Beef Quality News

Fat Matters: How Back Fat Impacts Bull Fertility

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 18:36:03 GMT

A bull’s job is to breed cows. From a fertility standpoint, a bull should be sound and ready to go to work each breeding season.

To better understand how a bull’s condition affects his soundness, a recent research project at the University of Georgia (UGA) looked at the relationship between a bull’s subcutaneous backfat thickness and its semen quality .

“Over conditioning is very common within the seedstock world, and we’re interested in understanding to what extent that over conditioning or increased subcutaneous back fat thickness may have an influence on that bull’s fertility,” says Molly Smith, a UGA doctorate student.

She says the project included more than 700 bulls — a combination of Angus and Sim-Angus crosses from three different bull development programs. The research process included two key steps: a carcass ultrasound and a breeding soundness evaluation (BSE).

The study categorized bulls into three groups based on their subcutaneous backfat thickness, using 10% and 20% thresholds.

When examining semen characteristics, Smith says they found some intriguing results.

“We saw no differences in the amount of motility, but we did see differences in morphology,” Smith explains.

Morphology refers to the shape, size and structure of the sperm. Sperm motility is how it moves.

Specifically, bulls in the top fat thickness categories showed concerning semen quality characteristics.

“Those bulls that were in the top threshold actually had a less percent, a less amount of normal sperm cells and a greater amount of primary and secondary abnormalities,” Smith says.

BSE Impact

Pedro Fontes, UGA associate professor, recently visited with Smith about her project during a “UGA Beef Tips” podcast .

He asked Smith if the backfat affected the bull’s ability to pass the BSE.

Smith says, “Bulls that have a greater than about 0.5" of subcutaneous back fat thickness had a greater probability to fail their breeding soundness evaluation.”

Quantifying this, she adds, “10% of them failed their breeding soundness evaluation, which is greater than two times the bulls that were in our other two categories.”

Fontes clarifies the failures were specifically related to semen quality, excluding other potential reasons for failing a BSE.

“Most of the issues that you (Smith) observed were associated with morphology and non-motility. So those cells are moving well, but they look different,” Fontes says.

Performance and ADG

When evaluating performance or average daily gain (ADG), Smith reports there was no change between bull groups.

“There actually were no differences between our categories of top, middle and bottom bulls, our top bulls were not gaining any more than our middle and bottom bulls were, so they were all kind of following the same trend,” Smith reports.

Fontes interprets this finding as significant, suggesting that “it’s not a matter of allowing those bulls to express their genetic potential for growth” but rather about understanding fat deposition.

Smith agrees, saying, “It’s about essentially where that fat deposition occurs, and that’s how it matters.”

While producers might worry about restricting bull growth, the research suggests that careful monitoring of fat distribution is more important than preventing weight gain.

Fontes summarizes the key takeaway from the research is the ability of bulls to pass a BSE appears more related to body condition score and over-conditioning rather than their overall growth potential. Excessive back fat can negatively impact a bull’s reproductive potential, even if it doesn’t affect its growth performance.

Your Next Read: Wanted: Bulls Ready to Work

Minimizing Shrink to Maximize Profit

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:59:16 GMT

Every pound counts at the sale barn — and sometimes, the weight loss happens long before calves ever hit the scale.

For cattle producers, shrink isn’t just a biological response to stress; it’s an invisible drain on profit margins that can be managed with the right timing and techniques, according to K-State beef cattle experts.

K-State veterinarian Brad White explains “shrink” as the weight loss that occurs between gathering calves at home and their final weigh-in at the scale.

“In general, I expect calves to lose weight if they’re sitting in a new environment, new water source, just transported and everything else,” says veterinarian Bob Larson. “So even though it might be easiest for me to take calves on the day that’s most convenient for me, in order to address shrink, I think it’s better to move that transport to the sale as late as possible.”

There are also economic implications associated with shrink.

“You think about a 500-lb. steer; you know, every 1% difference in shrink is 5 lb.,” Larson says. “And so you add a couple more percentages of shrink, and the amount of money we are talking about is easily offset by hiring somebody to help me gather them.”

Proper cattle handling techniques play a critical role in minimizing weight loss during the marketing process, the experts emphasize.

“We feel stressed because we have things to do, and we start rushing and pushing the cattle harder. We start losing those low-stress handling principles in the process,” beef cattle nutritionist Phillip Lancaster says. “Now that they are stressed, they have an increase in urination, defecation, and they start losing fluids and losing weight quicker.”

For producers concerned about shrink, online auction platforms may offer a useful alternative.

“One tool that producers have is methods that limit the amount of time the calves spend in the marketing system, such as marketing online,” Larson says.

The specialists concluded that shrink represents an invisible cost that doesn’t appear on invoices but significantly impacts producer profitability, making proper management essential for maximizing returns.

More on this topic is available on the latest episode of the K-State BCI Cattle Chat podcast.

Taking Stock For Disasters: Developing A Large Animal Preparedness Plan

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:41:05 GMT

When a disaster is on the horizon, timely evacuation can become that much more challenging for owners whose horses and livestock can’t simply squeeze into the back seat. These animals often depend entirely on their owners to shield them from the elements within their pasture, so having a proper plan in place is vital for their safety.

Kyle Johnson, a clinical assistant professor at the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, offers insight into disaster risks and preparedness methods for large animal owners.

The Threat Of Wind, Water And Wildfires

Natural disasters that can impact horses and livestock include seasonal concerns like extreme summer heat and winter ice as well as sudden events like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and wildfires.

Any storm with strong winds brings the threat of flying debris.

“When airborne, this debris can cause traumatic injuries — such as lacerations and puncture wounds — to horses and livestock,” Johnson says. “These high winds can also cause barns, shelters, and other structures to collapse.”

Flooding brought on by a storm’s heavy rain is another major threat for large animals exposed to the elements.

“If an animal is forced to stand in floodwaters because it is confined to a stall or a flooded pasture, it can suffer from a variety of injuries, including severe dermatitis, pneumonia and gastrointestinal or neurological disease — collectively known as submersion injury,” Johnson says. “Floodwater can also be heavily contaminated with a variety of substances, such as petroleum products, agricultural and industrial chemicals, pesticides and bacterial organisms like E. coli.”

Completing nature’s triple threat against horses and livestock is the potential harm brought by wildfires.

“When these animals inhale the smoke from wildfires, it can cause irritation of their eyes and lungs,” Johnson says. “Animals may cough, have increased respiratory rates and nasal discharge. Fires can also destroy or contaminate any available forage for grazing animals. In these cases, animals will either need to be moved or high-quality forage will need to be delivered to them.

“At times like these, proper animal identification is critical, as it makes returning these animals to their owners and pastures much easier after flood waters have receded and fires have been extinguished.”

Methods of large animal identification include:

Microchipping
Ear tags
Plastic neck bands
Branding
Tattoos

Thinking Ahead

Simply deciding to evacuate your horses or livestock isn’t enough. Having a safe place to go is also a vital part of your plan. Furthermore, knowing how to get there and having alternate routes can also be critical to an effective evacuation.

“A vital first step in any evacuation is the ability to quickly and safely load your horses into a horse trailer,” Johnson says. “Practice makes perfect so practicing loading your horse can be helpful so when you must leave. It’s also important to ensure that the trailer is regularly maintained.”

A plan is merely an idea unless it is written down. Copies should be made and stored both on-farm and in alternate, but known and accessible, locations. It should also be rehearsed, even if only briefly, and everyone should have a thorough understanding of the plan and know their role.

Emergency Kit Preparation

Companion animal owners are encouraged to plan ahead in the event that an evacuation might be needed by creating an emergency “go kit” of necessities for their pets; having the same kind of kit in the event that you need to evacuate large animals will make that process easier as well.

An emergency kit for large animals should contain enough supplies to last at least 72 hours, and possibly up to two weeks.

“Water is arguably the most important part of an emergency kit,” Johnson says. “An adult horse needs roughly six to 10 gallons of fresh water per day. As such, a kit should include at least three days’ worth of water per horse, with enough feed to last one to two weeks.”

Additional emergency kit materials include:

Registry paperwork
Copies of medical records
First-aid supplies
Identifying photographs
Feed and water buckets
Extra halters and lead ropes
Cleaning supplies
Medications

Pre- And Post-Disaster Resources

Before a disaster strikes, an owner’s best preparation resource is their regular veterinarian, who can provide copies of important documents and ensure that horses are properly vaccinated and in good health.

“It is important for horse owners to know their neighbors or, if the horse is kept in a boarding barn, the barn manager and other boarders at the facility,” Johnson says. “These relationships can promote mutual aid when disaster strikes.”

There are also a variety of resources available for members of the public to obtain accurate and up-to-date information about disasters that may impact their area, including automated emergency alert systems in the form of texts, emails or apps.

Knowing how weather may affect your property and having a plan in place are the best ways to protect your horses and your herds and to stay ahead of the chaos.

“As Dr. Deb Zoran, director of the Texas A&M Veterinary Emergency Team, says, ‘hope is not a plan.’ Owners should plan for disaster, discuss their plan with others, prepare their emergency kits, and be ready to act,” Johnson says. “With disasters becoming more frequent and catastrophic, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”

Open Heifers Explained: What You Need to Consider to Increase Preg Rates

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:09:29 GMT

A producer has a group of 112 heifers. The heifers were synchronized, and after a 45-day breeding season only 80% were confirmed pregnant.

During a recent “ Bovine Science with BCI ” podcast, Kansas State University veterinarians Brad White and Bob Larson explore potential causes for the issue — from bull problems to nutritional and health-related factors. They also share practical strategies and management tips producers can implement to improve reproductive success and set the herd up for a better breeding season.

Larson says, while the pregnancy rates weren’t optimal, the results weren’t catastrophic. The first breeding cycle performed well.

Reviewing the pregnancy data they determined:

57% of heifers became pregnant in the first 21-day breeding cycle.
After synchronization the heifers were artificially inseminated and then turned out with bulls. Larson says the goal or expectation should be 60% to 65% every 21 days so 57% is not too low.
39% of remaining heifers got pregnant in the second 21-day cycle.
Larson explains this is the rate that is the biggest problem and concern.
The final breeding period (about four days) added a few more pregnancies.

White explains about those who conceived in the first cycle, “Those heifers kept out of this scenario are going to be great cows for the herd. They’re bred at the right time.”

According to the veterinarians the potential reasons for the less-than-ideal pregnancy rates after the first cycle include:

Heifer Factors
Heifers were initially developed in a dry lot with a high body condition score (7 out of 9) then moved from dry lot to native range after initial breeding. Larson says the potential body condition loss could have impacted fertility as a negative energy pattern can pause a female’s estrus cycle.
Bull Factors
The producer turned out the 112 heifers with five bulls — three yearlings and two mature bulls. With the conception after the first cycle, the bulls had approximately 48 heifers to service. Larson explains the biggest concern is the synchronization created a concentrated breeding period and the bulls might have struggled with multiple heifers in heat simultaneously. Another fertility consideration is social dynamics and breeding behavior.
“The only solution I have for that is more bull power,” Larson says. “And that can get expensive, really fast, when you think about dollars per pregnancy during that second 21 days, when you know 60% of them are already pregnant.”

After reviewing the case, Larson gave these recommendations to the producer:

Target and maintain heifer body condition score around 6 (not 7)
Avoid significant body condition changes during early pregnancy
Carefully time movement from dry lot to pasture
Consider smaller heifer groups
Potentially rotate bulls between groups
Explore heat detection and re-breeding options
Evaluate bull power and allocation strategies

The discussion highlights the complexity of heifer breeding, emphasizing that multiple factors can influence pregnancy rates. Larson summarizes careful observation, strategic management and understanding the biological and social dynamics of the herd are crucial to improve reproductive success.

Your Next Read: 5 Strategies to Help Cattle Cope with Heat

Consumer Trust: A Veterinarian’s Role

Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:48:18 GMT

This article was written by David Friedlander, the Senior Director of Market Research for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

With information so readily available at one’s fingertips, ensuring a trusted source of information from the cattle industry is critical. Animal caretakers may field questions on how animals are raised from many interested groups. Who better to provide unbiased information related to animals than the voice of a veterinarian?

Through the first three months of 2025, fresh meat sales reached an all-time high compared to year ago levels¹. Protein is top of mind as it relates to health and wellness and consumers are looking for help navigating the crowded informational marketplace.

By the end of 2025, over 325 million people are projected to have internet access in the United States² with the majority using a mobile device or smartphone to access it³. News and information are now at the consumers’ fingertips. For a host of reasons, consumer trust among mass media outlets is at an all-time low⁴.

From a veterinarian or farmer/rancher perspective, how does one share information related to production practices? Who is the trusted source of truth among consumers?

Referencing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Associations’ (NCBA) Consumer Beef Tracker, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, both a veterinarian and farmer/rancher rise to the top, above all other sources⁵. In fact, more than 60% of consumers note both a veterinarian and farmer/rancher as the source of truth followed by more than 50% consumers looking to government agencies, specifically, USDA, FDA and CDC.

(Consumer Beef Tracker, NCBA)

When asking respondents about perceptions specifically related to beef, 90% of respondents had a positive or neutral response. Taking this one step further, when asking respondents about the production perception of beef, 80% had a positive or neutral response⁵.

Although overall perceptions related to beef are positive, when asking respondents about their knowledge specifically related to how cattle are raised and grown for food, data show slightly more than 25% of respondents noted either “knowledgeable’ or “very knowledgeable”⁵about how cattle are raised and grown for food.

However, when consumers make purchases, 70% claim they have some level of consideration of how food was raised and grown for food. When narrowing down to concerns related to how cattle are raised for food, less than 35% of respondents have a specific concern, with animal welfare rising to the top⁵.

Given the challenging media landscape and lack of trust among consumers, NCBA looked to producers and a veterinarian to help raise overall perception related to how cattle are raised for food.

(Consumer Beef Tracker, NCBA)

Given the challenging media landscape and lack of trust among consumers, NCBA looked to producers and a veterinarian to help raise overall perception related to how cattle are raised for food. Capturing a day in the life of local producers and a veterinarian, NCBA shared the level of care, overall well-being and hard work that goes into raising cattle.

When surveying consumers, both before and after seeing the featured video, the positive response grew from just over 30% to nearly 75% among respondents. Perhaps even more encouraging, negative perception decreased from nearly 30% to just 5% after seeing the featured video ⁶.

Integrating industry education resources such as those in the Beef Checkoff-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and associated programs is one way that veterinarians can continue to be this trusted voice. Elevating cattle care through that partnership with the producer impacts animal health, product quality, and consumer confidence . Considering the consumer aspect of raising cattle is one area where veterinarians may have not previously contributed, though it is apparent that their influence goes beyond animal health.

In a marketplace filled with competing messages and general mistrust among consumers, it is very encouraging to see high levels of trust by consumers, specifically, in those individuals that have one-to-one experience with the animals, namely the veterinarian and the farmer/rancher to help share out the broader message of animal care.

There is still work to be done from a consumer perspective but having a trusted leader to share the message is a great place to start. For more consumer insights and Beef Checkoff-funded research, visit https://www.beefresearch.org/ .

References
¹Circana
² Statista, 2025 projections based on actuals through 2023
³DataReportal: GWI; Meltwater; We Are Social
⁴Gallup 1927 - 2024
⁵NCBA Consumer Beef Tracker, January – December 2024
⁶NCBA: Raised and grown asset testing, October 2023

1,500-lb. Carcasses the New Normal, Not the Exception

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:26:38 GMT

Today the entire beef industry — from producers to processors — is economically incentivized to produce heavier animals. Ty Lawrence, West Texas A&M University animal science professor and director of the BCRC, predicts that carcass weights will continue to increase, potentially reaching 1,500 lb. in the near future.

Lawrence was a keynote speaker during the 2025 Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Symposium in Amarillo last week. He says the industry has already seen harvests of cattle approaching that weight, with some producers currently feeding cattle up to 2,300 lb.

“We can feed cattle today to much bigger weights and be more profitable than you’ve ever considered,” Lawrence says.

BIF attendee and Kansas beef producer Joe Epperly from Wamego, Kan., summarizes, “The most hard-hitting comment at BIF was Lawrence’s 1,500-lb. carcass prediction by the end of his career. The implications of that to genetic selection, cost of production and cow size are far ranging. It will be a challenge for producers in every segment to meet.”

More than 400 beef producers, breed association leaders and industry professionals participated in two and a half days of educational programming focused on beef industry profitability and sustainability.

Tuesday, June 10, the event kicked off with the Young Producer Symposium. Wednesday’s general session focused on “Beef Industry Profitability: Conflicting market signals and profit drivers in the beef value chain.” Thursday’s general session theme was “Sustainability: Improving our product through selection, applications of technology and data integration.”

Wednesday and Thursday afternoon technical breakout sessions focused on a range of beef-production and genetic-improvement topics.

Bradley Wolter, a symposium attendee from Aviston, Ill., says, “Larger carcasses will be a critical part of bridging the supply gap in the near term. Identifying genetic association with late-term mortality and morbidity requires further research and coordination on the part of breeding entities.”

He says the chasm remains between exponentially larger finished carcasses that optimize fixed packer costs verses a target of smaller cows for biological optimum on the ranch.

“More collaborative, holistic data analysis with integrated research is needed to avoid industry sub-optimization and ensure competitiveness on the world stage,” Wolter summarizes.

Scott Greiner, Virginia Tech professor and Extension animal scientist, agrees with Epperly and Walter saying the message that resonated with many in attendance was the continued emphasis on increasing carcass weights by the feedlot and packing sectors, and the impact it will have at the cow-calf sector as it relates to cow size and production costs.

“This trend is not new, but I think the way things were conveyed by several speakers in terms of the economics and market signals, sure seems like bigger is what will continue to be a primary emphasis,” Greiner says.

Ken Odde, 2025/26 BIF vice president from South Dakota, says: “Two of the real questions about feeding cattle this long [to 1500-lb carcass weight] is what happens to the carcass traits as you do that? What happens to feed efficiency?”

One of the sessions that stood out to Odde during the symposium was a presentation on a project at South Dakota State University in the Advancements in End Product Improvement breakout session — “Extended days on feed: Influences on growth performance, efficiency and carcass characteristics of steers and heifers of different proportions of Angus and Limousin genetics.”

Is the U.S. Behind?

“From conversations in the hallway, I learned that the U.S. beef industry is behind on methane research, and if we are going to compete in the global marketplace, we need to get a move on,” Epperly says. “Australian Angus will release a methane research EPD in 2025, and we have barely enough data in the U.S. to see differences. That Australian data includes a lot of American bulls, so we will have data whether some American breeders like it or not. The optics for some are unfavorable, but whatever we can do to keep the doors open for our product the better off we will be.”

Likewise, symposium speakers referenced the Brazilian beef industry and how it is poised for continued success and rapid growth given its bountiful resources, not the least of which is its people.

“You see it not only in its scaled adoption of AI, but through the numerous young geneticists who make up the audience,” Walter says. “The U.S. industry needs to continue to invest in its genetic improvement through both public and private partnerships to maintain a position of world leadership.”

Young Producer Focus

“The Young Producer Symposium opened with a message about ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants,’” says Elizabeth Dressler, a graduate student who attended the symposium. “This resonated with me as I thought about all the research and progress the beef industry has made over the years. I thought it was a great way to open the conference by paying respect to the work that has been done in the past, as we look into the future the rest of the conference.”

Wolter adds there’s an excitement among young people in the beef industry.

“These young leaders are creatively engaged with our consumers unlike the previous generation,” he says. “I believe that will only create more demand and opportunities for an industry despite some questions and uncertainties with how cattle interact with their environment.”

Exploring Next-Generation Phenotyping that Drives Commercial Profitability

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:15:24 GMT

Traditional genetic improvement programs have been built on collecting phenotypic data such as birth, weaning, yearling and carcass weights.

“Those phenotypes have driven the industry’s increase in productivity — productivity on the rail and in the feedyard,” says Troy Rowan, University of Tennessee assistant professor of beef cattle genomics. “Commercial data is going to be more and more important. The seedstock producer has traditionally been our main collector of phenotypic records. We understand we need to measure things like disease resistance and fertility in the environments that matter to the commercial producers. So, we’ve got to integrate those commercial records. And there’s new technologies coming online that are going to help us get there easier and in a more consistent and accurate way.”

Rowan recently authored a white paper that examines industry research and results from the Imagine: AGI’s Beef Genetics Forum , which took place Sept. 25-26, 2024. Hosted by Angus Genetics Inc. the event was attended by professionals from academic, research, allied industry and ranching backgrounds.

“The big question the Angus Association wanted to ask their producers and folks from across the industry is, ‘What are we missing?’ and ‘What are the technologies and approaches that are going to allow us to work toward increasing profitability,’” Rowan explains.

One of the major themes of the paper is the numerous technological developments poised to affect phenotype collection. Examples include computer-vision technology and wearable sensors.

“By using these technologies to measure traits on continuous scales rather than the categorical scales we currently use for traits like hair shedding or foot angle, we can increase precision of phenotype measurements and consequently improve the quality of EPDs (expected progeny differences) over time,” Rowan says.

He also discusses the types of data most important and economically viable for the industry to pursue. Advancing terminal and maternal traits, health and other challenging areas of production will require data integration and more advanced tools.

“We should work on developing genetic selection tools that capture all elements of commercial profitability, continuing to improve yield and the eating experience of our end product while also making our cow herd more efficient, adapted and productive,” Rowan summarizes.

In the paper, Rowan says the greatest opportunities moving forward rely on capturing and leveraging commercial data throughout the value chain.

“This will require radical collaboration and coordination between industry partners,” he writes. “While individual data points from a commercial herd or a processing plant may not be individually valuable, capturing multiple sources of data in the aggregate will enable genetic evaluations to fill important gaps in their systems with high-quality tools.”

He says the efforts that leverage new technologies and integrate new data sources will require five main considerations:

Phenotypes are, and will always be, the backbones of genetic evaluation: While much of our forward-looking focus is on new and novel phenotypes measured by increasingly complex technologies, we still have far from complete reporting for our core economically relevant traits (ERTs). No amount of genomic testing can make up for a lack of phenotypic reporting. In the immediate term, the continued adoption of whole-herd reporting will improve genetic predictions and open opportunities to extract new phenotypes.
Standardization of phenotype collection, both by producers and via algorithms, will be essential. “From the inception of genetic evaluations, we have worked to standardize trait definitions and best practices for recording,” Rowan says. “This motivated the creation of the Beef Improvement Federation, which continues to publish best practices. Next-generation phenotyping technologies will have many more variables that can impact raw phenotypes, making the standardization of recording, processing and cleaning even more important.”
Seedstock producers may not be able to shoulder the full financial burden of phenotypic collection. “Seedstock producers have traditionally borne the full cost of phenotyping with the understanding that records will help increase the accuracy of EPDs for their animals,” he explains. “However, as we seek to measure more expensive phenotypes, the economics of phenotyping will become more difficult.”
Genetic evaluations will have to balance the deluge of new technology with the resulting payoff in EPD quality and utility. “Not every phenotype is worth measuring,” Rowan says. “As new technologies come online, genetic evaluations will need to consider the costs and return on investment carefully.”
Data sharing will be essential to leveraging the impact of phenotypic collection across industry segments. Economically important phenotypes can be collected at every step of the beef supply chain. From cow-calf operations to feedlots to processors to consumer feedback, data is constantly being collected. When we can tie this data back to an individual animal and its genetics, the possibilities of improving efficiency, animal well-being and consumer experience are limitless.

To hear more discussion about the white paper, you can listen to “The Angus Conversation” podcast: Genetic Innovation Requires Leadership and Data — The Phenotype Paradox in the Beef Industry.

Your Next Read: Unlocking Odde Ranch Success: How Profitability, Tech and Education Drive Innovation

Investing in the Future: Cargill Announces $90-Million Investment in Automation and Technology

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 15:33:19 GMT

Cargill plans to invest nearly $90 million in automation and technology at its Fort Morgan, Colo., beef plant over the next several years as part of its broader Factory of the Future initiative aimed at improving operational efficiency, yield and worker safety, the company announced Thursday.

“We’re at an extremely challenging point in the cattle cycle for packers with tight supplies and margins,” says Jarrod Gillig, senior vice president of Cargill’s North American beef business. “But now is the time we need to step up and make investments in our facilities to make sure they are working efficiently.”

The company has already put $24 million into technology upgrades at the plant since 2021. One of the newest tools to be deployed will be CarVe, Cargill’s proprietary, patent-pending computer vision system that measures red meat yield in real time. The technology gives managers instant feedback to help workers refine cutting techniques and reduce waste.

“I grew up on a farm/ranch and am blessed to still be active in our family’s cattle operation today, so I understand the importance of honoring the whole animal and doing right by the hard work of the ranchers and farmers who raise them. With tools like our new CarVe computer vision technology, we’re able to keep more high-quality protein in the food system, cut down on food waste, and make each animal count. That matters more than ever today.”

— Jarrod Gillig, senior vice president of Cargill’s North American beef business

“Before CarVe, yield data was always yesterday’s news,” Gillig says. “Now, we’re making decisions in the moment and saving product that would’ve been lost.”

Even a 1% improvement in yields could save hundreds of millions of pounds of beef annually, a meaningful gain at a time when U.S. cattle supplies are at their lowest levels in years.

“With CarVe, we are not replacing employees, it is empowering them to work more efficiently and effectively and helping us maximize the carcass,” Gillig summarizes.

The company has also invested in the Fort Morgan community, backing a $40 million workforce housing initiative that includes new townhomes and an 81-unit apartment complex scheduled to open this fall. Cargill has provided more than $500,000 in grants to local nonprofits for childcare access and housing-related support.

“Fort Morgan plays an important part in Cargill’s critical role as a food company to the nation and the world,” Gillig adds. “By partnering with local ranchers and farmers in Colorado and the region, we’re working hard to produce more food with less impact there so we can move it to store shelves and ultimately family dinner tables across the country.”

Your Next Read: Four Key Takeaways from the CattleFax Cow-Calf Survey

3 Factors Fueling Americans' Obsession with Protein

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 15:30:43 GMT

Meat is having a moment, and the craze for more protein is benefiting protein across the board. The fact cattle prices continue to crush records is proof of that, as well as the robust demand for pork.

“I am still bullish of dairy. I’m bullish of beef. I’m bullish of pork and poultry,” says Dan Basse, AgResource Company . “I think as you think forward, I see the next two or three years as being the years of protein. It’s that side of the fence in agriculture that’s going to do very well.”

Basse’s optimistic outlook on protein hinges on one major factor: consumers’ ability to pay for it.

“I’m still bullish of protein, until we see the labor force start to shrink in the United States, and I start to see disposable income coming down. Again, there’s not a period looking backward in history that I can find where disposable income on a personal basis has risen this quickly from 2020 to 2025,” he says.

“Meat protein, not just pork or not just beef, but meat is having a moment. I’m an economist, so I have concerns on the macroeconomic front, but it is exciting to be in an era where the public’s desire for meat protein is growing,” says Glynn Tonsor, a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University.

People Are Eating More Protein Than Ever Before

Cargill’s 2025 Protein Profile found people are eating more protein than ever before. The report found 61% of consumers report increasing their protein intake in 2024, which is up from 48% from 2019.

According to Cargill, the shift in shoppers’ preferences toward whole, minimally processed foods, is giving protein a chance to shine.

“It’s really important to remember the U.S. public wants meat protein,” Tonsor says. “There are a lot of signs. We are in a pro protein environment. I don’t think there’s issues. I actually think there is a celebration about the taste and the eating experience and so forth for all the major proteins.”

A Slight Shift in May’s Monthly Meat Demand Monitor

Tonsor also authors what’s called the Monthly Meat Demand Monitor (MDM) , which tracks U.S. consumer preferences, views and demand for meat. The first half of the year, the MDM continued to show consumers’ growing demand for protein, but in the report in May, it did show a slight shift.

“The biggest takeaway from the MDM would be we have two conflicting patterns,” says Tonsor. “One is the public really wants meat protein, but the macroeconomic environment is giving us some pause. So, we continue to see strong signals people want protein. Taste is leading that decision, so that’s good and very supportive, but we also see lots of uncertainty on the macro-economic front. So, trade discussions, elevated unemployment, inflation concerns and so forth. Those are not supportive of meat demand, so those are the two trends that are fighting the way out.”

Tonsor points out the May MDM showed a pullback in consumers eating away from home, like in restaurants, but showed a boost in retail demand, which would be grocery stores.

“But part of that is a substitution away from restaurants,” he says. “And that’s across the board. It’s not just pork or beef or chicken. It’s all of them that we track, so I do think it is a headwind that is growing here in 2025.”

Tonsor says if confidence in the economy rebounds, and tariff discussions ease, the restaurant piece of meat demand could quickly recover, especially considering we’re entering the summer months, where meat demand is typically higher.

3 Major Drivers Behind the Protein Craze

And even with the pause in restaurant demand in May, Tonsor says the push for consumers to eat even more protein doesn’t seem to be going away, and it’s being driven by three major factors.

“More people are having meat as an ingredient rather than center of the plate. So, it’s coming across as more convenient. It’s an input,” Tonsor says. “Also younger folks in particular are quite physically active, and their demand for protein and that broader lifestyle is elevated.”

Those two factors are strong drivers of meat demand, especially in the younger crowd. But another supportive piece of the growing demand for protein is related to weight loss drugs.

“We have a GLP-1 effect, so Ozempic, Mounjar and so forth, in the MDM, we put out a report earlier this year, showing maybe 15% of the U.S. public is using the GLP-1,” Tonsor says. “That’s a higher end, but that’s what we estimate. And if you are on those products, you’re actually consuming beef, pork and chicken more frequently.”

He says all of those things add up to support the growth in meat demand.

“It’s the income and the future status of my finances is mainly the only headwind at the moment, and that’s why I keep reiterating that concern,” Tonsor says.

Demand is What’s Pushing Cattle Prices to New Highs

It’s not just the hog industry that’s benefiting from the strong demand, both domestically and with exports

Cattle prices continue to crush records. But according to one veteran cattle analyst, it’s not historically tight cattle numbers pushing prices higher, it’s the strong demand.

“This price increase that we’re experiencing in the industry is demand-driven,” says Randy Blach, CEO of CattleFax. “Our per capita supplies were flat last year. They’re going to be flat again this year. And yet we’ve had a market that’s gone from a $1.75 to $2.25. That’s all been demand driven with what we’ve seen throughout the industry.”

The incredible demand is pushing beef demand to its highest level in nearly 40 years.

“Beef demands that are a 37-year high,” he says. “And I think when people think about demand, obviously quality has been the key to that. We’ve seen the quality of the animals being produced has increased substantially.”

As record-high cattle prices also push the cost of beef higher, that would push consumers to eat more pork and chicken in the past. But it’s a trend Tonsor is not largely seeing this time around.

“We see some of that, but not nearly as much as you might think. So, there’s less of that adjustment than historically we would have seen,” Tonsor says. “This is 100% Glynn’s opinion, but I think habits are a little stickier. Persistence of an item in your meal is a little sticker than in the past. Meat is an ingredient, not just the center of the plate. Higher beef prices have not elevated chicken demand as people have expected, and I think it’s because the consumer substitution effects, they exist, but they’re not as strong as they were 20 years ago.”

As consumers crave more protein, it’s a bright spot for all of livestock with many hopeful this isn’t just a trend but a permanent fixture on consumers’ plates.

Ionophores Explained: How They Enhance Livestock Gain

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:47:41 GMT

When I was growing up, my dad often told me to “work smarter, not harder.” There was always a lot to get done on the farm and I had the tendency to power through the work rather than think about an easier way.

Consequently, in my current job I like to discuss products or strategies to help a producer be more efficient. In livestock nutrition, a product that can help a producer be more efficient and “work smarter” is an ionophore.

What is an ionophore? Ionophores are feed additives that were developed to improve efficiency and prevent coccidiosis. The two most common ionophores utilized are monensin (Rumensin® and Monovet®) and lasalocid (Bovatec®). In addition to the improvement of efficiency (more gain/less feed), ionophores have a derived benefit of preventing and controlling digestive disorders such as acidosis and bloat.

How do ionophores work?

Ionophores improve feed efficiency simply by increasing the amount of energy available to the animal through selection of more efficient microorganisms in the gut. Ionophores are labeled for both grazing and feedlot cattle.

Oklahoma State Animal Science has historically led the charge in research around the use of ionophores for grazing cattle and there are benefits in a variety of grazing situations. For instance, cattle gain is improved 0.15 to 0.2 lb. by including an ionophore in a free-choice mineral.

An additional feeding strategy supported by a great deal of research recommends offering ionophores in small package supplements to grazing cattle to complement forage nutrients and ensure proper consumption. Performance varies depending on the forage base however the supplement plus ionophore lends an additional 0.2 to 0.4 lb. of daily gain. Note that cattle must have proper overall nutrition, adequate forage and have a healthy status to achieve optimum gains.

It should be emphasized that pure forms of ionophores are very potent and require extreme precision when added to blended feeds and supplements. When feeding ionophores in a pure form or within a supplement, label instructions should be strictly followed.

Monensin is toxic specifically to equine species and some monogastric animals. Ionophores can be toxic to any animal when overconsumed.

Increased gain across the board, less bloat and improved health for growing cattle of all stages — now that is what I call “working smarter.”

Your Next Read: Five Pre-Pasture Turnout Tips

Urgency in Action: We Must Eradicate New World Screwworm

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:53:14 GMT

New World screwworm (NWS) continues to threaten the U.S. cattle industry. The potential impact is devastating — the larvae can kill an animal in just four to seven days if not quickly detected and treated.

Colin Woodall, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO, discussed the hurdles of controlling the spread of NSW on the latest episode of the “Unscripted” podcast .

“We have to eradicate it from here,” Woodall stresses. “We need to eradicate it from Mexico. We need to eradicate it from Central America. We need to push this thing all the way back down to South America.”

The NSW fly and its larvae are flesh-eating parasites that pose a significant threat to warm-blooded animals.

“This is not just a cattle issue,” Woodall says. “This could be dogs. This can be cats. It can get into people. So, anything that is warm blooded could be a host for this flesh-eating parasite.”

Woodall says NSW is approximately 700 miles from the U.S. border, having breached the isthmus of Mexico in the states of Oaxaca and Veracruz, adding that Texas is expected to be the first point of entry if the fly continues to move north.

“We’re going to look at every eradication option possible, because we have to get rid of this thing,” he says. “This is not something that can become endemic to United States. We have to eradicate it from here.”

Woodall says the situation has been complicated by cooperation challenges with Mexico. Earlier attempts to transport sterile flies were hindered by bureaucratic obstacles, with planes unable to land and flies dying before deployment. This led Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to close the border, sending a clear signal to the Mexican government about the need for more serious action.

He explains cooperation has reportedly improved, with USDA teams planning to visit Mexico to assess the current situation. The primary strategy for control involves releasing sterile flies into the wild to disrupt breeding and push the population back southward.

Woodall says NCBA is actively working on several fronts to address the threat:

Pushing for the establishment of a domestic sterile fly production facility.
Exploring genetic engineering technologies for fly control.
Investigating treatment options (such as ivermectin) and helping producers understand how to detect and treat potential infections quickly. Woodall says treatment is possible, explaining ivermectin has proven effective in killing larvae and treating wounds. However, early detection is crucial due to the rapid progression of infection.
Conducting education and awareness campaigns to explain the threat without causing panic. He says misinformation has been a significant challenge. A recent false report about NSW in Missouri caused panic and temporarily impacted cattle prices. He adds that while the threat is serious, it’s not a cause for panic.

“While everybody needs to be aware, they don’t need to panic, and that’s the thing we want everybody to understand,” Woodall summarizes.

NCBA is taking an active role in addressing the threat of NSW through education, technological exploration, government collaboration and a clear commitment to preventing its spread.

Your Next Read: Secretary Rollins Announces $21 Million Investment to Renovate Fruit Fly Production Facility

Nalivka: Herd Rebuilding – A Weighty Financial Decision

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:50:38 GMT

As prices across the beef supply chain have hit record highs, industry discussions have become increasingly focused on the question of heifer retention and herd building — regarding both the timing and the extent. As they always have, I have little doubt that record prices will provide plenty of motivation to expand herds — some herds. While soaring prices encourage herd building, they can also become an obstacle.

Herd building, involving heifers, whether through heifer retention or buying bred heifers, is a financial decision on the part of the cattleman and timing is part of that decision. The decision to retain heifers and expand the cow herd to take advantage of a strong market involves foregone income in the current year. The motivation is to generate added revenue once that heifer has a salable calf and that motivation is reasonable. However, that additional income from another calf is two years down the road at the earliest with added production costs to bring that heifer into the cowherd with a marketable calf.

Looking at the numbers, in today’s record-high market, the foregone income part of that decision is running around $1,800 to $2,000 per head based on prices for 550-lb. heifer calves. And then, there is the added production cost for that heifer, which is real and though highly variable across the country and between cow-calf operations, it likely averages nearly $1,000 annually. Again, the rancher’s motivation to increase income through building the herd to sell more calves at record prices is reasonable, but the analysis is not that simple. Those prices are just that — current. Markets change and the potential of a marketable calf is two years away. In markets, two years is a long time!

So, how about buying a bred heifer? That decision does not involve the foregone income from a heifer calf that was not sold with the calf crop. However, that foregone income is now invested cost, which is higher. While the time to generate income from a calf is shortened by one year versus retaining your heifer from this year’s calf crop, prices for bred heifers are generally ranging around $3,500. That is no small figure! Since this discussion centers on heifers and heifer retention, buying bred cows or pairs to build the herd is not relevant to this discussion.

The analysis and discussion of herd building goes beyond record-high markets. It is an important financial decision made by ranchers and farmers and that decision goes beyond current market conditions in a changing market environment. My market outlook discussions have included these points as part of my analysis.

Your Next Read: Five Pre-Pasture Turnout Tips

Pig Fat Cell Production Could Transform Lab-Grown Meat

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:47:40 GMT

Lab-grown fat cells offer promise for cultivated meat, according to research from The Roslin Institute . A source of fat cells from pigs has been developed in the lab that offers scientists and food manufacturers a promising tool for the large-scale production of cultivated meat without the need for genetic modification.

“We didn’t simply develop a tool, we made a very special discovery,” says Tom Thrower, lead researcher at The Roslin Institute. “The fact that these cells not only grow indefinitely but also retain their ability to become fat at such high efficiency is something we have never seen before in livestock stem cells. It opens the door to new possibilities in cultivated meat and beyond.”

Researchers say the development could address the challenge of generating realistic, sustainable animal fat — a significant hurdle in the cultivated meat industry as the new cells are capable of efficiently producing fat tissue with consistency.

Stem cells turning into fat cells over a span of 40 days. Accumulated fat is shown in green.

(The Roslin Institute)

“The cells, known as FaTTy, are formed from early-stage stem cells which develop into fat and can grow indefinitely in the lab without losing the ability to reliably produce fat cells,” the Roslin Institute reports. “In contrast, most animal stem cells quickly lose this capability, making large-scale use impractical.”

This helps meet the need for fat as a key component in delivering the flavor and texture consumers expect from meat, the article says.

Researchers grew stem cells derived from five piglets and discovered cells from one of the piglets was able to reproduce hundreds of times without the need for gene editing. The results also showed that the fat produced closely resembled native pig fat in its composition, with slightly higher levels of healthier monounsaturated fats.

“These fat cells have the potential to be a game-changer in the field of cultivated meat and will help make this a reality in the very near future,” says Xavier Donadeu, principal investigator at The Roslin Institute.

This research was published in NPJ Science of Food .

Your Next Read: Will New Pork Campaign and Market Conditions Revive Domestic Demand?

Unlocking Success with Cow Herd Health Metrics: A Scorecard Approach

Tue, 27 May 2025 17:44:23 GMT

Tracking performance and evaluating herd success is a year-round process. Similar to tracking athletes, consider developing a scorecard to monitor your herd. Understanding how your herd is performing throughout the year is important when considering management, nutrition and culling decisions.

The first scorecard suggested was post-calving ; the next one to consider is herd health metrics. Illness and death loss in a cow herd are situations cattle producers must routinely address.

To help producers know where their herd health metrics should be, experts at Kansas State University’s Beef Cattle Institute offered some guidelines during a recent “Cattle Chat” podcast .

“The first metric in cow-calf operations that I look at is the first treatment response percentage,” says Brian Lubbers, K-State veterinarian.

He recommended producers aim for an 85% to 90% treatment success rate when treating one of the most common illnesses: Bovine Respiratory Disease, also referred to as BRD. He says that metric can be deceiving.

“Producers who aggressively treat BRD cases are likely treating some animals that didn’t have BRD, and that leads to a high spontaneous recovery rate,” Lubbers says. “If you are seeing a 100% first treatment success rate, you may be treating some animals who didn’t need the treatment. Very high treatment response rates should at least trigger a conversation with your veterinarian about case definitions.”

K-State veterinarian Bob Larson says another metric that producers should be aware of is the percentage of death loss in the calves. During the first year of life, there are three key times when calves are more susceptible to death: at birth, between birth and three weeks of age, and from about one month to weaning, he says.

For each of these periods, producers can expect a 1% to 2% loss, Larson explains, however, that percentage will vary from year to year.

“In the first year of life, difficult births, scours and pneumonia are some of the reasons that calves get seriously ill and sometimes die,” Larson says.

K-State beef nutritionist Phillip Lancaster says what he monitors in the herd is the body condition of the cows.

“If the cows are receiving good nutrition and maintaining their body condition, that is an indicator of the overall health of the herd,” Lancaster says.

Along with those metrics, Logan Thompson, K-State beef cattle extension sustainable grazing specialist, recommends producers treat the herd against parasites as part of an overall wellness program.

“Treating the herd against parasites is an easy win from a production efficiency and cattle longevity standpoint, and it increases the rate of passage of grass through the rumen,” Thompson says. “It is a hard metric to measure, but in some herds, cattle that are treated for parasites have an increased efficiency between 20[%] to 30%.”

In summary, the key takeaways from the podcast are:

Health metrics are multifaceted and require careful tracking.
Different perspectives (veterinary, nutritional, sustainability) offer comprehensive insights.
Metrics should be specific, measurable and contextualized.
Collaboration with veterinarians is crucial for effective health management.

Your Next Read: Early Shedding Cows Produce Heavier Calves at Weaning

Enhancing Meat Quality Through Management Decisions Pre-Calving

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:41:17 GMT

Meat quality is influenced by various factors that affect the consumer’s eating experience, including tenderness, marbling, and fat composition . While many factors contribute to the final product, beef producers play a key role in shaping meat quality through their management and nutritional decisions, even before an animal is born.

Production systems vary widely based on climate and economics, but management choices made before birth can significantly impact meat quality. Key decisions include breed selection and maternal nutrition .

Breed type affects meat quality. Bos taurus breeds, such as Angus and Hereford, tend to have higher marbling scores than Bos indicus breeds. Crossbreeding beef and dairy genetics can optimize efficiency and carcass quality, with research ongoing to determine the best breed combinations for superior meat characteristics.

A dam’s uterine capacity and diet during pregnancy directly impact the offspring’s muscle development, fat composition, and overall meat quality. Intrauterine growth restriction can limit muscle fiber development and reduce marbling. Proper maternal nutrition helps mitigate these effects. Studies show that protein supplementation during gestation improves marbling and meat tenderness, while both undernutrition and overnutrition of the beef cow during gestation can negatively impact carcass traits of their calves.

Feeding antioxidant-rich diets to pregnant cattle can enhance the offspring’s meat quality by improving shelf life and flavor stability. Research suggests that plant-based antioxidants, such as rosemary and thyme, can reduce fat oxidation, preserving meat tenderness and taste.

Beef producers have a significant influence on meat quality through breeding choices and nutrition management. Understanding these factors and implementing best practices from conception through finishing can lead to higher-quality beef, improving both consumer satisfaction and market value.

Your next read: Beef Profit Tracker: Breakeven Prices For Current Placements Hover Around $200

University of Illinois Partnership Helps Solve Critical Need to Develop Food Animal Veterinarians

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:21:51 GMT

High-achieving students with an interest in food animal veterinary sciences will now have an expedited pathway for admission at the College of Veterinary Medicine (Vet Med) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A new program allows animal sciences majors to gain early acceptance at Vet Med if they maintain a 3.5 GPA, complete livestock-related courses and experiences, and plan to become food animal veterinarians.

“It’s more important than ever for highly trained veterinarians to keep livestock herds safe and healthy. It’s a critical need for the livestock industry. This is one way we can help support students with that interest, and we’re really excited about it,” said Anna Dilger, professor in the Department of Animal Sciences, part of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at Illinois.

Rather than applying to the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program at Illinois during the fall of their senior year, students with a demonstrated interest in food animal care can apply to the new early acceptance program in the spring of their sophomore year. Dilger says early acceptance allows students to focus on completing their undergraduate degrees with less stress and more attention to courses that will prepare them for the livestock industry.

“The classes our students take in their junior and senior years — like beef production and livestock feeds and feeding — are really designed to make them better practitioners in the context of food animal production,” Dilger said. “They’re not going to get that type of training in vet school, but they will be better prepared as future veterinarians for the workforce.”

A handful of other veterinary schools across the country offer early acceptance to enrolled undergraduates, but few focus on food animals.

“The veterinary profession has identified the need for more practitioners in the food animal and mixed animal fields, especially in rural areas,” said Sara Connolly, assistant dean for admissions and student success at Vet Med. “There are currently more than 12 times the number of veterinarians practicing in companion animal medicine than in food animal or mixed practice. We hope the early admissions program will help address this need, particularly in Illinois, by encouraging future veterinarians with a food animal interest.”

Dan Shike, interim department head for animal sciences, hopes the program will entice new and existing students to pursue careers in food animal medicine.

“We’d love for this to attract prospective students to our department. Students come to us knowing they want to work with animals, but not many of them realize that food animal medicine is an interest at first,” he said. “Our curriculum develops that interest over time. After three semesters, when it’s time to apply for this program, they might realize it could be a great career opportunity.”

Your Next Read: 4 Things You Can Do to Separate Yourself from the Competition

U.S. Imports of Mexican Cattle Disrupted

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:28:20 GMT

The Nov. 22, 2024, announcement that New World screwworm was detected in southern Mexico resulted in the temporary suspension of live cattle imports from Mexico. This raises many questions about the implications this might have on U.S. cattle markets. Some history and context are helpful to understand the potential impacts.

An average of 1.17 million head of Mexican cattle were imported into the U.S. in the 20 years from 2004-2023, ranging from a minimum of about 703,000 head in 2008 to a maximum of 1.47 million head in 2012 (Figure 1). Mexican cattle imports represent 3.3% of the total U.S. calf crop on average. Figure 1 also includes 2024 preliminary weekly imports through the first 47 weeks of the year. Imports of Mexican cattle have averaged 84.5% steers and 15.5 percent spayed heifers over the past 20 years (Figure 1). However, in the five years from 2019-2023, the percentage of heifers increased to an average of 21.3%.

Figure 1. Cattle imports from Mexico

(Peel/USDA)

Figure 2 shows the average seasonal pattern of Mexican cattle imports for the last five years. Mexican cattle imports have maintained a relatively stable seasonal pattern for many years with peak months in the spring and in November/December with lows in summer. In recent years the seasonal pattern has equalized slightly with fractionally lower peak months and higher summer lows. However, the pattern remains as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Seasonality of Mexican Cattle Imports

(Peel/USDA)

USDA has indicated that the border is expected to be closed at least three weeks from the late November announcement. Protocols are being developed for a partial opening of the border (New Mexico and Arizona ports) which will include a pre-export inspection of all cattle; treatment for insects; and a seven-day quarantine, followed by the usual border inspection and crossing process. It seems likely that few, if any, additional Mexican cattle will be imported in 2024. The 2024 import value in Figure 1 is based on the preliminary weekly data through Nov. 23 with a total of 1.24 million head. This may well be very close to the import total for the year.

Figure 3. U.S. Imports of Mexican Cattle

(Peel/USDA)

Figure 3 shows the year-to-date monthly official import totals through September. Imports of Mexican cattle were up 21.3% year over year for the first nine months of the year. The pace suggested that total annual imports could be about 1.5 million head. Most of the increase was due to additional spayed heifer imports, up 87.2% year over year and accounting for 35% of total cattle imports.

Figure 2 shows that November and December typically account for roughly 22% of annual imports. Assuming no imports for the last week of November and all of December and given the pace of imports thus far in the year, it is likely that annual imports will be reduced by 200,000 - 250,000 head from the probable total before the screwworm announcement.

The lack of Mexican cattle imports for the remainder of the year will have some immediate impact reducing an already tight feeder supply. However, some of the feedlot impact is not immediate because a portion of the imported Mexican cattle are lightweight and typically go through stocker/backgrounding programs before feedlot placement. In the January–September period this year about 24% of the imported cattle were less than 200 kilograms (441 pounds). It’s important to remember that most of the cattle not imported for the remainder of the year will enter the U.S. eventually…just with a delay. As long as the current situation does not drag out excessively or result in some permanent changes in import regulations, the primary feeder cattle market impact will be a change in timing with a short-term tightening of supply and the delayed cattle arriving in the coming weeks/months.

Your next read: ASEAN Customers Study U.S. Pork and Beef in Trend-setting Korea

7 Ways to Help Beef Producers Evaluate Potential Replacement Heifers

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:16:35 GMT

Given the price of replacement beef heifers today, one of the questions veterinarians are helping cow-calf producers address is whether it’s a better decision to raise their own calves for replacements or buy them.

The answer, like with many complex decisions, isn’t a simple yes or no, according to Dr. Ray Stegeman.

The Missouri veterinarian says he has cow-calf producers who do raise their own replacements, but it’s not a practice he recommends for everyone.

“I work with quite a few smaller family farmers who keep heifers and are successful with that. But they know the mama cows and everything about them going back 50 years, which has merit,” says Stegeman, who owns Osage Veterinary Clinic in St. Thomas, Mo., and is a member of the Production Animal Consultation (PAC) network. “But if a producer is just starting out, it’s often advisable to buy bred heifers, given the economics of developing a heifer and the time involved.”

Stegeman, referencing research at Texas A&M and University of Nebraska, says a 200-cow herd size is often a practical starting point for deciding whether buying or raising replacement heifers is the better option.¹

Size Of Calf Crop And Resources

There are several reasons why a 200-head cowherd is a good minimum threshold. For one thing, there’s a large enough calf crop born to provide an adequate number of high-quality prospects for the farm. Three other considerations: this size of operation often has adequate manpower, physical facilities and land necessary to make the undertaking feasible and worthwhile.

“I think we tend to overlook or not realize the costs and resources that go into developing a replacement heifer,” Stegeman explains. “For example, you need to have enough pasture available, you have to keep a bull away from these heifers and raise them separate from the cowherd, and that takes additional resources.”

Here are seven additional factors Stegeman, other veterinarians and beef Extension specialists take into consideration as they work with cow/calf producers who are raising their own replacement heifers.

1. Monitor calves early. Stegeman advises his producers to start looking at their prospects during preweaning, managing nutrition proactively to prevent underfeeding or overfeeding.

“Everyone wants to pick a good-looking heifer, but you don’t want the heifer still on the mother cow to get too fat,” he says. “If we’re creep feeding, we want to watch our starch. If that heifer is too fat at weaning that in and of itself can be a setback.”

Heifer calves that are too fat have been shown to have reduced milking ability once mature, according to Oklahoma State University Extension research. Mammary development is in a critical stage from 2 months of age until about 9 months, or just before puberty.²If a calf is storing considerable amounts of extra fat during that time, excessive fat can be deposited in the mammary gland and inhibit its development.

Stegeman adds if the calf has too much body fat that has the potential to cover up physical defects, which might only be discovered after the producer decides to retain the calf.

In addition, Stegeman likes to talk with producers about nutrition and environmental factors the dam experienced while carrying the calf. He considers whether the mother cows were subjected to drought conditions or inadequate nutrition or other environmental factors.

“Fetal programming factors can result in potential negative productivity in the heifer calf following it through to maturity,” he tells Bovine Veterinarian.

2. Heifer calves born earliest are usually the top picks. Older heifers are more likely to reach the desired target weights by the start of breeding. Early puberty is moderately to highly heritable and positively related to future reproductive efficiency.

“Fertility is driven by genetics, so much so that it’s very important to pick those heifers born early in the calving season as replacements” Stegeman says.

During the selection process, producers with their veterinarian’s help, should look for heifers that are structurally sound, have a wider structural frame and a body type of more rib shape and depth, recommends Mark Z. Johnson, Oklahoma State University Extension beef cattle breeding specialist.³

Johnson adds that fleshing ease equates to breeding females that can better maintain body condition and energy reserves on a given amount of feed.

3. Consider genetic merit. Genetics are an important consideration, as producers plan the type of heifers they want to raise and keep and the traits needed to meet their goals.

“I think one of the problems with the beef industry today is that we’re choosing heifers from the steer pool of genetics – we’re choosing heifers out of carcass genetics,” he says. “There’s opportunity in the beef industry to have maternal herds producing genetically superior replacement females for cow/calf operations to purchase, which will be important going forward.”

4. Put prospective replacements on pasture, once they’re weaned. “We like to develop heifers on the pasture that they’re going to see as an adult cow,” Stegeman says. “They essentially program themselves, and after they calve the first time, they’ll perform better and stay in the herd. Don’t push them too hard with grain,” he cautions. “Go for the pound and a half to 2 pounds of gain per day.”

5. Don’t overlook the importance of temperament. A heifer can look like a great fit for the farm but still be an animal the producer needs to cull, because of her attitude and behavior.

Mississippi State Extension beef specialists encourage producers and their veterinarians to use a chute scoring method to keep temperament records.⁴ When heifers are restrained in the working chute, they can be assigned a score from 1 to 4 (1 = calm; 2 = restless shifting; 3 = squirming; 4 = twisting and rearing). Temperament is a very heritable trait, and removing temperamental heifers from the herd improves safety for farm employees as well as other members of the cowherd.

6. Protocols are needed for heifer vaccinations and deworming. For replacement heifers, Stegeman recommends administering a modified live viral vaccination and an initial leptospirosis vaccine at weaning time, when the animal is 6 to 7 months old.

“We’ll then deworm, often with a combination product, at that time as well,” he says.

Once heifers reach the 12-month mark, they are then administered a second round of vaccinations and dewormer.

“With some of the longer synchronization protocols now, we can give them their last pre-breeding vaccination the day we set them up, as it is approximately 33 days to breed from day one to AI or bull turn out,” Stegeman says. “Often, to save on number of trips through the chute, we try to consolidate processing.”

7. A pre-breeding examination is good insurance. Stegeman recommends that veterinarians reproductive tract score the heifers, either via ultrasound or manual palpation, at around 45 days prior to breeding. He says to measure the pelvis to make sure it is at least 150 square centimeters in size.

“We don’t want to set that number too high. We don’t want to say, ‘Well, my heifers need to be at 180 square centimeters,’ because then we’re just selecting for a big cow,” says Stegeman, citing research by David Patterson, PhD, emeritus beef Extension specialist at the University of Missouri.

With tract scores, Stegeman looks for scores of four and five, which indicate the heifer is ready to breed.

“We can start them on synchronization for breeding,” he says. “If needed, with some of the twos and threes, we’ll put them on feed to hopefully increase their tract score. Research indicates it takes at least 20 days to increase the tract score. If we have enough of the lower scoring heifers, and we deem it necessary, we can sort them out from the fours and fives to bump up their tract score using increased feed,” Stegeman adds.

He notes that the reproductive tract score along with the pelvic measurement provides the producer with some insurance that he is hanging on to the ‘right’ versus the ‘wrong’ heifers.

“The veterinarian can save producers money and time with these practices,” Stegeman says. “If you wait until preg check time to cull those heifers that’s not a good decision for the producer, because he’s got all the extra expense and feed into them up until that time. You might as well put them in the feedlot or develop them out for feeding earlier in the process,” he says.

¹DocTalk, Thomson, Dan. DocTalk Ep 462 - Heifer Development with Dr. Ray Stegeman

²Selk, Glenn. Development of Replacement Beef Heifers. http://agecon.okstate.edu/cattleman/files/ch_21_6th_ed.pdf

³Johnson, Mark Z. Selection of Replacement Heifers. https://extension.okstate.edu/programs/beef-extension/cow-calf-corner-the-newsletter-archives/2024/february-26-2024.html

⁴Rhinehart, Justin D. and Parish, Jane A. Replacement Beef Heifer Development. NRC, 2000. Adapted from NRC Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th revised edition. https://extension.msstate.edu/publications/publications/replacement-beef-heifer-development

More news from Bovine Veterinarian:
New World Screwworm: Latest Update from USDA-APHIS

Cull Cows – Should They Stay or Should They Go? And When Should They Go?

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:22:01 GMT

In Financial Opportunities of Cull Cow Marketing , the cull cow market, the importance of cull cow revenue to cow-calf operations, and the potential of adding value based on seasonal patterns in cull cow prices was discussed. Cull cow prices tend to bottom in the fall and peak in the spring, presenting a range of opportunities. Let’s take a deeper dive into the culling decision along with post-culling management and marketing with a focus on spring-calving herds.

Cow-calf producers with spring calving herds typically wean calves in late summer or early fall and subsequently make decisions about culling cows from the herd. The culling decision is based on many factors related to fertility, productivity, management ease, and health, as described in Figure 1.

Ask yourself these questions when making cull cow decisions.

(K. Raper)

Alongside that culling decision is the marketing decision – the decision to market cull cows immediately or retain them on the farm for marketing at a later date (Raper and Biermacher, 2017). Many factors influence this decision, including individual cow health, cash flow needs, on-farm resources for retention and feeding, current market conditions versus market expectations, and time. If a cull cow is not healthy enough or structurally sound enough to stay in your herd, she likely needs to go on the trailer for immediate marketing, as the risk of carrying her for 4 more months outweighs the opportunity for added revenue. If a cull cow carries too much body condition, she should also join those on the trailer, as adding or maintaining weight will likely be more costly than any revenue gained from the seasonal price upswing. On the other hand, if a cull cow is sound, reasonably healthy and not over-conditioned, AND if you have the resources to do so, there are multiple retention strategies with the potential for increasing cull cow salvage values in a profitable way. These strategies focus on taking advantage of the typical spring upswing in cull cow prices without spending all of the revenue gain on feed intake cost.

This article will focus on feeding strategies and leave the conversation about selling culls as bred cows for later.

In the previously referenced studies, 162 cull cows over a three-year period were assigned either to a native pasture or to a low-cost dry-lot retention program.

Market value and retention costs were assessed at October culling and again at one-month intervals from November through March and used to calculate net returns.

Net returns from cull cow retention measure the difference in revenue at culling and revenue when marketing at a later date, less the associated retention and feed costs, written as:

Net Returns = Revenue at Marketing – Retention & Feed Costs – Revenue if sold at Culling

Cows retained in the dry-lot setting had higher weight gain, on average, than cows retained on native pasture, but cumulative feed costs also increased at a much faster pace, even with the low-cost strategy. Cows with BCS≤6 (thin and medium) were profitably retained in the native pasture system, regardless of the retention period, with net returns ranging from $20/head in November to $70/head in March. Many of these cows actually lost some weight during the retention period, but the seasonal price upswing ‘outweighed’ the lost weight. However, in the low-cost dry lot system, only the 4-month retention period was profitable for thin and medium cows, with net returns of $20/head and $10/head, respectively, as feed costs consumed most of what would be gained from the seasonal price upswing. Net returns for cows with BCS>6 were negative across the board in the dry lot system, with minimal profitability in the pasture system as well.

So…as my family says in dominoes, get rid of your big ‘uns! And then carefully consider how to manage and market the rest.

Your Next Read: Success in the Sagebrush: Navigating Cattle Ranching Challenges For Seven Generations

Beef Production and Fall Beef Demand

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:58:46 GMT

As of Oct. 18, the daily Choice boxed beef price was $320.65/cwt., up from a recent low of $296.37/cwt on September 26 and the highest price since July 15. The weekly Choice boxed beef price is also at the highest level since July and has averaged 2.2 percent higher year over year and a record high for the year-to-date (Figure 1). Numerous wholesale cuts have moved higher recently including chuck arm roast (IMPS 114E), chuck roll (116A), chuck mock tender (116B), and chuck flap (116G). Wholesale round cuts have also moved higher including round knuckle (167A), top inside round (169A), bottom (gooseneck) round (170), outside round (171B), and eye of round (171C). Middle meat prices from the loin and rib have also increased including bottom sirloin flap (185A), sirloin tri-tip (185D), loin strip (180), and tenderloin (189A). Likewise, wholesale ribeye prices (112A) have increased recently and are showing an early seasonal demand for the holidays.

Figure 1. Boxed Beef Cutout Value

(Peel)

Thus far in 2024, steer slaughter is unchanged from one year ago. Heifer slaughter is down 1.6 percent year over year. Total fed slaughter is down 0.7 percent compared to last year, less than earlier expected. For the year-to-date, steer carcasses have averaged 25.5 pounds heavier than last year, and heifer carcasses are averaging 22.6 pounds heavier than one year ago. The result of stronger than expected fed slaughter and heavier carcass weights has been an increase in fed beef production of 1.9 percent year over year thus far in 2024. In fact, for the last 16 weeks, fed beef production has been 3.7 percent larger year over year. The increase in boxed beef prices is perhaps even more surprising in the face of increased fed beef production. Higher prices and increased quantities suggest that beef demand continues to be very robust.

In contrast to fed beef production, nonfed beef production is sharply lower this year, down 12.8 percent year over year. Total cow slaughter is down 15.3 percent, consisting of a 13.8 percent year over year decrease in dairy cow slaughter and a 16.8 percent decrease in beef cow slaughter so far this year. Bull slaughter is also down 8.1 percent compared to last year. Tighter supplies of lean trimmings have kept processing beef prices higher this year and the demand for lean has increased demand for lean carcass cuts. For example, the current wholesale price of 90 percent lean trimmings is higher than wholesale prices for top inside round, bottom (gooseneck) round, and outside round.

In the fall, summer grilling demand gives way to seasonally stronger demand for roasts, crock pot cooking and increased middle meat demand in restaurants. Wholesale ground beef prices have moderated recently as hamburger grilling demand slows but prices remain well above year ago levels. Total beef production is down a scant 0.7 percent so far this year and may end the year equal to year ago levels. Despite this, wholesale and retail beef prices are higher thus far in 2024.

The Truth About Mature Cow Size and Ranch Profitability

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:35:05 GMT

The objectives of reducing input costs and increasing stocking rates are frequently approached with the mentality – how do we spend more days grazing and less days supplementing feed? While this is certainly a contributing factor to ranch profitability, it is not the entire picture. When focusing on moderating costs and avoiding the need to artificially modify environments to increase production, it is critical to understand what factors impact cow efficiency and how to select for these traits.

David Lalman, Ph.D., Extension Specialist for Beef Cattle and Professor of Animal and Food Sciences at Oklahoma State University, has conducted various studies related to mature cow size and feed efficiency with the intent of helping cattlemen and women someday be able to cost-effectively sort for the best cows for their herds. He started with these two measurements because in general, a high mature cow weight corresponds to high feed intake.

“My ideal cow is one that is resilient and productive in the best environment and still productive in the worst of years,” Lalman says. “A good cow is expected to have a calf each year, provide adequate milk while maintaining body condition and not eat her way out of a profit.”

Production also plays a role in how efficient a cow or bull is. Year over year cattle producers have been selecting for higher growth bulls and replacement females to sell calves with higher weaning and yearling weights. Consequently, this led to a yearly increase of 7 lbs. in average mature cow size since 1978.

“A person who had a 30-year career in the cattle industry and selected for industry average growth traits each year should be grazing about 13% less cows today than 30 years ago,” Lalman says. “That’s impact of cow size on stocking rate over time based on overall industry average.”

While this old rule of thumb for cow efficiency still carries some weight, it is not the end all be all. Advancements in genomic and feed intake research are sorting out the outliers and providing cattlemen with more information to select for their ideal cows.

When Lalman evaluates groups of cattle for overall efficiency, he breaks the data set into 4 quadrants:

Individuals with above average Feed Intake EPD and above average Mature Weight EPD
Individuals with above average Feed Intake EPD and below average Mature Weight EPD
Individuals with below average Feed Intake EPD and above average Mature Weight EPD
Individuals with below average Feed Intake EPD and below average Mature Weight EPD

Ultimately there are cows and bulls that fall into each quadrant. Which type is best for you depends on the resources you have available and the goals of your operation.

“We haven’t gotten to the point yet where we can point to one genetic selection tool to evaluate for efficient cows in a herd, but there are pieces available that are helpful,” Lalman says.

He encourages cattlemen and women to use a combination of mature cow weight and feed intake data when selecting for efficient cattle. Another factor to consider when considering mature cow size is your cull cow marketing strategy. Smaller cows will offer less cull cow weight.

There is no one size fits all approach for selecting efficient cattle (pun intended), but mature cow size and feed intake are important considerations for both seedstock and cow-calf producers.

“If you aren’t paying attention to mature cow size, feed intake and their ability to maintain or add weight; you may create a less resilient cow herd when times get tough,” says Lalman.

Take it back to the basics of knowing your finances, resources and goals to select cows and bulls that will produce profitable progeny for your operation.

Lalman’s final thought to share with ranchers is, “I encourage people with a priority breeding objective to control cow cost to use AI sires or bloodlines with high accuracy for these two traits. And for them to encourage their seedstock suppliers to collect these phenotypes and turn them into the breed associations. Over time, this will improve commercial producers’ ability to control cow cost and improve cow efficiency.”

Listen to the full conversation on the Casual Cattle Conversations podcast.

Your next read: Iowa Cattle Operation Turns Focus To The Future, Invests In Fall Feedyard Expansion

Purdue University Researches Benefits of Fatty Acids Found in Meat

Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:12:41 GMT

The impact of arachidonic acid, an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat found only in animal products, upon human health remains mostly misunderstood, according to an article released by Purdue University. Researchers aim to study the subject further.

Led by James Markworth , assistant professor of animal sciences , the team will carefully test the health effects of omega-6 in laboratory experiments. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture , will fund the research and the experiments will clarify which omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil and seafood are responsible for yielding their health benefits.

“These polyunsaturated fatty acids are essential because you need to acquire them through the diet,” Markworth says. “They can’t be made in the body. And in particular it’s the long-chain versions, which are found in products of animal or marine origin, that are thought to potentially influence human health.”

Both omega-3 and omega-6 are long-chain, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and some of these fatty acids are also essential fatty acids.

The long-chain omega-6 fat arachidonic acid is found only in meat, poultry and eggs. “You can’t get it from vegetable sources, and you can’t get it from fish. We think that these nutrients found in meat and poultry products might have similar benefits as, say, fish oil or fish products. And that’s something you don’t hear very often,” Markworth says.

Previous research has well established that fish oil fatty acids have metabolic benefits. But which fatty acids convey those benefits and how remains unclear. The major ones are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Collaborating with Markworth on the project are: Tzu-Wen Cross in the College of Health and Human Sciences , along with Tim Johnson and Kolapo Ajuwon , both in the College of Agriculture ’s Department of Animal Sciences .

“What we’re suggesting is when you eat these lipids in the diet or dietary supplements, the systemic response your body has might depend on the resident microbes first encountered in the gastrointestinal tract,” Markworth says. “And we’re proposing that the systemic response is largely mediated by the effect on the skeletal muscle.”

Markworth notes the skeletal muscle determines metabolic health, obesity and diabetes as it is the largest site of glucose disposal and insulin sensitivity.

Read more here .

Birdshot in Beef: A Hidden Defect

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:36 GMT

Birdshot or shotgun shell pellets have been found and reported in the beef supply since the first National Beef Quality Audit in the early 1990s, and the incidence of this foreign material in the beef we produce is not subsiding. In fact, the opposite might be true.

According to the 2022 National Beef Quality Audit, birdshot is a problem, with 100% of packing plants reporting buckshot/birdshot in beef from market cows and bulls. There are roughly 28 categories of items documented each year as foreign material in beef carcasses. Most of those items are found once to 15 times each on an annual basis and consist of large and easily identifiable objects. Birdshot, however, is found around 105 times a year and well over two times the rate of any other foreign object.

For context, if a ground beef processor makes 5 million ground beef patties each day, a defect rate of 1% would lead to 50,000 patties of wasted beef. A defect rate of 0.1% is 5,000 patties. A single incidence of birdshot found in the processing lines cost $10,000 in lost product and downtime. Why so much? If one pellet makes it through the grinder, it might have been sheared into numerous pieces that are barely detectable.

Bottomline: Hunters are not causing this problem — there are people out there handling their cattle with shotguns. This is not only poor animal handling, but also inhumane. Buckshot will not bounce off cattle and somehow go away. No matter how stupid or waspy cows and bulls might act, they should not be shot intentionally or by accident.

We need everyone on board to get the message out in producer meetings, educational programming and word of mouth. If we focus on promoting the right way mentality of Beef Quality Assurance, we can make a difference. Ultimately, birdshot, needles, darts and other foreign objects in beef are a food safety issue. Any abuse of animals is not acceptable, and shotguns are not a cattle handling tool. This needs to stop!

References:

A Black Spot in the Cattle Industry that’s Impossible to Chew. Jason Duggin, UGA Beef Extension Specialist. Michaela Clowser, NCBA’s Director of Producer Education. Dr. Patty Scharko, Clemson Extension Veterinarian.

Right Way. Right Time. A Guide to Cull Cattle Management. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

The Beef Quality Assurance Team and OSU Cooperative Extension Service hosted a hands-on workshop to share the latest knowledge will soon be available through your local county OSU extension office.

North American Cattle Groups Advocate for Oversight of Lab-Grown Proteins, Beef Imports

Fri, 17 May 2024 17:10:37 GMT

Leaders of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas (CNOG), and Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) signed a joint statement to continue advocating for greater oversight of emerging lab-grown proteins, protecting cattle from animal diseases, and promoting the sustainability of the cattle industry. This action builds on the recent statement signing with Cattle Australia and furthers the international partnerships between cattle producers.

“The signing of this joint statement is an important step that unites cattle producers across North America and around the world to promote and protect efficient cattle production,” said NCBA President and Wyoming rancher Mark Eisele.

Following the joint statement signing, NCBA, CNOG, and CCA also signed a letter addressed to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, Secretaria de Economía Raquel Buenrostro Sanchez, and Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development Mary Ng urging the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments to re-engage in opening markets for beef exports and provide stronger science-based oversight of beef imports. Unfortunately, the three governments have expanded market access for beef imports while providing little opportunities for beef exports. If this continues, it will place North American cattle producers at a competitive disadvantage to other beef producers, including South America.

“I am also pleased that American, Mexican, and Canadian cattle producers are standing together to hold our trade partners accountable. For the United States, we have significant concerns that Brazil continues to have access to the U.S. market even though they have a repeated history of failing to disclose animal health concerns, including cases of atypical BSE,” Eisele added. “We continue urging our respective governments to protect the beef supply by blocking Brazilian imports. We are pleased to be partners on these issues and act as the voice of cattle farmers and ranchers to our respective governments.”

NCBA has previously raised concerns with Brazil’s access to the American market due to the country’s failure to report cases of atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a timely manner to the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). These atypical cases occur spontaneously, but countries are required to report any cases within 24 hours to WOAH. The United States has upheld the 24 hour requirement continuously, but Brazil has often delayed reporting cases from anywhere between 35 days and nearly 2 years . That lack of transparency increases the risk to food safety and makes Brazil an unreputable trading partner.

The letter and joint statement were signed at the CNOG 2024 convention in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico by NCBA President Mark Eisele, CNOG President Sr. Homero García de la Llata, and CCA President Nathan Phinney.
View the statement here.

View the letter to U.S., Mexican, and Canadian trade officials here.

Producers to Be Paid Grid Premiums for AngusLinkSM Beef Scores

Thu, 09 May 2024 18:28:32 GMT

The American Angus Association®; National Beef Packing Co., LLC; IMI Global; and U.S. Premium Beef, LLC announces new grid premiums to take effect in August and December, based on genetic merit data.

For the first time, cattlemen can earn grid premiums based on the genetic merit of their cattle, stemming from their investment in superior genetics. National Beef Packing Co., LLC (NBP) announces the addition of new premiums on their U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (USPB) grid for qualified cattle based on their AngusLinkSM Genetic Merit ScorecardSM (GMS). AngusLinkSM value-added programs are administered by the American Angus Association® in partnership with IMI Global.

Effective for cattle harvested Aug. 5, a grid premium of $5 per head will be paid for cattle with a Beef Score of 100 or greater on the AngusLinkSM GMS. This will be exclusively available for cattle marketed through USPB and delivered to NBP plant locations in Liberal and Dodge City, Kansas.

On Dec. 1, a second grid premium, $10 per head for cattle with a GMS Beef Score of 150 or greater, will take effect. Those scoring 100-149 will continue to receive the $5/head premium. These premiums will be in addition to all other premiums and discounts available based on grading and carcass performance.

“National Beef is pleased to offer U.S. Premium Beef members this grid premium and new program in cooperation with the American Angus Association,” said Chad Barker, vice president of cattle procurement with NBP. “We’re excited to be adding another chapter to our history of creating innovative ways to reward producers for high-quality cattle.”

Mark Gardiner of Gardiner Angus Ranch and chairman of the USPB board of directors said this announcement is revolutionary, and he hopes it will inspire others to feed better beef through supporting advancements in genetics.

“This is revolutionary from the standpoint that there has never been a grid incentive based upon genetic merit,” Gardiner said. “We’re very thankful for National Beef and U.S. Premium Beef recognizing the value of genetics as identified by the AngusLink program.”

Brian Bertelsen, USPB vice president of field operations said, “For over 26 years, the USPB value-based grid has rewarded cattle that excel in carcass quality. This new program is an incentive for cattle feeders who market on the USPB grid to seek out and buy feeder cattle that are genetically designed to not only excel in carcass traits, but also growth and efficiency.”

The GMS objectively describes performance potential across four areas using a range from 0 to 200, with the industry average being 100. Beef Score predicts genetic potential for feedlot performance and carcass value and is calculated using the Association database and genetic information on sires and the cow herd.

“This is a significant step for the industry and speaks to the continued evolution of value-based marketing,” said Mark McCully, CEO of the Association. “National Beef understands the importance of genetics and is directly rewarding producers for their investment.”

USPB also said the third-party verification provided by IMI Global was a key factor in the decision to move forward with these plans.

Doug Stanton, senior vice president of sales and business development with IMI Global, said, “This new value-added opportunity rewards commercial cow-calf producers for the superior Angus genetics they have developed over the years in their operations. The Genetic Merit Scorecard values, along with third-party Age and Source verification, provide a complete package of product predictability and traceability to the beef industry and our loyal consumers.”

Cattle will need to qualify with their GMS Beef Score at least two weeks before harvesting. Most cattle currently receive a GMS prior to leaving their ranch of origin.

In addition, USPB is instituting a $1 per head premium, effective May 13, for each low-frequency EID tag that is read and assigned to a carcass ID number within each lot. No minimum number of tags will be required within a lot.

There is no additional cost associated with the GMS program, aside from IMI Global’s Age and Source verification enrollment, which includes an EID tag.

Troy Marshall, director of commercial industry relations with the Association, said the timing of the announcement is beneficial for cow-calf producers.

(Farm Journal)

“Not only will previously enrolled cattle be eligible starting the first part of August; but as we enter the summer video sale season, it will also provide an additional incentive and additional buyers for those cattle selling with the GMS,” he said. “Cow-calf producers will have the opportunity to enroll and take advantage of this program with this year’s calf crop. The investment in time and money to enroll in AngusLink is extremely small and the ROI is growing exponentially as the market continues to embrace the scorecard.”

To qualify for the GMS, sires must be predominantly (50% or more) registered Angus and 75% of the bull battery must be registered.

“Obviously, this is a transformative change, but the real impact will be longer term,” Marshall said. “This is a big step forward in rewarding producers for investing in genetics and will help to facilitate information flow and feedback between the segments of our business.”

Bertelsen also said feeders can lease USPB delivery rights, when available, to market cattle through USPB. Those interested should please call USPB at 866-877-2525 or visit www.uspremiumbeef.com for more information.

For questions about the GMS or AngusVerifiedSM, call 816-383-5100, or contact AngusLinkSM via email at anguslink@angus.org. IMI Global can also be reached to help start an enrollment at 303-895-3002, or producers can complete its contact form to get started at //www.imiglobal.com/contact.

Florida Becomes First State to Ban the Sale of Lab-Grown Meat

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:26:14 GMT

The first bill banning lab-grown meat was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on May 1. According to SB 1084, the bill prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, holding or offering for sale, or distribution of cultivated meat in the state.

In a press conference in Hardee County, which is one of the top five cattle-producing counties in the state, the Governor spoke about the importance of supporting rural economies and agriculture.

“We’re fighting back against an ideology that ultimately wants to eliminate meat production in the U.S. and around the globe,” DeSantis said. “In the state of Florida we’ve put down the marker very clearly; we stand with agriculture. We stand with the cattle ranchers. We stand with our farmers because we understand it’s important for the backbone of the state. It’s important for our culture. It’s important for our heritage so the bill that I’m going to sign today is going to say basically take your fake, lab-grown meat elsewhere. We’re not doing that in the state of Florida.”

Joining the Governor during the conference were Wilton Simpson, commissioner of agriculture; Dale Carlton, president-elect of the Florida Cattlemen’s Association; Pat Durden, president of the Florida Cattlemen’s Association; and Sen. Jay Collins who worked on the bill.

In his remarks, Simpson said that food security is national security.

“It doesn’t always rise to the height of national security, but think about if there were no groceries just for one week in the grocery store, you would have total chaos in this country, and if that’s not national security, I don’t know what it is,” he said. “We get up every day thinking how can we have the most safe, affordable, abundant food anywhere in the world, and Florida is going to do its share of growing that product. We work hard every day to give our farmers the tools they need to accomplish these things.”

Both cattlemen expressed appreciation for the Governor and the legislature for protecting Florida’s cattle industry by signing this bill.

There has been an ongoing debate across the country in regard to cultivated meat products. Currently, lab-grown meat is only approved to be sold in the U.S. and Singapore. Italy was the first country in the EU to ban lab-grown meat, a decision made in February 2024.

Ground Beef Tests Negative for H5N1, says USDA-APHIS

Thu, 02 May 2024 15:46:16 GMT

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced results from testing 30 samples of ground beef on Thursday, showing that all were negative for H5N1.

The agency made the announcement on its website, available for review here .

USDA-FSIS said it collected the samples from “states with dairy cattle herds that had tested positive for the H5N1 influenza virus at the time of sample collection. The samples were sent to APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for PCR testing.”

PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction. Such testing is done to identify the presence or absence of human pathogens in food. Common pathogens routinely tested for in food include E. coli and Salmonella, for instance. In the ground beef study, no virus particles were found to be present.

The USDA said it is working on two additional beef safety studies. According to the information posted online, these include:

1. Beef muscle sampling of cull dairy cows condemned at select FSIS-inspected slaughter facilities: FSIS is currently collecting muscle samples at FSIS-inspected slaughter facilities of cull dairy cattle that have been condemned for systemic pathologies. The samples will be analyzed by APHIS using PCR to determine presence of viral particles. The results are forthcoming and will be posted as soon as they become available.

2. Ground beef cooking study: ARS will be conducting a beef cooking study and will be using a virus surrogate in ground beef and cooking it at different temperatures to determine log-reduction of the virus. The results will be posted as soon as they become available.

The agency said the results from both studies will be posted as soon as they become available.

Beef Quality News

Fat Matters: How Back Fat Impacts Bull Fertility

BSE Impact

Performance and ADG

Minimizing Shrink to Maximize Profit

Taking Stock For Disasters: Developing A Large Animal Preparedness Plan

The Threat Of Wind, Water And Wildfires

Thinking Ahead

Emergency Kit Preparation

Pre- And Post-Disaster Resources

Open Heifers Explained: What You Need to Consider to Increase Preg Rates

Consumer Trust: A Veterinarian’s Role

1,500-lb. Carcasses the New Normal, Not the Exception

Is the U.S. Behind?

Young Producer Focus

Other Key Topics

Exploring Next-Generation Phenotyping that Drives Commercial Profitability

Investing in the Future: Cargill Announces $90-Million Investment in Automation and Technology

3 Factors Fueling Americans' Obsession with Protein

Ionophores Explained: How They Enhance Livestock Gain

How do ionophores work?

Urgency in Action: We Must Eradicate New World Screwworm

Nalivka: Herd Rebuilding – A Weighty Financial Decision

Pig Fat Cell Production Could Transform Lab-Grown Meat

Unlocking Success with Cow Herd Health Metrics: A Scorecard Approach

Enhancing Meat Quality Through Management Decisions Pre-Calving

University of Illinois Partnership Helps Solve Critical Need to Develop Food Animal Veterinarians

U.S. Imports of Mexican Cattle Disrupted

7 Ways to Help Beef Producers Evaluate Potential Replacement Heifers

Cull Cows – Should They Stay or Should They Go? And When Should They Go?

Beef Production and Fall Beef Demand

The Truth About Mature Cow Size and Ranch Profitability

Purdue University Researches Benefits of Fatty Acids Found in Meat

Birdshot in Beef: A Hidden Defect

North American Cattle Groups Advocate for Oversight of Lab-Grown Proteins, Beef Imports

Producers to Be Paid Grid Premiums for AngusLinkSM Beef Scores

Florida Becomes First State to Ban the Sale of Lab-Grown Meat

Ground Beef Tests Negative for H5N1, says USDA-APHIS