Feeder

Rust in the Ration: How to Combat Southern Rust’s Impact on Corn Silage

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:04:47 GMT

With the warm and wet conditions this season, southern rust is on the rise in Midwest corn crops. It may be time to start considering the impact that could have on corn silage and preparing to adjust rations accordingly. While southern rust is not a direct threat to herd health, it has been shown to lower the nutritional value of silage and can compromise feed quality.

Southern rust, a fast-developing fungal disease caused by Puccinia polysora, does not itself produce toxins, but it weakens the plant and provides the opportunity for other diseases to move in. These opportunists include various Furasium species, which produce mycotoxins (fumonisin and deoxynivalenol) that can be harmful in feed.

Southern Rust and Corn Silage Quality

Southern rust is known to impact corn silage quality. A study from the University of Florida showed increasing rust infestation resulted in increased dry matter and fiber fractions, but that dry matter digestibility decreased by 13%. Further, high rust silages had lower neutral detergent fiber digestibilities than medium and no rust silages. Southern rust also affected the concentrations of lactate and volatile fatty acids, causing both to decrease with increasing infestation. These results indicate decreased nutritive value.

The observed increased dry matter also reduced silo packing effectiveness. If moisture levels are too low at harvest, it is difficult to achieve adequate packing, which leads to poor fermentation and an increased risk of mold growth.

Because southern rust coverage reduces the photosynthetic area of the leaf, grain fill is often hindered, leading to a lower energy and protein content in the silage.

Southern Rust Silage Management

There are a handful of strategies producers can apply to counteract the effects of southern rust:

Adjust harvest time based on moisture content. Southern rust can cause corn to dry down faster than normal. Monitor moisture levels closely to ensure the proper fermentation of silage.
Consider a silage inoculant. Inoculants improve fermentation, and the rapid pH drop can inhibit mold and yeast growth.
Ensure good packing and storage. Pack silage well to limit oxygen exposure and prevent mold growth. Cover bunkers immediately and weigh down coverings thoroughly.

Feeding Southern Rust Silage

To counter the nutritional challenges of feeding southern rust-infected corn silage, dietary supplementation may be necessary.

Prior to inclusion, test all potentially infected silage for mycotoxins. This will allow you to determine the safety of the feed and avoid potential health issues. If mycotoxins are high, the incorporation of a mycotoxin binding agent into the ration will help reduce toxin absorption in the animal’s digestive tract. Additionally, supplementation with antioxidants, such as vitamin E and selenium, could help animals by countering oxidative stress caused by mycotoxins and supporting immune function.

If grain fill was affected and starch levels are low, you may need to incorporate an additional energy course to compensate. Further, poor grain fill could reduce the already low protein content of corn silage, and protein supplementation may be required.

When incorporating infected silage, ensure it is thoroughly mixed into the TMR to dilute potential ‘hot spots’. Inclusion levels of contaminated silage in the feed may need to be limited or removed entirely for sensitive animals, including lactating or breeding animals. Livestock should be monitored closely for symptoms of mycotoxin toxicity, such as reduced intake, weight loss, digestive issues or reproductive challenges. Be prepared to respond if issues arise.

When feeding corn silage infected with southern rust, caution is essential to protect livestock health and performance. The thoughtful use of compromised silage can help minimize risk while maintaining efficiency and animal well-being.

Your next read: Southern Rust Set To Take Big Bite Out Of Midwest Corn Crop?

Texas A&M Researchers Study Diet’s Impact On Salmonella Prevalence In Cattle

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 15:29:16 GMT

Salmonella is one of the leading causes of foodborne illnesses in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and can spread to people from a variety of foods, including beef. Understanding how and why cattle become infected with Salmonella is an important part of fighting this major public health concern.

Researchers at the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) are addressing this problem from a new angle by studying how diet and feeding schedule impact Salmonella infections in cattle.

Their recent study , published in the American Society for Microbiology’s Microbiology Spectrum journal, found that high-starch diets can potentially lower Salmonella prevalence in cattle, especially within the lymph nodes — organs that are often embedded in fat trims included in ground beef products.

“Lymph nodes may be present in fat trimmings that are used to balance lean-to-fat ratios in ground beef products,” says Yesica Botero, a fourth-year biomedical sciences doctorate student. “This is a food safety concern because Salmonella can hide inside lymph nodes, where surface cleaning or treatments do not reach. As a result, it can still be present in ground beef.”

Feedyard cattle are typically fed a high-energy, grain-based diet designed to promote rapid growth and efficient weight gain.

Understanding the role that a high-starch diet potentially plays in reducing Salmonella prevalence could have major impacts on the beef cattle industry, providing ranchers with new options for controlling the spread of bacteria within their herds.

Taking A New Approach

The Texas A&M project was designed to study feedlot cattle that Dr. Kendall Samuelson, from West Texas A&M University, was examining in a separate project to see whether high-starch diets and feeding schedules impact liver abscess formation.

“We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to the presence and distribution of salmonella in feedlot cattle,” said Dr. Gizem Levent , a VMBS assistant professor in the Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences . “There aren’t many studies focusing on understanding how diet and management changes impact Salmonella.”

Botero and Levent took samples of feces, hides, lymph nodes and soil from Samuelson’s cattle pens over a period of more than seven months. They found that while there was little difference in Salmonella populations between cattle with scheduled versus erratic feedings, the level of starch in the diet made a notable impact.

“We saw a reduction in Salmonella, especially in the lymph nodes, when cattle were fed a high-starch diet,” Botero says. “High-starch diets typically cause a lower pH in the rumen, which may be what reduces Salmonella prevalence in the gastrointestinal tract and, subsequently, in lymph nodes.

“Findings from Dr. Samuelson’s original study suggested that high-starch diets may also correlate with a higher incidence of liver abscesses,” she says. “This is something we would like to explore further in upcoming studies by testing different starch concentrations in the diet to find one that does not harm cattle health — such as by increasing the risk of liver abscesses — but still helps lower Salmonella levels.”

Continuing The Investigation

In addition to studying how different levels of starch impact liver abscesses and Salmonella, Levent and Botero are planning to dive even deeper into the data to study the specific serotypes, or genetic profiles of Salmonella, observed in their samples.

“We want to do a follow-up study with more in-depth analysis of the dynamics of the Salmonella population,” Botero says. “By looking at the genetic profiles, we can better understand which serotypes are present, how they might respond to antibiotics, and whether they carry genes that make them more likely to survive or spread in the environment.”

Fortunately, what they have seen so far from the feedlot samples does not indicate a high presence of Salmonella or serotypes resistant to antibiotics.

“The overall Salmonella population found was not resistant to antibiotics of public health concern, which is good news for public health,” Levent said. “But we will definitely keep screening for resistance so that we can better understand what makes resistant populations exist in the environment.”

Breaking News: Mexican Ports to Reopen in Phases for Cattle Trade Starting July 7

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 19:28:22 GMT

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced today a risk-based phased port re-openings for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7.

The announcement is following the extensive collaboration between USDA–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) experts and their counterparts in Mexico to increase New World screwworm (NWS) surveillance, detection and eradication efforts. The port reopening timeline is:

Douglas, Ariz. – July 7
Columbus, N.M. – July 14
Santa Teresa, N.M. – July 21
Del Rio, Texas – Aug. 18
Laredo, Texas – Sept. 15

After each reopening, USDA will evaluate to ensure no adverse effects arise.

Progress Being Made to Stop Progress of NWS

According to USDA, progress has been made in several critical areas since the ports were closed on May 11 , including:

Resolution of challenges with conducting flights in Mexico that has allowed the team to consistently conduct sterile NWS fly dispersal seven days each week
Dispersal of more than 100 million flies each week
USDA sent five APHIS teams to visit, observe and gain a deeper understanding of Mexico’s NWS response. The APHIS teams were allowed the opportunity to share feedback.

USDA says there has not been a notable increase in reported NWS cases in Mexico, nor any northward movement of NWS over the past eight weeks.

“At USDA we are focused on fighting the New World screwworm’s advancement in Mexico. We have made good progress with our counterparts in Mexico to increase vital pest surveillance efforts and have boosted sterile fly dispersal efforts. These quick actions by the Trump Administration have improved the conditions to allow the phased reopening of select ports on the Southern Border to livestock trade,” Rollins says. “We are continuing our posture of increased vigilance and will not rest until we are sure this devastating pest will not harm American ranchers.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says it supports the plan to strategically reopen key ports of entry.

“NCBA and our state affiliates have spent months working with USDA to safeguard the U.S. cattle industry from the threat of New World screwworm. We strongly support USDA’s five-pronged plan to fight the screwworm, which includes bolstering sterile fly production by renovating a facility in Metapa, Mexico, and by building a new fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in south Texas,” says NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “Today’s announcement to reopen key ports of entry is a measured, thoughtful approach by Secretary Rollins to allow some trade while also ensuring the American cattle industry is protected from this pest.”

While the Douglas, Ariz., port presents the lowest risk based upon the geography of Sonora and a long history of effective collaboration between APHIS and Sonora on animal health issues, USDA intends to reopen additional ports in New Mexico, and if it is proven safe to do so, in Texas, over the coming weeks. Additional port openings will be based on APHIS’ continuous reevaluation of the number of cases and potential northward movement of NWS, Mexico’s continued efforts to curb illegal animal movements, and implementation of further rigorous inspection and treatment protocols.

“We trust Secretary Rollins made this decision with the latest information from USDA staff in Mexico, and we know she will continue holding her counterparts in the Mexican government accountable for eradicating screwworm,” Woodall adds. “NCBA and our state affiliate partners will continue working with USDA and key members of Congress to protect the United States from New World screwworm.”

Continuing Efforts

USDA is working with Mexico’s National Department of Health, Food Safety and Food Quality (SENASICA) on outreach, education and training efforts to raise awareness and put producers on high alert about NWS, along with utilizing their well-functioning central laboratory for diagnosing cases. While Mexico has made great progress on animal movement controls and surveillance, additional progress will help ensure the remaining U.S. ports reopen. Enhanced animal movement controls to stem illegal animal movements from the south, along with robust surveillance and NWS risk mitigations beyond check points will be critical in pushing back NWS. APHIS technical teams continue to engage with SENASICA to improve the overall NWS posture in Mexico and implement the rigorous steps needed to keep this pest away from our border.

Mexico will also begin renovation of its sterile fruit fly facility in Metapa this week, with renovation expected to be completed by July 2026. Renovation of this facility will allow for production of between 60-100 million sterile NWS flies each week. This is a critical step towards reaching the goal of producing the estimated 400-500 million flies each week needed to re-establish the NWS barrier at the Darien Gap.

Only cattle and bison, born and raised in Sonora or Chihuahua, or that are treated according to cattle and bison NWS protocol when entering these states, will be eligible for import. See Importing Live Cattle and Bison From Mexico to the United States for more information on cattle and bison import requirements.

In addition, reopening the Del Rio (Aug. 18) and Colombia Bridge (Sept.15) ports will be contingent on Coahuila and Nuevo Leon adopting the same NWS protocols for cattle and bison as those now required of Sonora and Chihuahua for cattle or bison entering those states.

Equine may import from anywhere in Mexico. They require a seven-day quarantine at the port of entry and must import in accordance with the equine NWS protocol and other requirements detailed on USDA APHIS | Import Horses from Mexico webpage . Approved equine facilities are available at the Santa Teresa, N.M., port and will be available for entry of horses when that port is reopened.

In May 2025, USDA suspended imports of live cattle, bison, and equines from Mexico into the U.S. due to the continued and rapid northward spread of NWS. During the weeks of June 2 and June 16, teams of APHIS experts conducted robust onsite assessments of Mexico’s NWS response efforts to fully reassess the risk of NWS incursions to the U.S. posed by importation of Mexican cattle across our southern border.

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

Rotating Ionophores to Increase Gain

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 22:11:06 GMT

Ionophores like monensin, lasalocid and laidlomycin, have been readily used within the U.S. and a recent research study by Haley Larson, assistant professor of animal health at K-State Olathe, found rotating through different molecules could provide added gain benefits.

“They have a multitude of functions,” says Larson of ionophores, which are molecules that inhibit growth of certain bacteria. “They help control or prevent coccidiosis, and they also have some improvements on feed to gain.”

Benefits of Ionophores

While technically an antibiotic, ionophores do not fall under the veterinary feed directive as they are not used in human medicine. Thus can be used for the promotion of gain and feed efficiency of livestock.

Within the U.S., ionophores are labeled for continuous feeding, which the FDA defines as at least 14 days.

Larson says in order to have a study that could be easy for producers to replicate, they chose a 28-day feeding period per ionophore. This time frame also gave rumen time to adapt.

“We need to make sure that they have that full adaptation to one ionophore before you introduce the next one to shift that population in a different direction,” Larson says.

Ionophores work by inhibiting or killing certain types of bacteria in the rumen, which changes the rumen microbial population.

“We get a shift in the fermentation profile and the end products of fermentation that are produced that then, in turn, makes the animal more efficient,” explains Phillip Lancaster, K-State professor of cattle nutrition.

The idea behind rotating them would be to shift the microbial population and determine if there was a synergistic effect of using two different products or molecules on that efficiency of rumen fermentation, Lancaster adds.

Study background

The study was conducted in a commercial yard in southwest Kansas on heifers who were limit-fed for a targeted 3-lb. ADG on a growing ration. Monensin and laidlomycin were rotated through twice each on a 112-day growing period.

“We found that those heifers that were on the rotation had an 8.6% improvement in gain over their monensin-only counterparts,” Larson says.

She is continuing to analyze the data, also looking at methane production from rotating molecules as well.

To hear more of the conversation, listen to the BCI Cattle Chat .

Your Next Read: Time to Redefine Yield Prices: Today We’re Paying For Weight, Not Value

Rollins Rolls Out 5-Point Plan to Contain New World Screwworm

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:02:02 GMT

Today Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced a five-pronged plan to combat New World screwworm (NWS) – a pest that would devastate ranchers if it made its way across the border.

Rollins made her announcement at the Moore Air Base facility near Edinburg, Texas. Moore was instrumental as a sterile fly production lab to rid the U.S. of NWS in the 1960s and 1970s. Hundreds of millions of flies were reared, sterilized with radiation and dropped from aircraft to eliminate the parasitic pest that preyed upon wildlife and livestock. According to a USDA spokesperson it will cost an estimated $8.5 million to get the base up and running as a distribution facility.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this morning launched an $8.5 million sterile New World screwworm (NWS) fly dispersal facility in South Texas and announced a plan to enhance USDA’s already robust ability to detect, control, and eliminate this pest.

(U.S. Department of Agriculture)

According to the Texas Wildlife Association , there are currently more than 1,800 cases of livestock infestation in southern Mexico. The flies are moving north and are currently 600 miles from the south Texas border.

“We have defeated the screwworm before, and we will do it again,” Rollins says.

Here in McAllen, TX to announce a BOLD 5-pronged plan to combat the deadly parasite called New World Screwworm – which would devastate ranchers if it made its way across the border.

We are protecting producers, strengthening biosecurity, and ALWAYS standing up for American… pic.twitter.com/VHOlqZyZ9a
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) June 18, 2025

Her five-pronged plan to combat NWS includes:

Stop the pest from spreading in Mexico.
Rollins plans to continue partnering with her Mexican counterparts and using sterile insect technology to stop the spread. This includes investing $21 million to produce up to 100 million additional sterile flies weekly.

“We are first enhancing the international sterile fly production and investing $21 million in renovation of an existing fly facility in southern Mexico, which will provide up to 100 million additional sterile flies every week to stop the spread,” Rollins says.

Currently, the only sterile fly facility is located in Panama. It’s jointly run by the Panamanian government and the U.S. government. USDA had previously announced its plan to invest in the retrofiting of a fruit fly facility in Chiapas, Mexico, to produce additional sterile flies.

According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association , “The Chiapas facility produces about 117 million flies per week, but to form an effective barrier along the U.S. southern border, we need upward of 300 million sterile flies per week.”
Protect the U.S. at all costs.
Rollins temporarily closed the southern border to live animal imports and intercepting illegally introduced livestock. USDA is working closely with Mexico to improve surveillance.

“I do believe we have met and moved into a new era of productive partnership —perhaps better than ever before — with our Mexican counterparts,” Rollins says.
Maximize our readiness.
This will be achieved by partnering with state animal health officials to update emergency management plans and stockpile therapeutics for ranchers.
Take the fight to the screwworm.
The domestic fight includes establishing a sterile fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base. Rollins says they are exploring options for building a domestic production facility at Moore that could produce up to 300 million sterile flies per week.

“We can’t get a brand new facility up and running probably before two or three years. So, that’s why we’ve got to really focus on the today,” Rollins explains.

She also announced USDA will be hosting listening sessions in affected areas starting next week.
Innovate Our Way to Eradication.
Leverage the sound science including USDA’s Agriculture Research Service (ARS) to continue to quickly develop novel treatments, preventatives and response strategies. Rollins says this includes working with land grant universities in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. She listed these key strategies during the press conference:
- Develop better fly traps and lures
- Provide local training
- Improve surveillance methods
- Create new response strategies

Nearly 80 lawmakers led by House Ag Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) sent a bipartisan letter on Tuesday to Rollins urging immediate action and promising congressional support for the significant funding required.

The letter included this message, “When looking solely at the historical impact of NWS in Texas, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) estimates a contemporary outbreak would cost producers $732 million per year and the Texas economy a loss of $1.8 billion. Extrapolating those results to the states within the historic range of NWS pre-eradication, a contemporary outbreak of NWS could cost producers $4.3 billion per year and cause a total economic loss of more than $10.6 billion. This does not account for the possible expansion of NWS beyond the historic range.”

U.S. Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) was at the announcement and recently shared in a letter to Rollins these key advantages of the Moore Air Base location:

Border proximity: The proximity to the border with Mexico is crucial for effective monitoring and control of potential incursions of invasive fly species. A facility in this region would allow for rapid response and containment, minimizing the spread of infestations into the U.S.
Existing agricultural infrastructure: The region boasts a robust agricultural sector with established infrastructure and expertise in livestock management. This existing framework would facilitate efficient integration of the sterile fly facility and streamline its operations. Additionally, Moore Air Base has operations runways equipped to distribute sterile flies.
Strategic location: Moore Air Base offers a central location for distribution of sterile flies to other areas in the southern U.S., if such a need arises. Additionally, this base was the site of a facility used in the 1960s to successfully combat NWS.
Economic impact: The establishment of such a facility would provide valuable economic opportunities for the region by generating jobs and stimulating local economies.

U.S. Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) summarized at the announcement, “This is important to the whole country. We are going to be aggressive about this, and we are going to make sure that we don’t get screwed by the screwworm.”

Your Next Read: Urgency in Action: We Must Eradicate New World Screwworm

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

Nalivka: The Cost of Running Cows and Your Breakeven Price

Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:30:43 GMT

Decisions up and down the beef supply chain evolve around calculating costs and breakeven prices. That calculation in the feedlot involves the cost of feeder cattle plus the cost of gain divided by the finished weight to generate the breakeven price. The cost of feeder cattle, on average, accounts for about 67% of the total cost. When herds are liquidated and followed by subsequent tight cattle numbers and high feeder prices, that percentage increases. Since mid-2023, it has averaged 74% while the feedlot breakeven for the same period has averaged $180/cwt. This compares to the tight cattle numbers from mid-2014 to 2015 when the cost of feeder cattle averaged 76% of total cost with a coinciding breakeven of $150/cwt. It is no secret that the cost of feeder cattle has the greatest impact on the feedlot breakeven.

If you retain ownership of your calves, the current market for the weight of your cattle is your opportunity cost of retaining ownership and feeding those cattle versus selling them. The decision you make to own those cattle in the feedlot or to sell them is your consideration of the risk and how your capacity to manage that risk at that point —financially and otherwise.

Coming back to the ranch, this discussion of feedlot breakeven price is also an important consideration for decision-making. While it is straight-forward to calculate feedlot breakeven, it is just as important, though perhaps not as straight-forward, to know your breakeven price at the ranch for those calves. Furthermore, it may not seem imperative to know your breakeven and manage costs in a record-high market that is giving most ranchers plenty of financial breathing room. However, this is an ideal time to build a solid analysis and understanding of your business costs. Your breakeven cost may surprise you!

I know it is easy to become tired of hearing that you need to know your ranch costs in detail. However, as with any business, it is important if you are to manage market risk, and it does not have to be a difficult project. It begins with tracking your primary costs of production, i.e., fuel, labor, feed. Divide those costs by the pounds of beef produced on your ranch and you have a great start.

Your next read: Keep BVD Out of Cattle Herd

A Review of Feedlot Structure and 2024 Marketings

Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:11:18 GMT

The latest USDA-NASS Cattle on Feed report pegged the Feb. 1 feedlot inventory at 11.716 million head in feedlots with 1,000+ capacity, down 0.7% year over year. January marketings were 101.4% of one year ago and placements were 101.7% of last year. The report was well anticipated with values close to pre-report estimates.

The February report also contained a summary of 2024 feedlot production and the structure of the feedlot industry coming into 2025. The total U.S. feedlot inventory on Jan. 1, 2025 was 14.297 million head, including 2.474 million head in feedlots with capacity less than 1,000 head (Table 1). Since cattle inventories peaked in the mid-1970s, feedlot inventories have represented a growing percentage of cattle inventories (Figure 1). Feedlot inventories represented 16.5% of total cattle inventories on Jan. 1, 2025, down fractionally from the peak of 16.6 percent last year.

(USDA/Peel)

Table 1 shows the size distribution of feedlots and their contribution to total feedlot production. A total of 2105 feedlots with capacity of 1,000+ head (included in monthly Cattle on Feed reports) accounted for 82.7% of the Jan. 1 feedlot inventory and 87.2% of total feedlot production in 2024. A total of 24,000 feedlots with less than 1,000 head capacity accounted for 17.3% of feedlot inventory on Jan. 1 and 12.8% of total feedlot marketings in 2024. Feedlots with capacity over 50,000 head made up 3.8% of feedlots over 1,000 head capacity but accounted for 34.8% of inventory and 35.1% marketings last year. Over 50% of feedlot inventories on Jan. 1 and annual marketings in 2024 were in feedlots over 32,000 head of capacity, 6.9 percent of feedlots with 1000+ head.

Table 1. Feedlot Size Distribution, Inventory and Marketings.

Feedlot Capacity	Feedlots	% of Feedlots >1000 Hd.	Inventory Jan. 1, 2025	% of Total Inventory	Marketings 2024	% of Total Marketings
Head	Number		1,000 Head		1,000 Head
<1,000	24,000		2,473.7	17.3	3,180.0	12.8

1,000 – 1,999	740	35.5	363.0	2.5	610.0	2.5
2,000 – 3,999	530	25.2	630.0	4.4	1,220.0	4.9
4,000 – 7,999	370	27.6	930.0	6.5	1,790.0	7.2
8,000 – 15,999	190	9.0	1,040.0	7.3	1,990.0	8.0
16,000 – 23,999	85	4.0	940.0	6.6	1,840.0	7.4
24,000 – 31,999	45	2.1	760.0	5.3	1,550.0	6.2
32,000 – 49,999	65	3.1	2,190.0	15.3	3,920.0	15.8
>50,000	80	3.8	4,970.0	34.8	8,720.0	35.1

Subtotal >1,000	2,105		11,823.0	82.7	21,640.0	87.2

Total	26,105		14,296.7		24,820.0

The estimated total feedlot capacity (1,000+ head) on Jan. 1, 2025 was 17.2 million head, up fractionally from the previous year. Total feedlot capacity has not changed significantly in recent years and has averaged 17.13 million head since 2011. Figure 2 shows the Jan. 1 feedlot inventory as a percentage of feedlot capacity.

(USDA/Peel)

The cattle on feed percentage of feedlot capacity on Jan. 1, 2025 was 68.7%, down from 69.8% in 2024 and from the recent peak of 70.4% in 2022. For the past fifteen years, feedlot inventories have averaged 66.7% of the feedlot capacity (red dotted line). The percentage dropped significantly from 2014-2017 during herd expansion. Ever tighter feeder cattle supplies and the prospect of heifer retention for herd rebuilding mean that the percentage is likely to decrease in the future.

Hello Essential Oils and Goodbye Ionophores?

Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:15:56 GMT

Negative public perception and increasing governmental regulations have researchers seeking alternatives to antibiotic use in livestock. Ionophores – an antibiotic that alters rumen microbial populations to increase efficiency – have been temporarily banned in some countries.

If this occurs in the U.S., Kansas State University beef systems specialist Jaymelynn Farney said other feed supplements need to be evaluated to maintain current production levels.

In response to this change in animal husbandry, Farney and her team at the Southeast Agricultural Research Center in Parsons have started examining whether essential oils make a satisfactory substitute for ionophores.

“Some essential oils have similar ruminal effects as ionophores and impacts on feed efficiency, volatile fatty acid production and other efficiency areas,” she said. “We were interested in looking at this in stocker cattle because most of the work has been in feedlots or in vitro.”

Farney used 281 head of blackhided steers split into eight pastures. Four groups received free-choice mineral infused with essential oils, and the others infused with ionophores.

“We found that they performed essentially the same,” she said. “We had a 2.15 lb. average daily gain for ionophores and a 2.13 lb. average daily gain for essential oils over 90 days.”

She added: “The cattle fed ionophores gained 204 pounds total, and the essential oils group put on 203 pounds. Also, both groups had a very similar intake of mineral.”

While metrics like mineral consumption were comparable, the actual cost of the two supplements differed. Farney said the price of Solus – the brand of essential oil examined – calculated to $13.09 per unit while the ionophores cost $14.34.

“We fed a garlic oil product plus the Solus – a proprietary blend of ingredients,” Farney said. “When you open the mineral bag, you smell cinnamon, oregano, lemongrass and capsaicin.”

Outside of determining differences in performance, Farney has also set out to observe changes in functional behavior through GPS ear tags. Researchers noted no differences in the amount of time eating, resting, walking and ruminating. Yet, they saw a trend in slightly elevated heart rates in the animals fed essential oils.

“This was intriguing because many essential oils have been identified and marketed as vasodilators, or substances that allow for easier blood flow,” Farney said. “We’re not sure yet if that means anything to performance, but it was cool to see.”

This study will be conducted annually for four more years as a part of an overarching research project, said Farney. After her team collects the data and comes to conclusions, she hopes their results open a natural marketing avenue for producers.

“One of the big downsides of natural and organic systems is that ranchers have to get paid a significant premium because cattle do not gain as well as without antibiotics (ionophores),” she said. “If you can increase gain and feed a product like an essential oil that could be certified through those marketing schemes, you might get the best of both worlds.”

Farney’s results will be included in the annual research report for K-State’s 112th annual Cattlemen’s Day , set for Mar. 7 at the National Guard Armory in Manhattan.

Registration costs $25 for those who register by Feb. 21 at noon, or $35 on the day of the event. There is no charge for students who pre-register. Registration is available online.

What Four Questions Will Cattle Market Need to Answer in 2025?

Wed, 08 Jan 2025 20:29:13 GMT

Trends are always difficult to ascertain coming out of holiday periods as many markets are closed and volumes tend to be pretty light, but cattle prices have started 2025 very strong. While questions exist on the demand side, tight cattle supplies will remain the primary driver in the new year and should continue to support prices. And as always, weather will have a significant impact on feed and forage availability and cattle marketing patterns. As I write this article in early January, I want to discuss four questions that I think will be important for the 2025 cattle market to answer.

Will we start to see significant heifer retention?
This question has been circulating for the better part of the last two years. There are a lot of reasons why retention has been delayed including weather, production costs and interest rates. But market conditions should be very favorable again and I do think heifer retention could be seen in 2025 if weather cooperates. When heifer retention does pick up, it will further tighten supplies of cattle as those females are held out of the marketing system. This will be the first stage of growing this cowherd, which is currently at a 60+ year low.

Can slaughter weights keep increasing?
Most analysts are forecasting beef production to be lower in 2025. These forecasts are based on continued decreases in cattle numbers and the potential for decreased female harvest in response to high prices. In truth, I could have written this exact same thing last year. But with cattle supplies tight, beef prices high, and feed prices relatively low, cattle were fed longer and to heavier weights. This increase in pounds largely offset the decrease in female slaughter and resulted in steady beef production levels for 2024. I will readily admit that I don’t know how much further weights can be pushed, if at all, but those same factors are largely at play again this year. So, I will be watching harvest weight trends very closely.

Will we see greater than expected growth in pork and poultry production?
Holding everything else constant, lower feed prices increase returns across all livestock species and lead to greater production levels. And production levels of competing meats do impact beef and cattle prices. Recent increases in pork production have been driven almost entirely by productivity, rather than increases in breeding inventory, and increases in broiler production have been running close to the long run trend. I just point this out because production increases can occur much faster in the hog sector than the cattle sector, and faster still in the poultry sector. While there aren’t many indications of expansion in other species currently, this was a factor in 2015, and I think it bears watching in 2025. It is important to remember that beef supplies are not the only factor that impacts beef prices. All proteins compete in the meat case.

What will be the impact of any changes in trade policy?
Trade has been a major topic of discussion recently and I doubt that will change in 2025. Beef exports have been lower in recent years due to tight domestic supplies and high prices, but the U.S. still exported the equivalent of roughly 11% of production last year. In the past, retaliatory tariffs have impacted beef and cattle prices, so it bears watching going forward. It is also important to remember that the nature of beef trade very much depends on the trading partner. For example, we export a lot of beef to Mexico and Canada, but we are also a significant import market for those two countries. And while trade discussions typically focus on beef, a significant number of live cattle enter the U.S. from Mexico and Canada each year. Conversely, over half of U.S. beef exports go to Japan, South Korea and China, but those are almost exclusively export markets. The complexity of each of these trading relationships makes discussion of trade impacts very complex and something that will be interesting to follow this year.

This article was shared by S outhern Ag Today . Kenny Burdine is a University of Kentucky Extension Professor of Agricultural Economics and Livestock Specialist.

Read more: USMEF Looks At Red Meat Trade Opportunities With Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom

Mexican Border is Expected to Open for Feeder Cattle Week of Jan. 20, Sources Say

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

Winter Management Options for Weaned Calves

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:57:07 GMT

Many spring-born calves weaned in the fall are backgrounded through the winter prior to grazing summer grass or feedlot entry. There are many management options to consider for weaned calves depending on feed resources, labor, and subsequent management strategies.

Cornstalk residue and winter range
Cornstalk residue can be a very economical forage resource in the northern Great Plains region. However, both cornstalk residue and dormant winter range can be very low in energy and protein making it necessary to provide some supplement to achieve targeted gains. A research experiment conducted in eastern Nebraska reported a loss of body weight in 500-pound calves receiving only mineral supplementation while grazing cornstalks. Calves supplemented 3.5 pounds of a mixture of corn, molasses, and urea only gained 0.5 pound per day while calves supplemented 3 pounds of dried distillers grains gained 1.3 pounds per day. This suggests the calves needed supplemental rumen undegradable protein as well as energy while grazing cornstalk residue. Similarly, 450-pound calves in the Texas Panhandle grazing dormant native range gained 0.5 pound per day without energy or protein supplementation but gained 1.4 pounds per day when supplemented 2.5 pounds of dried distillers grains. In the Sandhills of Nebraska, 600-pound steers have been reported to gain 1 pound per day when supplemented 2 pounds of dried distillers grains while grazing winter range.

Annual forages and cover crops
In integrated cropping and livestock regions, planting winter annuals such as oats, triticale, or rye after corn silage harvest can provide high quality winter grazing for weaned calves. Research in Nebraska has shown 550-pound calves to gain between 1.5 and 2 pounds per day when grazing oats or a mix of oats and radishes from November to January.

On the southern plains, wheat pasture grazing is a common practice during the winter. Research from Texas A&M evaluated supplementing grazing steers (400 pounds) with 3 pounds of dry rolled corn or dried distillers grains. The calves supplemented with dry rolled corn gained similarly to the non-supplemented calves (2.86 pounds per day) while the calves supplemented dried distillers grains gained 3.08 pounds per day. It is important to note that after the feedlot phase, performance and carcass characteristics were not different across grazing treatments.

Total mixed ration in a dry lot
For producers with integrated livestock and farming operations and limited pasture acres, growing calves on a total mixed ration may be a viable option. Silages (corn and annual forage) and distillers grains are typically cheaper energy sources than hay. Another advantage of feeding a total mixed ration is that the nutrient density and intake can be controlled better than in a grazing situation and can result in not only the targeted gain, but also more uniformity in body weight of the calves at market. Additionally, research has shown calves placed on a finishing ration shortly after weaning to be more profitable than those first placed on a growing ration. This is something to consider if the producer plans to retain ownership through finishing.

Compensatory Gain and Marketing Strategies
Supplementation strategies should always be evaluated based on the price of supplement including transportation and labor against the value of the gain derived from the supplementation on a yearly basis.

Research has shown cattle backgrounded to gain 1.5 pounds per day maintain a weight advantage through the finishing phase over cattle backgrounded to gain less than 1 pound per day. Even though cattle restricted during backgrounding experience compensatory gain once they are placed on a higher plane of nutrition, they typically only compensate about 37-38%, meaning they continue to have lighter body weight than cattle backgrounded to gain 1.5 pounds per day.

Summary
Some producers retain calves through winter while others may continue to graze summer grass with them, selling in the fall. Other producers may retain ownership through the finishing phase. Therefore, targeted gain and backgrounding resources should be evaluated against marketing strategies and the calf value. However, targeting adequate gain (1 to 1.5 pounds per day) to develop structural and muscle growth during the winter is advantageous regardless of marketing strategy.

Your Next Read: Iowa Farmer Feeder Cites Favorable Corn and Cattle Basis As Competitive Advantages

Weight Per Day of Age and Average Daily Gain

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 18:41:21 GMT

In response to a recent question from a producer, the topic this week addresses the difference between a couple of growth performance measures commonly used in beef production. As well as some anecdotal evidence observed on handful of Angus calves we are feeding at the OSU Purebred Beef Cattle Center. The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) defines Weight per Day of Age (WDA) and Average Daily Gain (ADG) as follows:

WDA - Weight of an individual divided by its age in days.

ADG - Measurement of the average daily body weight change over a specified period of time of an animal on a feed test.

Both are measures of growth that are easy to calculate but are distinctly different. For example, if a calf was born weighing 80 lbs. and later weaned at 200 days of age weighing 500 lbs. The WDA (500 divided by 200) is 2.5 pounds/day. The ADG of the same calf from birth to weaning would be 2.1 pounds/day. The result of 500 minus 80, divided by 200.

The measure of WDA is useful to evaluate on young growing cattle from approximately weaning to yearling time.

The measure of ADG has been used in performance testing for decades and is commonly used to measure the growth performance of pens of finishing cattle.

Both these measures would be based on the genetic potential of calves to grow as well as the environmental effects of factors like weather and the plane of nutrition. ADG could also be heavily influenced by plane of nutrition prior to the testing period which could impact the amount of compensatory gain during the test period.

The OSU Purebred Beef Center is currently developing a group of four Angus heifers and a group of four Angus bulls to potentially exhibit in Angus Pen of Three Show at the Cattlemen’s Congress Show in Oklahoma City in January. The calves were born from Jan. 17 to Feb. 25, 2024. The calves were on a 14% Crude Protein creep ration, fed ad-lib, for several months prior to weaning in mid-August. Six of the eight calves have Weaning and Yearling EPDs in the best 5% of non-parent Angus cattle. The other two rank in the best 20% of the breed for Weaning and Yearling Weight EPDs. Based on Weights taken at the beginning of October when the calves were 219 to 258 days of age the range of actual weights, ADGs and WDAs of the calves are summarized as follows:

Bulls: Weight range = 970 – 1110
ADG range = 3.83 – 4.1
WDA range = 4.14 – 4.41

Heifers: Weight Range = 780 – 815
ADG range = 2.9 – 3.2
WDA range = 3.2 – 3.55

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.

Iowa Cattle Operation Turns Focus To The Future, Invests In Fall Feedyard Expansion

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 12:36:06 GMT

With farm income projected to be lower for 2024 and 2025 due to lower commodity prices, one bright spot this fall is the cattle market.

Kennedy Cattle Company in Atlantic, Iowa is expanding from its current size at just under 1,000 head to more than 3,700. It’s indicative of the optimism they have for the cattle business.

The beep, beep, beep of loaders in reverse has been a familiar sound at Kennedy Cattle Company for the last few months. Construction crews are working to add pens and grow the 990-head feedlot started in 2012.

Zak Kennedy manages the Kennedy Cattle Company with his family in Atlantic, Iowa.

(Provided by BarkleyOKRP)

“As you can see in the background we’re in the process of putting an expansion on and we’re going to triple that size here,” explains Zak Kennedy. “We hope to be done in the next couple of months.”

He says with cattle numbers at historical lows and cattle prices at historical highs that means high risk for expansion, but also possible high reward.

“We just decided it was time to bring some more outside cattle home and try to feed more of our homegrown feeds,” Kennedy says. “We’re working to be more in control of what’s going on.”

For Kennedy and his family, including his brother Mitch, this expansion provides a better opportunity than trying to buy land in Iowa and their growth plan reflects his outlook on the cattle business.

“I’m bullish in the cattle business, especially in the upper Midwest,” Kennedy says. “We raise a lot of feed here and we’ve got some packing capacity. I also think there are some folks that, for whatever reason, probably won’t be feeding cattle here going forward. I think we can fill that void.”

Kennedy Cattle Co. is expanding their feedlot to take advantage of current market conditions

(Provided by BarkleyOKRP)

Kennedy says to grow they had to overcome the regulatory challenges of becoming a concentrated animal feeding operation or CAFO.

“We worked with a really good engineering company that knows the regulations inside and out as well as with our manure management company,” adds Kennedy.

The operation calves 150 head of commercial Angus-based cows that they use to stock their feedyards and they custom feed.

“We’re open to everything,” Kennedy says. “We do a lot of retained ownership with some cow-calf outfits where we feed their calves for them. We do feed a lot of yearlings. I always say we’ll feed about anything.”

Kennedy says they paid financial and mental tuition as the bull cycle in 2014-15 ended abruptly. So, this time they’re risk-proofing their operation.

“From a company standpoint we’re doing a lot better job on our hedging, marketing and in managing the financial aspects of what we do,” Kennedy admits.

One of the biggest differences from 2014-15 are the costs. Kennedy says operating and borrowing costs have skyrocketed and so they’re offsetting that with feed they grow on 1,500 rented acres and being sure to watch the bottom line.

Kennedy Cattle Company is growing more of its own feed to help improve margins.

(Provided by BarkleyOKRP)

“It’s like anything,” Kennedy says. “You’ve got to manage it and knowing your costs is obviously the biggest part of that process.”

They’re also protecting their investment through Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) protocols and comprehensive disease prevention.

“I think it’s so important for what these cattle cost that those protocols don’t cost much,” Kennedy says. “We’re going to spend the money to try to be on the front side of health and not have a wreck on the back side.”

He says the goal is with nearly two-thirds of their cattle marketed on either a grid or dressed basis that the work will pay back in quality premiums and strong closeouts.

“I think we’re going to be sitting in a pretty good place here for a while,” Kennedy adds. “Calves cost a lot and I get that, but there is still margin. We’re going to try to run with it.”

Hopefully, the work today will help them build for the next generation.

Speer: We Need Some Common Sense When It Comes to Electronic Identification

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 20:10:43 GMT

When it comes to electronic identification (EID) and traceability, none of the recent rancor is particularly new. After all, the industry has been at this for well over 20 years — starting with the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) back in the early 2000s. Sure, there are some fresh faces, but none of the complaints are unique — the industry has heard it all.

My favorite example of that reality dates back to the 2006 ID Info Expo hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). I was serving as NIAA’s interim CEO at the time. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns was the keynote speaker at the event, which entailed some special security provisions because of the protests (see photo below).

The 2006 ID Info Expo, hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, required some special security provisions because of the protests.

(Nevil Speer)

How the ADT Rule Fits In

That said, with specific reference to EIDs, there remain a few items that need to be addressed surrounding the forthcoming requirement as part of USDA’s Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule .

Most importantly, ADT has been in effect since March 2013. Most producers are familiar with the current National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) tags — either the orange metal brucellosis and/or “brite” (metal ID) tags. Within that longstanding framework, USDA is simply mandating a transition of current tagging requirements.

AVMA explains it this way : “The 2013 rule instituted visual ID tags for interstate movement. The new final rule switches producers to EID tags.” That is, there’s no substantive change in program requirements, USDA is simply switching to new technology.

That’s an ongoing transition in every facet of life. For instance, I don’t recall anyone squawking about the transition from mechanical scales to load cells and automated scale tickets. Isn’t the principle the same?

4 Points to Remember

The hand-wringing all feels a little like grandstanding given the realities below:

1. The tagging requirement is NOT new; the cattle are already being tagged with NUES tags.

2. EID readers are not mandated — the requirement being the EID tags must also be visually readable (840 + 12-digit number).

3. There is NO feeder cattle mandate. the Livestock Marketing Association explains it this way : “The EID rule does not expand the classes of beef cattle requiring official identification.”

4. Last, producers in the Designated Surveillance Area currently use orange 840 EID tags (which also serves as official identification) in conjunction with calfhood Brucellosis vaccination. (And lest we forget about the heyday of Brucellosis eradication when every heifer calf used to be vaccinated, tagged AND tattooed.)

Undoubtedly, the most ludicrous fear-mongering I’ve heard on the topic involves the government flying drones over your cowherd for inventory purposes. Clearly, those talkers don’t understand the technology.

In short, low-frequency EIDs don’t work that way. The maximum read range is 2 to 3 feet. It’s hard to fathom how a drone would ever get close enough, let alone trying to keep cattle in-place long enough, to get an individual reading of every individual tag. That’s just not going to happen.

It’s hard to avoid the irony of all the hyperbole. After all, the people shouting the loudest about EIDs (i.e. technology) are dependent on technology (phones, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) to voice their opposition.

In the Words of Greg Henderson

To that end, the day before he passed , Greg Henderson shared with me what was to be his upcoming column for a Drovers print edition. He addressed opposition to EIDs this way:

“Yes, there are many squeaky wheels demanding an end to this mandatory EID nonsense. But are they a vocal minority? Are the opponents of modern traceability systems shouting over those who see the value in such a system? Drovers’ readers think so. At least, a solid majority of them believe there is value in animal ID and the number of users is increasing. In our annual survey for Drovers State of the Beef Industry Report, we asked: “To what extent do you agree that an industry-wide traceability system is needed?” The “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” group totaled 65% of respondents. The “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses totaled 15%.”

Drovers State of the Beef Industry 2024 Report

(Farm Journal)

Greg’s column then concluded with this thought: “And I’ll double down on another not-so-bold prediction from six months ago . You want to voluntarily opt-out of traceability? Fine, the industry’s big players — your customers — can opt out of buying your cattle.”

Kentucky Cattle Scheme With 78,000 Ghost Cattle Unravels

Fri, 27 Sep 2024 01:58:10 GMT

A massive fraudulent cattle scheme allegedly orchestrated by a Kentucky cattleman conned dozens of investors and a prominent agricultural lender out of $100 million, while his family – still grieving over the man’s suicide – is facing financial peril.

On Wednesday, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issued notification to anyone who sold livestock to and has not received payment from businesses operated by Brian McClain, 52, Benton, Ky., to promptly file Dealer Trust claims. Additionally, the three entities, McClain Farms Inc. , Benton, Ky.; 7M Cattle Feeders Inc. , Hereford, Texas; and McClain Feed Yard Inc. , Friona, Texas, filed bankruptcy petitions with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas on April 28.

McClain’s scheme allegedly dates back six years when, as sources told Drovers under condition of anonymity due to the nature of the allegations, he began seeking investors for his cattle operations with the “guarantee” of a 30% return on investment. Over time McClain’s inventory of cattle grew and some investors did see hefty profits. But those investors were apparently paid with more borrowed money.

McClain’s lender was Rabo AgriFinance, which sources claim became suspicious in April as the inventory of cattle on paper had reached 88,000 head. The scheme unraveled quickly when Rabo Agrifinance officials ordered an inventory check and found only about 10,000 head of live animals.

Following McClain’s death on April 18, Rabo AgriFinance’s representatives went to McClain’s operation in Kentucky and gathered the cattle, which were then sold at Blue Grass Stockyards.

Rabo AgriFinance officials were contacted by Drovers but had no comment on this story.

Many of McClain’s alleged investors were local friends and neighbors, many of whom say they were shocked to be swindled by someone they considered a friend.

In its notice on Wednesday, USDA-AMS said unpaid sellers to McClain’s businesses must promptly file Dealer Trust claims. “Unpaid sellers must act quickly as the law requires that claims be filed with USDA and McClain within 30 days after payment is due, or within 15 business days after a payment instrument issued to the livestock seller has been dishonored. Claim amounts should be for the gross amount McClain agreed to pay for livestock,” the AMS statement said.

Unpaid livestock sellers might be protected under a provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 that requires all livestock purchased by a dealer in cash sales and all receivables or proceeds from such livestock to be held in a trust for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers.

Claims should be submitted to: Agricultural Marketing Service, Fair Trade Practices Program, Packers and Stockyards Division, Midwestern Regional Office, 210 Walnut Street, Room 317, Des Moines, IA 50309. Claims can also be emailed to PSDDesMoinesIA@usda.gov.

For questions regarding the claims process, contact the PSD Midwestern Regional Office at (515) 323-2579.

Herd Selection Takes More Than One Man's Opinion

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:41 GMT

For months, families across the country have spent extra hours in the barn listing to the drone of fans and blaring radios to get ready for Junior Nationals, state and regional jackpots and county fairs. There are few activities capable of strengthening family bonds like blazing summer temperatures, loading the trailer and uncooperative cattle. Some might suggest taking sale pictures or processing cattle at Thanksgiving are comparable family bonding events, but I digress.

A good friend of mine used to say, “Cattle shows are as relevant to the beef industry as a tractor pull is to the crop farmer.” From a practical perspective, I suppose he isn’t wrong, but I’d argue cattle shows play an important role in exposing the next generation to the beef industry. Everyone needs a hobby and there are far worse options than spending summers as a family feeding and training show cattle.

Caring for livestock regardless of species and scale should be celebrated in an age where fewer people are involved in food and fiber production every day. My only regret as a youth was my poor understanding of the return on invested capital and labor and, as a result, never showing meat chickens. My youth livestock experience was rooted in maximizing gross revenue without regard to the time and labor investment of market steers.

Showing cattle offers young people an opportunity to hone their stockmanship skills. Training a show heifer to walk past a stroller, over a storm grate or next to a photo backdrop requires a keen understanding of animal behavior that one day may help solve the challenge of loading feedlot cattle when the sun causes cattle to balk. Skills gained by adjusting rations and filtering water to minimize the transportation stress of a new environment will pay dividends when getting ready to receive those bawling calves this fall.

One aspect of livestock shows we celebrate and curse at the same time is the subjective evaluation by judges. I’d suggest exhibitor satisfaction follows a normal distribution: a few exhibitors are happy with the outcome, the majority enjoy the experience of showing cattle and meeting friends, while a few are unhappy or disappointed. While the unhappy are relatively few, the number who completely agree with the judge’s assessment of their livestock is likely skewed away from normal.

Subjective evaluation by judges will be debated for as long as there are spectators at livestock shows. A judge’s preference in trait prioritization is something most ringside spectators will agree to disagree with. Structural soundness in market animals is a classic example¬—just how sound does a market steer need to be once he reaches market weight? Breeders and feeders have different standards for structural correctness in market cattle.

The ability of a judge to subjectively determine their priority traits and repeat those assessments throughout the day are where most evaluators get in trouble with the crowd. Judging and sorting the cattle knowing the crowd is evaluating you is why judging requires a lot of confidence and thick skin. After the 25th class of Angus heifers, even the best evaluator may struggle to be consistent the entire day.

One common refrain a judge uses to escape criticism is “This is one person’s opinion on one day.” From a visual evaluation perspective, the present-day reference is fair, but really how many cattle do we truly want to sort only on one given day? Back to the market steer example, if the evaluation is a focused on one day and he can walk on a truck that steer is structurally sound enough.

Judges and spectators alike can quickly sort off the bottom few cattle they don’t like. We all tend to spend more time in the middle and top of the “class” because the trait differences get smaller, and the tradeoffs get harder to prioritize. Now imagine the decision to place a heifer 6th or 7th meant keeping one in the herd for 10 years and sending the other to the feedyard. Not an imaginary scenario, one many of you will make when sorting replacements to keep this fall.

When you think about the development expense and deferred revenue associated with your keep/cull decisions it’s time to diversify your replacement female selection methods beyond a subjective evaluation. Consider incorporating an objective genomic test to help allow you to look at a heifer’s future potential productivity, evaluate multiple traits, and rank those traits against other cattle in your herd. Even tractor pulls use objective distance and weight measurements.

K-State Beef Stocker Field Day Set for Sept. 26

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:40 GMT

Beef cattle outlook, coccidiosis: the silent thief robbing profits in your stocker operation and future trends in the Kansas cattle feeding industry are among topics planned for 2024 Kansas State University Beef Stocker Field Day on Thursday, Sept. 26. The conference will be hosted at the KSU Beef Stocker Unit.

“This year’s program reflects the challenging landscape our industry is experiencing,” says Dale Blasi, K-State Animal Sciences and Industry professor and beef cattle extension specialist. “The experiences and thoughts of our assembled speakers and panelists will provide insights as we progress into an unknown future.”

The day will start with a welcome at 9:30 a.m. and will conclude around 4:30 p.m. Sponsoring this year’s event is Huvepharma.

Topics for this year’s agenda include :

Beef Cattle Outlook
Coccidiosis: The Silent Thief Robbing Profits in your Stocker Operation
Recommendations for managing calves the first 30 days on feed
Future Trends in the Kansas Cattle Feeding Industry
Rethinking your pasture burning plans: Save time, Save Money, and Improve Range Conditions

Registration is $25 and due Sept. 13. Walk-in registration is available for $35. To register go to KSU Stocker Field Day . For more information, contact Katie Smith at 785-532-1267 or katiesmith@ksu.edu.

Press On: Making The Most Of The Time

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:37 GMT

“Time is the most valuable commodity.” It’s a popular phrase that makes me crazy. I understand the intent. But time is NOT a commodity.

The gift of time is both finite and unknown. And none of it is interchangeable. I like how George Gilder dispels that commodity thinking: “Time is the only resource that cannot be recycled, stored, duplicated, or recovered.”

So, the pertinent question here revolves around whether you’re prioritizing the right things – with your time. Too often, “busy” is just an excuse to avoid being “productive” and/or doing the hard work: “I’m so busy I don’t have time to tackle the real problems.” In other words, being “busy” can also be equivalent to wasting time.

Seneca was highly focused on the importance of what we do with our time. He explains that,

It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested...the life we receive is not short, but we make it so, nor do we have any lack of it, but are wasteful of it.

Investment is the key word! That’s the difference maker. There’s a saying that goes something like this: “All attainments and achievements are conditioned by the full use of time.” So, rather than emphasizing how we “spend” our time (burnin’ daylight), the better priority is on “investing” or making the most of the time.

Are you prioritizing your time on what’s best for your life and business? Or just burning daylight?

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz

Biosecurity Approaches to Mitigate Wildlife Disease

Tue, 14 May 2024 13:05:52 GMT

Biosecurity measures are critical in safeguarding livestock health and productivity by minimizing the risk of infectious diseases. Wildlife populations can harbor a variety of pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. For instance, wildlife, such as feral hogs, may carry bacteria such as Leptospira, which can cause leptospirosis in cattle. Skunks and other species are well known for carrying rabies. Recently, migratory waterfowl have been identified as a potential source of avian influenza viruses in non-avian species.

In the 2022 Oklahoma State University Cow-Calf Biosecurity Survey, funded by the USDA National Animal Preparedness and Response Program, 50% of producers indicated that wild deer, elk, or antelope were found on their cattle operations. Most producers are likely able to identify multiple forms of wildlife on their operations, and depending on the species, appropriately managed species can be useful in improving environmental balance on the farm or ranch.

Basic biosecurity measures can assist producers in limiting disease risks including those posed by wildlife interactions.

Operations should select a biosecurity manager. This individual is responsible for developing a biosecurity plan in cooperation with the operation’s veterinarian. Training of the operational team should occur and, the biosecurity manager should stay in tune with any changes involving new disease identification and outbreaks.

Monitoring animal health of both domestic and wildlife species is a critical biosecurity practice. Livestock should be monitored on a daily basis and any signs of illness documented. Developing a herd health plan advised by a veterinarian is essential. Any abnormal or unusual signs of illness or death, including those seen in wildlife, should be reported to the operation veterinarian and animal health officials.

Managing wildlife populations at appropriate levels can promote both good biosecurity and environmental health as long as disease risk is considered. Consulting with local, state, and federal wildlife entities, such as US Fish & Wildlife, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, and state agriculture/wildlife departments, is advised to fully understand current populations and acceptable legal measures to address wildlife.

Physical separation of livestock from wildlife that present disease risks can be challenging, but must be considered. Fences often limit direct contact of livestock with certain wildlife species. Guardian animals can also deter certain wildlife species, especially predators. Managing access to livestock feed and water resources may be necessary. Producers should be careful to not inadvertently create wildlife habitats that promote disease spread. Additionally, care should also be taken to prevent wildlife access to animal disposal locations, as scavengers have the potential to spread unwanted illness.

Protecting livestock health against wildlife-borne diseases requires an everchanging multifaceted approach that combines practical and economically feasible management strategies. By implementing operation specific biosecurity measures tailored to the risks posed by wildlife, producers can mitigate disease transmission, promote animal welfare, and create environmentally sustainable production systems.

More information about biosecurity can be found at www.bqa.org and www.securebeef.org

OSU Extension beef cattle specialist Rosslyn Bigs discusses the importance of practicing safe biosecurity with livestock during the fair season on SunUpTV from 9/25/2021 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yazPuwcALzQ

Understanding Cattle Stress: Oklahoma State University Researchers Focus On Genetic Predisposition

Tue, 07 Nov 2023 16:31:38 GMT

Using cutting-edge artificial intelligence and sensor technologies, Oklahoma State University researchers have embarked on a groundbreaking $1 million, four-year, multi-disciplinary project aimed at studying stress in cattle.

“I had a theory that some of these animals may be genetically predisposed to becoming dark cutters or having heart failure or being less efficient due to physical stressors and animal-environment interactions,” said Janeen Salak-Johnson, an associate professor of animal and food sciences, in a recent release .

Specifically, the project seeks to explore the genetic predisposition of cattle to conditions like dark cutter meat and heart failure, which have been linked to stressors experienced throughout the cattle lifespan.

Dark cutter meat lacks the vibrant red color typically found in retail stores, explains the release, which leads to the inability for the meat to be sold in retail stores and discounts by other food services. The scientists believe the condition is partially caused by the accumulative stressors livestock animals experience during the weaning phase, notes the release.

Funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Interdisciplinary Engagement in Animal Systems program, the research will focus on moderate-growth and high-growth cattle, analyzing their responses to stress using sensor technology. Parameters like heart rate, body temperature, steps and respiration rate will be monitored to understand the cumulative effects of stress throughout their lives.

“These conditions don’t happen because animals experience stress one time. It’s a cumulative effect,” Salak-Johnson said in the release. “This project will allow us to characterize the physiological responses of these animals based on their genetics for growth. We hope to unravel where in their lifespan they face the most critical stressors and if the level of stress they experience is influenced by their genetic capacity for growth.”

Traditionally, cattle selection has prioritized traits like growth rate and carcass quality. However, concerns have risen regarding increased death rates during the late-finishing period due to aggressive growth selection, David Lalman, professor of animal and food sciences, explains in the release. This is believed to be linked to compromised immune systems in rapidly growing cattle.

Preliminary studies conducted by Salak-Johnson’s team have already revealed the influence of genetics on stress responses, including those during the weaning phase. Collaborating with veterinary consultants and large feedlot operations, researchers will examine tissue samples from cattle affected by sudden death syndrome. By analyzing protein and metabolite changes, they aim to predict the underlying causes of this condition.

To facilitate this extensive research, a biomathematics tool will be employed for in-depth analysis of tissue samples. Additionally, artificial intelligence technology will assist in assessing the vast amount of data collected, aiding in the development of a predictive tool to identify stress predisposition in animals.

The research team, which includes experts from various fields such as meat science, sociology, computer science and biosystems engineering, plans to interview producers about their willingness to adopt the predictive technology.

“I really think there’s an opportunity for this team to have a significant impact on this area of research because we are going to look at a more holistic and more complete characterization of these animals,” Salak-Johnson said in the release. “This research could lead to producers having the ability to implement strategies at certain times of the year or when they see certain behavioral changes in livestock.”

Read More:

Heartache: Bovine Congestive Heart Failure A Growing Concern

Fatigued Cattle Syndrome: What It Is and What to Do About It

Feedlot Cattle Health Summit in Kearney Neb., July 12

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 19:54:38 GMT

This summer, Production Animal Consultation (PAC) will host its annual industry summit meeting, allowing people from the beef industry to gather and exchange ideas. “This year, we wanted to focus on opportunities to improve cattle health and management from start to finish in the feedlot,” said Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz, consulting veterinarian and PAC owner. “In the past, getting cattle through the first 30 to 60 days was central to health programs. Today, attention to detail until cattle are delivered to the plant can make or break profitability for a pen.”

The PAC Summit for Industry Leaders will be held July 12, 2023, at the Holiday Inn in Kearney, Nebraska. The event features an exciting line-up of speakers and topics:

Kip Lukasiewicz, PAC veterinarian and facility design consultant, and Jacob Mayer, professional engineer at Settje Agri-Services & Engineering, Inc., will discuss designing facilities for cattle handling.
Sam Cossio, feedlot consultant and owner of Back to Basics Consulting, will present strategies for attracting and recruiting labor.
Tom Brincks, a risk management expert from Partners for Production Ag, will deliver a talk entitled “How to ride a bull without getting hurt!”.
Drew Magstadt, a veterinary diagnostician at the Iowa State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, will talk about the role of diagnostic testing in feedlot health programs.
Corbin Stevens and Dan Thomson, PAC veterinarians, will provide information and insight on late-day death loss in feedlot cattle.
Pete Anderson, a strategic planning and leadership expert from Midwest PMS LLC, will wrap up the day with a discussion of how to implement strategic planning for continuous improvement.

“The value of cattle in our feedlots is at a record high yet margins continue to be tight. We have very little margin for error. From unloading to shipping, we have opportunities to improve cattle health, well-being and performance,” said Dr. Dan Thomson, consulting veterinarian and PAC owner. “We host these meetings to set the stage for discussions that bring realized value to our clients.”

Production Animal Consultation veterinarians care for cattle from birth to harvest. In addition to providing veterinary health services, PAC conducts cattle research and data analysis, hosts educational opportunities on animal stewardship and facility design, and provides bilingual consultation for livestock producers both domestic and international. PAC veterinarians strive to provide industry leaders with opportunities to improve their operations through collaboration and science.

To register and learn more about the 2023 PAC Summit for Industry Leaders, visit https://www.pacdvms.com/summit-industry-leaders.

Fatigued Cattle Syndrome: What It Is and What to Do About It

Thu, 08 Jun 2023 15:51:10 GMT

As spring rolls into summer, the fairly common issues of bloat and other digestive abnormalities begin to show up more frequently in feedlot cattle. As temperatures move higher in June, July and August, a less common but equally concerning problem producers, veterinarians and processors see more of is Fatigued Cattle Syndrome.

At its core, the problem is a metabolic disorder – likely a multi-factorial problem – that reduces the mobility of fed cattle presented to abattoirs, according to Jacob Hagenmaier, veterinarian and director of clinical services for the Veterinary & Biomedical Research Center, based in Manhattan, Kan.

A similar problem exists in hogs called fatigued pig syndrome (FPS) – hence the name for the problem in cattle. The USDA says the “predisposing factors contributing to FPS can be characterized as the pig, environment/facility, people, transport, and processing plant.” Similar factors are at play in cattle.

When Was The Problem In Cattle First Identified?
The syndrome was first reported in 2013, when there were observations of cattle arriving at packing plants that were “nonambulatory, slow and difficult to move, and, in some cases, sloughing their hoof walls in packing facilities” (Cima, 2013; Vance, 2013).

“Those cattle did not possess obvious signs or cause of lameness,” Hagenmaier says. “In feedlots, we tend to think of foot rot, musculoskeletal injuries or digital dermatitis as the most common causes of impaired mobility.

“These were cattle presenting with decreased mobility and muscle tremors but with no specific cause,” he adds. “So that made us begin to ask some questions about what exactly was driving this new clinical presentation in fed cattle at the time of shipment for harvest.”

In some cases, severely affected cattle recover and pass ante-mortem inspection whereby they can enter the food chain. But in other cases, the animals that become non-ambulatory or downer animals have to be euthanized and can’t enter the supply chain.
The problem was and is an animal-welfare issue and can create a significant financial loss for owners, says Dan Thomson, veterinarian, educator at Kansas State University and host of DocTalk TV.

“There isn’t a more expensive dead than one that’s been delivered to a packing plant; it’s a big-time hickey to your bottom line,” Thomson said during a discussion with Hagenmaier on DocTalk.

A locomotion scoring system specifically tailored to this syndrome for fed cattle was developed as a resource. This resource “was created as a collaboration between NAMI’s Animal Welfare Committee and industry experts and is known today as the NAMI Mobility Scoring System,” reports a Journal of Animal Science article published in 2020, Animal welfare in the U.S. slaughter industry—a Focus on Fed Cattle .

Symptoms And Signs Of The Problem
“I think it’s really important that people understand what these animals (that score a 4) look like,” Thomson says. “We have a syndrome in horses called tying-up, and that’s what these cattle look like at the plant.”

Hagenmaier says metabolic acidosis is very often present in cattle that score a 3 or 4 on the mobility system. “High lactate is a key blood abnormality involved with this disease. When God made cattle, the one thing he made them deficient in is lung capacity – their ability for aerobic respiration to get oxygen to supply all those muscles,” he says.

In addition, Hagenmaier speculates that increased body weights at the time of shipment for slaughter may contribute to a higher prevalence of cattle with impaired mobility at the abattoir.

“If you go into the USDA data, (you’ll see there’s) 10 pounds of carcass weight that we’ve been adding on these animals every year since approximately 2010.” he says. “So the question is, is our musculoskeletal system keeping up with as many pounds as we’re putting on?”

Soon after fatigued cattle syndrome was identified, some beef industry members proposed the problem was more prevalent in cattle that had been fed a beta-agonist, but research to date has indicated that is unlikely to be the case. Kansas State researchers and others continue to evaluate beta-agonist products. You can learn more about their work here: Beta-agonists, The Environment and Cattle Fatigue

Practices To Help Prevent The Problem
There are multiple strategies to reduce the incidence of Fatigued Cattle Syndrome, including how cattle are handled, fed and managed from arrival at the feedyard to the time they leave for slaughter.

Here are seven practices Hagenmaier and Thomson recommend to minimize the potential for the Syndrome to develop.

1. Feed cattle a good trace mineral package. “We want to make sure we don’t have any nutritional deficiencies in any of our trace or macro minerals,” Hagemaier says. “Make sure you have a well-rounded nutritional program, which most feedlots do.”

2. Use low-stress handling practices at the yard and at loadout. “If you and I were to sit on a couch and eat potato chips all year and then be asked to walk a mile, it might be a little difficult for us, right? So be respectful of the events of the day (you ship cattle) relative to what that animal has been doing 150 days on feed prior to that,” Hagenmaier says.

3. Consider how you manage the loadout process and the time leading up to it. To minimize stress, plan on staging cattle near loadout a day or two prior to shipping.

4. Evaluate who you have working cattle in the pen and moving them out of the pen. “You want people who are familiar with the cattle working them, if at all possible. You also need a sufficient number of people on hand to do the job, which can reduce the stress on the animals,” Thomson says.

Along with that, walk animals from pens to loadout, taking plenty of time in the process so the animals aren’t rushed and don’t run.

5. Determine what you’re asking the cattle to do in preparation for loading. “If you can have them go out the front of the pen, where they normally congregate that might be less stressful than going out the back of the pen,” Thomson says.

6. Don’t overload transport systems with too many animals. When crushing injuries occur, creatine kinase, a so-called “leakage” enzyme that is released during rhabdomyolysis, increases in circulation. It’s the most widely used enzyme for evaluation of muscular disease in cattle, according to Cornell University’s eClinPath, an online textbook on veterinary clinical pathology.

Hagenmaier says the measurable presence of creatine kinase is very suggestive of severe cases of Fatigued Cattle Syndrome.

“What’s interesting to me is when we have tub-based systems, we talk about not overloading the tub with regards to arrival processing, but loading fat cattle is no different,” he adds. “And actually, they’re at more of a risk, because we have that much more weight and that much more force so that we can cause some pretty severe crushing injuries when we’re trying to load too many heavy cattle at one time.”

7. Keep cattle well-being front and center at every stage of the process. Be set up to provide adequate nutrition, water, shade, pen space, etc. By taking these into consideration, Hagenmaier says producers are able to “accommodate fat animals, because their needs are certainly different than those of arriving cattle at the feedlot.”

Feedlot Cattle Health Summit in Kearney, Nebraska on July 12

Label Changes for Implant Use are Coming in June

Good Ideas Can Come from Anywhere, Even If You Can’t Understand Them

New Fermentation Product Supports Feed Efficiency in Finishing Cattle Rations

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 14:48:41 GMT

Feed costs are a constant consideration for cattle feeders. Improving feed efficiency, even by a small margin, can pay big dividends in the long run.

“If cattle eat less and gain the same, it’s a nice advantage because you save on the amount you’re feeding. The cattle industry has continually focused on improving feed efficiency through nutrition and genetics,” says Ron Scott, Ph.D., director of beef technical innovation with Purina Animal Nutrition. “Purina EfficienZ fermentation product is designed to help take things a step further.”

The new EfficienZ fermentation product is a non-nutritive feed additive available in select Purina supplements to support feed efficiency and help improve feed conversion in finishing cattle rations by optimizing rumen function.

Efficiently Address Cost Of Production

Inflation and drought have led to higher feed costs this year, making optimized feed-to-gain conversion even more necessary than normal.

“Cattle producers want to get the most from their feed resources to create more pounds of beef,” says Scott. “And that’s what EfficienZ fermentation product is all about.”

The feed additive allows you to optimize feed-to-gain conversion and fermentation of feedstuffs in an easy, cost-effective way.

“EfficienZ fermentation product is a good fit for cattle feeders, not only for current market dynamics with the cost of production but enhanced feed conversion will always be important for the industry,” says Scott.

Research Shows Proven Benefits

Multiple feed trials went into the development of EfficienZ fermentation product. More than 300 cattle were fed performance finishing rations consisting of cracked corn, dried distillers’ grains with solubles, Purina SteakMaker 40-20 R400 supplement and 8% roughage. The only ration difference was the control group wasn’t fed EfficienZ fermentation product.

“The research showed cattle are gaining more weight, and they’re eating just a little more feed, but the net effect is better feed conversion,” says Scott. “That’s a promising outcome for cattle feeders to optimize feed efficiency.”

Performance research data, with the support of fermentation study results, suggests that when compared to a control group, cattle fed EfficienZ fermentation product have:
• Improved feed-to-gain conversion leading to fewer days on feed or heavier outweights
• Greater daily dry matter intake supplying more energy and nutrients to cattle
• Improved carcass quality leading to an increased percentage of cattle grading USDA Prime or Choice
• Optimized volatile fatty acid production increasing Propionate:Acetate ratio, supporting fermentation efficiency and the production and availability of energy

“EfficienZ fermentation product is certainly going to help with conversion and gain. That’s very exciting, and it’s been a while since the industry has developed a product with those benefits,” says Scott.

Ending Beef Exports/Imports Would Cost Cattlemen $Billions

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 23:48:08 GMT

Entirely ceasing U.S. international beef trade would be an economic catastrophe for America’s beef industry, and retail beef would be even more expensive for American consumers. That’s the conclusion of a new economic report co-authored by livestock economists Glynn Tonsor, Kansas State University, and Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University.

Even a 10% reduction in U.S. beef exports and imports would cause a significant disruption to prices and quantities of both feeder cattle and fed cattle. Summarizing their analysis in an interview with Drovers, Tonsor and Peel said the cumulative loss from a 10% reduction in exports and imports over 10 years would create an economic loss of $12.9 billion to feeder cattle sellers and $6.8 billion to fed cattle sellers.

The report, “ Assessing Economic Impact That Would Follow Loss of U.S. Beef Exports & Imports ,” outlines why the U.S. trades beef internationally, summarizes historical beef trade data, quantifies national fed and feeder cattle market impacts that could follow loss of beef trade, and allocates national impacts to state-level impacts. The report was prepared for the Kansas Beef Council, the Oklahoma Beef Council, and the Texas Beef Council.

“It’s hard to over-state the complex and ever-growing role of beef export and imports,” the authors said. “Beef export and imports combine to provide opportunities to increase value to the U.S. industry by exporting products that have more value in foreign markets and importing products that can be sourced more economically in international markets.”

As a point of emphasis, “there’s value in both imports and exports for American cattlemen,” Peel said. “We’re seeking out value and benefit both ways.”

The analysis was initiated by a “long-term interest in understanding the trade more,” Tonsor said. “Industry stakeholders want to understand it better and the pandemic magnified some of that interest.”

Specifically, when COVID disrupted the beef industry in the spring of 2020 and beef processing slowed to a trickle and retail demand skyrocketed, many industry stakeholders wondered why the U.S. continued to import and export beef internationally.

Peel said understanding the ramifications of beef trade is an ongoing interest for cattlemen which led to the project to assess the impact of trade on the U.S. beef industry.

The review found the mix of countries the U.S. exports beef to has developed resulting in a more diverse, less concentrated export portfolio. Conversely, sources of U.S. beef imports have comparatively fluctuated less over time.

“Implied trade prices clearly show the U.S. receives a higher dollar per pound value for exports than it pays for imports reflecting core differences in product type and the role of each transaction in adding economic value,” the authors wrote. “From 2016 through 2020, the U.S. experienced average annual unprepared beef exports of 2.05 billion pounds, export value of $6.4 billion, and implied export price of $3.13 per pound. Conversely, 2016-2020 average annual unprepared beef imports were 2.30 billion pounds, import value was $5.8 billion, and implied import price was $2.52 per pound. These statistics clearly indicate participation in the global market provides a net economic gain.”

Extrapolating the 10% loss of beef trade in the author’s example cited earlier to a more extreme, full 100% loss would suggest a catastrophic impact, “broadly approximated at $129 billion for feeder cattle sellers and $68 billion for fed cattle sellers reflecting a much smaller overall industry.”

Impact on Consumers

Cattlemen are not the only ones to benefit from international beef trade. Without such trade, retail and food service beef products are more expensive for American consumers.

The ground beef market provides an example.

“We would not be able to supply the ground beef market at the size it is today” without imports, Peel said. “Or, if we did, it would be because we were grinding a lot of more expensive lean products out of the U.S. domestic supply to make it work. That would inevitably have a big impact in terms of raising the price of ground beef and taking that value away from other markets where it’s currently being used.”

Imported trim makes up just over half of beef imports and is used primarily for ground beef but also for a variety of other processed beef products including sausage products, the authors wrote. Processing beef is also used for numerous prepared products including frozen meals, entrees and other processed products. While some processed products appear at retail, most imported trim is used for food service ground beef.

Reliance on imported beef has remained relatively steady, but U.S. beef exports have grown increasingly important. Peel and Tonsor note that the U.S. Meat Export Federation provides estimates of the per head slaughtered value represented by beef and variety meat exports. That value was about $300 per head in 2014 and had grown to more than $400 per head by November 2021.

“Since 2015 the percent of fed cattle value derived from exports has continued to grow relative to volume,” Peel and Tonsor wrote. “For instance, current estimates for 2021 indicate 22% of fed cattle value is attributable to exports vs. only 15% of production (when considering both beef and variety meat). This is a classic example of demand growth and likely reflects increasing success in getting U.S. products in the hands of those most valuing them.”

Peel and Tonsor said the economic importance of beef exports and imports is substantial and growing with time. “In the absence of beef trade, the entire industry would shrink significantly.”

Post-Mortem: What is this Metabolic Problem?

Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:25:21 GMT

This article is from our Post-Mortem Series that was done in partnership with Feedlot Health Management Services, Okotoks, Alberta.

These images depict a steer calf that had been on feed for 272 days with no treatment history when it was found dead in the pen.

The team diagnosed this case as a representative example of ruminal tympany or bloat, which is a common disease of feedlot cattle, particularly later in the feeding period.

Pathogenesis:

Bloat is a metabolic syndrome caused by an imbalance between the volume of gas produced in the rumen and the volume of gas released via normal eructation, with the scales tipped in the direction of the former. This imbalance can be caused by physical impairment of the ability to eructate, entrapment of gas in a foam or slime, and/or rapid fermentation of grain associated with things such as: inconsistent feed intake, ration step-ups, feed mixing errors, or too fine of grain particle size (especially with more rapidly fermentable small grains such as wheat or barley). Accumulated gas from fermentation distends the rumen and greatly increases intra- abdominal pressure. Consequently, the thorax becomes compressed while caudal circulation is impeded, resulting in dyspnea. Without timely treatment, death by asphyxiation is common.

Epidemiology:

In the feedlot, bloat is more commonly observed later in the feed period when diets contain a high proportion of readily fermentable carbohydrates. As cattle are fed high concentrate diets, ruminal motility may also be decreased. The risk for bloat and other metabolic issues increase as cattle are fed high concentrate diets, this risk increases the longer the cattle are fed these diets.

Bloat may also occur early in the feeding period but this is commonly associated with other co-morbidities that occur during this time.

Bloat may occur secondary to ruminal acidosis, due to decreased rumen motility and therefore decreased ability to eructate.

Bloat can also be a chronic, recurrent condition caused by damage to either the rumen itself or the vagus nerve, which controls rumen motility. The vagus nerve can be compressed or damaged by chronic pneumonia, pleuritis, or esophageal obstructions/lesions.

Sporadic cases of bloat may occur at any time if the animal is unable to eructate due to recumbency (e.g., if the animal is cast).

Ante-Mortem Clinical Signs:

The abdomen becomes dorsal-laterally distended with the left paralumbar fossa more obviously affected.
As the abdominal pressure increases, animals become dyspneic, with an extended neck and open mouth breathing.

Bloated animals become reluctant to move and are often recumbent as the dyspnea and hypoxia progress. Animals may also become increasingly agitated.
Management:

Consistency is key for bloat prevention, and management involves providing a well-formulated diet with consistent feed calling, mixing, and delivery. Grain to roughage ratio is an important consideration, as well as the coarseness and degree of processing of the grain and roughage. Some supplements, such as ionophores, can also reduce the risk of bloat through regulation of feed intake and alteration of the rumen microenvironment.

The primary treatment objective is to relieve the accumulated rumen gas and avoid asphyxiation. In many cases, simply inserting a stomach tube is enough. If the animal is recumbent or in immediate risk of asphyxiation, emergency rumen trocarisation can be a necessary life saving procedure. Animals who repeatedly bloat (possibly due to vagal indigestion) can be treated surgically by performing a rumenostomy.

Post-Mortem Lesions:

It is important to note that although a carcass may have an obviously distended rumen causing separation of the hind limbs, other pathology must be observed to confirm free gas bloat as the cause of death. Many carcasses will “bloat” as part of post-mortem autolysis, especially in warmer climates, making a full post-mortem examination paramount to diagnosing bloat mortalities. Many feedlot personnel will incorrectly diagnose animals as bloat based on external appearance alone.

Upon examining the open chest and abdomen, the lungs and liver are significantly compressed and dorsally displaced. Most commonly, the lungs are slightly to moderately congested, while the liver and heart are pale (Fig. 1).

Cranial congestion is specifically evident in hemorrhagic trachea mucosa and cervical tissues (Fig. 2).
Along with caudal pallor, subcutaneous edema and/or emphysema is often present in the hindlimb musculature (Fig. 3).

For more information about Feedlot Health Management Services, visit their website at www.feedlothealth.com.