Preconditioned Cattle Benefit The Bottom Line (Continued from Page A 1) some evidence of worth for pre conditioning cattle before auction. He supplied information of the Superior Livestock Auction and data from 1994-1996. • A combination of questions and statistical analyses was used to compare the costs of precondi tioned calves against those not pre conditioned at seven sales con ducted in 1995 and nine sales in 1996. There were a total of 1,576 cattle lots in 1995 and 1,793 lots in 1996. Prices obtained for more than 200,000 calves in 1995 and more than 220,000 calves in 1996 were looked at Odde reviewed the different commercially available precondi tioning programs available and what they entail. The bottom line: there was an advantage in price of $1.35 per hundredweight com pared to calves not in any precon ditioning vaccination program in 1995 sales. That same year, one vaccination program showed a $2.47 per hundredweight benefit In 19% sales, (me program had a benefit totaling $1 per hundred weight of calves sold. The same year, another program showed a benefit in terms of price at $3 per hundredweight Odde indicated he saw that buy ers are willing to pay more for the vaccinated calves that have protec tion against common respiratory problems that can plague feedlots. These diseases pose a big risk, and vaccination programs work won ders to “raise the disease resis tance” while producers learn to reduce the risk challenge, he said. South Dakota producers have been challenged this year with pro tecting herd health, despite 90 inches of snow (three times their normal amount, said Odde), and lasses of cattle totalling more than 100,000 head. The different diseases of which the cattle are protected from include infectious bovine rhinotra cheitis orlBR, also known as “Red Nose,” an upper respiratory sys tem infection; bovine virus diar rhea, or BVD; bovine respiratory syncytial virus or BRSV; and the most devastating one, pasteurella, which causes calf pneumonia. Midwest producers make use of mostly modified live viruses in their vaccination programs and are routinely used in bigger feedlots, Odde said. Odde provided an overview of total quality assurance, part of the whole idea of improving quality in a consumer-driven industry. More and more, producers and veterin ary health services will form more closely tied “strategic alliances” to ensure improved beef quality and perhaps a better price for cattle producers. In a survey conducted by the National Cattlemen’s Association in the summer of 1995, cattle feed ers and stockcrs were asked a series of questions on their buying objective*. One thing was clear buyers aren’t satisfied to merely look at calves and decide on a price. They want backgrounding information more than 70 per cent of the buyers wanted to receive information the cattle prior to negotiating a price. Sixty-four percent would price the cattle dif ferently if the vaccination program was revealed before a sale. But the program, if imple mented, must follow a careful “strategy” of management, and one of those methods must involve removing stress. That can be done by removing cows from calves. “The calves stay in the environ- ment they are adapted to.” said Odde. Also, the producer must provide access to clean water, access to palatable feed, an absence of dust, and keep the calves in small groups. Odde said several companies and universities are coming up with different “value-added calf,” or VAC, programs. Included is the Tex-VAC program from Texas A&M University; the Superior Livestock Video Auction VAC; Producer’s Edge; and others. For the future of the industry, Odde said, “I believe in order for our industry to do well and thrive, we must do a better job of working together, talking together, and understanding the position of peo ple in the industry.” Using Resources “The successful cattle feeder of tomorrow is going to be a guy out there looking for the bargains and being able to capitalize on them,” said Jim Hogue, partner in Agri- Basics. Inc., Mount Joy. Hogue provided detail on how producers can cut costs by using feed resources more effectively. One way is through the use of inexpensive by-products from food manufacturers and other industries. Hogue said that by-products can lower costs significantly but pro ducers need to be aware of limits on the use of them as feed, such as the amount of salt, fat, and foreign material they may contain. They also have a “grief factor” and sometimes aren’treal easy to work with, he indicated. Nevertheless, Hogue provided some alternative feed sources that have worked for some producers: • Bagel logs. These bagel chips measure 18 inches long and 2-3 inches around and provide a good feed value for cattle, but have to be ground down with a special rig. A big problem is finding exactly how much dry matter, compared to water, they contain. ■ Newspaper. Cattle enjoy the soybean ink contained in newspap er, which has some feed value, but a lot would have to be fed to meet dry matter, roughage, protein, and other nutrient requirements. • Sweet com fodder. Hogue provided examples of tmeked-in sweet com fodder that comes off the truck at 8S percent moisture. The fodder is a decent energy sour ce, much like com silage, Hogue said. ■ Vegetables from canneries. These include fresh green beans, dried beans, small cooked white canning potatoes, and other items. All are good feeds, noted Hogue, but “carry fierce amounts of water.” For the use of by-products and other crops (such as bailey, wheat, and cottonseed) in the feeding program, producers should make use of more commodity sheds. Hogue showed a picture of a shed holding six bays. But 3-4 boys can be sufficient for some producers. For years many industry experts have looked with disdain on the ability to sustain a viable cattle feeder industry in Pennsylvania. But Hogue indicated that he sees “a lot of growth potential for the cattle business in this part of the country,” if only producers could focus more on efficiency. He said he tells his clients that they are not farming—rather, they are in the “resource management business.” One way to start is to view the craps and cattle as “two separate enterprises,” and both have to make money. Also, what T T Y Dr. Ken Odde, senior veterinarian at Pfizer Animal Health, Pollock, S.D., second from right, examined some of the benefits of preconditioned cattle Tuesday, the first day of a first-time, on-the-road, three-day Eastern Cattlemen’s Symposium which began at Weaver’s Market In Adamstown. Also speaking were, from left, Jim Hogue, partner in Agri-Basics, Inc.; John McFadden, Hoecht-Roussel, Inc.; Odde; and Dr. Chuck Lambert, chief economist, NCBA. you produce “should be sold at harvest time,” and not to forget adding other expenses, including storage and interest charges, to the bottom line calculations. To do so. producers should start using a total mixed ration. He indicated one farmer real ized a better bottom line almost instantly, because the use of high priced feed was cut, the feeding was more effective, the cattle per centage graded improved, and the cattle simply did better with die mixer. Hogue provided expertise on how to make use of the mixer, how to feed different types of com, and controlling variables. Better bunk management comes in handy, especially when “no crop produces more energy per acre than corn silage.” what he calls the “king” of energy feeds. “Keep efficiency in mind, watch the litde things, and consider your cattle as profit centers, not feed disposal units,” Hogue said. Implants Dr. Lowell Wilson, Penn State, said the best investment a producer can make in feeding cattle is the use of implants. But producers make "more mis takes in administering them to the animal than with almost any other product,” he said. Wilson reviewed the different implants available approved by FDA. Many include die naturally occurring hormones present in cattle, synthetic, steroid-like pro ducts, and nonsteroid anabolic agents. But producers need to follow a careful implant strategy. Without a carefully realized strategy, producers could see an actual decrease in the grade of cattle on feed. Implants help the cattle make more efficient use of nutrients in feed. They also improve grading and carcass value. Studies indicated' that, with Stocker cattle, the return over cost improved 5-2 S percent in average daily gain. There was a 5-15 per cent improvement in feed efficien cy, with improvements per head ranging from $5-$l5 and some up to $4O per head. The economic value of using implants in Pennsylvania alone total about $BO million and nation ally about $7OO million, according to Wilson. Wilson reviewed the steps to use when using implants. Animals must first be carefully restrained with the proper bead gate, the implant site must be cleansed, the needle must go into die middle third of the ear and must be fully inserted, with room for deposit, and the needle must be pulled back slowly to make sure the implant pellet “takes.” All the problems of bunched and crashed pellets, partial implants, and others can be circumvented, Wilson said, “by taking your time and making sure die implant is put in there” the correct way. Handling Facilities John McFadden, Hoecht- Roussel, Inc., told producers that "everybody loses when livestock get bruises,” and that proper hand ling facilities is key. McFadden indicated ways to keep down the incidences of bruises by proper handling, which includes die use of enclosed side chutes, removing distractions and noise, move the cattle slowly, and invest in the proper head gates that will work in your operation. Also, Dr. Chuck Lambert, chief economist with the National Cat tlemen’s Beef Association (NCB A), provided an overview of economic trends in the industry. Lambert said that now, per capita of beef consumption (the amount of beef per pounds an aver- Milk Production Down HARRISBURG (Dauphin Co.) Milk production in Pennsylva nia dining February 1997 totaled 824 million pounds. S percent be low last year’s production, ac cording to the Pennsylvania Agri cultural Statistics Service (PASS). The number of milk cows in the state during the month averaged 639,000 head, down 2,000 from January and6,ooo less than Febru ary 1996. Production per cow avenged 1.290 pounds in February, 95 pounds less than January’s pro duction per cow of 1385 pounds and SS pounds less than February 1996. age person eats per year) is between 64-67 pounds at about $2 a pound. Compared to inflation, that’saboutsl less per pound than prices were in die 19705, when per capita consumption was greater. Last year was a “peak” year when Acre were K)3.5 million cattle in the feedlots. As of Jan. 1 this year, there were less than 102 million on feed. In the mid-19705, there were 132 million cattle on feed, but in 1996 there was more bbef because of heavier carcass weights, better feed efficiency, and other factors. The NCBA was aware of the “economic stress and financial dis ruption in Cum and ranch coun try," last year, Lambert said. That was because of the “double jeopardy* 1 of high cattle numbers and high feed cost passed back to the producer. Price paid to feeders was 20-22 percent of die total retail value in 1996, according to Lambert What producers and the promo tional organizations must strive to do is not only produce a product less expensively, but find some way to market die round, chucks, and trimmings, which make up half of die beef carcass. And ground beef remains 45 percent of the total U.S. beef consumption. “Demand on ground beef is week at best and declining at worst” Lambert said. Fortunately for domestic pro ducers, the Mexico catde import market is drying up as the Mexican economy stabilizes. Milk production in the 20 states surveyed during February 1997 totaled 10.4 billion pounds, down 2 percent compared to production during February 1996. Hie de crease is due to February 1996 having an extra day because it was leap year. On a daily basis, February 1997 U.S. milk production increased 2 percent versus February 1996. The number of milk cows aver aged 7.75 million head, down 81,000 head from a year earlier. Production per cow averaged 1,337 pounds, 10 pounds less than February of last year. Again, the leap year in 1996 caused the momhly rate decline. • <"T
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers