bovine Keratoconjunctivitis (IBK), or bovine pinkeye, 99.4% of the time and several days before veterinarians were able to detect symptoms, according to published study results .

USDA Agricultural Research Service scientists Mike Clawson and Larry Kuehn, who have researched IBK for years at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, shared their expertise on the project.

“Early detection of disease is critical to healthy herd management – giving producers the chance to separate sick animals, control spread and judiciously use antibiotics before a large outbreak occurs,” said Mike Clawson, an USDA Agricultural Research Service molecular biologist and project researcher.

“The results of the MyAnIML study demonstrate how far and how impactful AI-powered technology can be toward ensuring a safe, resilient and sustainable U.S. food supply chain.”

The MyAnIML and USDA study included 870 beef cattle located on three different Kansas ranches during the summers of 2021 and 2022. Bovine pinkeye is highly contagious and the most common ocular disease of cattle globally, costing U.S. producers alone an estimated $150 million annually in lost performance and treatment costs. There are no effective vaccines for IBK, forcing producers to treat infected animals with antibiotics, thereby elevating the risk of developing antibiotic-resistance bacteria strains that threaten human health.

Building off this collaboration, MyAnIML and USDA are applying the technology next to predict Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD). As the single most economically impactful cattle disease, BRD costs the U.S. feedlot industry potentially more than $900 million annually, according to the American Society of Animal Science.

“Building off our AI platform’s ability to distinguish between ‘healthy’ and ‘sick’ cattle two to three days before symptoms were diagnosed, the next step is expanding MyAnIML’s repertoire of diseases and health events to offer producers new tools to ensure a safe food supply,” said Shekhar Gupta, MyAnIML CEO and founder.

MyAnIML’s patent-pending technology platform uses AI, facial recognition and inexpensive GoPro cameras to automatically capture and analyze subtle changes in a cow’s muzzle.

Like a human fingerprint, each cattle muzzle is unique, and can be used to track specific cows. However, MyAnIML, is the first to use muzzle dermatoglyphics to not only identify cows, but as a health predictor of diseases such as BRD, IBK, foot root and uterine infections, proving that subtle changes in the bumps and ridges on a cow muzzle are a precursor of a health event.

MyAnIML’s trial partners have also successfully used the technology to monitor the health status of cows going into estrus, early stages of labor and even subtle health stressors, like the need for more nutrition while nursing calves.

“The muzzle is an incredible mirror into cattle health and well-being. Humans just didn’t have the ability to ‘see’ what the muzzle was telling us without the help of MyAnIML’s advanced AI and facial recognition technology,” Gupta said.

Since its founding in 2021, MyAniML has:

● Developed a proprietary dataset of 3000 muzzle images of beef cattle, the first cattle facial and muzzle image library for health management.

● Partnered in trial projects with multiple Midwest cattle production facilities.

● Released an inexpensive Bluetooth-enabled “smart” ear tag and app that helps large-scale commercial feedlots and stockyards quickly locate potentially sick animals identified by the MyAnIML predictive platform.

● Signed a partnership agreement with DairyFI, an India-based startup, in January. With 308 million cows, India has the largest cattle herd in the world, but suffers from lack of adequate cattle health services, greatly reducing the economic and productivity potential of India’s cattle industry.

With positive results from the collaboration, large-scale trials, veterinarian feedback and ongoing product development, MyAnIML is getting ready for broad-scale commercialization. The company received angel investment funding in 2021 and is currently in the process of a seed funding investment round to expand its technology in cattle, as well as to include other livestock and companion animals.

About MyAnIML

MyAnIML invented and is commercializing the first-of-its-kind platform for early disease prediction in cattle using facial recognition technology focused on a cow’s muzzle. The initial discovery is the product of intense curiosity and a sense of purpose by the founder, a leading expert in generative AI and emerging uses of web-based blockchain technology. MyAnIML’s mission is to help ensure the health and well-being of cattle while ensuring an affordable and safe food supply. For more information www.myaniml.com

Six Questions One Industry Veterinarian Says She Is Asked Most Often About HPAI

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 19:00:28 GMT

The emerging issue of Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the U.S. dairy industry changes on nearly a daily basis.

Novonesis (a merger of Chr. Hansen and Novozymes) hosted a webinar on the issue on Friday to update producers, veterinarians and other members of the agricultural community.

“It’s a rapidly evolving situation,” lead presenter, Kay Russo, DVM, Novonesis technical services manager for dairy and poultry, North America, stressed at the beginning of the program.

“I’m getting a lot of questions, and I’m sure everybody on this call has questions. Or if you’re a veterinarian, you’re receiving them,” she said. “Again, this is a rapidly evolving situation, and what may seem correct today may be different tomorrow.”

Here are the six questions Russo said she is most frequently asked, and what her answers to them are – for now. Russo’s answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Question #1: Is HNAI spreading from cow to cow?

Answer: Initially the thought was that every one of these animals was exposed to the disease from a bird. But at this point, there is some consideration for the fact that this may be spreading laterally. How it’s spreading is still unclear. There is some postulation that the virus is being spread in the milking parlor. Could it potentially be a mechanical spread from cow to cow on the milkers’ hands, or perhaps (on) the milking machines? Is it possible in these parlors where the humidity is high, it’s a warm environment that we’re seeing some aerosolization of the virus, so I would say that’s possible too. But there’s more work that needs to be done. But for all intents and purposes at this time, I would suspect there is some lateral transmission.

Question #2: Why are calves, younger lactation cows and the feedlot cattle not getting sick?

Answer: Ultimately, I don’t know the answer to this. More work needs to be done. The question needs to be answered. Are they truly not getting infected with a virus? Are they resistant to it, perhaps? Or is it that they are getting infected and just not demonstrating the clinical signs? We milk a lot of these dairy cows three times a day, so there’s a lot of eyes on them. In some of these instances, with the calves or in the feedlot cattle, you’re not handling them as often. We need to rely on the science to answer these questions in order to provide guidelines. I keep saying this, and I will continue to say it, we do not know what we do not measure. And we cannot provide guidelines around what we do not know.

Question #3: Is this a risk to humans?

Answer: The short answer is that it can infect humans. I know that in New Mexico, they are offering free testing to individuals that are working regularly with these infected herds. And if they are symptomatic – we’re seeing conjunctivitis and high fevers in some of them –they are being distributed Tamiflu for their use and for their families. This is a rapidly evolving situation, and the people that are working on it are doing everything they can to ensure the safety of those individuals that are most at risk.

Question #4: Is milk safe?

Answer: The FDA has stated the pasteurization process should kill the virus, and we should not see it in any saleable milk.

Question #5: Will this be a market limiting disease outbreak?

Answer: This is the major concern here, folks. These are important markets for us in this country. At this point, this is something that is absolutely a consideration. The goal here is to keep the farms in business.

Question #6: Are dairy farms a risk to poultry operations?

Answer: We’ve seen two commercial layer operations, one in West Texas and one in Michigan, be positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza this week. I know that there’s considerable amounts of work behind the scenes to determine the origin of the virus that caused the outbreak in those situations. Ultimately, in this circumstance, it’s going to be important that the cattle folks and the poultry folks come to the same table and talk and manage through this. We want to be good neighbors. These are two major industries in our country, so it’s important that the dialogue is there and continues so that we can keep (everyone) safe.

HPAI Fails to Impact Dairy Prices So Far - Why Markets Could Actually See Some Growth in the Near Future

Texas-Sized Problems Hit the Lone Star State, but Ag Commissioner says ‘Things are Getting Better’

New Regulation: Dairy Cattle Entry into Nebraska Now Requires Permit Amid HPAI Bird Flu Concerns

Mexico Taking ‘Preventative Measures’ After Bird Flu Found in U.S.

USDA Launches Remote Beef Grading Pilot Project

Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:22:01 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a pilot project on Friday that will allow more cattlemen and meat processors to utilize USDA carcass quality grades.

The Remote Grading Pilot for Beef, developed by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), matches simple technology with robust data management and program oversight to allow a USDA grader to assess beef carcass characteristics and assign the official quality grade from a remote location, reducing costs and location as barriers to participation in voluntary grading services.

Secretary Vilsack announced the new pilot during a panelist discussion with livestock producers and independent meat processing business owners in conjunction with the National Western Stock Show in Denver, Colo.

“On average, a beef carcass that grades as USDA Prime is valued at hundreds of dollars more than an ungraded carcass, but costs for this voluntary USDA service often prevents smaller scale processors and the farmers and ranchers they serve from using this valuable marketing tool,” Secretary Vilsack said. “This remote grading pilot opens the door for additional packers and processors to receive grading and certification services allowing them to access new, better, and more diverse marketing opportunities.”

Cattle groups immediately voiced their support of the project. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association issued statements welcoming the project they believe will lead to better marketing opportunities for more cattlemen.

“The USDA quality grades of prime, choice, and select are instantly recognized by consumers and an important way for cattle producers to be rewarded for raising high-quality beef,” said NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane. “NCBA is glad that USDA is launching this Remote Grading Pilot Program and expanding opportunities for meat grading to occur in smaller, local processing facilities. This will increase marketing opportunities for cattle producers and help them capture more value from their product.”

USCA Independent Beef Processing Chairman Patrick Robinette said, “Before today’s announcement, it was simply unaffordable for an independent producer or processor to participate in providing quality-graded beef to the marketplace. On my operation, the cost would have averaged $410 per head to receive grading services, which I would have never recouped.”

“The pilot program would reduce that cost to $4.56 per head.” Robinette continued. “Now, the producers I serve will be able to access value-added programs that were previously unavailable to them. With the free ribeye grid device that will be provided to participating processing facilities, independent producers and processors can qualify for programs like Certified Angus Beef.”

In addition to the pilot, Secretary Vilsack highlighted USDA programs in the West that create economic prosperity for farms, ranches and rural communities by supporting on-farm conservation, bolstering new markets, creating jobs, and keeping farming and ranching viable for the next generation. Today’s announcement builds on USDA’s comprehensive approach to increase competition in agricultural markets, create a fairer playing field for small- and mid-size farmers and ranchers, and provide producers more options to market their products.

Consumers as well as buyers and sellers of beef rely on USDA quality grades, including Prime, Choice, and Select, as a clear and standardized way to indicate quality. Everyone involved in the beef supply chain, from cattle producers to beef consumers, benefit from the greater efficiency permitted by the application of official U.S. grade standards.

USDA offers these services to packers and processors on a user-fee basis. While over 90% of America’s fed beef supply is officially graded by USDA, most users are large beef packing operations. USDA’s meat grading and certification services are significantly underutilized by small, independent processors, in large part due to the expense of paying for a highly trained USDA grader to travel to their facility to perform service in-person for a relatively small number of cattle that may not require a full day of the graders’ work. Experience with remote grading so far has shown it dramatically reduces travel-related expenses, which makes the service more accessible to smaller processors.

In this pilot, trained plant employees capture specific images of the live animal and beef carcass. These images are submitted electronically to a USDA grader already stationed elsewhere in the U.S., likely located in another rural community, who reviews the images and accompanying plant records and product data, assigns the USDA Quality Grade and applicable carcass certification programs, and communicates the official grade back to the plant to be applied to the carcass. Plants can then use this information in their retail marketing and transmit carcass performance information back to producers.

The pilot will build on lessons-learned during AMS’ feasibility study of a “remote grading” process conducted during the second half of 2023. AMS will expand its testing by engaging a larger and more diverse number of beef packers to participate in the development of this procedure. Through the pilot, AMS will gather additional information on actual cost and the level of in-person surveillance needed to ensure program consistency and integrity to formalize this innovative service option as part of the USDA Quality Grading Service.

The Remote Grading Pilot for Beef is limited to domestic beef slaughter facilities operating under federal inspection and producing product that meets the eligibility criteria for the USDA grading program.

For more information about the Remote Grading Pilot for Beef, visit www.ams.usda.gov/remote-beef-grading or email AskLP@usda.gov .

USDA will host a webinar Thursday, Jan. 25 at 3:00 PM Eastern Time to provide additional information about the program. To register, visit the signup webpage . A recording will be made available.

Speer: Day-Old Calves Cost How Much…?

Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:50:58 GMT

“Holy Buckets!”: There’s seemingly always an exclamation of surprise when discussing current prices for day-old beef-X-dairy (BXD) calves with producers. And that’s generally followed with skepticism: “Are you sure?”

But maybe it makes more sense than we think. Let’s approach it from a cow/calf perspective to discern the value of day-old calf at the farm or ranch (versus the dairy).

Cow Cost: The obvious place to begin is allocation of cow costs. Outlined below are some basic assumptions:

The cost meter starts clicking once the previous calf is weaned – call that day 205. Even if the cow was NOT pregnant at weaning, maintenance cost up to weaning would still be assigned to the weaned calf. That leaves us 160 days of pregnancy from weaning to calving assigned to the newborn calf.
Assume annual $1100/cow maintenance cost – or roughly $3/day.

Total assigned cost = $480/calf

Bull Cost: This gets somewhat trickier with more room for varied assumptions. Depending on an operation’s individual budgeting, the cost may be absorbed by the annual cow cost as outlined above. However, given we’re not detailing the full year for the cow, it’s appropriate to include this as a separate item.

Keeping it straightforward, assume a bull’s net service cost is $3,000 over his lifetime (purchase less salvage value). On average (key emphasis), his useful life will be three years. (Some bulls work much longer but others fail to ever service a cow.). Last, we’ll suppose he sires 25 calves per year. That works out to ~$40/calf.
Conservatively assume it costs roughly $1250 annually to maintain a bull – that equates to $50/calf.

Total assigned cost = $90/calf

Interest: The current median interest rate on operating notes is roughly 8.5% . We’ll assign that rate for 160 days on the cow side and a full year on the bull side. That works out to roughly $18 plus $8, respectively.

Total assigned cost = $26/calf

Death Loss: Based on historical USDA survey data , assume 3% of calves will be lost due to dystocia and/or other causes. Another 4% are born alive but die prior to weaning. Assigning one-fourth of those post-calving losses equals 1%. Therefore, we’re left with a 96% survival rate ready for sale. That adds an additional $25/head to the cost.

Total assigned cost = $25/calf

Total Direct Costs: Based on averages, IF someone wanted to purchase day-old calves from your farm or ranch, you’d require total direct cost just to breakeven. We can fuss with the numbers here-and-there but it provides a ball-park figure of the cost assigned to every calf.

Total direct cost: $621/calf

Intangibles: But we need to stretch beyond just those considerations. IF the following things were to occur, you’d require even more dollars to ensure you’re adequately compensated for your management:

Cows bred to known sires with propensity for superior feedlot and carcass performance;
Ensure each calf receives colostrum AND has its navel dipped;
Individually identify every calf with an eID;
Ranch provides ready access to comprehensive data management system enabling potential access to sire and dam (and other pertinent) information to buyer;
Provide easily-accessible facilities to pick calves up with minimal hassle;
Facilitate steady, reliable source of calves year-around.

All of those items provide added value to the buyer. As a producer, you’d accordingly want to be rewarded for such. Not to mention, there needs to be some consideration for profit in all of this.

Total Assigned Cost = +$10, +$25, +$50, +More???

Bottomline: Markets are amazingly efficient. The end result is uncanny; the numbers are remarkably similar to current prices for day-old calves (i.e. sizeable quantity of high-quality, well-managed calves). And from that perspective, the two sides of the business (beef versus dairy) really aren’t all that different. I noted in a previous column that, “What used to be considered a highly discounted after-thought (straight dairy steers/heifers) is rapidly transforming into a meaningful source of production (BXD steers).” With all that in mind, perhaps the day-old BXD market really isn’t as far off-base as we might have first thought.

3 Things to Consider Before You Raise Dairy Steers

Mon, 03 May 2021 17:16:04 GMT

“Bull or heifer?” It’s probably the most common question asked by dairy producers once a newborn calf hits the ground. Chances are, if you see a scowl furrow a farmer’s brow, the calf is most likely a bull.

While it might be frustrating when your favorite cow in the herd produces a bull calf, it does not mean that that calf does not poses some value. In fact, dairy beef makes up approximately 20% of the fed cattle market and have the genetic capabilities to produce high quality beef that is well-marbled with minimal backfat, according to Tara Felix, an Extension beef specialist with Pennsylvania State University. This means that there is a reliable market for dairy steers within the beef industry.

But before you begin to raise your bull calves, there are a few things to consider:

Facilities, Facilities, Facilities

One of the most important factors when raising dairy steers is the availability of space. Do you have enough hutches? Enough pens? Or perhaps even an extra barn to finish these steers out?

“Dairy steers require more housing and shelter than conventional beef breeds of the same age,” Felix says. “Footing is very important because dairy beef steers are fed for nearly a year. Unbedded concrete or slatted floors can result in lameness.”

If space is a limiting factor for your operation, it may be best to only raise your replacement animals. But if you do have enough room, raising dairy steers may be an option.

Do You Have Enough Feed?

Another factor to keep in mind is the amount of feed these animals will consume. Mature dairy steers will eat roughly 18-20 lb. of feed per day, according to the Product of Extension Beef Cattle Resource Committee. Therefore, it is important to analyze your feed inventory to ensure that there is enough to support these additional animals.

“Producing an acceptable-quality carcass from dairy beef steers requires feeding the animals a high-energy ration and marketing them at an early age (12 to 14 months) and acceptable weight (1,150 to 1,450 pounds),” Felix says. “Because of the higher ratio of feed to weight gain compared with traditional beef breeds, it will be most economical to target early, rapid weight gain in dairy beef steers to try to reach slaughter weight at as young an age as possible. Calves fed for more than 20 months are typically not profitable.”

One caution when feeding dairy steers is to remember that steers need to be fed a high concentrate diet instead of a forage-based program in order to achieve a better average daily gain.

Treat Calves Equally.

When raising dairy steers from birth, it is crucial to provide the same care to the bulls as you would your newborn heifers.

“The future profitability of bull calves is greatly impacted by the care they receive during the first hours and days of life,” says Frank Wardynski, a Michigan State University Extension agent. “Calves that do not receive adequate immunoglobulin transfer within the first few hours of life are at greater risk of diseases such as scours and pneumonia and exhibit mortality rates twice those of calves receiving adequate immunoglobulin transfer. Management recommendations for steer calves need to be the same as the heifers if they are to be healthy and vigorous.”

Raising dairy steers can be a profitable addition to your operation, but only if it is properly managed. Before diving in head first, consider these key components along with the amount of labor that comes along with rearing these additional animals.

Cattle Inventory Unchanged, Calf Crop Down

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:07 GMT

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) said the July 1, 2019 inventory of all cattle and calves totaled 103 million head, unchanged from last July. The total was inline with industry analysts’ estimates.

NASS’ annual mid-year calf crop estimate was 36.3 million head, down slightly (102,700 head) from last year. Calves born during the first half of the year were estimated at 26.5 million head, down slightly from the first half of 2018. An additional 9.80 million calves are expected to be born during the second half of 2019.

The NASS data also seemed to confirm ideas the expansion phase is over. All cows and heifers that have calves totaled 41.7 million head, also down slightly (100,000 head) from last July. Beef cows, at 32.4 million head, were unchanged from a year ago. Milk cows, at 9.30 million head, were down 1 percent from previous year.

All heifers 500 pounds and over on July 1, 2019 totaled 16.4 million head, 1 percent above the 16.3 million head on July1, 2018. Beef replacement heifers, at 4.40 million head, were down 4 percent from a year ago. Milk replacement heifers, at 4.10 million head, were down 2 percent from previous year.

Other heifers, at 7.90 million head, were 5 percent above a year earlier. Steers 500 pounds and over on July 1, 2019 totaled 14.7 million head, up 1 percent from July 1, 2018. Bulls 500 pounds and over on July 1, 2019 totaled 2.10 million head, unchanged from July 1, 2018. Calves under 500 pounds on July 1, 2019 totaled 28.1 million head, down 1 percent from July 1, 2018.

Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for all feedlots totaled 13.6 million head on July 1, 2019. This number should not be confused with the monthly cattle on feed report which only counts cattle in feedlots with more than 1,000-head capacity. That number was also released Friday and the total was 11.5 million head, 2% higher than last year.

The inventory of cattle on feed in all feedlots was up 2% from last July. Cattle on feed in feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head accounted for 84.4 percent of the total cattle on feed on July 1, 2019, down slightly. The combined total of calves under 500 pounds and other heifers and steers over 500 pounds (outside of feedlots) is 37.1 million head. This is slightly above the 37.0 million head on July 1, 2018.

2018: July Cattle on Feed and Mid-year Cattle Inventory

July 12, 2019: Fed And Feeder Markets Post Strong Rally

Dairy Cattle Beef up Beef Industry

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:47:55 GMT

While dairy producers are seeing profitability from milk checks there is also a tremendous opportunity to market cattle into the beef supply thanks to record high beef prices.

According to Lance Zimmerman, an analyst with CattleFax, dairy cattle account for 1 in 5 pounds of beef production in the U.S., so they are vital part of the beef supply chain. Zimmerman gave a presentation on the topic of marketing cull cows and dairy calves at Dairy Today’s Elite Producer Business Conference in Las Vegas.

The cattle industry has seen a drop in total numbers from a peak in 1982 at 50 million cows to this year’s low of approximately 38 million cows. Some of those losses can be attributed to drought experienced. In 2012, drought affected 80% of the beef cow herd and 85% of corn production. Dry periods from 2008 to 2014 caused 3 million cows to leave beef operations.

While drought is still affecting dairy producing regions like California it is not as widespread. Currently only 12% of beef cow herd and 5% of corn production is being affected by drought.

As we’ve transitioned from the dry period of 2012 to a wetter 2014 we’re seeing beef cow slaughter drop off Zimmerman says.

Many beef producers are holding back more cows to capitalize on record high calf prices. In the past 4 years 550 lb. feeder calf prices have increased 83%.

Other animal protein sectors have also seen record high prices thanks to demand and a drop off in production.

Per_Capita_Net_Meat_and_Poultry_Supplies

©

Pork producers had to deal with PEDV and broilers had fertility issues. However, both of those industries can rebound much quicker because it takes weeks to hatch more chickens and months to farrow more piglets. Beef and dairy producers need 3 years to develop a heifer into a cow.

“We’re going to have larger protein supplies next year by just a couple of pounds, but it is all going to be due to the other proteins, not beef,” Zimmerman adds.

Zimmerman believes it is likely that fed cattle and cull cow prices will still be in the same area next year for the highs, with maybe a $5/cwt increase. It will still be nothing like the $20 to $30/cwt increase from this year.

“Where we’re going to get the depreciation is the lows. I think $1/lb. is going to be pretty normal for the low in the cull cow market,” Zimmer says. “The high on those cull cows is going to be right in that $1.20-$1.30/lb. range.”

Looking forward the beef industry will be in a supply driven environment.

“Anytime we’re in a supply driven environment, it doesn’t matter if it is beef, chicken or Mercedes Benz, the leverage situation changes where the guys down the food chain hand leverage to the guys up the food chain,” Zimmerman says.

Retailers can’t stand open shelf space so they will bid more on a product to keep their stores full. In the case of the beef industry that price gets handed down to the packer.

Zimmerman relates packers will have to bid more for cattle to help cover the fixed cost of keeping plants open and hopefully make a profit.

“The guys holding the supply, whether it’s day-old Holstein calves, cull cows or a cow-calf producer in central Kansas, you guys hold the chips for a little while longer,” Zimmerman says.

These tight supplies should last for another year to 2 years before it will transition towards the retailer and packer.

US_Beef_Production_Breakdown

©

Dairy cows account for 6% of beef production, while fed dairy calves account for 14%. Even though the beef cow herd has declined in the past few years, the dairy herd has remained relatively stable.

The drought forced the majority of beef cows out of the traditional feedlot region south of Interstate 70 in the High Plains of Texas, Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma. To help fill those pens and keep packers near capacity feedyards had to buy an increasing number of dairy calves, driving up prices. Additionally, more grower yards and heifer development facilities have been taken on at feedlots in the region.

The biggest driver in all of this will be consumer demand.

International markets will help drive the boat more and more as countries like China continue to eat increasing amounts of protein. Domestic demand will be the primary market, particularly for grinding meat.

“I think you could easily say 55-60% of U.S. consumption this year is ground beef,” Zimmerman says. “For years the beef industry cried ‘we need our own chicken nugget or chicken breast.’ My message to everyone in the beef industry that will listen is you have it. It’s called a hamburger.”

Percent_of_Cow_Carcass_By_Product

©

Trim accounts for approximately 65% of a cow carcass, and it accounts for a lot of value. At one point in 2014 trim was worth 75% of the total value of a cow carcass.

“Dairy-influenced beef will continue to be a bigger part of the beef story. Dairy cull cows are increasingly important to beef production,” Zimmerman adds. ”Feedlot overcapacity has made dairy-influenced calves attractive and veal isn’t the only market.”

Large Holstein Steer Discounts Seen as Packers Reduce Slaughter

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:47:48 GMT

Cattle prices are still considerably lower than the highs of two years ago. However, Holstein cattle appear to be facing their own price pressure as buyers push discounts and some packers shut the door.

Step into the Lake Odessa Livestock Auction in Lake Odessa, Mich. where Holsteins are up for bid.

“The expansion is underway and it will not stop,” said Tom Rademacher, a producer in Eagle, Mich.

Rademacher is talking about the state’s dairy boom. The USDA’s latest milk production report says Michigan is continuing to see growth in milk cows and production, growing more than 5 percent over the same month a year ago.

“The herds were 250, and are now 1,000 or 3,000 head,” said Rademacher.

While the state’s dairy herd expands, the prices at auctions shrink. Producers say Holsteins seem to see larger discounts than normal.

“The Holstein steer market has just gone all to pieces,” said Verne Lettinga, owner of the Lake Odessa Livestock Auction. “The fellas feeding colored cattle and black cattle are not too bad yet. They’re holding up at $1.10 and $1.20 in that range, but these Holstein steers are 80 to 90 cents.”

“Typically, you have your Holstein prices $10 or $15 below the standard animals, and there’s talk of $20 or $25 below because they need to go further to find a home to be slaughtered,” said Bryan Doherty, senior market advisor with Stewart-Peterson .

Some major packers are cutting back or not accepting dairy cattle for slaughter, and producers say it’s not helping.

“There is a bigger discount with Holsteins today because some of the packers are not killing Holsteins,” said Lettinga. “They just quit and all they’re killing is colored cattle.”

Some truck drivers at the auction say they’ve already reduced their trips to Tyson in Joslin, Ill.

“All of the cattle now are pretty much going to different packing houses besides Tyson,” said Tom Wiskow of Wiskow Trucking and Livestock . “They don’t want Holsteins. They want all colors down there.”

Sale barn owners and producers have told AgDay the squeeze is mainly felt at Tyson plants in the Midwest.

Tyson says the company cannot comment on its buying practices, they consider it proprietary.

Doherty says the impact of packers scaling back is hard to determine at this point.

“The packer industry continues to look for high efficiency and profit margins,” said Doherty. “It looks like the dairy steer, the Holstein steer is on the short end of the stick again. The industry is going to have an issue with supply.”

The changes are out of the producer’s control and soggy markets have the dairy industry nervous about the prospects for finding profits beyond the milk parlor.

Some packers are scaling back while others are maintaining the numbers. Cargill told AgDay the company “has not changed its cattle procurement practices.”

JBS also says, “The JBS Regional Beef business remains dedicated to the calf-fed Holstein steer market. As part of our business model, our plants in Green Bay, WI, Tolleson, AZ, and Plainwell, MI, will continue to actively participate in Holstein steer slaughter. We purchase cash cattle every day to support our strategic investments in JBS Holstein-based beef brands.”

Despite dairy growth, Lettinga believes the dairy industry is seeing some consolidation with smaller dairies in Michigan. He also says there’s a need for more packing houses in Michigan because of the Holstein steer market.

Raising Dairy Steers for Beef Requires Responsible Management

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:44:20 GMT

Dairy steers have the genetic potential to produce well-marbled, lean beef. Producers should ensure a high quality product with responsible management practices.
By: Frank Wardynski, Michigan State University Extension

Beef from dairy steers contributes a significant portion to the high quality grade beef available on the market. Dairy steers have genetic capabilities to produce high quality beef that is well-marbled with minimal backfat. Dairy steers may be bought and sold several times from birth to the final feeding stages. Each producer has the opportunity to positively or negatively impact quality such as creating injection site blemishes, slaughtering with volatile drug residue and a long list of other defects. Consequently, each owner must accept the responsibility of raising dairy steers with an emphasis placed on producing high quality beef without defects.

All farmers producing food for consumers should have a commitment to quality of the final product they produce and understand the impact of their management on that final product. Utilizing the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program is an ideal mechanism to develop management techniques to ensure the production of high quality beef. Beef producers across the country have embraced BQA and implemented proper management techniques to improve profitability. The BQA programcovers all aspects of management including animal health.

A valid Veterinarian-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR) should be a vital part of any animal health management regime.

Several factors are critical in the implementation of a VCPR:

Veterinarian assumes responsibility of clinical judgments of animal treatments and client agrees to follow veterinarians’ instructions;
Veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of that farm’s animals;
Veterinarian is available for follow-up evaluation;
Veterinarian provides oversight of treatment, compliance, and outcome;
Patient records are maintained.

Veterinarians should be used to develop preventive health care protocols rather than only for emergency situations. Preventive health care practices are critical. Sanitation and ventilation, along with dry bedding, including straw during cold weather, are important factors to ensuring that calves have a comfortable environment that ensures fresh air without drafts.

An appropriate vaccination program is also important and should be designed with the assistance of a veterinarian. Care should be taken to minimize stress during castration and dehorning and steer calves should be implanted with a growth promotion to increase weight gain and improve feed efficiency. Educators and specialists from Michigan State University Extensionrecommend the use of these management practices to improve production efficiency.

The Food and Drug Administration will be implementing the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) beginning October 1, 2015. Producers wanting to purchase feeds containing antibiotics deemed medically important in human medicine will need to be actively participating in a VCPR. Antibiotics will only be allowed in livestock feed through a VFD order from a veterinarian. Examples of feeds that will need a VFD order include medicated milk replacer, antibiotic water medications and supplemental feeds that contain antimicrobials such as medicated protein pellets.

Producing high quality food without quality defects should be an objective for all farmers. Concerns’ regarding antibiotic use in livestock production is a hot issue.

Study Shows Cattle Are Increasingly Resistant to BRD Antibiotics

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:37:32 GMT

—Kansas State University news release

A survey of records of bovine respiratory disease cases at the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory showed that drug resistance in one of the primary pathogens that cause BRD, Mannheimia haemolytica, increased over a three-year period.
“We have been seeing an increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacteria that cause pneumonia (also called BRD) in cattle,” said Brian Lubbers, assistant professor in the diagnostic lab, based at Kansas State University. “Many of these bacteria are resistant to, not one, but almost all of the antibiotics that we use to treat pneumonia in cattle.”
BRD is one of the most important diseases of feedlot cattle, particularly, said Lubbers, adding that the economic toll from the disease has been estimated to approach $1 billion annually in the United States alone, if one takes into account drug and labor costs, decreased production, and animal death losses.
Until now, one of the aspects that has not been studied very well is the cost linked to antimicrobial resistance in BRD cases, he said. To take a closer look, he and colleague Gregg Hanzlicek, also an assistant professor in the diagnostic lab, examined records of cases in which specimens of bovine lung tissue were submitted to the diagnostic lab over the three years, 2009 to 2011. Most of the cattle were from Kansas and Nebraska.
They found that over that period, a high percentage of M. haemolytica bacteria recovered from cattle lungs were resistant to several of the drugs typically used to treat that pathogen. The researchers also found, however, that no specimens were resistant to all six antimicrobial drugs.
The study was funded internally by the diagnostic lab.
Using resistance to three or more antimicrobials as the definition of multi-drug resistance, 63 percent of the bacteria would be classified as multidrug resistant in 2011, compared with 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2009.
The results of the study were published by the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. The abstract is available.
“Antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine has received a considerable amount of recognition as a potential factor leading to antimicrobial resistance in human medicine,” Lubbers said. “However, the contribution of multidrug resistance to limited or failed therapy in veterinary patients has received much less attention.”
Because there are a limited number of antimicrobial drugs that can be used for treatment of BRD pathogens, Lubbers said, multidrug resistance in those pathogens poses a severe threat to the livestock industry.
“We (KSVDL) consider this type of information to be part of our active ongoing disease surveillance and will continue this work,” Lubbers said. “The questions of how these bacteria develop or where they come from, how widespread they are, and what is the impact on cattle production are still unanswered. We are actively seeking industry partners to investigate these questions.”

Feed Costs Too High?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:32:56 GMT

Sky-high feed costs are making it tougher than ever for cattle producers to break even and make a profit. While high feed costs are a reality for every cattle operation today, you can better manage the costs on your farm or ranch by evaluating your long-term goals and daily practices.

Two basic factors should be considered to manage feed costs, says John Lawrence, director of the Iowa Beef Center (IBC) at Iowa State University (ISU).

“First, it’s a strategic issue. If you built your cow-calf or feedlot system around $2 corn, you need to reevaluate it because that world no longer exists. Your current system may work, but look at it in the light of higher feed and land prices,” Lawrence says.

Producers need to evaluate their entire operation, Lawrence says, not simply whether they are feeding the right products or coproducts. Producers may also need to change their grazing systems, cow size or weaning dates to better fit the environment.

Bonus Content:
ISU web tools to help you manage feed costs.

The second factor in managing feed costs is the day-to-day tasks such as reducing feed wastage, proper hay storage, not overfeeding cattle and checking for body condition. Attention to the details will help reduce feed costs, Lawrence says.

The IBC has an in-depth section on its Web site to help manage high feed costs. You can find the link at www.beeftoday.com by clicking on the headline “Feed Costs Too High?”

The section offers articles by ISU researchers and Extension specialists on all aspects of cattle production to help lower feed costs, including the “Top 10 Ways to Reduce Feedlot Costs” and “Top 12 Ways to Reduce Cow–Calf Costs.”

The IBC section on managing feed costs also offers assessment worksheets for feedlot cost management and for cow winter-feeding costs.

“The worksheets are popular with producers in workshops that our specialists conduct around the state,” Lawrence says. “Producers can evaluate their operations and find specific things they need to change to save money.”

By going through an assessment checklist and evaluation process, cattle producers can identify and prioritize areas that need improvement, and then develop an action plan to fix problems.

Operate efficiently. The assessment worksheet for feedlots has sections on nutrition and rations, feed delivery and bunk management, feed storage, feed additives, implant systems, records and tracking, budgeting and purchase costs, cattle marketing and improving cattle comfort. Each section has a series of items that are scored. The tallied scores may range from “excellent” to “needs to develop,” which helps producers determine the areas that require improvement.

By taking the cow winter-feeding cost assessment, producers can learn whether they fall into the high, average or low-cost production category. For example, the question “What winter grazing options are available?” can be answered with “None” (for a high-cost producer), “Owned stalk fields, hay stubble” (average-cost producer), or “Owned and leased stalk fields, stockpiled hay fields, winter annuals” (low-cost producer).

Once the initial assessment is completed, a producer can print an action plan of goals, performance measurements and essential steps to help meet the objectives. BT

Texas cattle feeders gear up fed-cattle marketing co-op

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:31:02 GMT

Houston Chronicle via SM // By Nelson Antosh

AMARILLO,Texas -- An Amarillo-based group frustrated with the prices it gets for fattened beef cattle is aiming to lock up the rights to market 1.5 million cattle -- about one-quarter of the fed cattle sold annually in Texas -- by Oct. 1.

The progress so far suggests that after several efforts that came up short, the group may be able to corral enough cattle to match the market clout of the handful of major meatpackers.

The nonprofit marketing cooperative, called Consolidated Beef Producers, had won the right to market 906,000 head by Wednesday, well above the 750,000 it considered a minimum.

Behind this effort is the simmering resentment over the growing power of the companies that slaughter and market beef.

Because of packer consolidation over the years, reaching a price has basically come down to a match of wills between buyers for four packers vs. several hundred sellers, says Paul Hitch of Guymon, Okla., chairman of the new venture.

“The question is, can one co-op that sells a million head negotiate a better deal than a feedlot that sells 50,000 a year? We’re betting it can,” Hitch said.

There are four big packers, IBP, Excel, ConAgra and Farmland, said Hitch, plus a handful of small regional packers that stick to their own areas.

The federal government has determined that the four biggest packers bought 81.4 percent of all steers and heifers sold for slaughter in 1999.

The new co-op is recruiting feedlots, which have to pay a $3,000 membership fee plus $1 per head sold through the co-op.

The Oct. 1 cutoff date was set to prod fence-sitters.

Of the 200 feedlots on the High Plains of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, about 45 have joined. This area has the nation’s greatest concentration of feedlots.

They want to get a better deal on the cattle, which are sold by the pen, each holding from 50 to 250 steers or heifers.

Some yards currently get three or four buyers bidding on a pen, but there are others that get only one bid, said Jim Gill, market director of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association. “We would like to get at least two bids on a pen,” he said.

The lists of pens that are for sale, called show lists, are compiled each week by managers of the feedlots.

Generally, the week’s trading is all done in one day, sometimes within a two-hour period. “Just waiting for the first guy to make a move,” Gill said.

Managers telephone the cattle owners, who have the final say on whether to sell. Sometimes the price is too low and owners decide to try again next week.

Theoretically the co-op could negotiate a better price just because it has so many more animals for sale at a time.

Two earlier attempts to put together a marketing cooperative didn’t gel, said Burt Rutherford of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, which has served as an incubator. There was interest, but not enough to “make that leap of faith,” Rutherford said.

Those goals were more ambitious than for the current venture. Some people said it needed 2.5 million cattle to work, which is so many that the packers “can’t go around you,” Hitch said. But he doesn’t like the idea of squeezing meatpackers.

“To beat up on the guy that’s paying you -- that’s a poor business model,” Hitch said. His plan is to use their large base to get the best price by matching the cattle to carcass specifications -- which set prices based on the likely quality of the meat -- provide the right cattle at the right time, and get paid for performing these services.

Some potential members have feared that packers will refuse to negotiate. Hitch predicts that won’t be the case. “But they’re not going to roll over, either, and pay you an extra $25 because you’re a nice guy.”

Bruce Bass of Dakota City, Neb., the head cattle buyer for IBP, said he would rather not comment on the marketing co-op. The vice president for procurement at Excel in Wichita, Kan., did not return a call.

Fred Nichols, the head cattle buyer for ConAgra Beef’s Monfort packing business, said he didn’t know the details of how Consolidated would sell animals but hopes it works.

This is the first time cattle producers have come together on such a large scale, said Bill Mies, professor of animal science at Texas A&M University.

To their credit, he said, Consolidated Beef Producers came together during a period when prices were relatively good. “They’re not doing it out of desperation, or a desire to get even, or take a piece of the market away from somebody.”

Chuck Jackson, a broker with Alamo Commodities in San Antonio, sees the co-op as a way to provide added value to consumers and capture some of that value. “It’s not just an attempt to raise price. Eventually that will come back to bite you.”

Garnering 1.5 million head will send a message to the packing industry that cattlemen are serious, said Chuck Levitt, livestock analyst for Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

About 65 percent of all cattle are still sold in the open cash market, said Levitt, and the co-op should, at times, have at least a slight influence on price. The other 35 percent are sold through various contractual agreements.

“But you have to remember that these cattle are alive and gaining weight, and the market is still subject to the laws of supply and demand,” Levitt said.

Too-heavy fed cattle are being cited as a factor in the price decline of recent weeks.

Such temporary gluts can be the result of owners holding back, but in this case the blame is on cheap grain and more animals being fed on a formula basis, which causes them to be stay in the lot longer, and exceptional cattle performance.

Steers and heifers are currently being sold at below break-even cost, according to the analyst.

In theory, the co-op idea is good, and “we are 100 percent backing what they are trying to do,” said Mark Engler, director of risk management for Cactus Feeders, the nation’s largest feedlot operation.

It signed up some cattle, but he wasn’t at liberty to say how many. The number is not large compared to Cactus’ one-time capacity of 460,000 head.

“It’s going to be a tough row to hoe” because feeders are such a diverse and independent group, which means that some people are going to get angry when their pens don’t bring as much as they hoped, Engler said.

The first hurdle will be hiring the right person to run Consolidated Beef Producers on a day-to-day basis, he predicts. “They will need a guru, a boss. He will have to be multitalented, a hell of a politician, and well-respected.”

The formation of Consolidated Beef is just one way cattle raisers are trying to grab a bigger piece of the consumer beef pie.

Faced with the same pricing problem a few years ago, another group called U.S. Premium Beef bought into the packing operations of Farmland Industries to form Farmland National Beef Packing Co.

Aiming to capture the value added benefits, members get a premium for quality plus a patronage dividend at year’s end.

Members have first rights to delivery at its slaughter plants in Dodge City and Liberal, Kan., which means they don’t have to worry about packer buyers showing up, said Chief Executive Steve Hunt.

The cattlemen who formed U.S. Premium Beef, which began operation in December of 1997, paid a one-time fee of $55 per animal. All its sales are based on various quality measurements of the carcasses, basically selling meat instead of cattle.

The result is they added $15 per head on improved quality plus $18 per head from ownership in the packing business, Hunt said.

The company has 1,300 members who currently send about 700,000 cattle a year through Farmland National plants but aren’t pushing an expansion, Hunt said. “We need to get our arms around what we’ve got.”

Vermont Sheep Seem to be Headed for Slaughter

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:31:02 GMT

The U.S. government has refused the request made by the Belgian government to take two flocks of East Friesian sheep back to Belgium, one of the flock’s owners has told reporters. The sheep supposedly have a form of mad cow disease. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman cited a “conclusive diagnosis” of a form of mad cow disease for the drastic action, said Linda Faillace, who owns one of the flocks in Vermont. The USDA fears that the Vermont sheep may have eaten some contaminated feed in Belgium and wants to take all precautions to keep mad cow disease out of the United States.

“We must consider all of the animals to be diseased or exposed to the foreign TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) and handle their disposition here in the United States, in accordance with the U.S.'s animal health regulatory system,” Glickman informed the Belgian Embassy in Washington.

Faillace and her husband, Larry Faillace of Warren, Vt., and Houghton Freeman of Stowe, Vt., who together own approximately 350 sheep, have been battling the United States for more than two years to spare their animals’ lives. During this time, the sheep have been under quarantine with no sign of any problems tied to TSE, the owners said.

The U.S. government has claimed that four animals tested positive for a form of mad cow disease. Although government experts said they could not be certain the infection was the deadly disease or a more common sheep ailment, scrapie, they preferred to err on the side of caution.

Faillace said the owners had counted on a reprieve when the Belgian government recently agreed to accept the sheep. Now that the U.S. government has refused that request, Faillace said she would be conferring with the family’s lawyer on what, if any, steps they might still take to save their flocks. The two flocks include 50 imported from Belgium in 1996 and their 300 offspring born in Vermont.

After the government’s announcement, Vermont Health Commissioner Dr. Jan Carney issued a warning against eating cheese made from the flocks, namely the Faillaces’ Three Shepherds of Mad River Valley and Freeman’s Northeast Kingdom Sheep Milk Cheese.

Fearful of a backlash against all the state’s cheeses, the Vermont Cheese Council has requested the owners to surrender their sheep and take up the government’s offer of reimbursement.

Concerns as New Rules Aim to Curb Manure Pollution

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:00:11 GMT

Washington environmental regulators have released new permit rules aimed at reducing the amount of manure pollution that gets into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water from large dairy farms and other animal feedlots.

The rules will change the regulatory landscape for the state’s 230 dairies with more than 200 cows, as well as other so-called concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Embracing the rules may shield dairies from government fines or lawsuits by environmental groups, but will mean taking on new obligations with uncertain costs, The Capital Press reported .

“Every farmer will look at this very differently,” Jay Gordon, policy director for the Washington State Dairy Federation, told The Capital Press. “Some will sleep better at night knowing they won’t get sued, or at least are less likely to get sued. Others will say, ‘Why do I need this?’ It means more regulations, more paperwork and more burdens. We’re very concerned about that.”

But environmental groups say the rules don’t go far enough and fail to protect drinking water. Environmental groups had pushed for dairies to line manure lagoons with synthetic material and install wells to monitor groundwater, steps the Washington Department of Ecology was unwilling to take, The Capital Press reported.

“Ecology was presented with an unprecedented opportunity to protect the environment and public health,” said Andrea Rodgers of the Western Environmental Law Center. “It is outrageous that Ecology has given permission for industrial agricultural facilities to dump pollution into our drinking water.”

The groups said that hand application of manure, ponds used to store manure, compost areas and cow pens are significant sources of pollution, but Ecology failed to include measures in the permit to prevent such pollution.

About 200 dairy farms could be required to get the new water-quality permit. Smaller dairies are exempt. About 10 concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, were required to have the permit under the older rules.

Nitrates are a problem when manure which contains nitrogen is applied to fertilize crops or when manure stored in ponds seeps into groundwater. Bacteria from animal waste can also foul shellfish beds and create health risks for people.

Ecology will offer two versions of the permit, a concession to the dairy industry and opposed by environmental groups.

One permit will be for dairies that discharge pollutants into groundwater and surface water. Because the federal Clean Water Act covers surface water, environmental groups unhappy with Ecology’s enforcement could sue dairies that have this permit. The other permit will regulate groundwater discharges and wouldn’t be subject to enforcement through third-party lawsuits.

Veterinary Feed Directive Questions and Answers (Part 1 of 3)

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:46:23 GMT

The Veterinary Feed Directive was developed out of the concern for antibiotic resistance associated with daily antibiotic use in animal feeds.
By Rob Eirich, Nebraska Beef Quality Assurance, Nebraska Extension; Matt Luebbe, UNL Beef Feedlot Specialist; Richard Randle, Nebraska Extension Beef Veterinarian; and Dee Griffin, UNL-Great Plains Veterinary Educational Center

KEY POINTS: When the VFD regulations go into effect, they will ONLY apply to antibiotics used in the feed! They will not affect other feed use medications such as; ionophores, coccidia, other parasite and insect control drugs, or reproductive control medications. VFD regulations will not apply to antibiotics used by injection, tablet, bolus or water.

WHY HAS THE FDA DEVELOPED THE VETERINARY FEED DIRECTIVE (VFD)?
The driving force is the concern for antibiotic resistance associated with daily antibiotic use in animal feeds. Over a decade ago the decision was made to move toward removing all antibiotic use in livestock that was associated with growth and/or feed efficiency or long term use, over 21 consecutive days that allowed extended time for bacteria to develop resistance. The VFD concept became the option for allowing vital feed antibiotic use in livestock for protection of their health and well-being. Antibiotics approved for use under the VFD regulations will be for “prevention”, “treatment” and/or “control” of specific bacterial diseases.

WHAT IS THE VFD REGULATION TARGET?
Antibiotics used in livestock feed and minerals will be the ONLY drugs affected, AND THEN only the antibiotics considered “Medically Important to Humans”. Ionophores are antibiotics NOT important to humans and will not be affected. Additionally no other drugs such as parasite control, insect control or reproduction control feed additives will be affected.

WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY DRUG USE FOR “PREVENTION”, “TREATMENT” OR “CONTROL” IN THE VFD REGULATION?

“Prevention of Disease” with a VFD can be approved when a known disease risk is present and the VFD antibiotic can be administered to prevent animal infections. None of the animals in the group are exhibiting clinical signs of disease but where the disease is likely to occur if the drug is not administered.
“Treatment of Disease” with a VFD antibiotic can be approved when animals are exhibiting disease signs.
“Control of Disease” with a VFD antibiotic can be approved to decrease the spread of disease when a percentage of the animals in the group have exhibited disease signs and the clinically sick are being individually treated.

WHAT IS A VETERINARY FEED DIRECTIVE?
A Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) is a written order (paper or electronic) by a licensed veterinarian in the course of their practice approving the use of a VFD medication. The difference between a VFD and a Veterinary Prescription is a VFD isn’t governed by a state’s “Board of Pharmacy” which simplifies the inventory control, dispensing and required records. VFD regulations do not apply to injectable antibiotics.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR VETERINARIANS?
Veterinarians will become responsible for all feed use of antibiotics considered by the FDA as medically important to humans. The following bullet list outlines many of the specific tasks that will be required of licensed veterinarians to issue a VFD for a cattle farm or ranch client.

Veterinarians must be licensed in the state in which the cattle reside.
Must have a proper VCPR (Veterinary Client Patient Relationship) with the cattle operation.
Must prepare and sign the VFD supplying all the required information.
The VFD they authorize must comply with all conditions of approved use.
Must include required information if the VFD drug is to be used in combination with other VFD drugs.
Must restrict or allow the VFD drug in combination with one or more approved Over-The-Counter (OTC) feed medication.
Must assign the approved VFD expiration date and the “drug withdrawal time” following approved duration of the VFD use.
Can indicate if a “generic” VFD drug can be substituted for the “pioneer” VFD drug.
Must develop a mixer “flushing” or “clean-out” protocol to prevent a VFD drug from contaminating subsequent mixed feeds.
Must provide the feed distributor or mill (if other than “on-farm” mixing) a copy of the VFD, which can be transmitted by fax, email or electronic, however, the distributor must receive a hard copy of the “VFD order” from the vet within 5 working days.
Must provide the client (cattle operation) a copy of the VFD. If the “client” is also the “mill” they also receive the “mill” copy.
Must keep original VFD for two years (Two year retention is also required for the client and feed distributor copies).
Must provide VFD orders for inspection and copying by the FDA upon request.
Some VFD medication will allow disease diagnosing by trained non-veterinary cattle care takers
- For VFD medications that allow this, the veterinarian must develop training for the non-veterinary care takers, provide documented training and have a copy of the training outline or materials on file in the cattle operations office .

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CATTLE PRODUCERS?
Cattle producers must have a relationship with a licensed veterinarian.

The FDA and the state’s agency regulating “Veterinary Licensure” specifically defines this relationship in their regulations as a “Veterinary Client Patient Relationship” (VCPR). It requires the licensed veterinarian writing the VFD to: 1) be familiar with the care and management cattle receive by a client including being able to make a preliminary diagnosis of the targeted concern, 2) is willing to assume responsibility for making clinical judgements and the client agrees to follow the veterinarian’s instructions, 3) the veterinarian is willing to provide treatment oversight and will be readily available for follow-up evaluation and case management, 4) case and treatment records are maintained and evaluated by the veterinarian.
Cattle producers will find obtaining VFD antibiotics simpler and less frustrating if they will visit with their veterinarian ahead of the need for the feed antibiotic.
Let your vet know about upcoming cattle management issues that may require a feed use antibiotic. Examples might include; weaning, anticipated cattle purchases or a seasonal endemic disease such as Anaplasmosis.
Visit with your vet about how a VFD medication will be obtained on a timely basis through your feed distributor.
In your conversation be sure to discuss other feed additives you typically use and ask about specific limitations that will have to be considered when a VFD medication is used.

Cattle producers considering a VFD medication might find it useful to visit with their feed distributor about the details to be considered when obtaining the VFD medication from their distributorship.

Convenient Truths?

Sun, 08 Nov 2020 17:25:21 GMT

I’ve commented in the past about some of the writings of James McWilliams, a history professor in Texas, who – while critical of rank and file food production in the U.S. – is more interesting to listen to, because he’s also clear-eyed about many of the weakly-supported notions and downright falsehoods behind other, “alt” forms of food, such as organic, grass-fed, local, etc. (Here are links to 3 previous postings of mine, from August , July , and March of last year, that mention some of his observations).

His latest column, in the April 8 issue of The Atlantic , about how “natural” food production is morally no better than any other conventional form of food production, is also worth posting. The crux of his argument is stated thusly:

For consumers willing to pay more for pastured meat, this [“free-range”] is a guilt-absolving distinction. We’ve imbued “natural food” with such virtuous connotations that meat supposedly raised according to the law of nature is, ipso facto, thought to be an ethically worthwhile choice.

From his point of view, any system of meat production (and I am including dairy in that, although his column doesn’t mention it) lacks any ethical superiority just because the animals were supposedly closer to nature. Or, as he puts it:

But what if, as I’m arguing here, the free-range experience is nothing but a more humane way to force animals into serving our culinary wants?

The reason I think this line of argument is notable is that he is willing to explore the notion that “natural” production, which exposes livestock to greater threats from predators, parasites and extreme weather, is hardly more humane than more common confinement operations….and is, according to many measurements, demonstrably more stressful. And it arrives at the same bottom line: the demise of a farm animal so people can consume their meat.

There are people for whom meat consumption, or the ingestion of any animal products, is a deal-breaker. Like it or not, they’re a part of all societies. They’ve become much more vocal (although probably not really more numerous) as of late in American society, and farmers and ranchers understandably may feel picked on because of the rise of veganism, and its fellow traveler, the animal rights movement.

But just as to govern is to choose, so is eating a choice. What’s happened in the rise of food-ism, as McWilliams and a few others have noted, is that people are being presented with false, or at least illusory, choices. “Natural” isn’t really all that different, at least as officially defined by the USDA and FDA, than foods without that label. And indeed, within livestock production, if natural means more exposure to harsh or unhealthful practices, is it better for livestock? There is a growing body of evidence that it is not.

Trusteed IRAs: why they are popular, who should consider them, what benefits they offer

Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:01:45 GMT

Q: I’ve heard a lot about trusteed IRAs. How do they differ from traditional IRAs?

A: Simply put, trusteed IRAs offer potential tax benefits of traditional or Roth IRAs with the protection and control of a trust. They provide tax advantages that stretch into the future and offer the ability to control how, when and in what amounts assets are distributed. Trusteed IRAs have become more popular given some of the inherent limits of traditional IRAs and the growing prevalence of self-directed retirement accounts combined with the decline of pension plans. They also are more cost-effective than setting up a trust and are generally more compliant with tax laws.

Q: Who should consider a trusteed IRA?

A: There are several reasons why someone should consider a trusteed IRA, the most consequential of which is if an owner has an interest in controlling assets and realizing tax benefits beyond their lifetime. This can mean an owner is concerned with the financial discipline or sophistication of heirs.

Other reasons include if an owner remarries and wants to provide for a current spouse as well as children from a previous relationship and/or is concerned about IRA management in the event of incapacitation.

Q: I’m in the middle of estate planning. How can a trusteed IRA help with the process?

A: They can help process if only to preserve the potential tax-advantaged accumulation of IRA benefits to pass on to heirs. Under traditional or custodial IRAs, a beneficiary is required to withdraw at least the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) each year. However, a beneficiary may withdraw additional amounts, for any reason, at any time—and incur possible fees or tax penalties.

Additionally, owners can restrict payouts to a beneficiary to the RMD, enabling it to operate as a spendthrift trust. At the owner’s death, the trusteed IRA would be automatically split into separate accounts for individual beneficiaries, with distribution terms defined for each account.

Another benefit is that estate plans don’t need to be rewritten or updated; trusteed IRAs can be added independent of an estate plan to protect IRA assets which legally pass outside of wills.

Q: Is a trusteed IRA better suited to farmers or owners of farm assets?

A: Not expressly, but a trusteed IRA can play an important role in legacy planning and preservation of farm assets over multiple generations. Given the growing generation gap among farming families, trusteed IRAs could be a way help preserve farm family values over generations from beyond the grave. Moreover, as farm economics continues to change, farmers may find value in the highly customizable nature of trusteed IRAs. In the event of a divorce in the family, for example, assets can be made to not leave the family’s bloodlines.

Q: Are there any downsides to trusteed IRAs?

A: Given that a trusteed IRA requires a corporate trustee, it’s harder to change ownership and family members cannot be named as trustees. Not all financial institutions offer trusteed IRAs so they may not be widely available to interested clients. Additionally, while they offer greater customization and more control, trusteed IRAs carry some limits. To have the highest level of customization and control, a trust would need to be created.

Please send questions, comments or requests to address a topic or issue to Rees Mason at rees.mason@ml.com.

Fed Cattle News

Are We Seeing Signs of Herd Rebuilding?

Early Signs of Herd Rebuilding?

Beef-on-Dairy Fills the Beef Supply Gap

Defining Future Beef Producer Success

Understanding Potassium’s Role in the Ruminant Diet

Study Confirms Facial Recognition Technology’s Success in Disease Prediction

Six Questions One Industry Veterinarian Says She Is Asked Most Often About HPAI

USDA Launches Remote Beef Grading Pilot Project

Speer: Day-Old Calves Cost How Much…?

3 Things to Consider Before You Raise Dairy Steers

Cattle Inventory Unchanged, Calf Crop Down

Related Articles:

2018: July Cattle on Feed and Mid-year Cattle Inventory

July 12, 2019: Fed And Feeder Markets Post Strong Rally

Dairy Cattle Beef up Beef Industry

Large Holstein Steer Discounts Seen as Packers Reduce Slaughter

Raising Dairy Steers for Beef Requires Responsible Management

Study Shows Cattle Are Increasingly Resistant to BRD Antibiotics

Feed Costs Too High?

Texas cattle feeders gear up fed-cattle marketing co-op

Vermont Sheep Seem to be Headed for Slaughter

Concerns as New Rules Aim to Curb Manure Pollution

Veterinary Feed Directive Questions and Answers (Part 1 of 3)

Convenient Truths?

Trusteed IRAs: why they are popular, who should consider them, what benefits they offer