Protein Producers Winter 2015

Page 1

PROTEIN producers Planning for Activities and Processes in Your Facility Pandemic H1N1, PEDV, Seneca Virus A ...What is Next?

De veloping the

Sustainable Workfor ce Understanding Medicated Feeds & Veterinary Feed Directives




New Norfenicol® (florfenicol) Injectable Solution: ®

Shorter Sub-Q Withdrawal Time Than Nuflor Less Viscous and More Syringeable Than Nuflor* New Plastic Bottles Eliminate Breakage FDA-Approved for Sub-Q Use in Cattle at High-Risk of BRD Broad Spectrum Treatment and Control Against BRD Unique Formulation *Data on file Observe label directions and withdrawal times. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. For use in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle only. Not approved for use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 28 days of the last intramuscular treatment or within 33 days of subcutaneous treatment. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Intramuscular injection may result in local tissue reaction which may result in trim loss at slaughter. See product labeling for full product information, including adverse reactions. The Norbrook logos and Norfenicol are registered trademarks of Norbrook Laboratories Limited. Nuflor is a registered trademark of Merck Animal Health. 1115-591-I01B


ANADA 200-591, Approved by FDA

For intramuscular and subcutaneous use in beef and non-lactating dairy cattle only. BRIEF SUMMARY (For full Prescribing Information, see package insert.) INDICATIONS: Norfenicol is indicated for treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni, and for the treatment of foot rot. Also, it is indicated for control of respiratory disease in cattle at high risk of developing BRD associated with M.haemolytica, P. multocida, and H. somni. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Do not use in animals that have shown hypersensitivity to florfenicol. NOT FOR HUMAN USE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Can be irritating to skin and eyes. Avoid direct contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. In case of accidental eye exposure, flush with water for 15 minutes. In case of accidental skin exposure, wash with soap and water. Remove contaminated clothing. Consult physician if irritation persists. Accidental injection of this product may cause local irritation. Consult physician immediately. The risk information provided here is not comprehensive. To learn more, talk about Norfenicol with your veterinarian. For customer service, adverse effects reporting, or to obtain a copy of the MSDS or FDA-approved package insert, call 1-866-591-5777. PRECAUTIONS: Not for use in animals intended for breeding. Effects on bovine reproductive performance, pregnancy, and lactation have not been determined. Intramuscular injection may result in local tissue reaction which persists beyond 28 days. This may result in trim loss at slaughter. Tissue reaction at injection sites other than the neck is likely to be more severe. RESIDUE WARNINGS: Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 28 days of the last intramuscular treatment. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 33 days of subcutaneous treatment. Not approved for use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows as such use may cause drug residues in milk and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. ADVERSE REACTIONS: Inappetence, decreased water consumption, or diarrhea may occur transiently. Manufactured by: Norbrook Laboratories Limited, Newry, BT35 6PU, Co. Down, Northern Ireland. The Norbrook logos and Norfenicol ® are registered trademarks of Norbrook Laboratories Limited.

PROTEIN Producers 2015 Volume 3 Issue 4

Editor Kelly Terrell Content Developer Lisa Taylor

THE PAC TEAM Dr. Wade Taylor Technology identification and deployment Dr. Tom Noffsinger Animal handling, staff development Dr. Doug Ford Reproduction, lameness Dr. Corbin Stevens Diagnostics and clinical evaluation Dr. Nels Lindberg Leadership development, field research Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz Animal handling, field research, facility design Dr. Jim Lowe System design and management, team education Dr. Shane Terrell Lameness, field research Dr. Kev Sullivan International veterinarian Animal handling, heat stress management Garrett Taylor Information management Kelly Terrell Marketing and communications Jose Valles Bilingual education & training, research monitoring Ted Howard Animal stewardship, horsemanship Lisa Taylor Business and data analysis

Service. Synthesis. Solutions.


Rise & Shine The Depot Feedlot McLaughlin, SD Lucas Sutherland, Manager We want to showcase unique photographs from our readers here! Please submit your photographs to Kelly Terrell at

Jarret Corn Feedyard owner Jarret Corn Cattle Company Plains, Texas

I GOT BACK 30 BUCKS A HEAD. I ALSO GOT BACK MY FAMILY. Using DRAXXIN® (tulathromycin) Injectable Solution has helped Jarret’s operation deliver fewer re-pulls, re-treats, chronics and mortalities. That’s because DRAXXIN provides long-lasting treatment and control of all four major bovine respiratory disease (BRD) pathogens. Plus, using DRAXXIN helped accelerate Jarret’s shipment days. “Having cattle here 15 days less reduces feed costs. The $2-per-head savings per day over 15 days returns $30 back in our pocket,” Jarret says. “And with the time I’ve saved doctoring and pulling, I’ve been able to reconnect with my family.” Talk with your veterinarian or visit

Important Safety Information: DRAXXIN has a pre-slaughter withdrawal time of 18 days. Do not use in dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Effects on reproductive performance, pregnancy and lactation have not been determined.

On your phone, use the bar code scanner app to scan this code and watch a video about Jarret Corn’s operation.

All trademarks are the property of Zoetis Inc., its affiliates and/or its licensors. ©2013 Zoetis Inc. All rights reserved. DRX13015


10 Understanding Medicated Feeds and Veterinary Feed Directives Part One - How much do cattle eat?

13 Feedlot: Calf Comfort for Newly Weaned Calves

16 Bilingual Training: The Importance of Bilingual Education and Training 17 Developing the Sustainable Workforce

18 Quality grades: Why are we at a level never achieved before?

21 Swine: Pandemic H1N1, PEDV, Seneca Virus A...What is Next? 23 AG Schmidt’s office places new emphasis on combating cattle theft

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Newest PAC Member....22 Chuckles........................24 Parable...........................29 Cartoon..........................34 Upcoming Events..........35

15 Animal Stewardship: Longevity of Feed Yard Horses 25 Facility Design: Planning for Activities and Processes in Your Facility

26 Clinical Case Review: Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis and Other

Disease Manifestations of Bovine Herpesvirus-1

28 International: Creating Connections Commences in Australia

30 KRAs and Winning! 32 Getting to Know the PAC Team: Ted Howard

33 Buliding rapport, 500 people at a time


As we move from fall to winter we are excited about this issue of Protein Producers and its expanded format covering a broader range of topics and ideas that are critical to all of us helping to feed the world. The team has done an outstanding job of identifying a broad range of topics from our traditional emphasis on feed lots, to cow-calf production, to horse management, to swine management, all with a heavy dose of how we all can make each other better. This new and expanded version of Protein Producers reflects PAC’s interests in helping everyone involved in livestock production be more effective every day in whatever role they play in helping provide the world’s safest and least expensive food supply. I have had the good fortune of getting to see how we raise animals all over the world and how they fit into each society’s plan for feeding itself. What I always find striking is the similarities are so much greater than the differences – between species and between countries. The animals and the buildings may look different but the things that determine success always seem to be the same. Caring people, good feedstuffs, reasonable technical resources and a passion for doing things right are always found on the farms, ranches and systems that are successful no matter where they are at in the world.

Follow us on Twitter @PACVets

This issue, and hopefully many more, is not just about how we can be better at what we do every day in our little part of the world but helping us understand how others, in their little part of the world, are trying to be just a little bit better today than yesterday. It is through these connections that in spite of our outward differences and different business models all of us in animal agriculture fill a unique role in keeping society working and stable. We hope you enjoy reading this issue as much as we enjoy putting it together for you! Best wishes for a productive, healthy and enjoyable 2016. Dr. Jim Lowe

Contributors Dr. Pete Anderson

Director of Research, Midwest PMS, LLC Principal, Ag Knowledge Services

Quint Finney

Independent Management/Operations Consultant Works in KS, OK, NE, WY, CO and Canada focusing on productivity and efficiency through effective personnel development, 620-655-6138

Dr. Dan Thomson

Jones Professor of Epidemiology and Production Medicine and Professor of Clinical Sciences, Kansas State University Host of DOCTalk airing on RFD-TV,

Thank you to all sponsors for supporting PAC & Protein Producers. American Animal Health Animal Health International Boehringer Ingelheim CPEC Daniels Manufacturing Co. DOCTalk Elanco Merck Animal Health Merial

Kendal Lothman

Special Agent, Livestock and Brand Investigation Unit for the Office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

Micro Beef Technologies Newport Laboratories Norbrook

Miranda Rieman

Industry Information Division Assistant Director Works with all media forms to develop qualityfocused production stories for producers and professionals in the beef industry

Production Animal Consultants

Thank you to the PAC members for contributing multiple stories and insights to Protein Producers.

Nova Microbial Technologies Nutrition Physiology Company Whisper Veterinary Stethoscope Zinpro Zoetis

Cover Photo Credits: Thank you to Certified Angus Beef and Miranda Reiman for the picture. This was taken at Beller Corporation in Lindsay, NE. 9

Understanding Medicated Feeds Part One – How much do cattle eat? By: Dr. Pete Anderson, Midwest PMS, LLC Introduction Beginning in 2016, some common feed additives for feedlot cattle will required Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) documentation. A VFD goes beyond a prescription to dictate more details about how cattle are fed. Veterinarians, nutritionists and cattle feeders will need to work together to meet VFD requirements. One of the first things required to properly formulate, manufacture and deliver medicated feed, is knowing how much the cattle will eat. All feeds contain some moisture and weight of ingredients or finished feeds is sometimes expressed “as fed”, meaning the actual weight of the feed, or on a “dry matter” basis, expressing the weight the feed would be if it contained no moisture. Since feed ingredients can vary from day to day or with different deliveries, feed yards routinely conduct dry matter tests on feed ingredients and finished feeds. Feed yards often use both as fed and dry matter numbers, for different purposes, so it is important to understand both. Understanding the relationship between as fed and dry matter is also critical for hitting target or label levels for medicated feed additives. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between dry matter consumption, dry matter percentage of feed and as fed feed required. The highlighted example indicates that to get 20 lb of daily dry matter consumption of a diet that is 70% dry matter, 28.6 lb of as fed feed must be consumed. Midwest PMS maintains a database of closeout records from some of our customers. The average feed consumption for all of the cattle in the database (43,160 lots, 6.2 million head) is 21.65 lb (dry matter basis). Does that mean that every animal eats 21.65 lb every day? Of course not. 10

Table 1, Chart 1

To properly formulate diets and get the right dose of feed-delivered medication in cattle it is necessary to understand two forces that affect feed consumption levels: • Known biological relationships • Normal variation Some of the known factors that affect feed consumption include: Sex and placement weight of the cattle: In the Midwest PMS database, steers consumed an average of 22.54 lb, heifers

and Veterinary Feed Directives Chart 2

20.89 lb, a difference of 1.65 lb/head/day. This difference occurs because steers are heavier. Steers average 61 lb heavier placement weight (799 vs 736) and 134 lb heavier out weight (1397 vs 1263). Chart 1 shows the relationship between placement weight and average daily feed intake for steers and heifers. Note that both lines are pretty straight, increasing by about 1.5 lb for every 100 lb heavier in weight. Note also that at any given in weight, steers eat about 0.6 lb more than heifers. This difference is simply due to weight, not any intrinsic difference between the sexes. At any given placement weight, steers will weigh about 110 lb more at slaughter so their mean weight will be higher for the feeding period. In fact, when expressed as a percentage of mean body weight, heifers average 2.09% of their body weight consumed per day, steers 2.05%. Seasonality: Seasonality affects many forms of behavior, including feed consumption. Cattle are more active and eat more feed when daylight is long, during summer months. When daylight is shorter, cattle eat less. Chart 2 shows

ADFI for steers or heifers of common weights, by month closed. At first it seems to contradict the earlier statement about photo-period, because cattle closed in early summer months have the lowest average intake. That makes sense, though, because those cattle actually had short daylight for much of their feeding period, especially during the critical first few months on feed (probably Oct-Dec), when their intake patterns were being established. On the other hand, cattle placed in early summer, and fed mostly during long daylight season, would be closed in Dec or Jan and have high average feed consumption. Diet or grain processing: The energy content and composition of the diet also affects the amount of feed consumed. In general, cattle eat smaller amounts as dietary energy increases. Research has shown that as the fat level of the diet increases, feed consumption decreases. Closeout data support the same conclusion. Charts 3 and 4 show feed intake for steers and heifers of different weights, grouped by whether or not their diet

Chart 3

Chart 4, Chart 5

included flaked grain (yes or no). Data are expressed either in pounds consumed (dry basis) or as a percentage of mean body weight. When corn is flaked, starch becomes more available and cattle get about 10% more energy from each pound of corn so flaked diets have higher energy content and cattle consume less. Normal variation: Not all pens of 850 lb steers placed in September are the same, either. Properly dosing feed additives requires understanding normal variation as well. Chart 5 is population distributions of average feed intake of two common weight groups of cattle. For each line, the highest point represents the most common occurrence. For example, the 850 lb steer line is highest at 23 lb average intake and nearly as high at 24 lb. Around 21% of lots of 850 lb steers had average feed consumption of 23 lb and nearly as many ate 24 lb. The tails of the line are the outer limits of consumption, with the lowest level at 18 lb for the 850 lb steers (less than 1% of them ate that amount) and the highest level at 30 lb. The line for 750 lb heifers has similar shape, but at a couple pounds lower consumption. These lines represent the bell-shaped curve that describes most populations for lots of types of traits. Summary Proper diet formulation requires a good estimate of how much feed cattle will eat. To properly prescribe medicated feed additives, and to meet the requirements of the Veterinary Feed Directive, veterinarians, nutritionists and their cattle feeding clients, will need to understand the factors that affect feed consumption, including known biological relationships and normal variation.

Daniels Manufacturing co. WorlD’s finest livestock equipMent

Double alleyWays Stationary & Portable - Fast, Easy and Safe way to process cattle all HyDraulic squeeze cHute Stationary & Portable Quietest and most user friendly chute on the market Featuring our unique squeeze design and neck stretcher coMplete corral units, panels, gates, continuous fence Manufactured from the finest high tensile strength tubing facility DraWings anD consultations Low stress cattle handling that encourages voluntary cattle flow and animal well-being

The World’s Leading Manufacturer of Cattle Handling Equipment PO Box 67 87725 State Hwy 7 Ainsworth NE 69210

Office: 402-387-1891 Fax: 402-387-1961

Calf Comfort for Newly Weaned Calves By: Dr. Dan Thomson, Kansas State University Cattle on range can find natural windbreaks, dry hills and other more comfortable areas during inclement weather. However, animals in intensive rearing operations are dependent on man to help provide animal comfort which is essential to health and performance of food animals. Animal welfare specialists in North America have indicated that environmental stresses such as mud level or heat stress are major concerns for confinement cattle. Providing relief from environmental stress in confinement operations or weaning pens can improve cattle health and performance. Cattle comfort begins immediately after newly weaned calves arrive. Long haul calves want to lie down and rest before rehydrating immediately after arrival at the facility. Wet, muddy pen floors wind up costing us a lot of money and decrease the health status of the calves because cattle can not lie down and rest after their trip. The use of dirt mounds, concrete pads and pen grooming are imperative in fall and winter months for calf and cow comfort. The smaller the animals, the more important the pen comfort becomes. However, mud can increase the cost of production for cattle in all segments of the beef industry. In emergency situations, applying bedding materials like straw or gin trash can provide comfort to cattle to lie down.

Also, in these situations a producer can groom part of the pen instead of the whole pen to decrease the time needed to attend to all cattle at the facility during the time of inclement weather. Stocking density can be very important to animal health areas ranging from biosecurity to management. Higher risk cattle are generally assigned to smaller pens on a per head basis than cattle that are at a lower risk to get sick from respiratory disease. Generally, we will assign them to a pen that is big enough to house the animals from a single truck load to prevent further commingling at the feedlot (85 to 100 head). Also, in these smaller pens it is easier for feedyard personnel to manage cattle health. Large pens are difficult to manage the health of the cattle as we look for individuals that are sick or injured. With the phenotypes, or coat color, of cattle becoming more uniform in the beef industry, it is harder to identify individual cattle that a pen rider might want to follow up on in the pen. We conducted a survey of beef cattle veterinarians in 2009. In this survey, practitioners indicated that they recommend a pen that houses 100 head of high risk cattle for optimum health and performance outcomes. (Terrell et al., 2011). This is smaller than the 200 and 400 head pens that we have been utilizing because of their ease to deliver feed 13

to many animals in a shorter period of time. Pen spacing is something that used to only be considered in our industry for animal performance. The more observations of cattle and population medicine, the more important feed bunk space, pen space and sorting of animals have become in feedlot practice. We have seen reports of backgrounders or cattle feeders placing high risk cattle into pens with 6 inches of bunk space per head. These types of situations are difficult for the smaller cattle in the pen. Limited bunk space will decrease the ability of smaller, more timid animals a chance to eat, drink or find a comfortable place to get out of the elements. Management of the smallest animals on arrival could be an area of management that could be very important to decreasing death loss in newly weaned calves. The same survey of feedlot veterinarians as mentioned above showed that practitioners recommend an average bunk space requirement for high risk calves is 12 to 18 inches (mean = 13 inches) of bunk space per calf (Terrell et al., 2011). Our recommendation for bunk space is that enough is given so all cattle can eat at the bunk at once. These recommendations on bunk space for feeder cattle change as the health status and social hierarchy of the pen changes as cattle grow larger.

High risk calves or newly weaned calves require a comfortable environment for optimal health and performance. Muddy conditions, limited pen space and limited bunk space will decrease feed intakes in calves and decrease the efficiency in which the calves utilize the feed in which they do consume. Sick cattle don’t eat and cattle that don’t eat get sick. Managing the pen floors and the bunk space are imperative getting cattle off to a good start.

right for your operation. Talk to your veterinarian about prescription ZACTRAN. For more information, visit

®ZACTRAN is a registered trademark of Merial. ©2015 Merial, Inc., Duluth, GA. All rights reserved. RUMIOTD1405 (01/14)

Longevity of Feed Yard Horses

By: Ted Howard, Production Animal Consultation

We have all seen the video of the famous barrel horse, Scamper, winning a round at the 1985 NFR, BRIDLENESS. He and his owner, Charmayne James went on to win 10 consecutive WPRA World Championships from 19841993. However, much like Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story”, Scamper’s beginning was another story. “... (Scamper) he went through horse auctions in La Junta, Colo., Guymon, Okla., Clovis and finally Clayton, N.M., ending up at our feedlot, where one of the cowboys, Ron Holland, put the handle on him. Ron Holland was slow and patient with him. He took his time with Scamper and got along with him fine, but he never fought him. ” (Charmayne James, Some of the best horses going down the road received their fundamentals in feed yards. There is a great opportunity to make some outstanding horses by understanding better horsemanship. We need to identify with how the horse operates and thinks. To achieve the goal of creating an outstanding horse, we have to start with good horses, no outlaws or broncs. Scamper’s story doesn’t end with his rodeo career. This great horse lived to be 35 years old (1977-2012). There are many reasons for a horse’s longevity: genetics, workload and lifelong care. Preserving the longevity of our horse is essential in the feed yard industry. Sources of disease and injury for a horse are numerous

in the feed yard environment. For this article we are going to focus on ground conditions and lameness. Lameness is one of the most common ailments and eventually one of the reasons horses don’t last in the feed yard. Ringbone, sidebone, navicular, bowed tendon and joint arthritis can all be found in horses that are used hard. We as horsemen and women need to learn ways to help keep our horses sound and lasting longer. Stopping fast and turning on hard ground increase the chance your horse will battle lameness. We need to eliminate outrunning cattle down alleyways or needlessly turning our horses around on hard ground. To be a good stockmen, as well as horsemen, we need to read cattle early enough to prevent from having to ask our horses to get out of a trot. When our horses are running and spinning quickly they create a very disturbing situation for our cattle. Our cattle read off of our horse’s energy as much as our horse reads off of our energy. Preserving the longevity of our feed yard horses is also good economics. The price of sound feed yard suitable horses is going up every day. Using proper horsemanship is a good opportunity to help save the feed yard money in horse replacement costs. Proper horsemanship is also essential for the pen rider to ride their personal horses into outstanding horses for a larger profit. You never know when you might be riding the next Scamper. 15

The Importance of Bilingual Education and Training By: Jose Valles, Production Animal Consultation Language barriers and cultural differences often present challenges for the workforce of the animal agriculture industry. Understanding cultural values and establishing a bilingual training program are important for improving communication, production efficiency, safety, and employee morale. Effective communication within cattle operations can improve employee performance, engagement, and safety. On the other hand, poor communication can create confusion, lower employee self-confidence, and negatively impact employee potential. From past experience working with feedlots, we have seen that individuals who are not fluent in the operation’s dominant language are often apprehensive in performing their jobs, even though they want to work hard and be engaged. Goals, objectives, and instructions must be clearly communicated between management and all personnel in order to empower employees to excel at their jobs. Production practices and techniques carried out on cattle operations are usually learned from hands-on training and written protocols put in place by consulting veterinarians, nutritionists and other professionals. Unfortunately, some individuals may not be able to read or write in English or Spanish. Therefore, hands-on training is often more effective than utilizing written training materials. Regardless of training method, it is important to explain not only how to perform a task but also why the task is performed and why the technique is used. This will help 16

employees understand their role in promoting overall animal well-being. Safety is essential on all cattle operations. Safety experts and other industry professionals provide excellent safety guidelines and training materials. However, these materials are often only available in English, and employees may discard or forget material shortly after an educational session. Routine training in both English and Spanish is necessary to continually address safety concerns. Hispanic individuals play a vital role in today’s cattle industry and will continue to do so in the future. We must invest in these individuals by providing effective training and establishing open lines of communication. This investment will lead to an efficient workforce and a positive work environment for everyone involved. To learn more about bilingual training services offered by PAC, contact Jose Valles.

Developing the Sustainable Workforce By: Quint Finney, Business Management So, I’m talking with a friend of mine who happens to be a feedyard manager and I ask him, “What is the most consistent operational challenge that you deal with?” Without pause, he said “That’s easy, people!” Then he said, “I need two cowboys and a feed truck driver....yesterday! I’ve got applications on file but none of the applicants have any experience. I just can’t find any help.” Sound familiar? I’m guessing that anyone involved with staffing a crew at a feedyard can relate. Having been blessed with the opportunity to be involved in the cattle feeding industry my entire life, I get it. There once existed an abundance of potential, experienced employees to draw from. Now there are very few. How did this situation come about? We all know how difficult it is to staff a facility when we’re short-handed. Points to consider: WHY are we short handed? HOW are we going to attract productive people? WHAT are we going to do to maintain adequate staffing and achieve higher retention rates? WHY are we short handed? The common theme, on the surface and arguably, is pay-scale. Why would someone choose to work a feed yard job, under sometimes less-than-desireable conditions, when they could do something else for equal or higher pay and not have to deal with those conditions? Fair question. A question that potential and current employees alike ask themselves. Most feed yards are competitively positioned within the industry concerning compensation packages resulting in less variability between yards. There is more competition for people from other industry than there is within our own. The pay scales are different but, our industry typically provides more consistent employment. We are generally reluctant to reduce staff during slow times because we don’t want to be behind when we get busy. People have to make a living but compensation shouldn’t be the sole motivator. Compensation speaks only to basic needs but does nothing to fullfill the need for achievement and recognition. Some organizations have increased wages 50-75% yet their turnover remains unchanged (or is higher). Employees typically quit their boss...not their paycheck. They want more from their job than just a paycheck. Many organiza-

tions miss the fact that most employees want to have a higher level of involvement in the process. HOW are we going to attract productive people? Gone are the days of a multitude of experienced applicants coming through the door each week. Developing a culture that attracts productive employees is key. Obviously this is easier said than done and takes time. What is the perception of current employees pertaining to the organization? Their perception of the organization is what the public (potential employees) see and hear. My friend Jim Whitt once told me, “Perception may not be the ultimate truth, but it is the ultimate reality.” Employee attitude towards the organization is important. It IS their reality. What are the opportunities for growth and development? Do they feel their contributions are important? What is the PURPOSE of the organization and is it communicated and fully understood? WHAT are we going to do to maintain staff and reduce turnover? It is said that everything rises and falls on leadership. Effective leadership and positive culture go hand-inhand. Leaders of succesful operations recognize the importance of developing a culture that will foster growth and are willing to put forth the effort and resources to develop and motivate people (work force). They focus on people every day, not just when they make a mistake or quit their job. They realize that we have to look at people differently in terms of both hiring and development. Good leaders know the difference between training and development. To focus on leadership develpoment will enhance the culture of the organization and lend itself to reduction in turnover. 17

Quality grades: Why are we at a level never achieved before? By: Larry R. Corah,

Reprinted with permission from Progressive Cattlemen Are we producing the highest-quality cattle ever in the history of this great industry? Well, “ever” is right up there with words like never or best, often subject to debate … but it’s a fact that we are producing the highest percentage of choice and higher cattle since the USDA implemented the grade change in the mid-1970s. Starting in 1976, we entered a 30-year decline in the percentage of prime- and choice-grading cattle. Sadly, but not surprisingly, that was accompanied by a decline in beef demand that left the industry in a weakened state of decline. Eventually, consumer demand signals for better beef started to make their way to the ranch, and quality grades ended that long slide in 2006 when barely half of fed cattle could grade choice or prime (51.7 percent). Three years later, that had improved to 56.2 percent (Table 1). Researchers identified six reasons why that had occurred, ranging from management changes to genetics. What is impressive is that since 2009 the industry has continued that upward progress to near the all-time high of 70 percent choice and prime grades in 2014. As we proceed through 2015, the numbers keep getting better, reaching 73.2 percent choice and prime for the first eight weeks. That compares to 71.2 percent for the same period in 2014. Not to be overlooked is how the percentages hitting prime and premium choice have improved. Historically, only 2 to 3 percent of federally inspected cattle graded prime, and by 2006 the percentage of black-hided, Angus-type cattle qualifying for Certified Angus Beef (CAB) had dipped to only 13.9 percent. In 2014, the share of cattle grading prime exceeded 4 percent for the first time as an annual average, and CAB acceptance rates were at a record 25.6 percent, allowing continued sales growth of the largest beef brand. Why has this positive trend continued? Some of the reasons identified in 2009 still apply, but several other circumstances are dramatically different, partially related to structural changes in the industry coupled with the impact of the devastating drought in many regions. Let’s examine these reasons in greater depth. Higher cattle prices have changed how feedlots manage cattle As cattle prices started increasing in 2005 and 2006, culminating in all-time highs in 2014 and 2015, 18

Photo by David Cooper.

feedlots had to adapt management practices. In the past four years, feeder calf prices have increased 129 percent while fed cattle prices were held to near 71 percent. That rapidly widened spread in prices saw feedlots adjust by investing more time in existing pens to delay having to buy more expensive replacements. The shift continued regardless of corn prices and resulted in live and carcass weights never seen before, more cattle sold on formulas or grids and extended days on feed, making cattle somewhat fatter. Historically, fed cattle were marketed at a compositional end point of 0.52 to 0.54 inches of fat cover. With cattle being genetically different today, most can be fed to 0.6 to 0.65 inches of fat cover without excessive YG 4 and 5 problems. The years of record-high corn prices moved more cattle feeders to sell on some type of grid or formula, now perhaps 75 percent of the market. Their rationale is based on the high incremental muscle deposition compared to skeletal growth in the last 25 to 30 days on feed, again adding pounds. The impact that added weight, additional fat cover and

more days on feed can have on quality grade is pretty dramatic. A slight increase, just moving from 0.5 inches fat cover to 0.6 inches, results in a 4.4 percentage point increase in the share of choice and prime grades and a jump of 4.3 points in CAB acceptance, or up to 20 percent more cattle in those premium categories. Drought impact Starting in 2008, a persistent Southwestern drought began to spread throughout much of the U.S., leading to a selloff in beef cow herds that reached a staggering low of 29 million cows by January 2014. Because the hardest-hit region was the Southern Plains, the perennially number one cow state of Texas alone liquidated more than 1.2 million beef cows. Historically, the southern side of the Great Plains region has produced lower-grading cattle, so it seems safe to assume many of the cows culled were some of those lower-quality animals. Supporting this theory is the fact that grading levels at the Texas plants have shown the biggest improvement in the past five years – a 23.9 percent increase in grade compared to 2.7 percent higher for plants in Nebraska (Table 1). Genetics for marbling We have long known that marbling is moderately heritable with very few correlations to other economically important traits, allowing for genetic selection and progress. With the rise of grid marketing in the 1990s and virtually all grids featuring a quality grade premium, the economic importance of marbling has continued to grow. Not surprisingly, seedstock producers noticed the priority placed on marbling EPDs by their bull-buying clientele and have responded to that demand. Angus is the dominant breed in terms of the share of bulls turned out each year, with surveys generally indicating Angus bulls at about 60 percent of the total. Evaluating the genetic trend line for marbling in the Angus breed, it is apparent that

marbling potential in sires used (and by extension the commercial cow herd) is much greater than 15 years ago. Table 2 illustrates how the percentage of Angus genetics can influence individual marbling and subsequent quality grade potential. When producers start stacking genetics for marbling on both the cow and bull side, great progress can be made in quality grade. In 2005, research showed the impact stacking genetics can have in a herd in just two generations, using typical “Southern” cattle as a base. Using a 40 percent choice and prime base, it was illustrated how this could be increased to 58 percent in the first generation by using a high-marbling Angus sire. In the second generation, a further increase to 70 percent could be achieved. To give appropriate credit to other breeds, Simmental and Hereford rank as the two other breeds surveys say are most commonly used along with Angus. These three breeds represent about 80 percent of all bulls turned out annually. Seedstock operators within both these breeds have put greater selection pressure on marbling, as shown by their trend lines in the past 10 years. Another way to look at genetic trends can be seen in the degree to which we have “turned the U.S. cattle herd black.” Today, 62 to 63 percent of all fed cattle are black-hided, but if we take Holsteins out of the fed cattle population and consider only native beef cattle, 75 percent to 77 percent of those are black-hided today, a trend line that has been fairly steady with 1.5 to 2 percent increases each year for 25 years. Using the extensive Iowa Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity data (Table 3), we see the dramatic difference in quality grade related to hide color. Holstein impact When we think of cattle feeding, we may forget the fairly high percentage of that mix represented by Holstein steers 19

and heifers. Traditionally, CattleFax data has suggested Holsteins represent about 15 to 17 percent of the total, but with the significant decline in beef cow numbers and the stable number of dairy cows, Holsteins have grown to nearly 20 percent of the fed mix. Many do not realize the disparity in quality grade between Holstein fed cattle and the native beef cattle, or wrongly assume the former do not grade well. Data from the industry’s National Beef Quality Audit has shown that Holstein steers and heifers typically have a 15 percentage point higher incidence of prime/choice carcasses than those of their beef

contemporaries (Table 4). That’s why, as Holsteins represent a higher percentage of the fed cattle mix today, some of the increase in quality grade must be attributed to the “Holstein effect.”

MONDAYS @ 4:30 PM/ET Rebroadcast Times TUESDAYS SUNDAYS 2:30 AM/ET 7:30 AM/ET

Pandemic H1N1, PEDV, Seneca Virus A...What is Next? By: Dr. Jim Lowe, Production Animal Consultation The pork industry has had its share of excitement over the last 5 years. Pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) did little to pigs but disrupted exports and caused market crashes, Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV) killed thousands of pigs, shifted markets and created the highest prices and highest levels of profit for the industry on record and Seneca virus A (SVA) has been around for a long time in the US but over the last 6 months has created an outbreak across the US resulting in disruptions to marketing and the most intensive period of foreign animal disease investigations that anyone can remember. Where did these diseases come from? Are we going to see more new diseases? Is this what we should expect? All are questions that I hear on a regular basis. While none of us know the answers to those questions with certainty, understanding what has happened with both PEDV and SVA can help us understand where the industry has vulnerability and how we might be prepared for “the next” issue. The likely causes of the three outbreaks share many common factors but the origin of the outbreaks are very different and the response from both the industry and regulators has been different. These similarities and differences should help us understand how we might address the next issue before it creates significant damage on individual producers or the industry at large and should help other protein industries understand where they are susceptible to novel disease challenges. Let’s start with the differences between these outbreaks to see what we can learn. pH1N1 and PEDV were both novel (i.e., new) diseases to the US prior to the outbreak. This means that they were moved into the country highlighting the global world that we live in. Based on the best available data pH1N1 entered the country with infected people which shed the virus back to pigs. This is called a “reverse zoonosis” where an infection moves from man to animals. The bigger story is that pH1N1 was a combination of two swine origin viruses and human viruses that infected

humans. This disease is another in a long line of diseases that move between species (HIV: primates to humans; Classical Swine Influenza: birds to humans to pigs; PRRSV: rodents to pigs) to create new diseases. Controlling these kinds of disease introduction will be hard but there are many smart people working on how to detect these issues early and stop their movement. PEDV was introduced to the US sometime in 2013 on what we now think was contaminated transport “totes” for feed ingredients originating in Asia. This virus was first identified in May of 2013 but based on retrospective sample analysis had been in the country at least six months before it was identified. PEDV has been a significant disease for decades in Asia with large outbreaks in China in 2012. The introduction of PEDV demonstrates how our collective supply chain can impact our business, how little we know about our supply chain and how dependent we are on foreign suppliers to make our businesses function daily. In one investigation, on a single swine breeding herd, Carthage Veterinary Service, Ltd, Carthage, IL, found over 100 products that at least partially originated in China. While a global supply chain has been great for business by lowering costs it has created risks that as food producers we do not fully understand. SVA is different from the first two diseases we have looked at. It has been in the country for years, causing sporadic disease that is almost always self-limiting. The challenge with SVA is that it produces lesions that cannot be differentiated from Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). What has changed this year is that there has been a sustained outbreak starting in July that has been maintained through early November. Little is known about why this outbreak started and why it appears to be waning. What we do know about all three of these diseases is that they moved across the industry very quickly and effected producers of all sizes. This disease pattern shows us how interconnected our industry is: Millions of pigs move across state lines each week, feed ingredients are common across large geographic regions, the vast majority of pigs 21

grow on a site that they were not born on, multiple sources of growing pigs are fed in the same regions often next to breeding farms where pigs are moved to other regions, we share trucking between many companies, we fail to wash and disinfect trucks after contacting collection points, and shared labor crews are only some of the examples of how interconnected the industry is. These strategies have been used because they create the greatest economic benefits for pig owners. While they optimize short term economic benefits, they create long term risks for small events such as novel diseases to become industry wide issues. How we face these issues will help us in understanding “what is next.” Unfortunately the answers are not easy as predicting the timing and cost of the next disease outbreak is almost impossible. This makes estimating the economic value of any change very hard to calculate. It does not mean that we should not try but shifting from working on the hard question of “What is next?” to how do we contain the next outbreak should be more fruitful. Looking in from the outside it appears that the beef and dairy industries face similar issues. Addressing these issues will be critical to preserving the US protein industry’s global excellence.

Newest PAC Member

Joseph Lawrence Morrison

Birthday: February 2nd, 2015 Parents: Joseph and Jolene Morrison

AG Schmidt’s office places new emphasis on combating cattle theft By: Kendal Lothman, Office of KS Attorney General

The term “cattle rustling” may conjure up visions of the Wild West, but the crime of livestock theft is alive and well in modern-day Kansas. Rustlers of yesteryear had many obstacles to overcome. First, they had to have access to the livestock. That was perhaps a little before the advent of fencing, when there were large numbers of cattle on the open range. Next, they had to move the stolen livestock and find a buyer for them. Herding cattle was the most common way to move the cattle. The bad guy had to sell the cattle fast, which mean they had to find nearby buyer. The penalty for cattle rustling during those days was usually severe. If a rustler was caught by the cattle owner, they likely would be shot on the spot. If they were caught by a lawman they would probably end up at the end of a rope – after a fair trial of course. In 2015, bad guys are still stealing cattle, but they now have access to trucks and trailers that can move large numbers of cattle hundreds of miles from their original location in a matter of a few hours – many times before the owner even knows the cattle are missing. With the aid of modern technology, rustlers have access to an unlimited market of buyers across the country and internationally, who might not even be aware they are buying stolen cattle. To respond to this growing problem Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt and the Kansas Department of Agriculture recognized the need to have state law enforcement

resources available to assist local agencies with cattle theft investigations. In 2014, the Livestock and Brand Investigation Unit was created in the Attorney General’s Office. The Unit combines the resources of the two offices and currently consists of one special agent, dedicated entirely to investigate criminal activity as it relates to livestock theft. This Unit’s mission is to protect and serve Kansas livestock producers and those involved in the livestock industry. While the state has increased resources to investigate cattle theft, it’s best if we can help prevent cattle from being stolen in the first place. The time-tested methods of theft deterrence remain true. Foremost is branding your livestock. This is still the best way to positively identify and track your livestock. Making sure gates are locked, limiting access to your property and taking regular counts are critical to preventing theft, and timely discovery if cattle are missing. If you think cattle have been stolen, contact your local law enforcement as soon as possible. Timely reporting is essential to trying to find the livestock before they cross state or international borders and become even harder to track. It’s also important to preserve the crime scene. Do not disturb any footprints or tire tracks that may be used to identify a suspect. Through proper prevention and thorough investigations, we can reduce cattle theft in Kansas and preserve the livelihood of Kansas ranchers. 23

Easy on cattle and your bottom line. 1

Titanium® vaccines have no impact on feed intake and result in little to no post-treatment side effects, so you can keep your cattle on track with health management solutions that don’t interrupt your day-to-day operations or affect your bottom line.1,2 It’s BRD protection that doesn’t impact performance, so you can be confident in every dose.


A DOSE OF CONFIDENCE The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow the label and use directions. As measured by body temperature, feed intake, injection-site reaction or white blood cell count. 2Terhaar, B. 2001. Evaluating the effects of vaccine-induced stress on productivity. Study No. TR-13. Published by Agri Laboratories Ltd. Do not vaccinate within 21 days of slaughter. Elanco, Titanium® and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. © 2015 Elanco Animal Health FYDH 35192 USBBUTIT00069


Chuckles From Down Under By: Jane Sullivan

The Pope was in a hurry to get from one event to the next. He hopped in the back seat of his limousine and asked the driver to step on it. “Go faster,” he told the driver. Finally, the Pope demanded that the driver pull over immediately and switch seats with him. The Pope took his seat behind the wheel of the car and flew down the highway. After only a few miles, a police car with flashing red and blue lights pulled the Pope over. When the officer saw who was in the driver’s seat, he wasn’t sure what to do. He went to his radio and called the chief. “Chief,” he said, “I pulled a speeding limo over, but I’m not sure what to do.” “Give him a ticket,” said the chief. “But he’s very important,” replied the officer. “Who is it, the mayor?” asked the chief. “No, he’s more important than the mayor.” “The governor?” “No,” said the officer, “more important than the governor.” “Is it the president?” asked the chief. 24

“Well, Chief, I don’t know who it is, but his driver is the Pope.” (Courtesy of Bell Veterinary Services) Kooky Kids A lady lost her purse while shopping at a busy shopping mall. A little boy found the bag and tracked her down to return it. “Thank you so much little boy,” the woman said, checking her wallet. “That’s funny – when I lost the bag there was a $100 bill in here, but now there are a hundred $1 bills.” The boy explained, “That’s right, ma’am. The last time I found a lady’s purse, she didn’t have any change for a reward.”

The orderly officer received a complaint about the issue of bread. “Soldiers should not make a fuss about trivialities, my man,” he said. “If Napoleon had that bread when he was crossing the Alps, he’d have eaten it with delight!” “Yes sir,” said the corporal. “But it would have been fresh then!”

Planning for Acitivities and Processes in Your Facility By: Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz Production Animal Consultation

Cattle handling facilities are an integral part of the beef cattle operation. Whether you are looking to build a new facility or re-design an existing facility, one of the first steps in the process should be a thorough evaluation of the activities that will take place in the facility. Understanding the tasks to be performed from the start will reduce the need for costly changes to the facility after it has been built. Generally, all processing facilities should accommodate basic herd work including vaccination, branding, implanting, castration, reproductive exams, identification, and weighing. Tasks such as computerized sorting and ultrasounding for pregnancy exams or to measure back fat and carcass quality may require additional planning. Some facilities need to accommodate more specialized procedures such as hospitalization and treatment, surgery, or research enrollment. In these facilities, it may be necessary to add a wet lab room or additional room to accommodate the tools needed to accomplish the procedures. Additional table space, drop hoses with water, and drop cords located chute side; additional electrical outlets; specialized lighting; and cleaning may also be necessary. The types of technology that need to be installed in the facility are also dictated by the schedule of activities. Such technology might include computer hardware and software for recordkeeping, water and electricity for surgical procedures, and overhead or floor-mount scales for collecting weights.

Taking into account the activities that will take place, the facility can be designed to help ensure that adequate biosecurity measures can be implemented easily. The ease of clean-up will determine whether or not it is done regularly and thoroughly! Additionally, consider the following questions when designing shipping and receiving facilities: • What are the space requirements for gathering and staging pens? • Is a foot scale required? • Is shipping and receiving verification required? When planning shipping facilities, evaluate the size of cattle and design the facility to accommodate animals’ current size with the anticipation that animals will get bigger or maintain the size they are today. Be sure to consult the employees who work in the facility when considering its activities and its design. These employees have first-hand experience with the day-to-day operation of the facility. Their valuable perspective might reveal issues that would otherwise be overlooked. I have been involved in many facility remodels and new designs where the employees were left out of the discussion, and I can tell you first hand if you want the facility to be successful and efficient, make sure to include your lead processor in the discussion. The cost of remodeling and building new facilities is high. Knowing the purposes of the facility will help the designer make the facility as efficient as possible, improving the processing experience for both cattle and handlers. 25

Clinical Case Review: Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis and Other Disease Manifestations of Bovine Herpesvirus-1 By: Jose Valles and Lisa Taylor, Production Animal Consultation

Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) is a viral infection that affects the upper respiratory tract of infected animals. It was first recognized in the western United Stated during the 1950s. IBR was one of the first viral infections linked with bovine respiratory disease (BRD), and it is one of many factors that can contribute to shipping fever. This acute viral infection affects beef and dairy cattle and other wild ruminants worldwide. While IBR is common in U.S. cattle herds, some European countries have successfully eradicated the disease. Outbreaks of this particular disease can result in significant economic losses for cattle operations. IBR is caused by bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV-1), a member of the Herpesviridae family. In addition to IBR, this highly contagious virus causes conjunctivitis; infectious pustular vulvovaginitis (IPV) and infectious pustular balanoposthitis (IPB); abortion; and encephalitis. BHV-1 infection in young calves can result in systemic infection, leading to death. The disease associated with BHV-1 infection depends on the virus route of infection, strain, and dose, as well as environmental factors and the animal’s age and immune function. IBR is common in feedlot settings, while IPV, IPB, and abortion are more common in breeding herds. IBR infection can cause immunosuppression, making animals more susceptible to BRD. Transmission of IBR occurs through saliva, nasal secretions, or contaminated aerosols. When affecting other organ systems, BHV-1 can be transmitted in utero, at birth, or venereally. Incubation for the virus is 2-6 days. Without complicating bacterial infections, the animal will usually recover 4-5 days after the onset of clinical signs. The virus becomes latent in the animal’s nervous tissue and can be reactivated by various factors including calving, stress, transportation, corticosteroid treatment, and weather changes. After reactivation, the animal usually does not display clinical signs, but it still sheds the virus, spreading disease to susceptible herd mates. BHV-1 can affect cattle of all ages and breeds. Calves 6 26

months of age and older tend to be more susceptible because their passive immunity is fading. Disease outbreaks generally remain active for 14 to 28 days and are more likely to occur when cattle are commingled and confined. Consequently, IBR outbreaks are common in feedlots in the fall and winter. Mortality due to IBR is not common unless complicated by secondary infection. Clinical signs of animals infected with IBR may include coughing, depression, fever, inflamed nose and muzzle, labored or rapid breathing, loss of appetite, nasal discharge, open mouth breathing, reduced milk yield, salivation, and weight loss. These symptoms may vary when a secondary infection is present. Cattle may also present symptoms of conjunctivitis including red eyes, ocular discharge, and, in some cases, corneal opacity. In cases of IPV, clinical signs may include elevated tail head, elevated temperature, frequent urination, lesions on the vulvar and vaginal lining, tail switching, vulvar discharge, and vulvar inflammation. Similarly, symptoms of IPB may include decreased libido, an inflamed prepuce or penis, and pustular lesions. Abortion associated with BHV-1 infection is most likely during the second half of gestation. Recommended medical examination for cattle suspect of IBR includes lung score, rectal temperature, visual clinical signs, feed intake, water consumption, and movement. Suspect animals should be closely monitored and provided Figure 1: Necrotic lesion found in mid-trachea during post-mortem exam consistent with IBR infection.

Figure 2: Necrotic lesion found in the upper-trachea during post-mortem exam consistent with IBR infection.

2 to 3 weeks before weaning, at feedlot arrival, and again at the time of re-implantation if necessary. Vaccines for IBR prevention are commercially available in parenteral modified-live virus (MLV), intranasal (IN) MLV, and killed-virus (KV) forms. Parenteral MLV vaccines should not be used in pregnant cows that have no IBR vaccination history because they can cause abortion. In contrast, intranasal MLV vaccines, which replicate locally only, can be used safely in pregnant cows. Marker vaccines are also being developed, with advantages for BHV-1 eradication. References Campbell, J. 2015. Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Cattle, The Merck Veterinary Manual. Accessed November 23, 2015, from http:// Crawshaw, M., G. Gunn, P. Nettleton, and G. Caldow. 2001. Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) and Other Features of Bovine Her-

supportive care. At necropsy, cattle infected with IBR commonly present hemorrhages or mucofibrinous exudate in the sinuses. The trachea is typically inflamed, with petechial hemorrhages and hyperemia (Figures 1 and 2). Necrotic lesions can be found in the nose, trachea, larynx, pharynx, and, in some cases, the bronchi. These lesions may form yellowish plaques. Definitive diagnosis of IBR and other diseases caused by BHV-1 can be made by laboratory analysis either anteor post-mortem. For ante-mortem diagnosis, nasal, ocular, or genital swabs should be collected 3 to 4 weeks apart (the first during the early stages of acute infection). Tissue samples collected from bronchial lymph nodes and trachea at necropsy can be used for post-mortem diagnosis. In cases of abortion, fixed or frozen samples from the fetal liver and kidney, frozen placental samples, or fetal thoracic cavity fluid can be submitted for laboratory analysis. Laboratory testing may include virus isolation, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), virus neutralization (VN), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Currently there are no products available to specifically treat IBR infection. Supportive care is essential in all cases. IBR-infected animals must be isolated to help control the spread of disease. Antibiotic therapy can be used to treat or minimize the possibility of secondary bacterial infections. Prevention practices are the primary line of defense against IBR. Practices to reduce IBR outbreaks such as stress reduction through low-stress handling practices are important. Adequate bunk, water and pen space allocation are a priority throughout the feeding period, and increased biosecurity measures, including sanitation and reduction of commingling, are essential for disease prevention. Timely vaccination is also important. Calves should be vaccinated

pesvirus 1 (BHV-1) Infection of Cattle. TN496. Accessed November 23, 2015, from Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) in Cattle. IBR? No thanks! Accessed November 23, 2015, from Jones, C. and S. Chowdhury. 2010. “Bovine Herpesvirus Type 1 (BHV-1) is an Important Cofactor in the Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex.” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 26(2): 303-321. Searl, R. Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis. Beef Cattle Handbook BCH-3220. Accessed November 23, 2015, from Sprott, L.R. and S. Wikse. 1998. Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M University System. L-5224. Accessed November 23, 2015, from http://animalscience. van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. 2000. “Health Management: Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis”, in Alberta Feedlot Management Guide, 2nd edition. Accessed November 23, 2015, from$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/beef11725. World Organization for Animal Health. 2010. “Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis/Infectious Pustular Vulvovaginitis”, Chapter 2.4.13 in Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. Accessed November 23, 2015, from http://www. Zoetis. Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR). Accessed November 23, 2015, from

Creating Connections Commences in Australia By: Dr. Kev Sullivan, Production Animal Consultation The Creating Connections program, the brain child of Dr. Paulo Loureiro from Merck commenced its rollout in Australia with Austrex, a major cattle live export shipping company, as the first company to embrace and sign up for the program. Dr. Kev conducted the week long training program which ran from the 26th of October to 30th of October with three key people from Austrex and one key manager from Merck as participants. The program consisted of a half day “classroom” session discussing basic principles of cattle handling and expectations of the participants, followed by one and a half days of on-site cattle handling in the cattle yards. This included one-on-one sessions with Dr. Kev and opportunities for all four participants to practice their skills. Video was made of the participants handling cattle and there was a video review session. This video review session was very valuable and well received by the team. It was requested that as a prerequisite to the training all of the participants enroll and complete the on-line training modules before the commencement of the week. After spending two full days in Portland live export facility, Victoria, where the cattle are mostly British and European types, the team moved from the cold weather of the south to tropical Darwin in the Northern Territory where it was hot and the cattle are Bos Indicus, Brahman or Brahman cross cattle. Most of these animals have had little or no human interaction and are often mustered by helicopter and


vehicles. This is a completely different production system from the system experienced in Victoria. These cattle are fast and very sensitive. The team spent two days examining the system and working with these cattle in short lessons. It was amazing how quickly these unhandled very sensitive cattle responded and within a few minutes and a couple of short lessons the team had a herd of 1200 head walking straight in an orderly fashion past the handlers around the paddock, from corner to corner and to feed and water. This was an exceptionally rewarding experience for the team, myself and most of all the cattle. The expectations of the people and the cattle were met. Follow up training with the team is essential and this will occur in early 2016. The Creating Connections snowball has starting rolling down the hill and it cannot be stopped.

The Power of Life & Death By: Dr. Greg Quakenbush, Geissler Corp., & Dr. Doug Ford, Production Animal Consultation

I came home late one evening from a business trip and was met at the door by my wife informing me we had a most special houseguest. My 11-year-old granddaughter, Maddy, did not have school the following day and had asked to come spend the night with Grandma & Grandpa. After putting away my luggage and gathering a snack I came into the family room where the two girls were wrapped up in blankets; my wife watching Fox News and my granddaughter looking through a book. I took a seat in my chair and became engrossed in the TV news reporting and bantering with my wife about the day’s further cultural decline and chaos. At this point one can easily envision the beauty and serenity of the moment. It had the feel of a Norman Rockwell painting in the 21st century. However, suddenly and unexpectedly this peaceful evening was destroyed by a sudden and violent burst of air. This unexpected eruption was the loud sound of a vulgar comment that came flying out of my mouth. I had become angry with the TV as I vociferously disagreed with the statements being made by one of the two individuals being interviewed. When I came back to my senses even I was somewhat surprised at my response. My self-evaluation was quickly cut short as my wife laid into me. “What are you doing??!! What is wrong with you??!! You have a granddaughter sitting over here!!” Call it a senior moment or whatever… I had absolutely forgotten that my granddaughter was in the room. Additionally, I was embarrassed and concerned that all of my mentoring and attempt at being a living example of right and wrong had been decimated in less time than one can say a couple of words. I at least had the presence of mind to ask my granddaughter for forgiveness and tell her that what I said was not only wrong, but also unacceptable. About an hour later it was time for Maddy to go to bed and she came by to give me a hug. I again told her that what Grandpa had said was absolutely wrong and inappropriate. Maddy gave me a big smile and said… “It’s OK Grandpa, I really did not hear what you said.” I so hoped that what she was telling me was true. It caused me to reflect on the power of words and how they can destroy or how they can heal. My unexpected outburst had the potential to not only ruin my “grandpa” credibility,

but to set a wrong example. My time of self-reflection also reminded me of a parable that I had heard years ago about a man in a small village who had said some rough things about a local resident. Things that were not true and certainly were damaging. Over time his comments were rapidly shared from one person to another in this small village. In almost no time the disturbing words reached the ear of the one who was slandered. The man was dismayed at what he had done and went to the village wise man to seek council and advice. The wise man’s instructions were somewhat unusual as he told the man to take a bag of feathers and lay one on each doorstep of each individual in the village. The man did as he was told and returned to the wise man. “Now… tomorrow go back and retrieve the individual feathers and bring them back to me.” The following day the man returned to the wise man and reported that he was unable to find any feathers. The wind had blown them all away. “So it is with careless words my son,” stated the wise man. “Once spoken they cannot be taken back. You may ask for forgiveness but the words themselves have caused the damage… which is hard or impossible to undo.” The Bible has a lot to say regarding words, speech, and the power of the tongue. Here are a few for your perusal Proverbs 18:21, Death and life are in the power of the tongue… James 3:8-10, (ESV) … but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Ephesians 4:29, (ESV) Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. Proverbs 12:18, (ESV) There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. 29

KRAs and Winning! By: Dr. Nels Lindberg, Production Animal Consultation As leaders, as feedyard manager, head cowboy, cattle foreman, or any crew leader, we can all reflect back on stories in which team members failed us. We can think about the time when cowboy Tanner just wouldn’t show up to work on time, and have his horse saddled by daylight to ride. Or when the feedtruck driver John just couldn’t consistently feed the full length of the bunk. Or when the feed crew is complaining about the cowboys leaving gates chained closed, or cowboys complaining about feed truck drivers opening up the gates. We all have failed many times in what we do, and we have all failed many times at leading a team to be highly successful. Business Consultant and author Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, says, “I put them on the bus, but I put them on the wrong seat on the bus.” We need to put them on the right seat on the bus. And that is our job to accomplish this. As we think about the ways a team member can fail at their job; there are 3 main reasons this occurs. The #1 reason is leadership failure. The #2 reason is personal problems, #3 is incompetence. Many, many times, personnel failure at work is due to #1. And as proud leaders, we often don’t want to accept that or believe that. So, #1, we must as leaders make sure we do all the things we can do for our team members to succeed. In order for our team members to succeed, we must tell them what it looks like for them to succeed at their job. In the last magazine we talked about Millennials and what they want, and feedback is very very important to them. And they also like


frequent feedback, not just once a year feedback. But I believe that all people, regardless of generation likes feedback. We all like to know how we are doing, we all want to please our “boss” each day. And if you feel like your people don’t want to please you, then you are likely failing as their leader. So as leaders, we must develop and have KRAs, Key Results Areas, for each and every team member. We must sit down, think about each position we have, and each team member we have, and write KRAs. And another key factor is to have your team members write their own KRAs, and you then sit down together and edit and adjust them as you see fit. As you think about KRAs, you may be asking what is the difference between a KRA and a job description? A KRA is focused on outputs of the job, whereas job descriptions are focused on the inputs. A description is we want you to ride pens each day and identify and pull sick cattle. A KRA is you are responsible for the health and well-being of the animals in your pen and their health outcomes. So the difference is a small difference, but a big difference in what your team member may take away from it, and better understand what you want out of them. So again, the big difference is, we want to focus on the outputs and not focus on the inputs. And the main reason is, as we first add any person to our team, we want them to know what our expected results are. This is the best way to develop a job description, and we want to keep it very simply and very clean.

Photo Taken by Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz The Niobrara River

We want it to be 3 or 4 key areas, and we want it ordered by what is most important to least important, although with just 3 or 4 key areas, they are all likely very important. We want all KRAs to be centered around what is expected, something or parts of it can be measured, and can be reported. The number one goal of any KRA, is employees will understand with this KRA, what it looks like to win at our yard or our operation. As awesome, caring leaders, we want all of our team members to succeed, and we must do these things to help get them there. Our people must know from their leader what the expectations are, what it looks like to win, and we must give them all the tools they need to win. In the end, it comes down to people, not a number or numbers. We must treat all our people like people, we must treat them like we want to be treated, treat them with respect and ask them to do the things it takes to succeed. And if you don’t care about people, if you don’t care about your people’s lives and their success, then you don’t deserve to lead them. The famous and one of the best leadership developers of all time, Zig Ziglar, said it best, “You must help your people get what they want out of life, so that you may get what you want out of life.” And if you do that, I promise, you won’t be able to hold back your success or your operation’s success. Go get it done!!

Getting to Know the PAC Team: Ted Howard My life has always revolved around the horse. I hold a deep respect for the horse and have always made my living with one. As a teenager, I trained and rode race horses on recognized and bush tracks. Eventually my size prohibited my jockey career, and I started working in the feedlot. My twelve years riding pens allowed me to recognize the importance of the horse in relationship to the handling of cattle. In 1980 I decided to train and shoe horses full time. This period in my life gave me the chance to fine tune my training methods and horsemanship principles. After fifteen years of training and shoeing I found myself owning and operating Ted’s Boot Repair and Tack shop in Oakley, KS. I enjoyed resoling boots and fixing saddles while I continued to train horses for myself. During a portion of this time I owned and operated a cow/calf operation. Running cattle on grass and in stock fields allowed me to use stockmanship principles in an environment different from the feed yard. I was offered the opportunity, in 2013, to become a part of PAC’s Animal Stewardship division. By specializing in horsemanship, I can help others utilize the horse to become better stockmen in the feed yard industry. I have appreciated not only working with the PAC members, but also the hard working men and women in the feed yards. When I’m not riding a horse for work, I’m team roping. Team roping has always been a way for me to take my horses’ abilities to a higher level. I enjoy competing in local jackpots, USTRC and World Series events. Last, but certainly not least, my family is very important to me. My daughter, Dr. Kristy Booker and her husband Jason own and operate the Oakley Veterinary Clinic in Oakley, KS. They have blessed me with two beautiful granddaughters, Liberty (age 11) and Justice (age 9). My wife, Darcy, and I stay busy following my stepson, JD Draper (age 17) in all of his rodeo endeavors. I am very fortunate.


Above: Ted’s granddaughters, Justice on the sorrel and Liberty on the gray horse. Below: JD Draper and Ted after they both won their events at different rodeos on the same day. JD won Sr. Boys All-Around at the Kit Carson Little Britches Rodeo in Burlington, CO and Ted had won the 40/40 Team Roping heeling at the Fort Wallace Rodeo in Wallace, KS.

Building rapport, 500 people at a time own immune response,” he said. One example is young animals nursing dozens of times a day are much healthier than “Passion” is overused. It’s more than a romantic lifestyle those that nurse only once or twice. or down-home values. Noffsinger’s team consults on 1.2 million feedlot cattle When communicating with those who merchandise, each month and works to reduce sickness at critical conserve and represent beef to consumers it’s hard to describe trol points.“We’ve noticed that our biggest health problems the commitment and sense of purpose that most farmers happen near a change of address,” he said. and ranchers share. A theme of the panel was collaboration and illustrating Instead of relying on second-hand accounts, many from how separate businesses all work together for the good of just about every link in the beef chain heard stories directthe consumer. ly from agriculture’s people at the Certified Angus Beef ® BMG is a network of finishing operations that finish (CAB®) brand’s annual conference in late September. More more than 600,000 head of cattle each year, Butler said. than 500 from retail and foodservice to processing and exWhy that many? port gathered at the event in San Antonio, Texas. The sto“When we look at how we can play a role in producing a ries painted pictures. consistent product on a consistent basis, we can’t do it with “One day I went down to the river to see where our 100 cows. We can’t do it with 10,000 cattle in a feedyard, discharge met the river and—I’m not kidding you—about because we have to deliver a relevant number of pounds 20 yards down the river were three little boys swimming,” of product to someone every week,” he said, noting their said Cargill’s Nicole Johnson-Hoffman. She said the beef close relationship with Tyson. “That’s very key so that we packer returns river water from its plants in better condition can produce it on a consistent basis. than when it enters those plants. we don’t have communication, we “I know my job is critically im“It’s absolutely amazing to me Ifdon’t have transparency and we can’t portant.” what happens to a feedlot, a do that.” Other panelists included BMG feedyard operators share community, a country, a world, consulting veterinarian Tom common goals, Butler said: “We try when animals and people are Noffsinger of Production Annot to mess up good genetics and imal Consultants, cattle feeder doing things because they want to we try to take those animals to their John Butler of Beef Marketand not because they have to.” optimum finishing point and proing Group (BMG), and Angus duce a high-quality product.” Dr. Tom Noffsinger breeders Kevin and Lydia Yon, But they are also trying to make of Yon Family Farms in Ridge environmental improvements and Spring, S.C. respond to consumer demands. They’re working to make They weighed in on questions ranging from water use “sustainability” improvements. and the “local” movement to animal handling and counterThe definition of that buzzword varies somewhat., but ing misguided activists. Johnson-Hoffman, who chairs the U.S. Roundtable for Sus“It’s absolutely amazing to me what happens to a feedtainable Beef, distilled it to three questions. lot, a community, a country, a world, when animals and peo“For us that just means, ‘Is it environmentally sound? Is ple are doing things because they want to and not because it socially responsible? Is it economically viable?’ If the anthey have to,” Noffsinger said, noting animal behavior is swer is ‘yes,’ then it’s probably sustainable,” she said. “Cows better understood today. “It turns the image of daily activiare a miraculous animal. They take inedible [to humans] ty around in a very positive fashion.” forage and turn it into the finest protein known to man.” He teaches animal handling that centers on building To the Yon family, sustainability also means allowing trust between cattle and caregivers. their children to come back to the farm, if they choose to “Our tools to communicate with these creatures are limdo so. Lydia Yon said when they’d come home for Christited to our posture, our position, our attitude, relationship mas break during college, the kids’ first question was preof the angle that we take, and then the speed of movedictable: “When are we going to synchronize cows?” ment,” Noffsinger explained. They joked about being the manual labor force, but all Once cattle trust, everything improves. of that had a purpose, she said. “The most important medicine we have is the animal’s

By: Miranda Reiman, Certified Angus Beef LLC 33

“Our goal all along was to teach them work ethic and a responsibility, and for them to learn respect for the environment and the animals – and then they could take that to whatever profession they chose,” Lydia Yon said. “We don’t want them to think they just come back and automatically get the ‘keys to the kingdom’ though. They’ve got to come back with unique talents.” The couple has encouraged internships as a way to build skills to bring to the seedstock business. Prior to the panel discussions, Debbie Lyons-Blythe provided a snapshot of life on her Kansas cattle ranch, and also talked of passing down the legacy to her five children. “They are all vitally important to our labor force and even though they are in college or graduated, we do plan work for when they can come home and give us a hand,” she said. “They are also part owners in our ranch, so in time, we hope to give them more of the management duties and

we will transition to their ownership and responsibility.” During Lyons-Blythe’s remarks, she shared a scrolling loop of pictures of her kids, ranch and herd, and talked of teamwork during blizzards and kids growing up checking cattle with her. When the session closed, nearly 40 more crowd-submitted questions remained. The company promised to answer those post-conference though the process took weeks to complete. CAB set up the exchange to help those who market beef to consumers get a glimpse of what cattlemen and women put into the process of creating that beef. “It’s a real privilege to us to know we are the starting point,” Lydia Yon said. “But it’s real humbling to know we better not mess up.”

The panelists on stage during the 2015 annual convention 34

Upcoming Events

January 4th Illinois Pork Producers Common Industry


Audit Seminars, Sycamore, IL, Dr. Jim presenting

4th American Angus Association Convention,

6th Illinois Pork Producers Common Industry

12th Purina Veterinary Conference, St. Louis,

11th Illinois Pork Producers Common Industry

16th WSU Student AABP Chapter meeting, Wash-

12th-14th Nebraska Cattlemen Young

21st KCA Convention, Dodge City, KS,

13th Illinois Pork Producers Common Industry


23rd TCU Ranch Management Program,

Overland Park, KS, Dr. Tom presenting MO, Dr. Shane presenting

ington State University, Dr. Tom presenting

Audit Seminars, Quincy, IL, Dr. Jim presenting

Audit Seminars, Effingham, IL, Dr. Jim presenting

Cattlemen’s Conference, Lincoln, NE, Kelly attending Audit Seminars, Peoria, IL, Dr. Jim presenting

Dr. Tom presenting

Texas Christian University, Dr. Tom presenting

3rd-5th Academy of Veterinary Consultants

27th-29th National Cattlemen’s Beef Associa-

7th-8th Conference for Workers in Animal

30th VMCVM, Virgina Tech, Dr. Tom presenting

meeting, Kansas City, MO, PAC members attending Disease Chicago, IL, Dr. Jim presenting

tion Convention, San Diego, CA, PAC members attending

Cattle Performance Enhancement Co. FROM THIS


Lynn Allen, CPEC Sales & Marketing

P.O. Box 630 • Stratford, Texas 79084 806-753-7979 cell •

Production Animal Consultation PO Box 41 Oakley, KS 67748

ADD SAFE-GUARD® ADD POUNDS RESIDUE WARNING: Cattle must not be slaughtered within 8 days following last treatment. For dairy cattle, the milk discard time is zero hours. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.

Consult your local veterinarian for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment and control of parasitism. 1

Antiparasitic Drug Use and Resistance in Ruminants and Equines Public Meeting, Washington D.C., March 2012

2 Giralda Farms • Madison, NJ 07940 • • 800-521-5767 Copyright © 2015 Intervet Inc., doing business as Merck Animal Health, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. All rights reserved. 11/15 – BV-SG-54506

Avermectin dewormers1, they’re not as effective as they once were. And that can mean poor doing cattle and a poor return on your investment. Add Safe-Guard® to your deworming program to kill worms that pour-on and injectable dewormers leave behind. Applied straight to the gut, Safe-Guard rapidly stops the damage parasites cause. Get the worms out so your cattle are healthier and growing to their maximum potential. Add Safe-Guard Add Pounds

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

Upcoming Events

page 35

Building rapport, 500 people at a time

pages 33-34

Getting to Know the PAC Team: Ted Howard

page 32

KRAs and Winning!

pages 30-31

The Power of Life & Death

page 29

Creating Connections Commences in Australia

page 28

Clinical Case Review : Infectious Bovine

pages 26-27

Planning for Acitivities and Processes in Your Facility

page 25


page 24

AG Schmidt’s office places new emphasis on combating cattle theft

pages 23-24

Pandemic H1N1, PEDV, Seneca Virus A...What is Next?

pages 21-22

Quality grades: Why are we at a level never achieved before?

pages 18-20

Developing the Sustainable Workforce

page 17

The Importance of Bilingual Education and Training

page 16

Longevity of Feed Yard Horses

page 15

Calf Comfort for Newly Weaned Calves

pages 13-14

and Veterinary Feed Directives

pages 11-12

Understanding Medicated Feeds

page 10
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.