Copyright (c) 2008 University of Nebraska - Lincoln All rights reserved. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp Recent documents in Range Beef Cow Symposium en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:36:52 PDT 3600 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/258 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/258 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:18:51 PDT Death loss in the calf crop is associated with the cost of the calf, labor, lost cow production, and stress on the ranch or farm management. One should be aware that the cause of death in most diarrheic calves is metabolic acidosis and/or dehydration (1). Many calves will survive the common pathogens causing diarrhea when proper supportive therapy is provided. The diarrheic calf can be treated without knowledge of the specific etiological agent, however, a definitive diagnosis can assist in the development of helpful prevention and management practices (2). Identifying the causative agent can be helpful in selection of the proper therapeutic products. Table 1 lists the diagnostic findings from neonatal calf diarrhea accessions to the South Dakota Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (3). Cryptosporidia and coccidia are single celled protozoal parasites commonly found in cattle populations. Cryptosporidia has commonly been associated with infection of 2- to 4-week-old calves. Coccidia is commonly associated with calves older than 6 weeks of age. Unlike coccidia, there are no known preventative, control, or treatment products for cryptosporidiosis. Rota, corona, and bovine virus diarrhea (BVD) are the most commonly isolated viruses from neonatal calves. Usually these viruses are isolated from calves 10-days-old or older. Coronavirus is more frequently isolated from older calves than rotavirus. BVD virus is commonly isolated from diarrheic calves under 2 months of age. Antiviral drugs are not available for the treatment, control, or prevention of viral infections in cattle. Maternal immunity is the most commonly used preventative practice. E. coli Salmonella, and clostridial bacteria are the most commonly found bacterial pathogens in the diarrheic calf. Pharmaceutical products can be helpful in the treatment, control, and prevention of these infections. Maternal immunity is successfully used to control herd problems with E. coli and clostridial infections. Before one considers treatment of the diarrheic calf, it is helpful to become aware of some physiological facts related to the young calf. White blood cells, which are used by the body to fight infection, are decreased in the newborn calf for the first 48 hrs (4). After 5 days, they are similar to the adult cow. When calves are stressed at birth, glucocorticoids are released and WBC are suppressed even more. John U. Thomson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/257 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/257 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:18:44 PDT Range cattle provide room and board for a large variety of flatworm and roundworm parasites. A parasite is by definition an agent that inflicts a degree of harm to a host, and the damage caused depends on the innate abilities, size of the population, duration of infection and other factors tied to the parasite. Host-related factors are also important, including breed, age, sex and condition. The damage to animals may be obvious, with clinical signs including diarrhea, loss of weight, "bottle jaw" (swelling under the jaw), rough hair coat, reproductive/breeding dysfunction and, in severe cases, feed waste due to an inability to digest protein, depressed lactation in cows and diminished immune response to viral, bacterial and mycotic opportunists. The roundworms known as trichostrongylids are widely known to be the most common and economically important group of worms in cattle in the world (ARS, NRP #20420, USDA 1976). Members of the group inhabit the abomasum (Ostertagia species, Trichostronglus axei and Haemonchus species), small intestine (Cooperia species, Nematodirus species and Trichostrongylus colubriformis) and the lungs (Dictyocaulus species). They range from about the size of an eyelash to more than an inch in length and damage the lining of the organ they inhabit by burrowing through cell layers or feeding on blood or tissues. Although liver fluke or lungworm can be a significant problem in local areas, the magnitude of importance warrants focus on the abomasal/intestinal trichostrongylids, especially Ostertagia ostertagi the medium stomach worm. William R. Jolley http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/256 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/256 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:18:38 PDT "But I vaccinated those calves for enterotoxemia, they couldn't have died from Clostridium perfringens. That vaccine must not be any good! Just wait until I get hold of that drug company salesperson." Does this scenario or a similar experience seem familiar to you? I'm not saying that there aren't times when vaccines fail to cause the animal to produce its own protective response by stimulating the immune system. A substance foreign to the body that induces the immune system to response is called an antigen, as found in vaccines or organisms such as bacteria or viruses. An animal's immunological response to a vaccine is acquired. The immune system is composed of humoral and cellular portions both of which respond to an antigen (Table 1). Cheryl F. Nockels http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/255 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/255 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:57:11 PDT Weather, nutrition, public land policy, marketing options, and diseases all influence the sustainability and profitability of cow-calf enterprises in the United States. One of the diseases is trichomoniasis. It is a venereal disease of cattle causing reproductive failure and considerable economic loss in areas of the world where natural breeding is used.(1,2) The disease is one of the most common infectious diseases causing decreased reproductive efficiency in beef cattle in the western United States.(1) William G. Kvasnicka http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/254 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/254 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:57:06 PDT Each year various regions of western range country are affected by weather and other environmental conditions that stress growing plants, causing them to accumulate nitrates. Of 183 forage samples analyzed for nitrates at the Wyoming State Chemical Lab from July 1 to December 31, 1989, 27% had potassium nitrate levels of 1.5% or greater. At these levels, when ingested by livestock and particularly cattle, the possibility of nitrate toxicoses are highly probable. In this paper, an attempt will be made to review the literature in order to give the producer a better understanding of potential problems and precautions necessary to utilize high nitrate forages. Under normal growing conditions, stems and leaves of plants convert nitrate to protein about as fast as it is absorbed through the roots. However, this process does fluctuate and under certain environmental conditions, the speed of this conversion process is inhibited. This reaction is dependent on adequate water, energy from sunlight and a temperature conducive to rapid chemical reactions. If any one of these factors is inadequate while soil temperature is reasonably warm, the root continues to absorb nitrogen at a similar rate while storing it unchanged in the stalk and lower leaves. When these conditions exist, nitrates have accumulated in the plant (1,2). Under normal feeding conditions, nitrate consumed by cattle is converted to nitrite and then ammonia by bacteria in the rumen. The rate at which nitrate is converted to nitrite, exceeds the conversion rate of nitrite to ammonia. Therefore, when higher than normal levels of nitrate are consumed, an accumulation of nitrite may occur in the rumen. Nitrite will then be absorbed into the bloodstream. When this takes place, hemoglobin which normally transports oxygen, is converted to methemoglobin. Methemoglobin is unable to transport oxygen to body tissues. If the amount of nitrate consumed is great enough and the animal is not treated, it will die of anoxia or lack of oxygen. However, there is also some indication that sublethal levels of higher than normal nitrate ingestion may affect growth, reproduction, milk production, in addition to vitamin A and iodine status of the animal (2). The occurrence of nitrate poisoning is difficult to predict because it is influenced by many circumstances. Nitrate levels change rapidly in the plant (1). In addition, there appear to be large differences in the levels of nitrate that individual cattle can tolerate. Environmental factors that affect nitrate accumulation in the plant include fertilization practices, light intensity and drought. Generally, the higher the level of nitrogen (N) fertilizer, the greater the potential for nitrate accumulation in the plant (1). The potential also appears to be greater when N is furnished by nitrate fertilizers rather than ammonium sulfate or urea. In western range areas, lack of adequate water often increases the accumulation of nitrates by various plants. Cloudy (low light intensity) and cool days may further compound this situation. Plant species differ markedly in their ability to accumulate nitrates. Cereal grain plants, especially oats and corn, tend to be accumulators. Ryegrass, sorghum and sugar-beet tops can also cause nitrate problems. Oat hay and cornstalks cause many nitrate concerns. In addition, certain wild grasses and weeds such as pigweed, kochia, carelessweed, lambsquarter, sunflower, bindweed and many others may accumulate nitrate when the plants are stressed. Under high levels of fertilization, forage species commonly used for pasture and hay production can even develop nitrate levels potentially hazardous to animals' health. High levels of nitrogen fertilization have also been attributed to increasing levels of nitrogenous compounds in surface and ground water. Effects of nitrate from multiple sources are additive and both feed and water should be considered when evaluating a problem (3). Doug L. Hixon http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/253 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/253 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:56:58 PDT It has often been said, "The only certain thing in this world is change." This is, without a doubt, quite true in production agriculture. Changes in the beef cattle industry come in the form of technology, markets, weather, consumer preferences, etc. These changes present challenges and hardship to some and to others opportunities and profits. Another interesting thing about change is that we and/or the industry are, for whatever reason, often slow to adapt and adopt. In this presentation, we will talk about some of the changes that are being suggested in beef production and financial records; and the analytical systems employed in an effort to further move the industry in the right direction of change. Specifically, we will address the importance of an integrated records system as it relates to the efforts of the National Cattlemen's Association's Integrated Resource Management (IRM) subcommittee to develop Standardized Performance Analysis (production and economic measures) in relation to the guidelines of the Farm Financial Standards' Task Force (FFSTF) for financial analysis for agriculture (FFSTF, May 1991). The FFSTF basic objective was to provide standardization in the terminology and performance measures for evaluating ranch and farm financial performance throughout the United States. This group was supported by the American Bankers' Association, Cooperative Extension, USDA, the Farm Foundation, Farm Credit Service, Farmers' Home Administration, and a number of land grant institutions and private lenders and others. The underlying assumption of both these efforts is complete production and financial records. Why the renewed focus in recent times on good records, complete financial information, better decision making, better management? Much has stemmed from the events of the early- to mid-1980s when American agriculture went through a rather dramatic restructuring. As a consequence of the events of the late 1970s and 1980s, the livestock industry, as well as other segments of agriculture, recognized the need to be more competitive with other sectors in our economy. It was decided that more complete financial and production information would be required than in the past to demonstrate the ability of the producer and the industry to compete for available capital--both in national and international markets. The question was asked: How can we demonstrate that as an industry we're profitable? The answer was, standards must be developed that are compatible with general accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used in other industries. This would require the efforts of each individual producer and, of course, the industry as a whole. One of the reasons for developing the integrated production and financial records (SPA) for the beef/cow industry is to provide business performance documentation that can be used for evaluation in the market place. Further, this type of financial and production performance information and data will have a direct effect on those producers making individual management decisions. With complete production and financial information, ranchers and farmers can make informed decisions, which in the long-run will result in financial progress and financial sustainability. One of the important problems in agriculture, and certainly within the beef industry, has been historically low-rates of profitability, compared to other industries with similar capital investment and risk. So, if we are to compete with other segments of our society who compete for capital as well, we must be able to compete with rates of return that are competitive with other investment alternatives. Again, the efforts, which have been expended by land-grant institutions through their Extension beef cattle specialists and others, have resulted in rather dramatic changes in the beef industry over time. Certainly, we have seen considerable progress in the weights of the steer calves we are weaning currently. In 1960, the average was around 380 pounds; this has increased to well over 500 pounds based on 1990 data. This certainly demonstrates that production efficiencies are being addressed and are improving. However, when we move from production to economic efficiencies, we have to keep in mind that production improvements have a cost attached to them. In order to evaluate the effect of those production efficiencies, we need to have both good production records and good financial records. If ranchers and farmers today can evaluate their production programs and their financial efforts in a logical and meaningful way, profits are going to be enhanced. Norman L. Dalsted http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/252 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/252 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:56:54 PDT Our goal at Deseret Land and Livestock is to maximize long-term profit. Our profit is a function of the following factors: the prices we receive for our production, our amount of production, the costs of production, and the productive capabilities of our land and labor. Prices, production, and cost are managed on an annual basis. The long-term outcome of one's management is determined by their attention and skill in enhancing the capability of land and labor. These factors of profit can vary tremendously within and between years. For example, prices for 400-500 pound steer calves from 1979-1989 varied nearly $.58/pound over the period and on average the prices varied $.17/pound within any given year during this time, with a maximum within year difference of $.26/pound (Cattle-Fax 1991). Our range forage production has varied in the same 10 year period from less than two weeks of active growth to over three months. Finally fuel and interest on borrowed money costs have oscillated dramatically over this same period with all costs tending to increase. The tremendous variability of both the biological and financial environments in which ranchers do business make it a very high risk business. No single fixed strategy, no matter how good, will maximize long-term profitability. We believe that in this type of business environment the key to success is to have the flexibility to adapt. We calve late because it provides us with the best fit between the cattle's nutritional requirements over their production cycle and the ranch's naturally produced forage. This match has helped us become a low cost operation, has reduced our susceptibility to inflationary pressures on cost, has increased our production, and has broadened our marketing opportunities. Over the last twelve years, we decreased our total cost per pound of calf produced from over $.90 to $.62. We have gone from a cow/calf operation to a cow/calf/yearling operation. Finally we now look for marketing opportunities year-round instead of having to sell the calves each fall. Gregg Simonds http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/251 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/251 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:40:43 PDT When I was asked to give this presentation on "WHY WE CALVE EARLY" I said this is easy "because it works for us." Now that I sit down and think about why it works I find myself going over five generations of inspirations, frustrations, work, sleepless nights, and determination to understand why "IT WORKS FOR US". The Price Ranch is a family operation that has been in the family for five generations. The present day Prices consist of my father Richard Price, stepmother Lylamae, wife and best friend Pam, three children John R., Shannon and Angela and two excellent full time employees. When CSU first approached me about this presentation I was excited at the prospect of explaining to you all the academic reasons of why we calve early. Economics, breeding, weaning weights, 205 day averages etc, etc. And all those things are important, but when I sat down and really thought about it, it wasn't some smart cow man, it wasn't some academia that came up with the most basic reason of why we calve early. In fact it was a woman who come up with the idea. It was Mother Nature. It's that basic. It has just taken some smart cow men to work around her and with her. John N. Price http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/250 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/250 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:40:40 PDT Effective management involves the decision-making process whereby success can be achieved. Success is the progressive realization of worthwhile goals. A realistic management goal for profit-oriented cow-calf producers is as follows: Manage the available resource (optimum combination) for maximum continuing net profit while conserving and improving the resources. Cow-calf operations have several resource areas that must be profitably managed. These resources are land (forage), cattle, markets, equipment, human (hired labor, management and family) and possibly others. Biological and economical relationships within and between these resource areas that affect productivity and profitability must be understood and managed. Without question, the human resource is the most important resource. It is human beings that understand resource relationships, establish goals, make decisions, and provide the labor that implements the written management plan. Integrated resource management (IRM) is the buzz word of successful cow-calf management today. However, successful managers of past decades used the IRM concepts long before the name was conceived. Bob Taylor http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/249 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/249 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:40:37 PDT What are the primary factors that influence the ability of cows to rebreed following calving? From a broad perspective, two key factors influence when conception occurs. First, cows must initiate estrous (heat) cycles following calving to provide the proper conditions for conception to be possible. Secondly those events involved in conception must occur. We will discuss what has to occur before estrous cycles are initiated. The influence of the presence of bulls on initiation of estrous cycles is emphasized. In the second section of the paper, we describe conception rates in 2 and 3 year old cows during the early post calving period. In addition, we describe management decisions which influence net income in cow/calf operations. James E. Kinder http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/248 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/248 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:40:32 PDT One of the biggest challenges facing cow/calf producers today is cutting their costs of production. One possible strategy for lowering costs is to increase the production efficiency of the cow herd. A key area to focus on is the reproductive function of the beef bull because natural mating accounts for over 95% of the pregnancies achieved each year in the 33.7 million beef cows in the U.S. It is becoming apparent that perhaps because of increased selection pressure on scrotal circumference, the modern beef bull is more fertile than the bull of yesterday, yet the majority of beef bulls are still being mated at traditional bull to female ratios of 1:20 to 1:30. Utilizing bulls to their full breeding potential is one of the quickest and simplest ways a producer can cut costs. Unfortunately, however, determining a bulls breeding potential has been either elusive in the case of yearling bulls or labor intensive in the case of mature bulls. As a predictor of natural service fertility, most beef bulls undergo a breeding soundness examination prior to either sale or breeding; however, sex drive and mating ability are not commonly measured though both are essential for impregnation of females. Tests have been developed to measure a bulls mating ability or serving capacity. However, past studies investigating the relationship between serving capacity and herd fertility have been inconclusive with some researchers finding no relationship and other researchers reporting serving capacity tests to be an accurate predictor of bull fertility. Many of these studies differed in testing procedures and utilized bulls of different ages with varying levels of sexual experience; thus, differences in the findings may rest with these factors. Because most cattle producers in the United States are purchasing bulls at 12 to 15 months of age (virgins), most serving capacity work in the United States has focused on the serving capacity testing of yearling bulls. Garth W. Boyd http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/247 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/247 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:38 PDT For the last several years cattlemen have stressed high production, especially weaning weight in their cow calf operations. It was felt, m order to be profitable output from the cow herd must be maximized. As a result, of selection for both growth and milking ability of the cow has markedly increased weaning weights and in most herds mature cow size has also increased. Compared to 10-12 years ago, today we are producing 90-95% of the beef with 2/3 of the cows. As we expect more from the cow, nutrient intake must also increase. In many cases producers have been able to increase both cow size and weaning weights while still utilizing the available resources on the ranch and have not had adverse affects on reproductive performance. However, in many situations we have not been able to meet the cows nutrient needs from the ranch resources and one of two things have occurred. The rancher has either had to supplement at much higher levels or the cows became thin and reproduction suffered. In both cases, this costs money and usually lowers profitability. The challenge today is to bring our production, weaning weights, yearling weights, etc., up to the point that profitability is near maximum. Cattlemen have found that the point at which reproduction starts to fail is where we should stop trying to increase output. It has been said that reproduction is 5 times more important than growth and 10 times more important than quality, as far as their effect on profitability. Ever since ranchers had cows, it has been known that to assure a high pregnancy rate cows had to be in good body condition. Therefore cows are often fed more than necessary because many ranchers do not want to take a chance of a low pregnancy rate. In other words, it is easy to assure a high pregnancy rate -- just over feed the cow. With today's cost conscious ranchers, the real challenge is to feed just enough to assure optimum production and profitability, which may well mean something less than maximum production. Feed costs account for the major portion of annual cow cost. In states where cost of production has been accurately determined it has been interesting to note the tremendous difference in how much it costs to produce a pound of weaned calf from one ranch to another. In herds in Iowa and in Nebraska Integrated Resource Management (IRM) cooperator herds, it was found that cost of reproducing a weaned calf varied $.20/lb ($.72 to $.92/lb). Although no one single factor accounted for all of the differences in cost of production, the major factor was often the cost of feed. With a better understanding of cow body condition and the level of actual body fat that is required for good reproductive performance, we are approaching a time where we can use tools to fine tune our feeding program. Ivan G. Rush http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/246 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/246 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:35 PDT Grazing rangeland during the fall-winter is common on many cattle ranches. Fall-winter grazing of cows generally reduces production costs when compared to feeding a full ration of harvested feeds. Fall-winter range forages alone may not maintain body weight and condition of the cow. Grazing fall-winter range generally has associated cost for supplemental feeds. This paper will look at the effects of protein and grain supplementation on cow performance and the costs of supplements. Don C. Adams http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/245 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/245 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:31 PDT Riparian areas are recognized as the green area immediately adjacent to water, such as streams, springs, rivers, ponds, and lakes. They are identified by the presence of vegetation that requires large amounts of water during plant growing seasons (Figure 1). These narrow zones of green vegetation make up only a small proportion of the total area of the lower mountain elevations, foothills, and basin areas of the western United States. They serve as a transition zone between the more plentiful surrounding drier land or (upland) vegetation types and aquatic ecosystems supported by a particular source of water. Because of the availability of water, riparian zones are capable of growing three layers of vegetation; I) trees, ii) shrubs, and iii) herbaceous mixtures. This linear mixture of vegetation provides isolated and unique habitat diversity and increased plant production for livestock, wildlife, fish, and recreation within the western landscape. Riparian zone habitats function in watersheds: I) by filtering sediment transported from adjoining uplands, ii) by stabilizing stream banks and reducing accelerated erosion, iii) by promoting storage of water for release later in dry seasons and, iv) by recharging near-surface aquifers. These functions are why society today demands riparian zone management be considered important when determining future use of public and private lands. Quentin D. Skinner http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/244 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/244 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:28 PDT Given the diversity of potential objectives and production environments there are many types of research beyond grazing studies that can be used to design grazing strategies. Management perception and awareness of information are important factors in the development of creative and efficient grazing strategies. Well thought out and clearly documented goals and objectives will help to identify the kind of information that is needed. Grazing strategies should be financially and ecologically sound in respect to management objectives, but most importantly, they should be as simple and risk free as possible. The relative value of any information must be based upon how well that information can be used to efficiently achieve management objectives. Information must be critically evaluated to avoid the pitfalls of myths that often occur in discussion of grazing management. Patrick Reese http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/243 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/243 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:24 PDT Taming blizzards, by reducing stress on range livestock and taking advantage of drift snow for stock water, can aid livestock production. This paper describes tools developed by the U.S. Forest Service while experimenting with practices to control wind and blowing snow. Techniques for wind screening discussed here are (1) permanent livestock protection shelters, and (2) temporary, portable wind screens. Practices to control snow accumulation are discussed under the following broad objectives: 1. Preventing snowdrifts on roads, around buildings, corrals, or inside livestock shelters. Snow fences or shelterbelts are the most common methods. Buildings and shelters can be planned and located to avoid drifts in critical locations. 2. Accumulating snow in drifts as a water source. Snow fences or shelterbelts are the most effective methods, but excavated stock ponds can be designed to enhance drift formation as a source of water. 3. Retaining snow on the ground to recharge soil water or reduce snow transport downwind. Usual methods include leaving stubble or crop residue and managing vegetation to provide roughness to protect the snow cover from erosion. Grass barriers, tree rows, fences, or snow ridges also can be used for this purpose. Our discussions of these subjects updates a review (Jairell and Schmidt 1989) of more detailed papers listed as references, available by sending your request to the mailing address given at the end of the paper. R. L. Jairell http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/242 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/242 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:20 PDT Holistic Resource Management (FIRM) and Integrated Resource Management (IRM) have' become "buzzwords" in the range management community and the cattle industry. A certain amount of confusion exists as to what they are and what the similarities and differences are. Does one replace the other? Do they conflict or can both be used beneficially? As a member of a family working to operate our ranch holistically, and as a member of Nebraska's IRM Coordinating Committee, it's my opinion that there are differences, each has strengths, and the use of both, concurrently, can be highly beneficial. To explain these opinions, an understanding of both is helpful. Rob Ravenscroft http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/241 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/241 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:25:16 PDT Content: Areas of Disagreement in a Family Ranch Operation Human Relationships Necessary For a Successful Family Ranching Operation Common Mistakes in a Family Ranching Operation That Often Lead to Conflicts Between Family Members Personal Characteristics of Ranch Families With Strong Family Relationships Words of Advice to Consider in Building Better Working Relationships Between Ranch Family Members Strategies to Help Resolve Ranch Family Conflicts Ideas for Implementing Ranch Family Business Meetings Ten Skills for Good Listening Between Ranch Family Members Ronald Hanson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/240 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/240 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:37 PDT Retained ownership is a marketing strategy that involves maintaining ownership of young cattle beyond calf weaning, a traditional marketing time for many producers. Numerous retained ownership strategies exist. It is extremely important for producers and their lenders to clearly understand the advantages and disadvantages of a specific retained ownership strategy in order to fully evaluate profit potential. The advantages and disadvantages of retained ownership have been discussed by several authors. Advantages include 1) compensation for superior genetics, 2) reduction in market inefficiencies, 3) increased quality control in beef, 4) reduction in market risk for frost or drought damaged crops and 5) reduction in profitability peaks and valleys associated with cattle cycles. Retained ownership of cattle is not without problems. Disadvantages include 1) increased risk of poor performance due to poor genetics, health problems or deteriorating environmental conditions, 2) increased market risk, 3) increased financing requirements and 4) potential tax problems. Nearly every economic analysis of retained ownership has shown an increase in profitability over traditional cow-calf operations. Data adapted from the Kansas Steer Futurity (Simms and Maddux, 1990) are displayed in Table 1. Average annual net returns per cow through weaning were $4.84 from 1974-1988. Negative returns averaging -$43.81 were observed for 8 of the 14 years. Average annual returns per cow for the feedlot phase of production were $27.13. Negative returns averaging -$35.56 were observed in 5 of the 14 years. Returns for the combined cow-calf and feedlot phases of production averaged $31.97. This represents a 6.6-fold increase in profitability as compared to marketing the calf crop at weaning. Losses averaging -$40.69 were observed in 6 of the 14 years. A 1990-91 South Dakota Retained Ownership Demonstration Program (Wagner et al., 1991) showed average profits of $38.75 and $16.69 for an accelerated finishing program and a traditional two-phased growing and finishing program, respectively. The variability in profitability between groups of cattle representing different genetic and management backgrounds was tremendous. Profitability ranged from -$56.57 to $131.36 per head and 7 of 51 groups of five steers in the accelerated pen lost money. John J. Wagner http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/239 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/239 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:31 PDT During the past ten years, the use of Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) by both seedstock producers and commercial cattlemen has increased markedly. EPDs have proven to be very valuable for discerning within breed sire differences, but are still of no value for comparing sires between breeds. Even though EPDs were never intended for across breed comparisons, many commercial cattlemen find this limitation to be very frustrating. Represented in Table 1 are the birth year EPD averages for all animals born in 1990 for six different breeds. One quick glance reveals why EPDs cannot be compared across breeds. Anyone with knowledge of breed differences will quickly recognize that Angus are not going to average 2.7 (3.1 - .4) pounds more than Simmental at birth. Furthermore, it would be incorrect to assume that Herefords would average nearly 30 pounds more at one year of age and produce significantly more milk (7.0 versus .6) than Simmental. These breed average figures help illustrate the confusion that can develop when bull buyers attempt to compare bulls of different breeds. Jim Gibb http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/238 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/238 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:26 PDT Breed differences in performance characteristics are an important genetic resource for improving efficiency of beef production. Diverse breeds are required to exploit heterosis and complementarity through crossbreeding and new composite breeds and to match genetic potential with diverse markets, feed resources and climates. This report presents preliminary results from an ongoing study at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) to characterize breeds of cattle representing diverse biological types for traits that influence quantity and value of production. Larry V. Cundiff http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/237 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/237 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:22 PDT Crossbreeding advantages and disadvantages and crossbreeding systems are not new subjects in the United States beef industry. Crossbreeding has been in practice throughout my lifetime. It would be very difficult to locate a straight bred commercial cow herd in the midwest. Nevertheless, there are still misinterpretations and mistakes being made with crossbreeding methods. It would be sage to say that a vast majority of producers made their first cross to gain breed complementarity. Straight bred cow herds were bred to a bull of a different breed, usually new breed, to gain the inherent trait advantage of that breed. This was also done to start an "up grading" program of that breed. This is not necessarily a mistake. However, full credit for advantages of the resulting F1 over straight breds, was normally given to the sire breed. Little credit, if any, was given to heterosis or the dam breed. This leads us to the common statement about several breeds introduced into the United States during the last quarter century. "The one half bloods are preferred but the three quarter bloods and higher are not as desirable." This could be true because of breed characteristics, too much of a good thing such as too big, or too lean, or because heterosis was decreasing as we moved toward purebred status, lower reproduction, less calf survival. The two advantages of crossbreeding are heterosis and breed complementarity. If either is taken to extreme or ignored completely then mistakes can result. For example, we as breeders have been guilty of breeding cattle by pieces. With the use of crossbreeding and the ever increasing choice of breeds this possible mistake can be accomplished to greater extremes. A typical scenario would be the historical development of Cowboy Tom's Herd. Tom's extension agent told him years ago that his weaning weights were too low and his herd was in need of more milk. Cowboy Tom used a dairy breed to add milk. Tom then realized at the county fair that his calves were too small, so Tom added a large continental breed. A year later Tom's vet recommended a small breed for calving ease, and the sale barn owners suggested a heavy muscle breed for carcass merit, and the packer-buyer, later on, recommended yet another breed for marbling. As you can guess by now, Tom's herd today represents a typical industry problem of extreme variation. There is too much range in: carcass weight, fat cover, marbling, cow size, birth weights, fleshing ability, and on and on. This mongrelization is not the fault of crossbreeding even though it has often been blamed. It is the fault of single trait selection without a long term, sound, breeding program. Cattle should not be bred by impulse, by extremes, or in pieces, but as complete, optimal wholes, one generation after another. Cattle should be bred making moderate directional changes based on management ease and net profit without giving up the whole. Steve Radakovich http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/236 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/236 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:19 PDT Crossbreeding serves the beef cattle industry as a tool to improve productivity through heterosis (hybrid vigor) and through complementarity (combining different breed strengths) to match genetic resources to various feed resources, climates, management levels and markets. Commercial cattlemen need to understand the principles of crossbreeding so they can adapt crossbreeding to their specific environment and needs. Seedstock breeders must be able to intelligently advise their commercial customers and know where their seedstock best fits into crossbreeding programs. Cattlemen today can be much more sophisticated in their approach to using crossbreeding. They realize many of the crossbreeding mistakes of the past were made because many breeds used were not well characterized and crossbreeding programs were not tailored to individual ranch needs. The knowledge level regarding crossbreeding has increased dramatically in recent years; now is an ideal time to plan or replan a crossbreeding program. James A. Gosey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/235 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/235 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:15 PDT As ranchers and cattle breeders we are entering what may well be the most exciting decade of our era. A new tool has been unleashed. That tool is biotechnology. Yes, the future is here. All we have to do is harness this amazing breakthrough. Burke Healey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/234 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/234 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:11 PDT The management of fat content of the carcass, both subcutaneous fat and marbling, will be the challenge of the future for the cattle feeders of the U.S. The cattle feeder will have to juggle carcass weights, quality grade and yield grade in order to determine the appropriate end point for fed cattle. The input data for decisions will be the Choice-Select spread, yield grade discounts, feed costs, interest costs, cost of feeder cattle and genetic potential of the cattle in question. There is a perception among cattle feeders that, in the future, the packers will simply dictate the type of cattle they wish to kill, and it will be up to cattle feeders to hit that low-fat target. Nothing could be further from the truth. The market will get more complicated, not less complicated. The packing industry will undoubtedly set up a scale of discounts for both quality and yield grades with minimum and maximum carcass weights. It will not always be in the best interests of feeders to exactly hit those targets. Cattle feeders will feed all cattle available. Since not all cattle will readily find a home on the specification list of a packer, it will be up to feeders to manage the end point of those cattle as close to target as is economically feasible. Discounts may be a more acceptable way to go rather than using the extra feed needed to gain a par price. Those decisions will be part of the juggling act that cattle feeders will do as an extra part of their routine management. Increasing demand by foreign consumers for a higher quality product will complicate many of the management decisions. If we were moving to a product with a minimum acceptable level of quality and lowered levels of fat, the management job would not be difficult, as we would select for muscling and away from excess fat to hit our targets. The demand for higher quality will cause feeders to increase the subcutaneous fat on certain genetic types of cattle in hopes of developing a higher percentage of cattle reaching the high quality target. These cattle may receive a quality grade premium and a yield grade discount. Thus, the relative size of the premiums and discounts will have to be weighed against the increased cost of feed to create the fat. Bill Mies http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/233 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/233 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:11:08 PDT With over 105 years of editorial and consumer research experience, which influences 27 million consumers, we at Good Housekeeping know that the 1990's will be an era of enormous change with a hold on traditions of the past. Amy Barr http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/232 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/232 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:58:04 PDT "Quality," in the context it will be discussed here, includes all of the factors that affect value/desirability of U.S. slaughter cattle (steers/heifers slaughtered at 9 to 42 months of age, immediately following a period of 90 to 300 days of high-concentrate feeding) in terms of the value/desirability of their carcasses and dress-off/offal items. Gary C. Smith http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/231 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/231 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:58:00 PDT At the National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) Strategy Workshop (hosted by the National Cattlemen's Association, March 18-20, 1992), workshop participants reviewed all of the information accumulated during the NBQA, and compiled a list of the 15 primary defects and(or) shortcomings of beef produced by slaughter steers and heifers (Smith et al., 1992). Listed first among the Top 15 concerns was "low overall uniformity of beef", and listed sixth and seventh were "low overall palatability" and "inadequate tenderness", respectively. The following comments, recorded during the National Beef Quality Audit, provide insight into the industry's concern about the tenderness, quality and consistency of beef: "Leanness, taste, tenderness price and consistency are keys to quality of beef". (Nancy Yanish, Food Marketing Institute) "The number 1 complaint of consumers of beef in restaurants is inconsistent tenderness". (Stan Emerling, National Association of Meat Purveyors) "Beef is now so variable [in tenderness], purveyors are having to jaccard or double-jaccard to remove variability". (Marvin Walter, Carriage House Meat and Provision Company, Inc.) "One of four beef steaks doesn't eat right..." (Jens Knutson, American Meat Institute) J. Daryl Tatum http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/230 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/230 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:57:56 PDT The National Beef Quality Audit determined that about $280 is lost for every fed steer and heifer slaughtered in the U.S. This $7.2 billion annual loss from non-conformities works to the beef industry's disadvantage. The beef industry's segmented industry structure encourages many of the non-conformities. The Strategic Alliances Field Study (SAFS), was designed to determine how much of the $280 could be returned to producers if all segments worked together and shared information. To demonstrate effectiveness of value-based marketing Strategic Alliances brought the various production segments together in a partnership so the reward for optimizing production would be shared equally by all segments. Chuck Lambert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/229 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/229 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:57:52 PDT Probably one of the most popular buzz phrases in U.S. Industry today is Strategic Alliances. Perhaps, we should take a minute to define what a Strategic Alliance is because we are seeing some indiscriminate use of the phrase. Definition. Two or more independent parties combine their respective strengths such as their assets, resources, and management, which are synergistic with one another to form a vertically integrated alliance with the common objective of creating a much stronger and more competitive enterprise, which in its combination minimizes the risk that each entity has in operating separately. I believe that in order to make such an alliance successful that you must first have a need. Let's have a State of the Union assessment of the beef industry to see if such a need exists. Over the past three years, there has been 3 significant studies which probably best revealed the major problems facing the industry. The first was the report issued by the Value Based Marketing Task Force. The second was the National Beef Quality Audit, and the third was the National Beef Tenderness Study. The Value Based Marketing Task Force, which was jointly sponsored by the Beef Industry Council and the National Cattlemen's Association, was a first in several respects. First of all, it was history precedenting, by having each sector of the Beef Industry represented as a Task Force seeking common objectives. The Task Force membership was made up of Seed Stock Purebred Producers, Cow Calf Producers, Cattle Feeders, Packer-Processors, Purveyors, and Retailers. I was privileged to be one of the Cattle Feeders Representatives. There was enough sensitivity as to the makeup of the Task Force that an Anti-Trust Lawyer was present at most of the meetings to keep us out of trouble. Paul F. Engler http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/228 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/228 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:57:48 PDT Historically, early weaning has been considered one of those things you might have to do in drought years. We do it because the cow-calf pairs are not realizing their production potential when running on dried up rangeland. For the rancher that has invested in quality bulls and is producing high growth potential calves, the problem is the same, only the circumstances are different. In years when grass production is adequate, high growth potential calves are not receiving adequate nutrition to express their genetic potential. The typical management adjustment in this situation is to creep feed or pre-condition the calves. Either approach is intended to increase on ranch production and hopefully compensate the rancher for these more management intensive programs. The question we had was why not make a clean break? If we want to feed the calves milled feed, why not put them in the feedlot and feed them? This could allow calves to express their full growth potential, moves the management burden from the ranch to the feedlot and may allow cows to go into winter in better condition. We evaluated this approach assuming the rancher would retain an interest in the high growth potential calves after they entered the feedlot to take advantage of their higher value. Feedlot performance and carcass value would then become an important variable for the rancher in the overall economic feasibility of early weaning. R. H. Pritchard http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/227 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/227 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:57:45 PDT The primary activities of management include planning, organizing, directing and control. The most important and most challenging is control)the process of analyzing, evaluating and interpreting the production and financial performance of the business, so the business manager can make informed business management decision. After almost two years of working with beef cattle business managers and gaining an understanding of the recommendations of the Farm Financial Standards Task Force (FFSTF) and the National Cattlemen's Association-Integrated Resource Management-Standardized Performance Analysis (NCA-IRM-SPA) subcommittee guidelines, has made a believer out of me now. Why? A complete accounting analysis, such as that provided by following the SPA analysis process, enhances the manager's control of the business. So why isn't everyone "doing" SPA? (Thought you would never ask) I believe it's because many think of a SPA analysis as an "event" rather than a process. Where in-fact, a SPA analysis is very much a process, a management process. And like most management process in your business it may take some time and commitment to make the SPA process an important part of your business analysis activities. Is it worth the time and commitment? If your asking me, most definitely. However, I am biased. You might be better off to ask yourself if you are satisfied with the production and financial performance of your cow/calf enterprise; What is the reproduction and production efficiency of my cow herd? What are the major expenses in the enterprise and can I do a better job controlling them? What is my unit cost of production for a pound of weaned calf? Is the financial position of the enterprise in balance with its cash flows? Is the enterprise meeting my profit goals and objectives? Paul H. Gutierrez http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/226 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/226 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:11 PDT The more one understands about resources critical to ranching the more likely one is to survive hard times. There are many distractions in the range livestock industry from day to day activities to technology overloads at educational meetings. As you sift through your experiences and observations do you ever ask the question, "What will I teach the next generation of management to improve their chances of success?". Hopefully, the answer is, "the basic fundamentals". New technologies, new words and new strategies do not change fundamental principles of rangeland management. Patrick E. Reese http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/225 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/225 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:06 PDT The recognition of abnormal calving (dystocia) comes FIRST from a basic understanding of normal calving. From this understanding, the establishment of guidelines for observation of cattle and for intervention will reduce calf losses . In Colorado, as part of a pilot program of the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), two-thirds of the costs of disease losses were associated with death loss. From a subset of 73 of the 86 NAHMS herds in studied in 1986-87 in 24,396 births, 4.5% of the calves were lost. Of the 4.5% losses, 34% were attributed to dystocia related losses. In addition, losses attributed to diarrhea, pneumonia, or cold may have been a consequence of the increased risks associated with dystocia. On most operations this is a very effective area where personnel training in obstetrical management will have a large beneficial impact. Most large operations have a labor turnover and small operations sometimes don't see enough problems to feel comfortable handling them. Thus, this training should be an ongoing part of the management program. Robert G. Mortimer http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/224 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/224 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:07:49 PDT Calf deaths resulting from difficult calving (dystocia) cause a major reduction in the net calf crop and income realized by beef producers. Based on 1993 projected figures, a 5% increase in animals available for sale in the U.S. could potentially increase gross receipts by over $1.5 billion annually. These same projection figures also suggest that losses attributed to calf deaths from dystocia alone exceed $750 million annually. Identifying ways to decrease dystocia and the accompanying calf deaths is the subject of this paper. R. A. Bellows http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/223 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/223 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:07:37 PDT Reproductive performance in cow-calf operations is one of, if not the most important factor affecting profitability in a herd. Several economic studies have suggested that reproductive traits are 5 to 10 times more important than growth traits and 5 to 20 times more important than carcass traits in determining the net profitability in an operation. Therefore, achieving high levels of reproductive efficiency should be the top or one of the top goals of any cow-calf operation. Ultrasound technology is by no means a new technology. Its use in live animals was first described in 1950 by J.J. Wild. He described its use as nondestructive and humane and as a tool that could be used in live animals to quantify muscle and fat tissue. Since that time, ultrasound technology has continued to advance and more recently has seen increased application and use in the livestock industry. Currently, research and application of ultrasound technology in the livestock industry is continuing. Potential areas of application in the livestock industry include: carcass trait measurements on live animals, use in veterinary medicine and reproductive management. Douglas D. Zalesky http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/222 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/222 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:07:08 PDT The objective of any successful synchronization program is to manipulate the estrous cycle of normally cycling females so that a large percentage will exhibit estrus with normal fertility at a pre-determined time. Synchronization programs have typically been most successful with heifers due to a lack of interference from extraneous factors. Since minimum age and weight are the primary prerequisites for a heifer of a particular breed to reach puberty, a nutritional program can be designed to allow the majority of heifers to reach their appropriate target weight by 13-14 months of age. Provided there are no health problems, or extreme environmental effects, this allows for a large percentage of these heifer to be cycling by the time the manager wants to breed them. Consequently, synchronization programs utilizing prostaglandins, progestogens or combinations of the two have been relatively successful at the conclusion of appropriate heifer development programs. Several factors complicate this process with the lactating cow. First, cows don't all calve at the same time. Therefore we have differences in the number of days postpartum. Lactation and the suckling stimulus tend to prolong the postpartum period to first estrus. Body condition and/or nutrition will play a role and often be confounded by the age of the female. In addition, winter environments in the northern Great Plains and intermountian range country, can have a major impact on condition and energy requirements. It should be emphasized in these introductory comments that successful estrous synchronization, whether it be with heifers or postpartum cows, requires a high level of management in order to be successful. A total herd health program and absence of calving difficulty along with a minimum postpartum anestrous period would be additional factors required to identify appropriate candidates for a synchronization program. The objective of synchronization efforts should also be considered when selecting the synchronization approach and the most appropriate system. Producers will want to meet their objectives with the most economically feasible system. In a majority of cases, synchronization is being utilized in order to enhance the genetic contribution through the use of superior sires by artificial insemination. In other situations a producer might merely be attempting to group breeding/calving dates to enhance management. In extensively managed operations where producers utilize public land grazing or have management restrictions necessitated by the grazing environment, the producer might simply want to get as many cows bred as possible prior to the time these restrictions are applied. In some cases this may mean utilizing natural service sires. Doug L. Hixon http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/221 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/221 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:06:53 PDT One of the biggest challenges facing cow/calf producers today is cutting their costs of production. One possible strategy for lowering costs is to increase the production efficiency of the cow herd. A key area to focus on is the reproductive function of the beef bull because natural mating accounts for over 95% of the pregnancies achieved each year in the 33.7 million beef cows in the U.S. It is becoming apparent that perhaps because of increased selection pressure on scrotal circumference, the modern beef bull is more fertile than the bull of yesterday. Yet, according to the 1992 National Beef Cow/Calf Health and Productivity Audit (USDA), yearling and mature beef bulls are being mated at bull-to-female ratios of 1:19 and 1:29, respectively. Utilizing bulls to their full breeding potential is one of the quickest and simplest ways a producer can cut costs. Garth W. Boyd http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/220 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/220 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:06:33 PDT The term "reproductive biotechnology" has different meanings in different circumstances. I will use a broad definition that ranges from estrus synchronization to DNA manipulation. By far the most relevant and important reproductive biotechnology for beef cattle production is artificial insemination. It is shocking that only around 5% of calves of beef cattle breeds in this country are sired via this biotechnology, but I will not discuss artificial insemination further because the methodology, costs, and applications are well known. In my opinion, the second most important reproductive biotechnology is estrous cycle synchronization; I'll not cover this further because there will be an entire paper devoted to it in this symposium. An important third reproductive biotechnology, ultrasound, also will be covered by another speaker. Over the next decade, all other reproductive technologies added together will not sum up to the importance of artificial insemination plus estrus synchronization. In fact, most other reproductive biotechnologies currently are completely inappropriate for most beef cattle operations. On the other hand, there will be profitable but specialized niches in some operations for application of nearly all of the biotechnologies that I will describe. George E. Seidel Jr. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/219 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/219 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:55:00 PDT Abortions in cattle may result from a broad range of causes. Abortions may be idiopathic (occurring without known cause) or the result of metabolic or hormonal abnormalities, nutritional deficiencies, trauma, toxicities, or infectious processes. For this presentation, information collected from diagnostic laboratories in South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming has been summarized in order to distill this broad subject down to its most important aspects. This presentation will examine the various infectious causes of abortion and focus on those diseases which diagnostic results indicate are the most important contagious causes of abortion. Before beginning the discussion of specific causes of abortion, it will be of value to understand some basic concepts concerning abortion in cattle. Michael Yaeger http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/218 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/218 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:54:57 PDT There are numerous causes of disease and death in nursing beef calves. Within the first several days of life, the leading causes of beef calf disease are metabolic and behavioral problems, many of which are the direct or indirect result of dystocia. Thereafter, the most common calfhood problems are infectious diseases. Infections of the respiratory and gastrointestinal system account for the overwhelming majority of calf disease and death in the United States. Gastrointestinal diseases tend to be most common within the first month of life, while the respiratory diseases tend to be more important after that time. There are numerous causes of gastrointestinal infection in calves and is very important to distinguish between them, because they can have very different modes of prevention and treatment. Calf scours is the most common type of gastrointestinal infection. Scours is caused by microbes that affect the lining cells of the gut but do not invade further into the body. These agents cause disease and death by increasing fluid and electrolyte losses via diarrhea. Affected calves can routinely be saved if treatment includes sufficient fluid and electrolyte to counterbalance the diarrheic losses. A considerable amount of research effort has been directed toward understanding, treating and preventing calf scours. Although our best attempts at prevention cannot eliminate calf scours, we have numerous methods of limiting the disease. Importantly, we have very effective means for limiting calf death when the disease does occur. Most of the treatment and prevention methods are readily available to the cow/calf producer. Franklyn Garry http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/217 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/217 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:54:54 PDT Improving vaccine utilization on the ranch or farm begins with a better understanding of common terms used in discussing products or methods used to enhance the animal's ability to prevent or control disease. The following terms and definitions are presented for that reason. David L. Morris http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/216 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/216 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:54:51 PDT According to National Cattlemen's Association data, there are approximately 35 million beef cows and 10 million dairy cows in the United States. Combining pre-calving, pre-weaning, yearling, breeding bulls and replacement heifer vaccination opportunities to utilize Clostridial immunization programs, it is estimated that well in excess of 100 million doses of various Clostridial containing products are used each year. Knowing which products stimulate satisfactory antibody levels and their duration of response is an essential part of making informed recommendations to producers for controlling disease. Presently, non-industry, controlled field studies assessing Clostridial products are not available. Specifically, Clostridium perfringens Type C is a common cause of neonatal calf diarrhea. Although histopathological diagnoses of this disease are made, these cases are frequently difficult to confirm. They are often referred to as sudden/unknown death in calves. From 18 veterinary diagnostic laboratories across the United States contributing to the USDA:APHIS:VS DxMONITOR (summer, 1992), 237 suspected cases of Clostridium perfringens Types C were tested during the period January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1992, but only 22 cases were confirmed. As such, Veterinary Clinicians must rely on gross necropsy results and frequently make recommendations with limited confirmatory information. Anecdotal information from several veterinary clinicians suggests that the incidence of these non-confirmed diagnoses diminished greatly with the use of Clostridium perfringens C&D products prophylactically. Various opinions abound as to whether the best response to controlling Clostridium perfringens Type C or sudden death in young beef calves is achieved with the use of toxoid, antitoxin, or both, and whether an acceptable response is achieved by administration at birth, two-weeks, or at two-months-of-age. Lack of definitive information regarding optimum protection afforded by the use of these products and their timing leads to possible ineffective use. This, therefore, results in increased cost of the production by both product purchase and labor, and possible increased tissue damage as observed by several Beef Quality Assurance Programs using 7-way Clostridial products. Robert P. Ellis http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/215 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/215 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:44:03 PDT Unfortunately in formulating supplements for cows grazing native range, the importance of minerals and trace minerals are often overlooked and not properly understood. Both of these nutrients are required at low levels by cattle and because that's the case, producers often consider them an insignificant component of the beef cow diet. They have less impact than protein and energy on cow-calf performance and economics, but they should not be overlooked. Larry R. Corah http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/214 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/214 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:44:00 PDT Profitability of calf production can be greatly increased by improvements in reproductive efficiency. Losses in income are associated with nonpregnant cows, calves that are born late in the calving season and death of calves at birth. Too many heifers and cows exposed to bulls during a breeding season do not become pregnant and wean a calf the next year. A major reason for the inefficiency is that cows are not pregnant at the end of breeding because many have not been in estrus and bred by the bulls. In addition, some cows do not start estrous cycles until late in the breeding season, so if they become pregnant calves will be born late the next year. Calves lost at birth are usually associated with difficult or delayed parturition. Two major factors that regulate reproductive performance of beef cows are nutrition and suckling. Nutrient intake influences body energy stores. Body energy stores can be mobilized when a cow receives less than the required amounts of nutrients during pregnancy or lactation. Body fat stores regulate the secretion of hypothalamic (brain) and pituitary hormones to control the functions of the ovary. If cows are too thin at calving, the hormonal signals necessary to stimulate the ovary and start estrous cycles are not released and cows don't exhibit heat until late in the breeding season, or not at all. The suckling stimulus also delays the release of hormones necessary for the reinitiation of estrous cycles after calving. Cows that lose their calves at birth usually come into heat sooner than cows with suckling calves. Under range conditions we need to utilize cows to convert forage to milk for growth of calves. There are few management options that can be used to increase reproductive performance by altering suckling. The practical approach to increase pregnancy rate, and time during the breeding season that cows become pregnant, is by strategic use of supplemental feeding during pregnancy. Robert P. Wettemann http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/213 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/213 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:43:57 PDT A frequent question asked by beef cattle producers is what supplement should be used. Prior to asking this question, it should be determined if a supplement is necessary. To answer this question, the nutrient requirements of the animal to meet the desired production level must be established. Next, it should be determined if current feed resources will meet these needs. It may be possible to shift grazing practices or to adjust feeding levels and meet the requirements. Once it is established that a supplement must be used, then the supplement that will improve the utilization of the base diet should be selected. With the wide array of supplements that are marketed, the different methods of feeding, and the differences in price and ingredients, choosing a supplement can be difficult. A good understanding of the principles of nutrition and digestion by beef cattle, the quality of the forage to be supplemented, the supplement composition, and associative effects that the supplement has on the forage will aid in determining the supplement that will provide the most benefit. Readers should refer to the previous paper in this proceedings for a discussion on basic nutrition of ruminants. This paper is written with the assumption that the primary component of the diet is forage. The data presented will be discussed assuming that the goal is for optimum utilization of the forage to meet the nutrient requirements of the animal at a given production level. This paper will also focus on the aspects of interactions of nutrients that are available to the microorganisms in the rumen and the resulting associative effects of the supplements on forage utilization. Economics of the feeding program will not be considered, however depending on the price of the forage and the supplement, it may be more economical to disregard the supplement's affect on forage utilization and to provide a majority of the nutrients through the supplement. David W. Sanson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/212 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/212 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:43:54 PDT Cattle producers in many ways have expertise in nutrition. Each day when cattle are fed or when grazing, they are taking in nutrients (protein, energy, minerals, etc.) that are vital for their life and production. Cattlemen are responsible for providing the feeds that supply the nutrients for the beef animal. If provided in the proper balance and portions at an economical level then the desired results should be obtained. If shortages occur with any required nutrient or if the nutrients are fed in excess or the sources are extremely costly then economic losses will be experienced. Because the largest cost in maintaining a beef cow and producing a calf is feed expenses, it is logical to concentrate on this high ticket item. Cattlemen often want direct answers concerning their feeding program such as "how much and what type of supplement should I feed to grazing cows in early winter." Unfortunately, there is not an accurate answer to this question until more is known about the type of cattle and the base forage the cattle are consuming. Perhaps if ranchers would couple their excellent experience in feeding cattle with some basic facts on the nutrition of the cow, then the feeding program could be fine tuned and more profit gained. The title of this paper indicates both simple and basic nutrition. Sometimes a basic concept appears to be anything but simple to a person that is attempting to use the concept and apply it in a practical feeding situation. The challenge and objective of this brief discussion is to try to keep the basic concepts simple to understand and yet show why it is important to further understand cow nutrition. This brief discussion will not be complete enough for many readers. Many textbooks and other publications go into great detail and allow further pursuit of a more thorough understanding of basic nutrition. Ivan G. Rush http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/211 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/211 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:32:40 PDT The rapid change to ¼-inch trim by the packing industry has been brought about by producers using their checkoff dollars to show retail meat buyers the way to value the closer trim product. The computer system, CARDS, developed by Texas A&M in cooperation with the National Livestock and Meat Board has allowed retailers to evaluate the closer trim product and use it in their buying programs. This demand by the retail industry has driven packers to offer the product. Today, all three major packers offer a closely trimmed boxed beef product. The growth in acceptance of this product has surprised many watchers in the cattle industry. We are an industry noted for changing slowly over long periods of time. The change to closely trimmed product has happened in months and continues to pick up speed. This rapid change will present a challenge for cattle feeders and cow-calf producers to respond to the new realities of the marketplace. William L. Mies http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/210 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/210 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:32:38 PDT Cow-calf producers find themselves in the unique position of managing an enterprise where profitability is dependent on their ability to hit two targets, the first being the complex of maternal traits as defined by the environmental and management constraints of their individual farm and ranch. The second target is outlined by the demands of the marketplace. What is the feasibility of accomplishing these two goals within the context of improving profitability by lowering appropriate production costs while avoiding the discounts inherent in commodity pricing schemes? The answer to this question is dependent on a variety of factors, including: the specific market being targeted, the severity of market discounts, the pricing mechanism (individual versus pen average) and the degree of environmental, management, and financial flexibility of the enterprise. Tom Field http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/209 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/209 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:32:35 PDT If commercial beef producers were to abandon crossbreeding, there would be no need to consider Across Breed EPD's. With only one dominant breed such as the dairy industry's Holstein, sire selection would be greatly simplified. Given the diversity of production environments, management systems and market scenarios within which beef is produced, it seems unlikely that a least-cost producer will approach the business without crossbreeding as one of the tools. As a matter of fact, Across Breed EPD's are just the most recent chapter in an ongoing evaluation of breeds and bulls. Astute commercial producers have been "going to school" on research results relative to large and important differences between breeds of cattle and between bulls within those breeds for at least 20 years. While this evaluation process has been formalized through research, Across Breed comparisons are as old as the annual ranch "branding". James A. Gosey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/208 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/208 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:32:32 PDT I. PLANNING the future of your cow outfit should involve an assessment of: A. PRESENT STATUS: a realistic inventory of where you are in terms of competitive production parameters, including: 1. cost per pound weaned per cow exposed, 2. percentage of cattle meeting carcass yield, grade, and weight specs. B. PROPER GOALS: informed visions of the direction of a consumer-based market driven industry such as: 1. redefining quality as a uniform product with consistent eating qualities, 2. discounts for products not meeting targets and needs. C. CORRECT STRATEGIES: the game plans which theoretically and practically have a good probability of realizing your goals. They are winning plans which take you from your present status to your proper goals. II. SUCCEEDING in the cow business (not just surviving but prospering) over the long run depends on a producer doing three things well, in harmony, and objectively: A. MANAGEMENT should emphasize profit schemes. 1. Define your role in the industry (see Fundamental Differences between Seedstock & Commercial Producers pg. 40). 2. Be a low cost producer. 3. Be a financial manager-Standard Production Analysis (SPA). 4. Be an integrated resource manager-Integrated Resource Management (IRM) B. MARKETING means picking your targets. 1. Identify and satisfy needs. 2. Produce what you can market-not market what you produce. 3. Shoot for mainstream market targets or major established niches. C. BREEDING (CROSSBREEDING) required a workable plan. 1. Scientifically based on sound genetic and economic principles. 2. Simplistic and easy to implement. 3. Systematic advanced planning of next logical steps. 4. Sustainable production where the goodness is cumulative through internal replacements. Jim Leachman http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/207 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/207 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:19 PDT Heterosis achieved through continuous crossbreeding can be used to increase weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding by 20%. Comprehensive programs of breed characterization have revealed large differences among breeds for most bioeconomic traits. About 55% of the U.S. beef breeding population involving 93% of the farmers and ranchers who produce beef cattle are in production units of 100 or fewer cows. Optimum crossbreeding systems are not easy to adapt in herds that use fewer than four bulls. Further, fluctuation in breed composition between generations in rotational crossbreeding systems can result in considerable variation among both cows and calves in level of performance for major bioeconomic traits unless breeds used in the rotation are similar in performance characteristics. Use of breeds with similar performance characteristics restricts the use that can be made of breed differences in average genetic merit to meet requirements for specific production and marketing situations. Retention of heterosis was shown to be approximately proportional to retention of heterozygosity in a four generation crossbreeding experiment. Retention of initial (F1) heterozygosity after crossing and subsequent random (inter sè) mating within the crosses is proportional to (n-1)/n where n breeds contribute equally to the foundation. When breeds used in the foundation of a composite breed do not contribute equally, percentage of mean F1 heterozygosity retained is proportional to 1 - ∑inPi2 where P1 is the fraction of each of n contributing breeds to the foundation of a composite breed. This loss of heterozygosity occurs between the F1 and F2 generations, and if inbreeding is avoided, further loss of heterozygosity in inter sè mated populations does not occur. The large differences that exist among breeds for most bioeconomic traits are the result of different selection goals in different breeds. Results from the Germplasm Evaluation Program at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center provide evidence that genetic variation between breeds is similar in magnitude to genetic variation within breeds for many bioeconomic traits. The heritability of breed differences approaches 100%, whereas, the heritability of differences within breeds for major bioeconomic traits varies from less than 10% to about 50% depending on the trait. The heritability of breed differences approaches 100% because estimates of breed differences are based on the means of a large number of individuals from a representative sample. The large number of observations tends to average within breed genetic variation. Estimates of heritability of differences within breeds are generally based on single observations of individuals for a specific trait. Thus, selection among breeds is much more effective than selection within breeds, but is a one time gain in contrast to selection within breeds. The primary objectives of this experiment were to: 1) determine the percentage of initial heterosis (F1) that is retained in advanced generations of composite populations mated inter sè; i.e., to what extent is retention of heterosis proportional to retention of heterozygosity; 2) determine the feasibility of developing a more simple procedure for using heterosis through new populations of beef cattle based on a multi-breed (composite) foundation; and 3) evaluate composite populations as a procedure to use breed differences to achieve and maintain optimum performance levels for major bioeconomic traits. Keith Gregory http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/206 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/206 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:16 PDT Content: Personal Introduction Ranch Description Ranch History People Planning Process Benefits John Flocchini http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/205 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/205 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:22:14 PDT Management style is a major determinant of effectiveness. Setting direction in turn is an integral part of an effective management style. At Rex Ranch our mission or long term direction is to "maximize long term profit while improving the land, animal and human resources." The redundancy in the mission statement is recognized and intended. If we fail to improve the land, animal and human resources, we will not be competitive or profitable in the long run. So, that part of the statement is to keep us based on correct principles. A ranch is really a production and marketing system made up of biological, human dynamic, climatic, economic and political subsystems. When I as a manager began to recognize the complexity of the ranching business, I knew I could not measure or predict all tendencies or results of management practices. To deal with the complexities of our ranch production and marketing systems, it seems appropriate to simplify as much as possible. As a matter of strong personal opinion, I think that many who teach and advise us want too much data and too much number analysis. Collecting data that has only marginal usefulness in monitoring progress and in decision making can be very time consuming, costly and demoralizing to ranch hands. Much of the job purpose of this paper is to show how creating an environment of excellence and simplifying process and procedure will empower rather than overburden ranch owners, operators, and employees. Burke Teichert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/204 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/204 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:09:05 PDT Promotion has been defined as "telling and selling" the customer. The overriding goal today, however, is understanding that customer. By determining consumers' needs and desires, one can then positively position products in a creative, relevant and positive way. The meat industry is constantly seeking to gauge both consumer attitudes and, importantly, their behaviors. Both are necessary components of a sound marketing plan. Pat Swan http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/203 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/203 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:09:02 PDT When determining the purchasing behavior of today's consumer, one should realize that price is but one factor in the buying decision. This tenet applies to meat producers, packers, and retailers alike, many of whom are beginning to look at the definition of price in a different way. There are, in fact, two ways of looking at price: from the "inside out" and the "outside in". When pricing is determined by the "inside out" method, the emphasis is on recovering the initial production costs and the addition to those costs to generate a profit. The "outside in" approach to pricing, however, is driven by demand and attempts to determine customer perception of value. The meat industry is faced with a challenge in this respect: consumers may perceive meat as having an equal, or even lower, value than chicken and consequently feel meat is overpriced. Hence, the question to the meat industry centers around priorities: Do we lower our price? Or do we improve the value of the product? Pat Swan http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/202 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/202 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:59 PDT It's no secret that the cattle market is in a down-cycle. Cattle numbers and beef supplies are on the rise. Cattle prices have declined significantly during the past two years, and will probably continue trending lower for another year or two. Lower calf prices are creating a major cost/price squeeze for many producers in the cow/calf segment of the industry. Cattle-Fax estimates that less than 25% of U.S. cow/calf operations will be profitable in 1995. Over half of all producers will see significant red ink. Tom Brink http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/201 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/201 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:56 PDT Today's beef producer faces a difficult economic climate. Prices for calves, feeders and fed cattle are low compared to 2 years ago. Feed grain prices are soaring due to high demand and short supply. Access to borrowed capital could become limited for some. Cow-calf producers, especially, need to control costs and yet maintain productivity. Cash leasing of bulls and share-leasing of cows may offer ways to help control costs and acquire capital, if such arrangements are fair and offer all parties the opportunity to succeed. Richard T. Clark http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/200 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/200 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:58:18 PDT This paper focuses on profitability points which apply to the cow/calf producer. This is a challenging task and, at best, will be a restatement of the practices that are employed by any good beef producer. In today's environment, if one has the boldness to put these points in print, it is only to reinforce the good management already being implemented and to offer ideas for other management practices that could also be employed. The merit of this exercise is to exchange ideas that can be mixed and matched with what is already being done on the ranch. The result will hopefully increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation, and thus, help the profitability picture of the business. This will become increasingly more important in the current cattle cycle. Paul Genho, manager of Deseret Ranches, stated in a recent meeting at Texas A & M, "The industry that emerges from this down phase will be leaner, smaller and more competitive." The following profitability focus points are management ideas that may effect profitability in a cow/calf operation. Most of these ideas have been gathered from other producers across the country and from programs such as the Range Beef Cow Symposium. The points are arbitrarily listed and the sequence is not necessarily indicative of importance. Certain guidelines and examples will be given which specifically apply to Quinn Cow Company. Whether or not they will lead to profitability in the last half of the nineties, for ourselves or others, remains to be seen. Cost effective management, however, will be key for survival. Dr. Robert Taylor, Colorado State University Animal Scientist, at the 1995 mid-summer NCA meeting in Denver, estimated that after the current cattle cycle, 30% of today's beef producers will not be in business. Connie R. Quinn http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/199 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/199 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:58:15 PDT A few years ago a NCA task force committee made the following statement: "Low-cost producers (in all segments of the production chain) will survive in this system of competitive markets. Others [high-cost producers] will eventually be unable to compete and will exit the business." Initially, this pointed summary statement fell on deaf ears as cattle prices were relatively good and many producers said they couldn't reduce costs as each year their costs were increasing. Currently, the high-cost producers are exiting the cattle business or depleting assets. Other cow/calf producers have positioned or are positioning themselves as low-cost producers. An increased number of producers are finding that low-cost production is not only possible but exciting and essential. R. E. Taylor http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/198 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/198 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:58:12 PDT Coordinated Resource Management, or CRM as it is commonly called, is a voluntary process which allows local people to provide input in making and implementing resource management decisions. CRM brings all affected interests (private landowners, federal, local, and state agencies, interests groups, and other specialists) together to set common goals and resolve resource issues as a team. CRM is working out solutions with local people to do what is best to meet the needs of all. Nationwide, CRM has been successful in addressing a number of controversial management issues, such as livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, fisheries, water quality, endangered species, wetlands, mine reclamation, forestry and timber, and many other issues. In addition, CRM has benefitted local communities in achieving cultural, social, and economic goals. Schools, hospitals, fire departments, and other local entities have also used the CRM process. CRM achieves individual and group ownership and support for the plan and its implementation. James R. Johnson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/197 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/197 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:46:14 PDT "How do we transfer information, values and the land to the next generation of agricultural producers?" is a question often asked. This is an especially important question today as agriculture wrestles with a complexity of stresses and strains as described by Knox (1995): Agriculture is in the midst of a major transformation from how to produce more to how to produce more efficiently in an evermore competitive and global market. Agricultural production systems must be economically profitable, while at the same time environmentally compatible and socially acceptable. The primacy of the consumer is recognized and is driving the need to find new products, add value to existing products, and do so with fewer inputs such as water and chemicals. Resources such as land, public and private, must be managed to sustain or increase productivity without adversely affecting the environment. Survival of the family farm in the midst of corporate concentration and industrialization of agriculture is a major and relatively new challenge. Competition for resources such as capital, land, water, technology, and management expertise continues to intensify as urbanization and growth continue unabated. ... Many families are in crisis and in need of new tools--economic, technical, and social--to survive in an economy that is uncertain and subject to daily change. (p. 2) The first purpose of this paper is to describe how critical and urgent the estate transfer issue is. The second purpose is to offer some technical and people tools for creating amicable transfer plans. By using these tools well, farm and ranch families can increase the likelihood that their family business will survive well into the 21st century. Robert J. Fetsch http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/196 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/196 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:46:11 PDT In today's fast-moving world of information, ranchers frequently suffer from technology overload. There can be enormous temptations to invest excessive amounts of resources on inconsequential activity. Understanding the responsibility of management for long-term success will help ranchers select appropriate technology. Focus on primary objectives will allow ranchers to develop simple and cost effective management strategies. Long-term survival of range livestock enterprises depends on (1) surviving or avoiding environmental extremes, (2) balancing livestock requirements with forage resources, and (3) recovering investments. Patrick E. Reese http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/195 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/195 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:46:08 PDT Because feed accounts for a significant portion of operating costs, cattlemen are always interested in getting the most out of the supplemental feed dollar. Two unwanted costs are the costs of overfeeding and the lost opportunities resulting from underfeeding. Three keys to more efficient supplementation are (1) identifying the most appropriate supplement, (2) determining the proper amount of feed, and (3) identifying the window of opportunity for achieving the desired changes with the minimal feed input. In order to adjust a feeding program, one needs to have an estimate of the nutrient value for the forage being consumed, current cattle condition (or performance), and a performance objective for the cattle. So in order to determine when to supplement, we need to evaluate the cattle and the forage. Forage evaluation costs money and time, but the expense may be necessary to develop a better system of management. In the long run, this should improve feeding practices and hopefully optimize cattle performance. Ted McCollum III http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/194 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/194 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:46:05 PDT Thin cows on low-quality roughages are the most challenging group of animals to deal with for beef cow producers in the Northern Great Plains. Typically, this situation occurs during the late fall/winter/early spring months, when the additional nutrient requirements for fetal development or lactation are needed. In this region, cows are often exposed to unfavorable weather conditions, which also increases nutrient requirement. Since thin cows have less outside fat, and therefore less insulation, they have to expend more nutrients to maintain body temperature than cows with adequate body condition. When these nutrient requirements are combined with the need to increase body weight gain in order to prevent calving and rebreeding problems, meeting the energy requirements may be an impossible task with low-quality forage. A much better situation would be to enter this period with cows in satisfactory condition to prevent the need for additional weight gain. David W. Sanson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/193 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/193 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:36:56 PDT Research conducted at Fort Robinson in 1960 and following studies have demonstrated that good body condition supports successful reproduction in both young and older cows. The recommendations from these studies have emphasized the feeding of energy to assist thin cows back into condition. However, in the extensive range conditions of the West, the ranch is intended to supply dietary energy through the range vegetation. When we look at the costs associated with calf production many ranchers have production costs above the national average. Many of these high cost producers have higher than average purchased feed costs. It would be advantageous for ranchers to have an alternative nutritional strategy, to achieve reproductive management goals. Nutritional schemes that use small, biologically potent, easy to deliver and cost effective supplements would be widely adopted if available. The question to be asked is "Can the factors associated with good body condition on reproduction be mimicked by the diet in young thin cows?" This question has been the basis of our research program at New Mexico State University. The purpose of this paper is to describe how protein may act as a switch to turn on the reproductive system of thin young cows to breed back sooner after calving. We know that 2 and 3 year old cows ranging on native pastures after calving can lose weight at a rate close to 1 pound per day. This is due to an imbalance of nutrient demand (especially milk production) compared to nutrient intake. Usually late winter and spring forage is not abundant and low in nutritive value. Keeping in mind that our goal is to reduce cost of supplementation, "Is it possible to minimize the negative effects of weight loss on reproduction in young range cows with supplements? M. K. Petersen http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/192 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/192 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:36:54 PDT The concept of matching nutrients available in grazed forages with nutrient requirements of the cow has been reviewed and recommended as a means to most efficiently utilize grazed forages (Valentine 1990, Vavra and Raleigh 1976). We further develop the principles and concepts necessary to improve the match between forage quality and the cow's nutrient needs and discuss potential impacts on management and production cost. Don C. Adams http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/191 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/191 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:36:51 PDT A number of trace minerals are required by beef cattle. Feeds consumed by cattle may supply most trace minerals in adequate amounts. However, some minerals may be severely or at least marginally deficient in beef cattle diets. Even marginal mineral deficiencies can reduce growth, reproduction and/or health of cattle showing few if any clinical signs of deficiency. Other trace minerals such as iron and molybdenum may be naturally present in feeds in levels high enough to reduce animal productivity. Certain trace minerals affect immunity and may affect disease susceptibility in cattle. Selenium, copper, zinc, cobalt and iron have been shown to alter various components of the immune system. Reduced disease resistance has been observed in ruminants deficient in selenium, copper and cobalt. Trace mineral deficiencies may also reduce the effectiveness of vaccination programs by reducing the ability of the animal's immune system to respond following vaccination. Calves that have been stressed due to recent weaning and shipping exhibit lowered immunity and increased disease susceptibility; therefore, an adequate supply of trace minerals is especially critical in beef cattle receiving diets for stocker cattle. Feed intake is decreased in stressed cattle and the level of certain minerals may need to be increased to compensate for the low feed intake. Furthermore, nutritional status of calves prior to weaning and shipping may greatly influence health problems shortly after shipping. Calves deficient or marginally deficient in certain trace elements are likely to be more susceptible to infectious diseases. Jerry W. Spears http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/190 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/190 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:28:40 PDT In a typical cow-calf operation in the Great Plains, the nutritional focus is on supplying protein and energy to the cows. That focus is appropriate since these two nutrients comprise the major portion of the annual feed cost of maintaining the cow herd. Recent concerns regarding trace mineral deficiencies has resulted in more producers now asking questions about the mineral and vitamin portion of the cow herd nutrition program. The common sense approach to supplying minerals and vitamins to beef cows should be very similar to the one used in supplying energy and protein to the cows. In other words, determine the animals requirements and then attempt to, in the most economical and efficient manner possible, try to meet those requirements. What minerals and vitamins need to be considered? Let's examine the key ones. Larry Corah http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/189 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/189 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:28:37 PDT This subject is steeped with opinion, prejudice and fact in a recipe similar to politics. Some issues are understood, definable and reflected in market prices. We all are aware of body weight, fill, frame, and flesh influences on price and value. Unfortunately, these four factors are inadequate for identifying as much of the profit potential differences between feeder cattle as we would like. As the industry pushes to find sources of profitable cattle, a much broader range of issues is being addressed. The motives and rationales behind these promotions deserve serious scrutiny. We need to distinguish between opinion, prejudice and fact. Ranchers, growers and feedlot operators all need to recognize the factors that improve the total biologic and economic efficiency of producing beef. Then, they need to identify realistic, complimentary management strategies between each segment of beef production. The first step in analyzing the system is to recognize everyone's primary business objective. Ranchers are trying to generate cash from grass and fodder resources. Feedlots are trying to increase the cash value of grains. Custom feedlots are trying to sell a unique service. Stocker-growers are trying to generate cash from forages and/or may be offering services by upgrading "quality" in feeder cattle. Packers are offering another unique service. Since the primary business objective differs between each segment of the industry, the marginal value of various factors changes. Feed cost/gain has little influence on the value of the packer service. Reproductive efficiency is of no direct concern when feedlots are increasing the value of corn. Even so, we are all highly dependent upon the economic viability of each other and need to respect the needs in each segment of the industry. The purpose here is to outline industry needs that ranchers can influence. Robbi H. Pritchard http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/188 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/188 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:28:34 PDT Cull cows are often overlooked as an important source of income to the cow-calf enterprise. Depending upon the relationships between cull cow and calf prices, and the herd culling rate, cull cow receipts generally account for 15-30 percent of income from the cow-calf enterprise. However, some producers give little attention to this source of income and ways of enhancing it. For many producers, cull cows are sold at the time culling takes place, and much of this culling is done in the late fall soon after calves are weaned. Is it most profitable to sell cows when they are culled, or should they be fed for a period of time? Several factors need to be considered to properly answer that question and that is the purpose of this paper and presentation. Cows are culled from a herd for a number of reasons and the reason for culling will most likely affect the time culling takes place and could alter the most profitable marketing strategy. Reproductive failure, problems resulting from old age, and unsatisfactory performance are the most common reasons for culling an animal. While reproductive failure is generally diagnosed in the fall of the year, culling for other reasons could take place at other times. Three factors of importance regarding the decision to sell cows when culled versus feeding them and selling at a latter time are: (1) the seasonality of cull cow prices, (2) the price difference between cull cow slaughter grades and the percentage of cull cows in each grade, and (3) the cost of feeding cull cows. Each of these factors will be discussed in some detail. Dillon M. Feuz http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/187 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/187 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:18:44 PDT The discussion of strategic alliances in this setting at this time in the cattle numbers and price cycle is extremely appropriate. I am honored to have been selected to speak for commercial producers regarding what we expect of strategic alliances. While some may have a fairly concise, narrowly defined idea of what a strategic alliance is, I would prefer a less structured view. A strategic alliance could be any long-term win/win relationship between two or more independent businesses. When this happens the businesses become inter-dependent. This makes the quality and structure of the alliance very important to all parties. A strategic alliance for the purpose of producing, adding value to and marketing cattle or beef represents a huge investment of time, negotiation, emotion and money. Such investment requires long term benefit and commitment. To make such a commitment a commercial cattle producer is going to want reasonable assurance that certain expectations will be met. I think there is some danger that in ten years or so, when the next down-turn in the price cycle comes, it may be difficult for those not involved in alliances to sell feeder cattle. I hope a sense of this kind of future market place doesn't cause us to rush into alliances without insuring that most of our expectations will be met. Burke Teichert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/186 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/186 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:18:39 PDT The reason I have been invited to speak about Strategic Alliances at the Range Beef Cow Symposium is because of our involvement with a couple different Alliances the past two years. As a type of introduction I feel it may be beneficial to provide you with background information about our alliance experiences. Our first involvement with any type of alliance format was as a participant in the Stragegic Alliance Project that was sponsored by the National Cattlemans Association in 1993. The Stragegic Alliance Project was, in part, a follow up to the National Beef Quality Audit, a project also sponsored by the NCA.The National Beef Quality Audit revealed a startling $280.00 loss for every steer and heifer slaughtered in the United States due simply to non- conformities. Money that basically slipped through the cracks and was recovered by no one. The main goal of the Strategic Alliance Project was to determine how much of this $280.00 could be retrieved if there were a coordinated effort on the part of everyone involved from the producer on through the feeder, the packer, and the retailer. This was a project the NCA devoted a tremendous amount of time and capital investment in. We were one of fifteen ranches who represented the producer portion of the alliance. We all delivered a pot load of preconditioned weaned calves to Decatur County Feedyard in Oberlin, Kansas, which is owned and operated by Warren Weibert. Our packer participant was Excel. These three entities were equal partners in ownership of the cattle involved in the field study. Our retailer participant was Safeway Stores Inc. who marketed the finished product through their chain of stores. Without going into a lot of detail the end result of the field trial revealed that $63.00 of the $280.00 lost was recovered when all segments of the industry worked together. One of the major inefficiencies of our business, in my opinion, is the fact that we are so segmented. I think this segmentation will be a major obstacle on the road to making our industry more profitable. Unfortunately, but in most cases the rancher, who sells his calves off the cow, is very apathetic toward the backgrounder who takes them from 500 pounds to 800 pounds. The backgrounder who sells 800 pound feeders really doesn't care if the finishing feeder makes any money with them. The feedlots that sell finished cattle really don't care if the packers make any money, and the packers really don't care if the retailer makes any money. The pork and poultry business have some real efficiency advantages over us because they are more integrated. There are fewer ownership changes. This scenario will be difficult to overcome, but if it is possible to unify the segments, alliance type formats may be the answer. Roger Dieter http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/185 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/185 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:18:36 PDT The beef industry has just lost $300 per calf weaned. Industry analysts have rumored that 40% of the beef producers are currently broke and but just don't know it yet. Bankers tell their clients that they only have two ways to keep out of debt--cut costs, and/or make more money. Simply keeping from spending--doesn't contribute much to refilling the coffers and satisfying cash flow--therefore cowmen are left with few alternatives. Since we can't get more for them-- we have to figure a way to get more out of them. <bR> The first strategic alliance study challenged traditions of "blending", "averaging", and selling "live". In the four short years since its completion, the study has spawned mini-alliance projects in half the states, with several major alliance projects developed within breed associations, feedyard "networks", and seedstock based alliances such as the Western Beef Alliance in Montana. Richard H. Lacey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/184 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/184 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:18:33 PDT Thank you for the invitation to participate in the Range Beef Cow Symposium XIV. I have attended some of the Symposia over the years and have found them all to be very informative and educational. I congratulate the staff of the four Universities for the contribution they give to the Beef Industry. My family has a grain and livestock operation in western South Dakota. My wife and I have four sons, who are all involved in our operation. Developing a cow herd that will produce specific, predictable and on-time off-spring, has always been a challenge for most ranchers. Buying feeder cattle for our family feedlot operation, that are specific, predictable and uniform in size and weight is just as big of a challenge. We have always raised commercial replacement heifers and sold part of them at a bred heifer sale. We would pasture breed for 45 days to low birth weight bulls. We would preg test and sell them as a 45 day calving period package. In 1982, we started a small feedlot and over the years have increased it to a total capacity of 10,000 head. During these years we have been tracking several groups of different ranchers cattle. One of the results that keep showing up is the inconsistency of performance and carcass value within a single rancher herd. Five years ago we began a partner feeding arrangement with Seidel, Inc. (Ron Seidel) of Bison who backgrounds calves up to 800 lbs. then brings them to our feedlot to finish. Seidel was finding some of the same inconsistency in his operation. After a lot of discussion we decided to pursue an A.I. commercial heifer program to sell to ranchers who prefer to buy their replacement heifers rather than raise them. Richard (Dick) Kjerstad http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/183 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/183 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:09:45 PDT Calf deaths caused by dystocia (calving difficulty) result in a $600 million annual loss to U.S. beef producers (Bellows and Short, 1994). Therefore, methods to reduce dystocia must be investigated, understood, and utilized to decrease the incidence and degree of calving difficulty. A review of early research was presented at the 1989 Range Beef Cow Symposium at Rapid City (Deutscher, 1989) indicating the major cause of dystocia in first calf heifers was a disproportion between the size of calf at birth (birth weight) and the cow's birth canal (pelvic area). A pelvic area/ birth weight ratio developed in Nebraska was suggested as a method to estimate the size of calf a heifer could deliver without assistance. At the 1993 Range Beef Cow Symposium in Cheyenne, Dr. R. A. Bellows presented an extensive overview of research conducted at Miles City on numerous factors affecting calving difficulty. He concluded the following: 1) high calf birth weights were the main cause of dystocia, 2) dam pelvic area must be adequate to deliver calf, 3) selection for pelvic size will increase frame size and calf birth weight, 4) low nutrition will not reduce dystocia, 5) maternal uterine environment affects calf birth weight, 6) exercise during gestation did not affect dystocia, 7) early obstetrical assistance increased calf survival and dam subsequent pregnancy rate, and 8) hormones of calf and dam are involved in calving difficulty. This paper will not review all the above factors but instead will try to expand on the most important and will summarize the latest research on dystocia. It will also recommend some strategies for selection and management of heifers and bulls to reduce calving difficulty. Gene H. Deutscher http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/182 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/182 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:09:32 PDT The primary mission of a beef brood cow is to consistently produce calves. There are numerous management practices designed to assist cows in accomplishing this mission. Young cows frequently require more management attention to be reproductively successful than do older, mature cows. In recent years attention has been focused on altering time of weaning to manipulate cow body condition as a method of maintaining high reproductive rates while also reducing winter feed requirements. If cows nurse their calves for a longer or shorter period of time than is traditional, a corresponding decrease or increase in body condition may result due to the nutrients required for maintaining lactation. Changing either the calving date, the weaning date, or both will likely have an influence on cow condition. Age of the calf at weaning is affected by both the date of birth and the date of weaning. Consequently, a change in weaning age will impact weaning weight, therefore any change in time of weaning must balance the potential positive impacts on the cows with potential negative impacts on the calves or calf market weight. Jack C. Whittier http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/181 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/181 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:01:58 PDT Disease is defined as a definite process having a characteristic progression of symptoms that may affect the whole body or any of its parts. Its cause, specific effects, and outcome may or may not be known. Infectious, metabolic, toxic, deficient, genetic and traumatic causes are examples of categories fitting the definition. Infectious processes frequently receive attention due in part to their ability to spread to other animals through various means. Infectious processes are given "new or emerging" status for various reasons. New or relatively rare entities may become prevalent. Changes in existing infectious disease characteristics have resulted in new clinical signs of disease. Management changes resulting in new risk factor combinations have resulted in new infectious processes under predisposing circumstances. Seasonal severe weather conditions also have resulted in new infectious disease trends. Completely new infectious agents are infrequently identified in the United States. Foreign animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease are not present in the United States and strict preventive measures are enforced. Surveys evaluating prevalence of known disease-causing organisms in cattle often reveal surprisingly high incidence rates. Presence of disease causing organisms in cattle populations frequently does not imply that disease will occur. Several infectious diseases have received attention at varying levels recently. Their importance or future implications are often not known. Dale M. Grotelueschen http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/180 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/180 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:01:55 PDT Economic losses caused by morbidity and mortality from bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in newly weaned/received cattle are one of the most significant problems facing the beef cattle industry. In small feedlots (100 to 1,000 animals marketed annually) throughout the United States (USDA-APHIS, 1994), death losses ranged from 1.5 to 2.7 per 100 animals marketed, with greater losses in western than in central regions of the US. Two-thirds to three-quarters of these deaths were attributed to respiratory disease (USDA-APHIS, 1994). Two factors contribute to the high incidence of BRD in newly received, lightweight (e.g., < 400 to 500 lb) cattle. First, stresses associated with weaning and transportation negatively impact the immune system (Blecha et al., 1984) at a time when the animal is often exposed to a variety of infectious agents as a result of marketing procedures. Second, feed intake by stressed calves is typically low (Cole, 1995), averaging approximately 1.5% of BW during the first 2 wk after arrival of lightweight feeder cattle (Galyean and Hubbert, 1995). This low feed, and thereby nutrient, intake may further impair immune function (Cole, 1995). Older (e.g., yearling) cattle typically have greater intake than lightweight cattle subjected to shipping stress, although outbreaks of BRD can still be a problem in older cattle. Practices that have been used to offset these negative factors that impact the health of newly received cattle include preconditioning (Cole, 1993), on-ranch vaccination programs (Parker et al., 1993), nutritional management, and prophylactic medication. This review will emphasize nutritional and prophylactic medication approaches and their effects on performance and health of newly weaned/received beef cattle. M. L. Galyean http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/179 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/179 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:01:51 PDT For most beef cow herds, the single most important means of increasing income is increasing the number of calves weaned and sold relative to the number of cows in the operation, or by definition, increasing reproductive efficiency. While certain production and carcass traits can be most directly influenced by genetic selection, reproductive performance is overwhelmingly influenced by management. Increasing the profitability of a ranch operation therefore relies very heavily on adjusting management practices to improve reproductive efficiency. In order to accomplish this, we first need to know what factors are most influential in reproductive performance. We specifically need to identify those factors that can be improved by changes in management. Individual ranchers need to assess which of these are most important in their operation and which can be improved in an economically viable fashion. The aims of this presentation are to highlight the factors that most commonly affect calf health and survival, identify the management practices that influence them, and evaluate how effectively we institute these practices at present. There is considerable information available about management factors that improve calf survival, but much of it is not being employed. Franklyn B. Garry http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/178 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/178 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:53:33 PDT Composite bulls won't perform magic or offset poor management but they offer a tool to help solve production/management problems and optimize production for a wide range of environments. The impact of crossbreeding through heterosis (hybrid vigor) and utilization of breed differences (complementarity) for major traits like reproduction, calf survival, maternal ability, growth, longevity and other fitness traits is powerful. The cumulative effect of crossbreeding can increase calf weight weaned per cow exposed by 20 percent. Conventional crossbreeding programs fall short in "management ease" because: 1) Rotations tie up several breeding pastures; thus, complicating grazing management, 2) Identification by sire breed type is required for proper breeding pasture assignment and 3) There is a continual struggle with swings in breed composition as long as straight bred sires are used; thus, complicating heifer selection and marketing of steer progeny. Crossbreeding, along with selection against extremes, offers a method to blend desirable characteristics of several breeds in an effort to use both heterosis and complementarity while avoiding unfavorable genetic antagonisms. Composites may be the preferred tool to implement such a crossbreeding/balanced trait selection program. James A. Gosey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/177 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/177 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:53:17 PDT Working with beef cattle producers over the past 15 plus years, I have become convinced that the genetic component of beef production systems does not receive the time and consideration it should relative to the economic benefit it can provide. Over the past several years we have seen the development of EPDs (Expected Progeny Differences). EPDs are available on various traits of economic importance. They are a tool that can be used to predict an animal's genetic potential, in a relative sense, and provide the potential for directional change in these traits of economic importance. Breed associations may differ slightly on how they present their EPD information and in what EPDs they do provide. The EPD concept has expanded to the point where some may feel overwhelmed by the amount of EPD information currently available. None-the-less, producers should give the EPD information careful consideration when selecting sires to use in their programs. Assuming replacement heifers are generated from within the production system, approximately 90% of the genetic composition of the product produced will come from sire selection decisions. Registered breeders will have EPDs available on their females as well, to further refine their selection decisions. This discussion will attempt to clarify some misconceptions about EPDs and offer considerations on developing priorities for selection decisions. Doug L. Hixon http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/176 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/176 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:43:59 PDT The National Beef Quality Audit, conducted by Colorado State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech Universities in 1992, was a "wake-up" call to the beef cattle industry. The results of the audit of the slaughter cattle population, conducted in 28 plants from across the U.S., indicated a total of some $280 in inefficiencies for each fed steer and heifer produced in the beef business. Furthermore, when these inefficiencies were categorized, it became apparent that the majority of these losses occur due to excess fat production with lower consistency in taste than desired. If the industry is to remain a viable sector of the food business, it cannot ignore the challenge presented by these results: the beef cattle industry needs to achieve change at the carcass level, by implementing a combination of changes in feeding and management practices coupled with genetic improvement. If one reviews the history of the "carcass merit/value-based marketing" issue, the argument has repeatedly been raised by both industry and academia that goes something like this: "I do not get paid on the basis of carcass performance, and until I do, I see little justification for collecting carcass data. Furthermore, "value-based marketing" is a buzz word made up by the packing industry, for the benefit of the packing industry, that seems to keep getting delayed in its implementation." While this argument may appear to be historically true, it also is somewhat short-sighted. The fact of the matter is that the business of selling beef has become more challenging due to competition from the poultry and pork industries. The response of the beef packing and retail industries is beginning to be seen through the development of new closely trimmed boxed beef. In the past two years, Excel, IBP and Monfort-ConAgra have all developed 1/4 inch trim (or less) boxed-beef specifications. Industry consensus is that approximately 40% of all boxed-beef trade will fall into this category by the end of 1995, with this percentage expected to increase in 1996 (NCA, 1995). One does not have to be very astute to realize the impact of this marketing change on the cow-calf industry. Furthermore, the Long Range Plan for the consolidated organizations of the beef industry lists "improving quality and consistency" of beef as its #1 leverage point. Collectively, these points reveal that measurement of carcass performance is indeed justified. Ronnie D. Green http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/175 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/175 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:43:46 PDT Animal reproduction has enjoyed the most impact and progress of all the animal sciences in the development of new options for cattle producers. With the development of embryo transfer (ET) in the mid-1970's, animal reproduction has entered a new era of technical achievement. During this time a strong embryo transfer industry has enjoyed new advanced techniques of estrous cycle regulation, follicular growth dynamics and improved procedures in embryology. These and other advances in molecular biology will likely lead to changes in the traditional approaches to livestock breeding and further stimulate researcher's interest in areas of genetic engineering. The objectives of this paper is to provide information to the cattle breeder of the history of reproduction and embryo transfer, an update of the embryo transfer industry and a review of some futuristic technologies that could soon impact the cattle breeder. Charles R. Looney http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/174 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/174 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:43:16 PDT Concentration in the packing industry has resulted in 5 major packers processing over 75 percent of the cattle on feed. During the last cattle cycle, total cattle numbers declined at the same time packers were increasing chain speeds and increasing individual plant volumes. From 1987 through 1992 the cow herd did not expand, therefore, supplies of fed cattle were consumed easily by existing packing facilities. All packers participated in the cash market to some extent, but in order to guarantee sufficient supplies of fed cattle in short supply situations, packers fed their own cattle, actively contracted cattle, and created marketing agreements priced on a formula basis. Price discovery of fed cattle became more difficult as more cattle were sold on contract or formula. The cash price is used in determining formula pricing but as the volume of cash cattle traded becomes smaller in relation to the volume of formula cattle, price reporting may become more unreliable. Another trend which has evolved during the last cattle cycle is the practice of buying cattle on averages. Cattle of varying degrees of quality sell at basically one price. Average to below average cattle benefit from this practice, but high grading, high cutability cattle are less likely to receive full value. Consequently, the benefits of good breeding programs are masked by this process of selling on the average. Much research has been done to establish the value differences of cutability. Yield grades have been used for many years to denote muscling. As consumer preferences for more lean and less fat grow, the value of cutability becomes more important. Table 1 was compiled by Texas A&M. This table shows the value of yield grade differences with 1 inch, 1/2 inch, and 1/4 inch of outside fat trim. As more product is sold on a closely trimmed basis, the value of one full point of yield grade increases. For example, at one inch of trim, the value improvement of a yield grade 2 choice steer is $2.52 per cwt of carcass over a yield grade 3 choice steer or approximately $20.00 per head on an 800 pound carcass. When cut to 1/4 inch specifications, the value differences is $3.88 per cwt of carcass or $31.00 per head. Logan B. McClelland http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/173 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/173 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:35:16 PDT The beef industry has long recognized the importance of quality and consistency in meeting the demands of customers in the marketplace. The critical nature of these product characteristics was clearly stated in the "War on Fat" report issued by the beef industry's Value Based Marketing Task Force in 1990. That report expressed the industry's need to define the most appropriate product mix that would achieve the highest level of consumer satisfaction and thus maximize beef demand. The need for quality and consistency has resulted in several long range research efforts designed to develop technologies that could be used to produce carcasses that satisfy marketplace demands. But as the beef industry is dependent on consumers to drive market share and profitability, a strong data base that defines in-home preparation, endpoint cooking temperature and the relationship of USDA quality grade with these factors is imperative to understanding what makes customers satisfied or dissatisfied with the beef they purchase and consume. The Beef Customer Satisfaction Project fills that need. Begun in 1993, the project provides solid, comprehensive information on consumer at-home eating experiences. (The findings do not provide information on away-from-home satisfaction of beef.) Using three different retail cuts prepared and evaluated in the homes of moderate to heavy users of beef, the project was primarily designed to: Determine the relationship of beef quality grade level to eating satisfaction Evaluate the importance of demand drivers such as flavor and tenderness to customer satisfaction Obtain information regarding in-home beef cooking methods and product preparation Evaluate general cattle management practices affecting product quality and consistency Consumers in four cities--Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco--kept journals about their preparation and eating experiences with Top Loin Steaks, Top Sirloin Steaks and Top Round Steaks. The steaks represented top Choice, low Choice, high Select and low Select grades. While the interactions between variables were significant and individual components were difficult to single out, analysis of the extensive study data did provide insight into the level of importance of the different factors investigated. Following is a discussion of those components, listed in order of their importance to customer satisfaction. Mary M. Adolf http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/172 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/172 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:35:13 PDT Americans are vitally concerned about the safety of their food supply. Agriculture is likewise concerned about the safety of its products. In fact, the agricultural community agrees that, along with the environment, diet/health, and animal welfare, food safety is a major issue as we approach the 21st century. Confidence in our food supply was eroded by the alar/apples and cyanide/grapes calamities in February and March of 1989. As the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) survey data in Table 1 illustrate, public confidence in food safety, once shaken, is slow to rebuild. Harlan D. Ritchie http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/171 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/171 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:35:08 PDT Unlike much of the rest of agriculture, almost all public policy that impacts the beef cow industry comes through the back door. You have never asked for price supports, income supplements or production limits like you neighbors who produce wheat, corn, sugar beets or milk. What you have asked for is a chance to compete fairly in the market place. Some government policies help move toward the objective of good, fair markets for your product. Others don't. It's often a mixed bag, a situation I see being repeated as policymaking winds down for 1995 and we prepare for a new year. I will touch on five areas of federal government policy of potential interest to your industry in 1996 and beyond: The 1995 farm bill. Trade opportunities and obstacles. Environmental policy. Tax policy. Packer concentration. My intent is to flag potential significant changes that may be in the offing in each of these areas. The 1995 farm bill. As I write this in late October, 1995, important details of the 1995 farm bill had not been determined. However, several matters in the bill could be of interest. Let's begin with the conservation reserve program (CRP). This has been one of the most popular farm bill provisions ever. At the present time, about 36 million acres are enrolled in the program nationally. The new farm bill may authorize keeping the same number of acres in the CRP; however, whether the money will be available to actually fund the current level of participation is an open question. (Some observers think we may have closer to 15 million acres in the CRP by 2000 or 2002.) Moreover, either through law or regulation, the CRP emphasis in the future may be on "environmentally sensitive" land. Generally this has been defined in the past to mean land that is susceptible to water erosion or contributes to surface water quality problems. For the most part, it is not land in the Great Plains that is mostly sensitive to wind erosion. Roy Frederick http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/170 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/170 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:25:50 PDT The assigned title of this talk -- "The future of the Beef Industry -- How can we stay competitive?" might imply to you that I have some great insight into the future. Anyone who tells you he can foretell the future is blowing smoke. It was Peter Drucker that nailed it when he said, "Forecasting future trends is a futile exercise. The best we can do is extrapolate trends that are already in place into the future." That is the tact I will take. I've had the unique opportunity to have served on both the Industry Concentration and Integration and Long Range Planning Task Forces. The experience of being present as the best and brightest of all industry segments present their ideas about the problems and opportunities we face, changed my views considerably. Obviously, this effort was not without controversy which continues today. First, let's do some hand wringing, look at some of the formidable problems and make some judgments about how they effect the future of the cattle business. As we discuss these issues some of you might say, "This guy is surely a pessimist." Not so. I'm optimistic about our future but a reality check is always in order. We have had our share of challenges over the last one hundred years. Health problems; including the battles against Ticks, Scabies, IBR, Bangs, Scours and Hoof and Mouth seem to be as the good book says about the poor, "They will be with us always." The macro economic winds of inflation, deflation, debt crisis, the cattle cycle and price controls have bruised us on occasion. More recently, changing life styles, E. coli and diet-health issues have been in the forefront. Our real nemesis over the last century has been drought. Those dry spells of the 1890's, 1930's and 1970's devastated many cattle operations. The bottom line is that we have survived and flourished in spite of these adversities. We now face, what I believe is by far our greatest challenge, LOSS OF MARKET SHARE. Look at the graph on the following page. There are some who do not believe the projections out to the Year 2000. It is not necessary to believe them. Just look at what has happened in the 12 years since 1980. The Sheep People had a graph just like this one in the 1950's. The Lamb Feeders said -- "Don't worry, look how profitable we are." Today they barely have a measurable market niche. Jack Maddux http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/169 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/169 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:25:46 PDT Where we have been and where we are today will largely dictate what the future will look like. The loss of market share has been widely chronicled, but it needs to be reviewed again in the context of establishing the current situation. This fact-based downsizing of the industry demands that we ask why it has occurred. There is discussion on both sides of the issue, but again, good science and the facts suggest much of the long-run problem has been on the demand side. The cycle is complete, then, when we ask why we have demand problems. If we can take a look at where we are, what the situation is today, where the industry appears to be heading in terms of structure and strategies, then we have a base for anticipating the future of the beef industry. Wayne D. Purcell http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/168 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/168 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:36:05 PDT Content:Total Cattle Inventory Heifers as % of Total Feedlot Placements Cow Slaughter Total Cow Numbers Feeder Cattle and Calf Supply Steer and Heifer Slaughter Beef Production What Will the 1997 Corn Market Look Like? 1997 Corn Production and Price Situation Seasonal Fed Cattle Price Seasonal 750-lb Feeder Steer Price Average Cow/Calf Profit (Loss) Cow/Calf Producer Profitability US Average Choice Fed Steer Price, 1970-1997 Cattle Prices The Cattle Cycle Profit Trends by Industry Segment During the Four Phases of the Cattle Cycle 1997 Outlook 1998 Outlook 1999 Outlook 2000 Outlook Mike Miller http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/167 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/167 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:35:44 PDT Which of the following herds is more profitable: herd A that weans a 90% calf crop of 450 lb. calves that go on to grade 60% Choice or herd B that weans a 95% calf crop of 600 lb. calves that go on to grade 80% Choice? Obviously the question can not be answered with the information at hand. We have only the output side of the profitability equation and none of the inputs. It is likely that herd B will generate more revenue, but without knowing the costs of producing that revenue we can never know which herd is more profitable. Unfortunately, measuring costs to track true profitability in cow herds has been a difficult task. Therefore, identifying production factors that are correlated to profitability could possibly help producers make management changes to improve the financial standing of their cow-calf enterprise. Don Boggs http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/166 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/166 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:24:51 PDT Reducing costs while maintaining production is one way to improve the economic performance of a cow-calf operation. In large parts of the beef cattle production area, feed cost is a major factor in determining overall economic efficiency. Harvested forages and purchased feed make up the majority of the total feed cost. A major goal of our work has been to research cow-calf production systems that improve the economic and overall sustainability of the cow-calf operation. Given that feed costs are such an important component of most cow-calf operations we have focused our research on ways to reduce those costs without sacrificing production or by reducing costs relatively more than production . The concept of matching nutrients available in forages with nutrient requirements of the cow has been recommended as a means to most efficiently utilize grazed forages (Adams et al. 1996, Valentine 1990, Vavra and Raleigh 1976). They identified complementary forages, calving date, and weaning date as ways to match forages with the nutrient needs of the cow. When the cow and the range forage are well matched the cow should receive most nutrients from grazed forages. Adams et al. (1996) suggested that genetic potential for milk production in the cow, and synchrony between the animal's nutrient requirement during lactation and the highest nutrient value in the forage determine how well the animal and forage resource match. We hypothesize that when nutrient requirements of the cow are matched with nutrient output in forages, purchased or harvested feed costs and labor can be reduced relatively more than production may be reduced. Richard T. Clark http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/165 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/165 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:24:27 PDT The context in which rangeland livestock enterprises operate is changing in the United States. Economic pressures, markets, agency policies, and greater environmental awareness are challenging range livestock operators to mange their operations mare effectively and to respond to meet the challenges of the question "Are you a good steward of the land?" being posed by friend and foe, alike. This debate on land management practices is increasing. Much of this discussion is focusing on conflicts between the multiple uses of the resource. This affects the western livestock industry in a major way because the industry will be judged on its best bad examples. By in large. I think that ranchers believe and understand that healthy, vigorous, productive rangelands are essential to their survival. Effective management of the forage resource base of your operation is about sustaining the very basis of production for your ranch. Recognizing the status of resources will reflect the effect of management actions and that managers should assess their practices for long-term sustainability is an important part of its program. The western livestock industry sees the need for greater communication and understanding among all sectors involved in the care and use of public and private lands. This resource guide was developed with the objective of facilitating that need and providing decision-making and monitoring tools to assist in the management of sustainable ecosystems. Sustainable ecosystems will support financially sound range management enterprises capable of providing the economic return that sustains quality of life for the ranch family, the community, and the society. Land managers need information an soil, water, and vegetative components of the resource base, as well as demands on that resource, to be able to develop sustainable management strategies. They also need to assess the impact of implemented strategies an the status of the resource. Monitoring is a process that provides baseline resource data and feedback information allowing managers to adjust their management strategies to meet their for goals and objectives. Monitoring is not a process that can be dealt with in isolation. Setting rangeland objectives and determining their feasibility is essential to monitoring. Managers need to know what and why they are monitoring. They cannot afford the time and the cost of collecting endless pieces of vegetation data without a clear understanding of how that data will be used. Monitoring, as presented here, is for use in the ranch management decision process. Information gathered but not used for decisions is wasted effort and resources. Roy Roath http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/164 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/164 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:23:42 PDT Beef producers have used experience and guidelines for many years to determine proper level of nutrition for their cow herd. In the early 1900s, research started to compare various feeding programs to determine which feeds or supplements worked best, and then comparisons were made on various levels of supplements to determine how much supplement was needed. In the 1920s, considerable research was conducted at the Valentine, Nebraska Experiment Station (no longer in existence) to see if calves wintered on sandhills range would benefit from cottonseed cake (cottonseed meal was large chunks or "cake" in the 1920s), and a series of other studies determined the "best" level of supplementation. Since that time tremendous quantities of research have been conducted to determine the exact requirement of cattle for all known nutrients. In order to gain some consensus of opinion on exact cattle requirements, the National Research Council appointed a subcommittee on beef cattle nutrition to evaluate all published data and publish exact requirements for major and minor nutrients for all classes of beef cattle. New requirements are published about every 10 years. The committee has historically met for at least a two year period and has in-depth review and discussion of new nutritional concepts, as well as new research that deals with animal requirements. The subcommittee is made up of highly recognized and respected nutritionists from across the U.S., each having specialties in the various areas of cattle nutrition. They also seek the expertise of others in forming final requirements. Finally, after days and months of review and discussion by the leading experts in the field, the new requirements are published. This is often referred to as the nutritionists' bible. In the past 10 years, nutritionists have used the 1984 Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. In May of 1996, the 1996 Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle was released. As with any new publication the 1996 requirements suggested several changes, however not without controversy. How accurate are the 1996 Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle? It is not uncommon to hear comments such as "those published requirements don't apply to your situation because your cattle and conditions are different and as a consequence, my recommendations are different and better." The producers' question should be "what research do you base your recommendation on and then question is it thorough and unbiased?" In 99.9% of the cases the answer to your second question will be no. The 1996 published requirements are the "state of the art" from the top nutritionist in the U.S. The challenge is to apply the requirements in a practical way. The objective of this paper is to discuss new nutritional concepts and recommendations as outlined in the new publication, and to utilize these concepts in practical feeding recommendations. Ivan G. Rush http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/163 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/163 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:14:23 PDT Despite the fact that we live and operate in the age of technology, the age old question of precisely when to start or when to end supplementation of grazing animals remains. Often the determination of when to begin and when to end supplementation is not based on sound nutritional and/or economic reasons. Currently no one technology or gadget is available that precisely determines when that window of needed supplementation exists. Tradition and the educated guess method has served to make that decision. The use of such programs as SPA (Standardized Performance Analysis) has allowed producers to more accurately determine the actual costs of maintaining cows on a year around basis. SPA information has shown that feed costs account for as much as 40-70% of yearly cow costs. Supplemental feeds makes up a significant portion of that amount and producers have become more interested in attaining the most out of their supplemental feed dollars. Two undesirable costs related to supplemental feeding can occur: 1) excessive cost due to overfeeding and 2) costs due to lost production which result from underfeeding. Efficient supplementation programs require attention to three key factors: 1) determination of the window of need for supplemental feed, 2) determination of the appropriate supplement and 3) determination of the proper amount of supplemental feed. In order to develop an efficient supplementation program for grazing animals and to make the determination of when that supplementation should occur, one must have information in two areas. First, it is necessary to know the nutritive value of the forage being consumed by the animals. Secondly, to know the nutritional requirements of the animals consuming the forage. While, several factors, such as stage of production, sex of the animal, age of the animal and performance goals or objectives influence nutritional requirements, many sources (ex. National Research Council) exist that give reliable guidelines on nutritional requirements for animals. Such guidelines address one of the two above mentioned needs to develop and implement an economically efficient supplementation program. The use and application of the new NRC requirements for beef cattle is addressed by Dr. Ivan Rush in a subsequent paper and presentation. The purpose of this paper is to address the remaining issue of determining the nutritional value of the forage being consumed by the grazing animals and to review current research on methodologies that address this issue of when to supplement grazing animals. Doug Zalesky http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/162 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/162 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:14:20 PDT Marketing sounds easy, right? All that you have to do is sell when the market is high and buy when it's low. The problem is that only God could accomplish this! Even if we had the time to do the research required to make these predictions they're still, at best, only educated guesses. How does a cow/calf producer market in an innovative manner when he only has the option to go to a sale barn, an order buyer, or a feedlot with his years' work, just to get the same average price? Douglas Hoff http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/161 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/161 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:14:17 PDT A. Importance of individual source identification as it relates to carcass value B. Criteria for USDA Quality Grades C. Criteria for USDA Yield Grades Dick Kjerstad http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/160 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/160 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:06:25 PDT Started in 1977 as a purebred Angus program based totally upon artificial insemination (AI), Fink Beef Genetics has been dedicated to breeding predictable performance for beef producers. It is a family-owned business that I operate with my wife Lori and our daughter Megan. Recognizing the Angus breed for its maternal strength, we built our program by stacking generations of proven sires and great Angus cow families. The direct influence of landmark sires such as AAR New Trend and Emulation N Bar 5522 headline their foundation. The most important tool used in building our herd has been high accuracy EPDs of sires, backed by cow family production records, longevity and udder soundness. The cowherd is the strength of our program. The product of at least six generations of objective performance and a "cowman's eye," the females have built the Fink Angus name. Their matrons are real beef cows with that "mother cow" look. They are practical, functional, productive and structurally sound. They are well-balanced with the inherent and proven ability to breed, milk, and produce pounds of beef. Fink Angus is a nationally recognized source of predictable problem-free Angus genetics in volume with sales to cattle producers in nearly every state. Proven sires dominate with 80 to 90% of the calf crop sired by Sire Evaluation leaders with 100 or more daughters on record. This takes the guesswork out of genetics. Our bulls sire appropriate levels of milk, are moderate frame. "good-doing" stock offering optimum performance balance. Galen Fink http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/159 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/159 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:06:23 PDT Over the last couple of years there has been a much greater emphasis on improving the quality and consistency of beef. Cattle producers, breed associations, feed suppliers, and beef packers have all initiated new value based pricing methods. Grid pricing, formula pricing, and strategic alliances are examples of these new value based pricing methods. While these pricing methods may differ substantially in the carcass and management traits they seek to reward or penalize, they all have one common feature: price is established on each individual animal. The goals of these new pricing methods are to price cattle based on their "true" value to consumers, to reduce problems of inconsistency in the final product, and to send appropriate market signals to producers. Pricing accuracy improves as pricing moves from a showlist to a specific pen to an individual head basis. However, price variation also increases when pricing on an individual head basis. Cattle are not created equal, or at least do not produce equal carcasses. They have a different value. What is the true value of a carcass? Do consumers only want upper choice product? Do all consumers want lean beef! There are different markets for beef and each market places a higher or lower value on certain traits. Some of the grids, formulas and alliances seek to target different consumer markets by placing greater premiums on selected traits and greater discounts on others. The true value of a specific animal is therefore dependent upon the target market. To achieve the greatest economic return, it is necessary to match cattle to the market for which they are most suited. The objective of this paper is to outline some of the issues and problems associated with matching cattle to the appropriate market. The following questions will be addressed: How to choose the "best" grid? How important is the base price to a grid? Is maximizing the sale price equivalent to maximizing revenue or profit? What are some of the industry concerns with grid and formula pricing? Dillon M. Feuz http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/158 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/158 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:59:27 PDT Content: Today's Cattle Market Future Cattle Market "Average" Grid The Target "Value" Checklist Factors to Consider Potential Trade Offs The Bottom Line: Does It Increase Profit Mike Miller http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/157 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/157 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:59:25 PDT The word networking was one of the buzzwords of the eighties. More recently, it has become one of the hot topics of the swine industry. Networking has been defined as a means of gaining access to a set of advantages which by yourself, or with your own resources, you would not be able to acquire. So networking is about working with other people to gain an advantage. The advantage might be in marketing, information, purchasing, labor, or capital investments. There are examples of successful networks in every human endeavor. History is full of examples. But what does networking have to do with the cow-calf industry in the northern plains? The argument is that cattlemen are an independent group, and that we like it that way. The opposite of independence is dependence, and cattlemen don't like being dependent on anyone or anything. However, networking is about interdependence. Successful networks are synergistic. That is, the activity of individuals in the network will serve to enhance the efforts of all the other members of the group. To meet our common goals, we need every advantage, especially ones that we cannot gain by ourselves. Because it allows us to gain an advantage, networking has become a very important and timely concept for today's cattle industry. Barry H. Dunn http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/156 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/156 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:53:16 PDT Empowerment is a function of systems, attitudes and access. A ranching system is a grouping of subsystems which includes biological, climatic, business, financial and managerial processes. The system may be structured to enable and encourage or to impede empowerment of the team members. Access to ideas, research, training, tools, mentoring, modeling, etc. is vital to high level empowering. If the system is right, then the attitudes of the people involved will determine how much empowerment will take place. Bosses and managers don't empower people. They enable and facilitate, but people at all levels of reporting are responsible for their own empowerment. Everyone, or nearly everyone, wants to succeed. We who are managers ought to take advantage of that. Give people a chance to succeed and most of them will. I too often hear comments similar to this, "I don't need to know about people management. After all there's just me. the wife and the three kids." How demeaning! Ranchers with this attitude are missing out on full use of their most valuable resource--the combined human creativity that comes from a unified, integrated team. As a manager, my job is to ''Create an environment in which people want to excel and then provide the tools, training and freedom to do it.'' Tools can be anything from a shovel or pickup to a set of NRC tables or a computer printout of financial performance. Most managers don't really give the freedom for their people to succeed or excel. They expect the employee or family member to become a robotic extension of themselves rather than an independently thinking, decision making adult. The employee knows the difference. They know if they succeeded or if the boss succeeded for them. If the boss continually has all the successes, he may have the employee's muscle; but he will never have his heart and mind. The system and its structure creates the environment for empowerment. The individual's attitude opens the mind, provides the desire and releases the energy. Access provides the information, training, tools, opportunity, observation etc. that leads to knowledge, analysis, wisdom, judgement, better decisions and finally power. Power is earned by making a high proportion of good decisions. Burke Teichert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/155 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/155 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:53:13 PDT Over and over we as producers are told we need to know our cost of production. As the title of my college accounting book stated, accounting is the basis for business decisions. The question comes up: how do we track these costs and make sense of all the numbers? As soon as we realize the importance of the office work and the need to get it done in a timely and efficient manner, we address how to get it done. What has been the answer for the past 20 to 25 years to help get the work done? That's right, get a machine to do it (for better or worse!). Just as none of us rode the train or brought the team and buggy to this symposium, record keeping has progressed with the times with the advent of the computer, and an abundance of software programs. But remember, the computer is just another machine that helps us do our office work, much like the baler and stacker helps with the haying, it won't do the work for you, just help you get it done. When considering software, remember what is said of financial reports like the balance sheet, they give you a picture of your financial position at a given time. When you take a picture, a camera is used, so think of the software that produces a balance sheet as a camera. As with cameras, which come in many models; from the simple point, shoot, and throw away to the more sophisticated studio models; software varies. As you can imagine, programs like cameras, vary in price and the degree of skill and experience needed to get the very best out of them. But have faith, the good news is that with today's advances in computers and programming, even the most old fashioned cowboy or the most educated animal scientist can get a good set of financial records established. Selecting computer software is really just asking and answering a series of questions. If a lot of thought goes into what and how you want to examine your business, the selection process will be much easier. To put this in rancher (not photographer) terms, think of buying software just like buying a pickup. Before you buy a pickup you figure how you are going to use it. Will it be used primarily for going to town, or will it pull a 8x24 trailer filled with horses on mostly gravel roads, plow mud, and be used to fix fence and haul out mineral. Just like pickups, software comes in many makes and models to suit a variety of needs. And especially like modern pickups, newer programs come with many bells and whistles which you can compare to electric seats and fancy stereos. Kory M. Bierle http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/154 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/154 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:53:10 PDT Back in 1990, those of us at Malm Ranch Company decided it was becoming more and more difficult to keep accurate records on over 800 head of cows using the paper/pencil method-- especially when the "paper" ended up being the inside of boxes from our vaccines and Ivomec! So when my two kids and I returned to work at the ranch full time, I was given the job of computerizing the cattle records for our family farming/ranching operation. I started out using a data base program but soon found myself having to enter the same information over and over because I was not software-literate enough to know how to integrate my data. It took me four long years of searching and trying programs before I found software that would work for our operation. During that time I discovered there are many programs on the market each with different features. However, my experiences during my own search combined with the experiences I have had since becoming a sales representative for the software I now use, have shown me that many of us begin our search asking the wrong questions. There are so many programs out there, it becomes confusing if we approach the task from the wrong aspect and we usually end up being disappointed with our selection. I quickly learned to beware of any salesman who wanted to tell me what his program could do for me because no one knew exactly how we kept our records. I would like to discuss the six steps I feel you need to go through when are trying to choose a software package. Martha Malm Ellis http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/153 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/153 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:53:09 PDT The recognition of abnormal calving (dystocia) comes FIRST from a basic understanding of normal calving. From this understanding, the establishment of guidelines for observation of cattle and for intervention will reduce calf losses. In Colorado, as part of a pilot program of the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), two-thirds of the costs of disease losses were associated with death loss. From a subset of 73 of the 86 NAHMS herds in studied in 1986- 87 in 24,396 births, 4.5% of the calves were lost. Of the 4.5% losses, 34% were attributed to dystocia related losses. In addition, losses attributed to diarrhea, pneumonia, or cold may have been a consequence of the increased risks associated with dystocia. On most operations this is a very effective area where personnel training in obstetrical management will have a large beneficial impact. Most large operations have a labor turnover and small operations sometimes don't see enough problems to feel comfortable handling them. Thus, this training should be an ongoing part of the management program. Robert G. Mortimer http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/152 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/152 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:44:04 PDT Survival of the calf at or shortly after birth can be compromised leading to high death losses and a serious impact on net income for the cattle producer. This paper will briefly review some findings related to causes of death of the newborn calf. R. A. Bellows http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/151 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/151 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:44:00 PDT Unlike the dairy breeder or feedlot operator, the beef breeder derives their entire income from calves born into the herd, making fertility unquestionably the most important trait to be considered in a breeding program. Economically, reproductive merit is 5 times more important to the cow-calf producer than growth performance and 10 times more important than product quality (e.g. carcass quality)20, at least until value based marketing becomes a reality. These figures refer to the relative importance of these traits for the beef herd in total and are further magnified when discussing the bull component alone as a result of the male to female ratio at breeding. This is adequate justification to place much greater emphasis on the fertility of the beef bull. Little selection pressure has been placed on the fertility of the world's beef bull population and as a result, variation in the reproductive potential of beef bulls is vast. Multiple sire breeding, used routinely by commercial breeders, has made it difficult to identify sub-fertile sires. Many breeders, whether purebred or commercial, have little, or no information on the reproductive status of their bulls, particularly their yearlings. Estimates of the proportion of unselected beef bulls in North America that are deficient reproductively range from 20 to 40%. Many more are barely adequate. Few breeders have bull batteries capable of impregnating all females under moderate to heavy breeding pressure in a 45-day breeding season. Achieving this is essential if a 365-day calving interval is to be maintained. Glenn H. Coulter http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/150 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/150 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:43:58 PDT Synchronization of estrus involves methods of manipulating the estrous cycle of females within a herd so they express estrus at approximately the same time. There are several traditional protocols available for synchronizing estrus (heat) among beef cows. Traditional protocols include one or two Prostaglandin protocols, the MGA/prostaglandin protocol and the Syncro- Mate B protocol. None of these methods have been universally adopted because none are able to satisfy all situations. There are also a couple of new protocols that have been developed within the last 2 years that have resulted in higher success than traditional protocols. These new protocols include the use of prostaglandin and GnRH (Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone). The intent of this article is to familiarize the reader with estrous synchronization, review the traditional protocols that are available, and introduce the new protocols for synchronization of estrus. Estrous synchronization is a useful part of an artificial insemination program because checking for estrus in breeding animals, particularly under range conditions, is time consuming and expensive. Synchronization of estrus allows a producer to schedule labor for the appropriate time during the breeding and calving seasons. Synchronization should result in calves being born earlier in the calving season and thus, older, heavier and more uniform calves at weaning. Cows that calve earlier in the calving season have more time to recover before the start of the subsequent breeding season and thus, are more likely to be exhibiting estrous cycles (cycling) at the start of breeding. Increasing the number of cows cycling at the onset of breeding may translate to higher pregnancy rates and lower heifer replacement rates. The net results of an estrous synchronization program should provide an economic edge to the cow/calf producer by improving herd quality, calf crop uniformity and potentially lower annual production costs. The success of the estrous synchronization program could depend upon a producer's understanding of how it works. Success may also depend upon the number of cows that are cycling when the protocol is initiated. Within any herd of cows, some of the cows will generally be anestrus at the start of the estrous synchronization treatment. Unless the proper estrous synchronization protocol is chosen, these cows have no chance of responding. The ability of individual estrous synchronization protocols to induce estrous cycles in anestrous cows is mentioned below. Regardless of the estrous synchronization protocol chosen, cows should be at least 30- 40 days since calving at the initiation of treatment. Tom Geary http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/149 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/149 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:37:02 PDT Given the relatively high fiber and moderate crude protein concentrations in Ponderosa pine needles (Adams et al., 1992; Pfister et al., 1992) and their potential negative effect on organic matter digestibility and nitrogen retention in ruminants (Adams et al., 1992), it is not readily apparent why cattle eat them. However, there are a number of ideas that may help explain why they do. Ponderosa pine needles contain a variety of nutrients and precursors including glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, citric acid, shikimic acid (a precursor in the biosynthesis of the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan), crude protein (Pfister et al., 1992; Adams et al., 1992), a variety of minerals (Kronberg, unpublished data), and probably some vitamins. The needles also contain large amounts of phytochemicals including monomeric phenolics, flavonoids, terpenes, and tannins (Pfister et al., 1992; Adams et al., 1992). Five potential reasons for ingestion of Ponderosa pine needles by cattle include: 1) inadequate availability of alternative vegetation or supplements that could satisfy their hunger, 2) to obtain needed nutrients that are not available from alternative feeds, 3) to reduce negative physiological consequences resulting from their ingestion of other feeds (self medication) , 4) they find the flavor of needles desirable for reasons unrelated to those listed above so they eat them, and 5) they are bored with other vegetation or feeds that are available to them and therefore eat the needles because they are novel. Numerous observations by ranchers and scientists support the idea that cattle will eat Ponderosa pine needles even when other forages and (or) concentrates are available. Whether or not these alternative feeds usually meet their nutrient requirements is unknown because the nutrient content of ranch feeds is often not known, and even in research situations, our understanding of cattle nutrition and feed quality is imperfect. If hungry cattle are eating the needles because there is little available alternative feed in their pastures because it has been grazed out, covered by snow, or is not being supplemented to them, then the solution is obvious. S. L. Kronberg http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/148 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/148 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:13:44 PDT Reproductive rate or efficiency, the number of live offspring produced from a herd of a specified number each year, is the main determinate of biological and economic efficiency of a beef cattle enterprise. Reproduction is a complex and continuous process that starts before birth and continues through puberty and a series of endocrine and behavioral events that include estrous cycles, breeding, conception, gestation, parturition, and lactation. The culmination of reproduction is live offspring produced for sale or for reentering the herd as replacements. Whenever any of these events are interfered with, reproductive rate and economic efficiency will decrease. In most beef cattle operations, the goal for reproductive rate is one calf weaned each year for each female that is two years old or older, but that rate is rarely attained because of limitations and interferences in the system. Many management (primary nutrition), genetic, and disease variables will affect reproductive rate, and these variables must be taken into account in managing a profitable ranch enterprise. However, there are cases where reproduction is interfered with even when we think we have "done everything right." Such is the case when cattle consume plant products that contain compounds that interfere with reproduction; an area referred to as reproductive toxicology. Two examples that we will cover in this review are plants that contain high levels of estrogens which potentially interfere with reproduction through effects on estrous cycles and conception and needles from Ponderosa pine trees which interfere with pregnancy maintenance during late pregnancy. There are other plant toxins that affect the general well being and health of cattle, but we will zero in on these two that primarily affect reproduction. R. E. Short http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/147 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/147 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:13:42 PDT The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved a change in its grading system in 1996 that became effective January 31, 1997. All carcasses with overall maturity scores of "B'' (from cattle approximately 30 to 42 months of age at slaughter) and with Slight or Small degrees of marbling are excluded from the U.S. Choice and U.S. Select quality grades. In fact these carcasses will only be eligible for the U.S. Choice grade if they possess a minimum of Modest amount of marbling (Figure 1). J. Brad Morgan http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/146 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/146 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:13:39 PDT Steers and heifers comprising the U.S. "fed" beef supply are highly variable in biological type, age, and management background (most are grain-finished, but they are started on feed at different ages, given different growth promoting implants, fed for differing periods of time, and slaughtered at different ages). The beef industry's current system for ensuring acceptable product tenderness involves "mass inspection" (USDA Quality Grading) of completed products (carcasses) at the end of the production process. Although this system results in general categorization according to tenderness differences, product value is lost due to inaccuracy of sorting methodology (Quality Grades account for approximately 5 to 30% of the variation in beef tenderness) and because "inferior" products have been produced and must be sold at discounted prices. Additionally, the effectiveness of the present grade-based "quality assurance" system is reduced even further by the fact that most (over 80%, according to the 1995 National Beef Quality Audit) of the beef carcasses produced by "fed" steers and heifers fall within a very narrow range in USDA Quality Grades (Select and Choice) Cattle producers have been very successful in producing cattle that are very uniform with respect to Quality Grade, yet it has been estimated that, still, 1 in 4 beef steaks "doesn't eat right". An alternative approach for ensuring product tenderness, which would involve the use of Total Quality Management principles in a "Palatability Assurance Critical Control Points" (PACCP) system, was proposed at the 1994 National Beef Tenderness Conference. Application of such a system requires identification of causes of non-conformance (in this case, toughness) and, then, focuses on prevention of non-conformance through control of inputs and processes. This report summarizes results of a project commissioned by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to develop a Total Quality Management System, using a combination of "critical control points" and "corrective actions", which could be used to reduce the incidence of retail beef tenderness problems in loin (top sirloin and top loin) steaks. J. D. Tatum http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/145 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/145 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:06:58 PDT We've all heard time and again the importance of beef tenderness to customer satisfaction. Research continually supports this concept. In the Beef Customer Satisfaction report from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, tenderness was highly correlated to consumer ratings of their satisfaction with the product (r=.85), as was flavor desirability (r=.86). Recent focus group participants in a session discussing beef quality were quick to identify tenderness as one of the primary descriptors to quality. There is no doubt that tenderness is a critical characteristic of beef and providing product which does not meet consumer expectations will definitely reduce satisfaction with the eating experience. Strategies are needed to enhance tenderness. However, several philosophical or conceptual questions must be addressed before we as an industry pursue particular methods and technologies to meet the desired goal. Chris R. Calkins http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/144 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/144 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:06:55 PDT Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) is a common viral infection of cattle worldwide. The viruses responsible for BVD are classified as pestiviruses, a group of viruses that includes BVDV type I and type II, Border disease virus of sheep and hog cholera virus. Although BVD was first recognized as a disease of cattle 50 years ago, the genetics and epidemiology of BVD viruses have only been well-described in the last 10 years. These scientific advances have increased the accuracy of diagnostic testing for BVD and clarified the diseases caused by BVD viruses. BVD is a confusing topic because the viruses cause a variety of diseases including diarrhea, hemorrhagic syndrome, peracute death syndrome, mucosal disease, infertility, abortions and weak calves. Producers can use new information about BVD viruses and their transmission to prevent the introduction of BVD into beef herds or eliminate BVD viruses from infected herds. Hana Van Campen http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/143 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/143 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:01:22 PDT The immune system can be thought of as a surveillance system to discriminate between "self" and "non-self." From simple life forms such as insects to advanced life forms such as humans, all living organisms have some form of host defense mechanism. Most have multiple, overlapping mechanisms ranging from very non-specific resistance to highly specific immunity. White blood cells forming "pus" around a splinter is representative of non-specific host resistance to invasion while immunity to IBR virus after vaccination or following recovery from active infection is representative of specific active immunity. These host defense systems protect livestock and man from the millions of microbes that attack the body every day. Without them, living creatures would die rapidly from the constant, and sometimes successful, attempts by disease agents to invade the body. Host defense mechanisms also protect livestock and man from invaders within. For example, abnormal cells such as cancer cells are detected and destroyed every day by this surveillance system. The abnormal cells may also be those infected with viruses. Viruses cannot multiply by themselves and require living cells to do their replicating. The immune system detects and destroys these virus-altered cells. Most producers have some knowledge of the immune system. They know that with certain vaccines, livestock can be protected from infectious disease. They also are aware that the immune system has "memory" - the ability to remember past disease or past vaccinations for a long period of time. For example, calves given blackleg vaccine at branding and weaning are generally immune to this disease for life. Producers are also aware that the immune system is under genetic control. They have seen that cross-bred calves and yearlings are more disease resistant than most purebreds. From news reports, they know that you cannot transplant a kidney or heart from one person to another unless the donor and recipient are genetically very similar in blood and tissue type, factors controlled by our genes. Even then, the body still recognizes the donor organ as slightly foreign, so the immune system must be suppressed by drugs to prevent rejection. So, producers are aware that the immune system can differentiate "self" from "non-self." Lynn F. Woodward http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/142 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/142 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:01:20 PDT The selection problem, that of choosing which individuals become parents, is inherent in all of beef production. This problem almost invariably involves evaluating animals on more than one trait and making compromises among traits to arrive at a final evaluation of each candidate for selection. In a capitalist society, profitability seems a logical unit of expression for that final evaluation. It is certainly the basis of evaluation intended in the original development of selection index in the animal sciences (Hazel and Lush, 1942; Hazel, 1943). Thus, a desire on the part of producers to maximize profitability is assumed throughout this presentation. Profitability implies a buy-sell transaction takes place and thus seemingly suggests that it is maximized by producing the product of greatest value to the customer at least cost. These changes in profitability are usually referred to as relative economic values. It is the relative economic values which provide direction to the selection program. The knowledge that most genetic improvement is made by seedstock breeders and recognition of consumers as implicit customers (commercial producers, feedlot operators and etc. are intermediaries) has led to the philosophy that seedstock selection decisions be based on ultimate customer satisfaction. Said differently, seedstock selection decisions should be made in a way that maximizes profitability for the entire industry as though it were one vertically integrated production system. Existence of industry-wide specifications for beef product, such as those proposed as a result of the national beef quality audit (National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 1995), do not suggest that there should be industry-wide selection indexes. Resources available for production (classically: land, labor, capital, and management) and level of production vary among production units resulting in different economic structures. As a result, relative economic values will differ among production units and each may have a different selection index. It is unlikely that there will be a "one size fits all" solution to the problem of selecting breeding stock to maximize profit. M. D. MacNeil http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/141 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/141 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:56:08 PDT Carcass evaluation for the Angus breed was conceived by Dr. Richard Willham and co-researchers at Iowa State University in 1972 as part of the original sire evaluation program. This very structured program consisted of random mating schemes throughout several commercial herds using the same set of bulls. These sires were later referred to as the original set of reference sires for the Angus breed and served as foundation benchmarks for future evaluation. This structured sire evaluation program is still in place. While it has been refined and altered by Dr. Doyle Wilson to fit today's needs, the basic principles are still in tact. (Guidelines for structured sire evaluation have appeared in the Angus Journal on a periodic basis and are available from the association upon request.) When we consider the use of carcass EPD, we must remember that the improvement of livestock is somewhat like mapping out a trip. First, we must know where we are. Secondly, we must determine where we are going, and thirdly, we must plot a route. Before we are able to make improvements in carcass traits we must establish some knowledge of the genetic merit of the herd for these traits. The time tested means of retrieving carcass data, of course, is through retained ownership of steers from conception to slaughter with cooperating feedlots and packers in order to obtain carcass data on each individual animal slaughtered. This is relatively easy for large operations; however, it does provide problems for smaller producers with insufficient progeny numbers to make the system work. In this regard, some groups have pooled resources and livestock in order to efficiently retain ownership, feed steers, and recover carcass data. John Crouch http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/140 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/140 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:56:05 PDT Expected Progeny Differences (EPD's) are currently calculated for a range of traits important to ranch profitability. These EPD's are mostly used for bull selection within a breed. The list of traits for which EPD's are available is certainly not complete; notable exceptions are reproduction and fitness traits plus some measure of tenderness. Across-breed EPD adjustments are available to provide a basis for comparing bulls of different breeds. EPD's for composite bulls can be calculated but are mostly confined to within herd data without the benefit of data base sharing between breeds. The perceived desire for uniformity and consistency may encourage breeders to assimilate closely related bull batteries in an effort to reduce variation. The potential impact of these various aspects of bull genetics deserves thoughtful examination. This paper will highlight some of these areas for the purpose of stimulating discussion. James A. Gosey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/139 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/139 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:48:22 PDT Beef cattle production in the United States remains largely a segmented rather than integrated industry. The needs and goals of the various segments of the production chain, with respect to production specification targets, are often different and sometimes conflicting. The resulting inadequate response of the industry to consumer needs has occurred at the same time as intensified competition from pork and poultry products, each of which has contributed to the decline of beef consumption. Seedstock and commercial cow-calf producers represent particularly important links in the beef production chain because they have primary control of the genetics and produce the ''raw material" used by all sectors of the industry. Producers have been told that they must produce cattle that are profitable to the entire industry. However, Melton (1995, 1997) has shown that economic incentives have generally been considerably different for a producer selling calves at weaning than for an enterprise which fully integrates all aspects of production from conception to consumption. Thus, when contemplating changes in breeding programs to benefit other sectors of the industry, producers must question the effects of such changes on their own economic well-being. Variation can be thought of as the raw material with which to make change in production, and its control is a topic of much interest in today's beef industry. This paper will discuss the potential and limitations for control of variation, and address some of the issues that should be considered with respect to the design of breeding programs and impact of genetic decisions. Don Marshall http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/138 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/138 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:48:20 PDT The Beef Quality Assurance Task Force (BQATF) was formed in early 1986 when three NCBA (then, the National Cattlemen's Association) Policy Committees independently directed NCBA to address "the growing issue of consumer concern about the safety and wholesomeness of beef." It was believed that the cattle industry's efforts aimed at improving beefs image as a healthful food with regard to its nutrient profile could not stand alone, and that lingering consumer concerns about drug and chemical residues in beef could negate any progress made in the diet/health area. Consequently, the BQATF (then, the Beef Safety Assurance Task Force) was formed with the objective of "Enhancing The Image Of Beef As A Safe And Wholesome Food." Gary C. Smith http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/137 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/137 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:42:37 PDT As cattle producers are slowly working their way through the downturn in the current "infamous" cattle cycle what will the next century bring. At the turn of the last century the cattle industry was in its infancy relative to the position it currently holds in the U.S. agricultural sector. Some experts often refer to the cattle business as a mature, well established entity indicating that cattle producers, processors, and packers represent an established, stable component of the agricultural sector. However, the dynamics of this industry are anything but stable to the individual cattle producer. Thus, as we enter the 21st Century it appears to be a period of both opportunity and uncertainty for the beef industry. This brief paper attempts to identify what, where, and how the dynamics of this industry are likely to unfold given a global economy. Rather than focus on just the domestic aspects of the beef cattle industry this article will address the international meat market and specifically where beef exports are headed. Norman L. Dalsted http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/136 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/136 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:42:35 PDT The potential for International Beef Marketing is both a dynamic and exciting agenda. However, it has been tempered by concern for safety of the food supply. We all recognize a growing percentage of United States beef producers income is tied to beef exports. All preliminary figures point to US. Beef Exports for calendar year 1997 will meet or exceed 1996 levels with an impressive $3 billion sales (wholesale value) or 13 percent of the U.S. beef supply. Export opportunities are growing for the beef industry, not only from population growth but also from a booming growth in disposable income which are on the rise in both developed and non-developed countries. International markets undoubtedly will provide the greatest growth market in which U. S. beef producers have ever witnessed. After 120 years of food surplus in the world, it appears we are about to move to an era of food scarcity. This shift would be primarily due to affluence in the third world. The GATT has replaced barriers and economic stagnation with global trade and global job creation. The economies of the first world countries have lately been growing about 2.5 percent annually and most are well fed. The Developing World's economies are growing about twice as fast as First World or 5 percent annually. Whereas Asian economies are growing nearly three times as fast as the First World, setting the global pace for per capita income gains. Merlyn Carlson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/135 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/135 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:35:34 PDT Content: Cattle Number's and Meat Supply Demand and Trade Feedgrain Outlook 2000 Strategies Where's the Profit 2001-2002 Outlook Beef Industry Structure Randy Blach http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/134 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/134 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:35:30 PDT An understanding of animal psychology combined with well designed facilities will reduce stress on both you and your cattle. Reducing stress is important because stress reduces the ability to fight disease and weight gain. The principles discussed in this book apply to all types of grazing animals. Stress increases weight loss, damages rumen function, and can interfere with reproduction. An animal's previous experiences will affect its stress reaction to handling. Cattle have long memories. Animals which have been handled roughly will be more stresses and difficult to handle in the future. Animals which are handled gently and have become accustomed to handling procedures will have very little stress when handled. The basic principle is to prevent cattle from becoming excited. Cattle can become excited in just a few seconds, but it takes 20 to 30 minutes for the heart rate to return to normal in severely agitated cattle. There is an old saying "You can tell what kind of a stock man a person is by looking at the behavior of his cattle." In one feedlot survey, cattle form yards which had a reputation for rough handling were wilder and more difficult to handle at the packer. They also had more bruises and dark cutters. The degree of stress which will be induced by handling and restraint can vary from almost no stress in a tame show animal to very severe stress in a wild range cow. The degree of stress is determined by three major factors -- 1) amount of contact with people, 2) quality of handling (rough vs. gentle) and 3) genetics. Frequent, gentle handling will reduce stress. Genetics is also an important factor. Some genetic lines of cattle are calmer and less likely to panic than others. Cattle with an excitable temperament will take longer to respond positively to gentle handling than cattle with a calm temperament. Most cattle will become less stressed and settle down when they are handled gently. However, there are a few individuals with a bad temperament that may never settle down and are dangerous to restrain and handle. Culling them is often advisable. Although painful procedures cannot be avoided, a reduction of agitation and excitement will still reduce stress. Cattle remember painful restraint methods such as nose tongs. Handling will be easier in the future if you use a halter to hold the heads and keep electric prod usage to an absolute minimum. If tail twisting has to be used to move a cow up a chute, let go of the tail when the cow makes one step forward to reward her for moving. The tail must be released the instant the cow steps forward, otherwise she will not make the association. Breeding cattle will quickly learn to move when their tail is touched. Timing is very important when using the principle of pressure and release. This principle is used in many situations where cattle, horses and other animals are handled and trained. If an animal is being taught to lead, one should let up and stop pulling when the animal takes one step forward. The principle is to give relief to reward the animal when it does what you want. When the horse stops, you should stop pulling on the bridle. Temple Grandin http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/133 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/133 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:26:53 PDT Anticipating and planning for winters can save farmers and ranchers money with proper snow management and windbreaks. This paper describes tools developed by the U.S. Forest Service to control wind and blowing snow. The discussion updates reviews (Jairell and Schmidt 1989, 1991) of more detailed papers listed as references, available by request to the mailing address given at the end of the paper. Additional information is also available on the Internet at http://www-wrrc.uwyo.edu/wrds/rmfres. Techniques for wind screening discussed here are (1) permanent livestock protection shelters, and (2) temporary, portable windscreens. Practices to control snow accumulation are discussed under the following broad objectives: 1. Preventing snowdrifts on roads, around buildings, corrals, or inside livestock shelters. Snow fences or shelterbelts are the most common methods. Buildings and shelters can be planned and located to avoid drifts in critical locations. 2. Accumulating snow in drifts as a water source. Snow fences or shelterbelts are the most effective methods, but excavated stock ponds can be designed to enhance drift formation as a source of water. 3. Retaining snow on the ground to recharge soil water or reduce snow transport downwind. Usual methods include leaving stubble or crop residue and managing vegetation to provide roughness to protect the snow cover from erosion. Grass barriers, tree rows, fences, or snow ridges also can be used for this purpose. R. L. Jairell http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/132 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/132 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:26:51 PDT Each day, we are flooded with new information about different products, management practices or production procedures. To keep from missing out on the opportunities while keeping our sanity, we must become better users of information. In the future, the use and transfer of this information will involve the use of Internet and the World Wide Web. By providing an around-the-clock link to the outside world for the user and a vast sea of information, the producer can access valuable information from any where in the world, whether they are located in northern Montana, southern Texas, or in the mountains of Colorado or even a foreign country. With increasing emphasis on operational efficiency, many of our world's farm and ranches will take advantage of this tool. Each day an increasing number of operations are using their computer to make purchases, to check the cattle markets, and to obtain information through the Web. In many cases, this tool might provide the information necessary to remain competitive in an ever-changing market place. The following information was designed to inform the producer of why the use of Web is important, how to get hooked up to Web, some ideas about how to use the Web efficiently, and a brief look of what is available on the Web. Steve Swigert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/131 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/131 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:21:44 PDT Ranch management is the decision making process of resource allocation for a business enterprise that manages natural resources, animals and capitol to meet goals of profitability and sustainability. While this brief sentence captures the essence of ranch management, simplicity is hardly one of ranch decision-making's characteristics. The diagram in Figure 1 has been used to describe the challenge of ranch management as a web of information and complex interrelationships that influence the viability of a beef cattle enterprise. While even this diagram simplifies the complexities faced by ranchers as they grapple with decisions, it does add sensitivity and understanding. Barry Dunn http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/130 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/130 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:17:15 PDT Over the past couple of decades, the beef cattle industry has become a confusing place to exist. Messages have been conveyed to producers at a fast and furious pace. This would not be a problem if these messages were consistent and if they were compatible with each other, yet this is far from the real situation. Daryl Tatum has been known to occasionally coin the term to describe confusion as "someone being lost in his/her own fog". Unfortunately, this verbage very accurately describes the beef cattle production environment of the 1990s. R. D. Green http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/129 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/129 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:17:13 PDT Obviously cows have to be bred to fit their environment/resource base and their progeny have to produce desirable consumer beef. However, genetic antagonisms between traits and other management factors result in mismatches that occur between optimum cow fitness and optimum carcass fitness. Fortunately the knowledge base that can be used to manage some of these mismatches has grown in recent years. Given time, effort, and commitment, a rancher can develop an action plan to produce not a perfect fit, but a profitable compromise between "cow goals" and "carcass goals". James A. Gosey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/128 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/128 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:11:12 PDT As the beef industry becomes more focused on the consumer, various management practices must be evaluated to determine what lasting effects they might have on final consumer product. In the past, we have evaluated the effects of management decisions on performance and measured differences in pounds produced. However, the dynamic nature of the beef industry and the necessity for sustainability requires that we measure performance in dollars rather than pounds. I often ask students to describe their ideal beef animal in eleven words or less. I believe the answer to that question is "the one that makes the most money while producing a product that enhances consumer demand." That description allows for animal uniqueness in differing environments while considering profitability, sustainability and consumer acceptability whether selling weaner calves, bred heifers or finished market cattle. Doug L. Hixon http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/127 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/127 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:11:09 PDT When considering purchasing a sire price often becomes the first consideration. My father once said the most expensive bull he ever purchased was the one he bought the cheapest. If replacement heifers are retained in the herd, 80-90% of the genetic change in a herd will be made by the bull's genetic makeup. Thus, as leading ranchers know, making decisions in selecting bulls is very important. Management of the bull after he arrives at the farm or ranch is also very important. The best genetic package is of little value unless the bull is managed to serve a large number of cows in the time frame you want him to be productive. Ivan G. Rush http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/126 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/126 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:06:59 PDT There are several important reasons the beef industry needed to develop multibreed genetic evaluation capabilities: Multibreed analyses procedures do a better job of evaluating breeding values of individuals with two or more breeds in their pedigree. This new technology provides information that more closely matches the potential genetics in current and future beef production systems. U.S. Beef Producers want to alternate breeds to take advantage of crossbreeding and biological type complementarity. The beef industry wants to utilize composite seedstock that benefit from seedstock production heterosis and provide heterosis in commercial production systems. The long term impact will be our ability to rank and evaluate the potential genetic value of any animal regardless of breed composition. These reasons hinge on the premise that beef production is enhanced by heterosis. Agriculture has "harnessed" heterosis in plant production (especially grains), poultry and pork. For several reasons, crossbreeding has been more difficult for beef producers to use in a sustainable way; however, producers who employ heterosis know the benefits of reproduction, growth and efficiency traits. Jerry Lipsey http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/125 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/125 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:02:40 PDT In cattle, the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts are the main systems affected with disease. Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) contributes the majority of illness and death loss in the feedlot segment. Historically, 15-45% of feedlot cattle have been affected with BRD, with 1-5% of total cattle placed dying of BRD (Kelly 1986). Respiratory disease, alone, accounts for 44.1% of deaths in beef feedlot cattle (Vogel 1994). Apart from death loss, the Texas Ranch to Rail Program has suggested that clinical disease (most of which is BRD), even if treated successfully, results in treatment cost ($37.90/affected), decreased average daily gain (0.21 lb/d, for a 7.2 % decrease), decreased feed efficiency, and a decrease in quality grade (27% fewer choice). Together, these contribute an economic loss of approximately $88.00/ affected animal (Anonymous 1994). Not restricted to the feedlot, respiratory disease accounts for 16% of the known causes of death in nursing calves, second in importance only to weather, and apparently increased from estimates made 5 years earlier (USDA/APHIS/VS 1994, 1997). Though the incidence of respiratory disease in unweaned calves is generally thought to be low, (1-2%), individual herds can have up to 65% of calves affected prior to weaning (Muggli-Cockett 1992). Unweaned calves affected with respiratory disease have a 36.3 lb reduction in weaning weight (Wittum 1994). This reduction, coupled with treatment cost, is the main economic loss from BRD in the cow-calf segment. Disease of the gastrointestinal tract is the second most common cause of death in the feedlot (Vogel 1994). Acidosis is a common condition in feedlot cattle, and liver abscesses are a possible sequella. Slaughter surveys indicate that about 12% of beef cattle livers are condemned due to liver abscesses (Smith 1998). Recently completed work indicates that productive losses associated with BRD are greater than previously thought. Liver abscesses continue to be a significant problem. With the beef industry desiring to maximize productive potential, minimize inputs, and potentially limit the use of antimicrobials, an understanding of the biology of disease is necessary to better control these problems. Understanding of the disease process, particularly respiratory disease, implicates events in early life as risk factors for subsequent illness. Bill Epperson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/124 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/124 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:02:38 PDT Consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries of improved animal health. Costs and potential benefits from use of vaccines and dewormers affect returns to individual producers or operations as well as the beef industry as a whole. Vaccines that positively influence average daily gain, improve carcass quality, lower costs of production and improve efficiency, and that reduce treatments, decreasing reliance on antibiotics, and that decrease treatment costs contribute to success of the beef industry. Consideration for use by individual operations often involves shorter time perspectives, especially if cattle are marketed or if products administered affect only production systems on the premises. When marketing prior to slaughter, owners must strive to market increased value of animals. Thus, ability to market becomes crucial if animals have added value when transferred to other segments of the industry. Understanding of the value of animal health and of various health practices is critical. Recent studies by Odde et al., of Superior Livestock Video Auction and Northern Plains Livestock Auction Markets confirms additional monetary value of calves with health programs, especially specific prior vaccinations and weaning. Animal health improvements in the beef industry are affected by management practices and decisions beginning at birth and extending to slaughter. Considerations for use of animal health products are part of those. Decisions about vaccine and dewormer use, though made by beef producers, affect most parts of the beef industry complex in some way. Objective decision-making processes for incorporation or deletion of specific vaccines and dewormers in health programs can be extremely difficult. Even though a large amount of information is available, seemingly it often does not address questions of beef production units and sometimes appears to be incomplete or contradictory. According to Animal Health Institute (AHI) estimates, investment by animal owners in animal health products increased by 18% to an estimated $4.3 billion in 1998. Biologicals sales for livestock and pet vaccines increased 19% to $550 million in 1998. However, and in return, $464 million was spent in research and development for animal health products and $121 million was spent for research and development on biologicals by AHI member companies. Dale M. Grotelueschen http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/123 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/123 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:58:27 PDT Our western rangelands support a wide variety of species including ruminants that are exquisitely suited to make use of these renewable resources. Domestic ruminants utilizing these rangelands include cattle, domestic sheep, and less frequently, at least in the northern Great Plains and intermountain west, domestic goats. Wild ruminants, in numbers, variety, and quality not found anywhere else in North America, include mule deer, pronghorn, and elk. White-tailed deer frequent the riparian areas, moose are found in low numbers in forest lands, bighorn sheep inhabit rough breaks and the higher altitudes, and free-ranging bison are found around the national parks in Wyoming and Montana. Domestic and wild ruminants have many biological, physiologic, and behavioral similarities, as well as considerable differences. These ruminants consume similar forages, share salt licks and blocks, and seek out the same sources of water in our desert/semi-desert region. Thus it is not surprising that they may share diseases. The purpose of this paper is to review what we know about some of the diseases that domestic and wild ruminants may exchange and to put the potential for sharing diseases into perspective. Elizabeth S. Williams http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/122 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/122 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:58:25 PDT Going home to the family ranch is a multi-faceted decision to be made following careful analysis of the whole picture. It is important to identify all the players, choose the right timing, define individual roles, and measure what is most valuable. Combined with these factors is the need to establish partnerships with unlikely partners. The plague of urban sprawl threatening every ag enterprise in the nation makes it continually important that we in the beef industry establish a positive relationship with those not associated with ag. The information that follows is a combination of personal history and observation. Sara F. Hebbert http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/121 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/121 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:53:29 PDT Sometimes rather simple misunderstandings as well as the stress of daily life can quite easily damage the personal relationships between family members. Too often the inability to openly share personal feelings and the failure to discuss expectations can ruin any family relationship. This is most often caused by an actual breakdown in communications between family members, especially during periods of stress (i.e. whether financial, work or even personal) when individuals withdraw or hide their emotions from each other. Juggling the current demands of ranch work, family and personal needs can become quite a challenge to anyone. Persons get so wrapped up in their own problems, they fail to communicate effectively with others. The result is that everyone is talking to each other but no one is really listening (i.e. talking to a fence post). Ronald J. Hanson http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/120 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/120 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:53:26 PDT Unfortunately, in today's world, ranchers are feeling the frustration portrayed in the above story. On a daily basis, the agriculture community is being over run by zealots from the federal government who are enforcing such things as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and on, and on, and on. More and more time and expense are being required to deal with these issues, all the while, fears of being able to make management decisions on the ranch are being threatened. This seems to be particularly true of all ranches in the West. Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, has been quoted in a speech in Montana as saying that "the greatest mistake the federal government ever made was in allowing the states the right to appropriate water." He understands, as we all do, that if you can control the water in the West, you literally control the West. Since the authority for the adjudication of water has clearly been given to the state, this administration has attacked that authority not through water quantity issues, but rather through water quality issues. We have seen in the recent past, a constant barrage of regulations trying to regulate water quality in the states with the notion that the Clean Water Act trumps the state authority over water quantity. We have seen attempts to control non-point source pollution, to regulate water temperature, or to dictate terms for animal feeding operations. Many of us have feared that it was just a matter of time until the water quality debate would run head long into the water quantity issues. That is beginning now to happen. Ron Micheli http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/119 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/119 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:49:40 PDT Breeding soundness evaluations (BSE) are conducted to qualify bulls as potential satisfactory breeders. Guidelines for acceptable measures of scrotal circumference, sperm concentration, sperm motility, and the frequency of sperm with morphological abnormalities are compiled and published by the American Society for Theriogenology (Chenoweth et al., 1992). Unfortunately, according to statistics available from USDA, only 40% of eligible bulls are subjected to a BSE. In the real world, bulls with identical outcomes in terms of physical quality of semen will still vary in actual fertility whether used for natural mating or artificial insemination (A.I). R. L. Ax http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/118 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/118 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:43:59 PDT Cattle breeders demand products and services that improve efficiency and maximize profits. Research and development for these products, once done primarily in academic settings, now is occurring more within the private corporate sector who now fund research that was previously funded from public sources. These products often are patented and licensed to individual companies. Product availability is hastened, but sometimes at higher costs. Sex-specific sperm soon will be available to the cattle industry for use in high profile, genetically elite herds. Widespread availability of sex-specific sperm for commercial herds should follow within 2 years. Sex-specific sperm for use with artificial insemination (AI) will enable producers to pre-determine the sex of calves from specific genetic matings, resulting in faster genetic gain within herds. This technology will reduce numbers of unwanted dairy bull calves that currently end up as dairy beef. Efficacious use of sex-specific sperm depends upon increased genetic merit and/or phenotypic gain for production traits, and increased economic efficiency of genetically superior females by the production of specific sex offspring. Managerial gains also will be realized with accurately predicted calf sex. Hair color, milk production and rate of gain are examples of many traits determined by genetic code contained in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA, which is organized in packets called chromosomes, specifies what each cell does and when. Bovine sperm contain 30 chromosomes, one of which is the sex chromosome. Sex is determined by X- (female) or Y- (male) chromosome-bearing sperm. In mammalians, more DNA is contained within the X-chromosome (Table 1); for bulls, X-chromosome-bearing sperm have 3.8% more DNA content than Y-chromosome-bearing sperm. This forms the basis for separating sperm via flow cytometry/sperm sorting. DNA content is the only reliably proven difference between X- and Y-chromosome-bearing sperm (Johnson and Welch, 1999). J. L. Schenk http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/117 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/117 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:43:57 PDT Meeting nutrient requirements of the replacement of heifer and the pregnant or lactating heifer and cow is of critical importance in assuring optimum reproductive performance. It is well recognized that these nutrients include protein, energy, minerals, vitamins, dry matter, and water. Recent research has indicated adequate fat may be an additional nutrient that needs to be present in the diet. This presentation will review some of our recent work on the effects of feeding additional fat on potential cold tolerance in the newborn calf, development of the replacement heifer, rebreeding of the lactating dam, and weaning weight of her calf. R. A. Bellows http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/116 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/116 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:39:16 PDT Genetic predictions in the form of expected progeny differences (EPDs) represent the beef industry's most powerful source of information for selection and genetic improvement. While EPDs are widely available for traits associated with calving ease, growth, milk and carcass traits, EPDs for reproductive traits are limited. Given the relative economic importance, development of EPDs for reproductive traits should be a priority for the beef industry. Fortunately, recent breakthroughs in analytical procedures have opened the door for potential development of genetic predictions for reproductive traits. Kent Andersen