Protein Producers Summer 2016

PROTEIN producers

Feedlot Cow-Calf Swine Dairy Equine Summer 2016

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 ®

orfenicol

®

(florfenicol)

*Data on file

www.norbrookinc.com 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.

1015-591-I01E

FOR VETERINARY USE ONLY

ANADA 200-591, Approved by FDA

PROTEIN Producers 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.

2016 Volume 4 Issue 2

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 Feedlot 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. pacdvms.com

Finding Shade Mid-Plains Cattle Co. Shelby, NE Gary Kreikemeier, Manager 4 pacdvms.com

We want to showcase unique photographs from our readers here!

Please submit your photographs to Kelly Terrell at kelly.terrell@pacdvms.com.

14 13 Contents Beef Summit Meetings 12 PAC Nebraska and Kansas

13 Tribute to Dr. Dan Upson

Medicated Feeds 14 Understanding and Veterinary Feed Directives

Part 3: How feed intake affects consumption of medicated feed addivitives

27 19 Stewardship: Respiratory Dis23 Animal ease in Horses: Common Types, Significance and Prevention

5 Tips for Working with 25 Millennials: Baby Boomers and Gen-X Systematic Approaches to 27 Swine: Biosecurity Investments

Livestock Coalition Re- 29 The Stranger at 2:00 17 Nebraska sponds to Launch of HSUS National 31 Chuckles from Down Under Agricultural Advirsory Council Stewardship: Asking of Our 19 Animal Cattle 31 Newest PAC Members Stewardship: The Purpose of 20 Animal 33 Cow-Calf: Don’t Send that Cow to Acclimation Market!

37 33 Summer 2016

57 47

How Many Clean-up International: What is the Impact of 35 Cow-Calf: Bulls Are Needed After Estrus Syn- 51 Implementing Whisper Technology chronization and AI

in a Feedyard?

Pathologies of Acute InTransitioning Employees to Team 37 Research: terstitial Pneumonia in Feedlot Cattle 53 Members Speaks at Duke University 55 An Agriculture Art: The comeback 42 Lowe of hand cornhusking Forum Series on Conservation and Health

45 Right Poeple on the Bus Design: Getting Your Ideas 47 Faciltiy on Paper

49 Engaging the Workforce

56 Cartoon by Doug Gaswick to Know the PAC Team: 57 Getting Lisa Taylor

59 Events

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 draxxin.com/jarret.

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

Welcome Welcome to the summer issue of Protein Producers! Summertime is a time of many blessings and challenges for all involved with production agriculture. We hope to provide you with information that is valuable to your operations in helping manage, prevent, or mitigate some of the risk associated with these summertime challenges.

In the animal stewardship section, articles will cover the purpose of acclimation, cattle handling, and respiratory disease in our equine co-workers. Also included is a timely review of AIPs, a continuation of Dr. Pete Anderson’s series on the Veterinary Feed Directive, and a systematic approach to biosecurity in our swine section. In our cow-calf section, there is great information on clean-up bull requirements post synchronization of cows or heifers, along with an article on making cull cow decisions as we move later in the summer into fall. Another item is for millennials, with ideas on effective approaches to work with your Gen X and baby boomer coworkers.

Finally, you will find a tribute to Dr. Dan Upson, who passed away this May. Dr. Upson spent much of his career as a professor at Kansas State University and was a teacher to some of us in PAC. Even more, he was a mentor and

friend to all of us. Thanks to Dr. Ford for his remembrance of a great man.

We would like to thank all those who attended our PAC summit meeting held in Kearney, NE on May 11. We had a great turnout, with topics including stress of handling and transport of cattle prior to harvest, stockmanship, horsemanship, and the importance of teamsmanship within an organization. We would like to invite you and your team to our annual PAC summit meeting in Oberlin, KS on July 13.

We have an excellent line up of speakers that will provide up with tips for a “Healthy Start for Healthy Cattle”. You can register now at pacdvms.com!

We hope the long days of summer not only provide you with time to catch up on any unfinished tasks, but also provide you with time to spend with your family and friends.

Dr. Shane Terrell

The Nebraska PAC Beef Summit was May 11th in Kearney, NE. Thank you for a great meeting. We appreciate all of you and your commitment to the beef industry.

We look forward to seeing you at our Kansas PAC Beef Summit on July 13th in Oberlin, KS! Pictures are from the meeting and include Curt Pate, Trent Loos, Juan Reyes and Ted Howard.

Follow us on Twitter @PACVets

EYE SAYS IT ALL...

THE

ORDER YOUR PINKEYE VACCINE TODAY Newport Laboratories, Inc. Custom Made Vaccines allow you to formulate a unique pinkeye vaccine to target the specific strains circulating in your clients’ cattle.

• Available in liquid form or SOLIDOSE® dual-dose vaccine implants • USDA-licensed products subject to safety & sterility testing

DON’T WAIT, CONTACT YOUR VETERINARIAN TO ORDER YOUR CUSTOM MADE PINKEYE VACCINE TODAY!

Call us at 800-220-2522 www.newportlabs.com

® The Newport Laboratories Logo is a registered trademark of Newport Laboratories, Inc. All other mark belong to their respective owners. © 2016 Newport Laboratories, Inc., Worthington, MN. All rights reserved. ® SOLIDOSE is a registered trademark of SolidTech Animal Health, Inc. NLRBU031.V1 (06/16)

Contributors Dr. Pete Anderson

Director of Research, Midwest PMS, LLC Principal, Ag Knowledge Services agknowledgeservices.com

Dr. Bryant Craig

Equine technical services veterinarian with Merck Animal Health Graduate of Oklahoma State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine program and completed an internship with Interstate Equine in Goldsby, OK

Jeralyn Novak

Communications Coordinator at Beefmaster Breeders United whose mission is to enhance breeder’s ability to raise and promote cattle based upon disposition, fertility, weight, conformation, hardiness and milk production

Quint Finney

Independent Management/Operations Consultant Works in KS, OK, NE, WY, CO and Canada focusing on productivity and efficiency through effective personnel development qfinney1@gmail.com, 620-655-6138

Jacob Mayer

Thank you to all sponsors for supporting PAC & Protein Producers.

American Animal Health Animal Health International Bayer Boehringer Ingelheim CPEC Daniels Manufacturing Co. DOCTalk Elanco Lallemand Merck Animal Health Merial Micro Beef Technologies Midwest NetPro

Project Engineer at Settje Agri-Services & Engineering, Inc. focusing on surveying and staking, livestock waste control facility design, NPDES permit applications, stormwater plans, construction management, plus much more.

Newport Laboratories

Thank you to all those contributing multiple stories and insights to Protein Producers.

Nova Microbial Technologies

Cover Photo Credits: Thank you to Terrell Ranches in Hay Springs, NE for the picture, “Early Morning Branding.”

Norbrook

Nutrition Physiology Company Randall Bumgarner SSG Fusion Zinpro Zoetis

pacdvms.com 11

PAC Beef Summit Meetings Nebraska and Kansas By: Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz, Production Animal Consultation Our first Beef Summit meeting in Nebraska was an overall hit. The theme of the meeting was “Sharpening Your Stockmanship and Team Skills.” Our attendance at this meeting was around 180 people with a mix of owners, managers, team leaders and workers. I was delighted to see management attend with their team leaders and workers as this shows a level of empowerment, the value of education and the building of a great team atmosphere.

We had an excellent set of speakers in the morning. Dr. Larry Firkins started the meeting off with a great discussion on implementing change and building teams. Attendees were able to interact with one another during the session, and this interaction certainly created the engaging atmosphere we were looking for at this meeting.

Dr. Dan Thomson then spoke about the research conducted on trailer type and bruising effects. He also discussed the effects of Fatigued Cattle Syndrome.

Our keynote speaker for this event was Trent Loos.

Trent knocked his talk out of the park, encouraging us to be more vocal about the good things our industry does. We provide the world a safe, wholesome source of protein, and we accomplish this task with fewer cattle and less land today than 15-20 years ago.

In the afternoon, Dr. Tom Noffsinger gave a brief introduction to our handling session and encouraged everyone to open their minds to the concepts presented. He reminded us that we must have buy-in from the top down in order for this to all work.

Our handling session featured several great clinicians – Ted Howard, Curt Pate and Juan Reyes – who demonstrated the finer techniques of horsemanship and stockmanship.

Ted and Curt did a great job of providing tips on horsemanship and instruction on sorting cattle on horseback in a difficult part of the arena.

Juan Reyes led an excellent demonstration on dog handling, showing how a well-trained dog can assist in gathering, sorting and loading cattle. One of the things I grasped from Juan was that his dogs are not pets. They are workers on the ranch and are treated in that manner. He loves his dogs and will provide them with all their needs, but they do not sleep with him and they do not get food treats. Their treat is working.

We greatly appreciate all of our meeting sponsors. In particular, we want to thank Farm Credit Services of America, represented by Jesse Moore of O’Neill, Nebraska, for sponsoring the morning break. Merck Animal Health, rep12 pacdvms.com

resented by Dr. Justin Welsh, Justin Jarecki, and Kyle Key, generously sponsored our lunch. Joe Klute and his team from Nebraska Star Beef prepared an excellent meal and made sure everyone left with a full stomach.

In July, we will host another Beef Summit meeting in Oberlin, Kansas. The theme is “Healthy Start for Healthy Cattle,” and we have another excellent set of speakers lined up.

Dr. Jeff DeFrain will talk about the normal anatomy and mechanics of the bovine foot. Dr. DeFrain spends a majority of his time in dairies and comes with a wealth of experience.

Dr. Dorte Dopfer from University of Wisconsin, Madison will discuss lameness prevention, highlighting the pathogenesis of disease in the foot and talking through prevention, treatment and outcomes for diseases such as foot rot and hairy heel warts.

Dr. Mike Apley from Kansas State University will give an update on Veterinary Feed Directives (VFDs) and antibiotic awareness in our industry.

Dr. Kev Sullivan from Queensland, Australia, will join us again to discuss the latest research on heat load management and the role of proactive monitoring in prevention of major death loss due to heat load.

Garrett Taylor and Lisa Taylor will present the latest tools offered by PAC for data management and how feedyards can build dashboards to summarize the daily activity in their operations.

Nebraska Star Beef will provide lunch, with prayer led

by Dr. Doug Ford.

In the afternoon, Dr. Nels Lindberg will talk about leadership development. I am excited for this presentation as it will cover team-building and interpersonal skills for handling our employees in a business setting.

The final speaker of the day will be Dr. Sam Barringer, who is currently serving in the armed forces. His talk on teamsmanship will be an interactive session that will give us some great insight into our management skills and how to empower others.

This is going to be great meeting and I hope to see many of our clients there. This is a perfect environment to build relationships in our industry and to provide education to our employees. Our business is about raising a great protein source for people to consume, but it is also about building a team that will last a lifetime, empowering leaders, and equipping people with the tools, education and freedom to excel in their position.

To register for the meeting, please visit pacdvms.com or contact your PAC veterinarian.

Tribute to Dr. Dan Upson 1929-2016

Boyhood memories, time at the farm Lincoln County, that special old barn Fresh eggs, raw milk, a slab of pork side Grandma’s home cookin’, chicken pan fried Hometown rooted, Kansas boy wise Bound for greatness, your plan to devise Quarterback hero, State high school champs Star of the mile, always first off the ramp Salt Hawk pride, destiny’s date Manhattan bound, a stent up at state Wildcat fever, to master the hoop Stuck on defense, cause you just couldn’t shoot!

Neurology, O chem., to answer the call Class of “52” begins in the fall Beta house brothers, Best of the best You and Roosel, the pride of the west Nose to the grind, time quickly passed Mastered the art, at the top of your class Pretty Prairie Greenhorn, you made your own luck Black Doctors bag, and an orange Chevy truck Confident, driven, to be a success Large critter practice, suited you best Cow dogs, kittens, acute fractured limbs Best in the state, cosmetic ear trims Out of the blue, opportunity knocked Back up to Aggies, PhD. Doc Origin, insertion, new chances to learn Anatomy, Guyton became your concern Feet on your desk, chair posture lax Paperclip surgeon, diggin’ ear wax Only addiction, a gallon or two A quick stop at Braum’s, a trip to D.Q. Your purpose in life to give and to serve MIC, Vmax., area under the curve Mentor to many, Dedicated to fact Apley and Thomson, crown jewels in your cap Half a century, memories made The Dirty Dozen, and a thing called F.A.D.E Lake of the Ozarks, Glen Elder Run Fishing And Drinking Expedition of fun Day of the Big Game, Alabama/Penn. State National Champs, you Reffed. The Big Eight Dressing room chatter, Barrett walks up Advice to you friend, “Please don’t screw this up!”

Integrity, joy, honor your brand Friendship, excellence, the torch in your hand Your other best friend, old AVC Another great favorite AABP Gathered in Oakley, with the boys from PAC Morsels of wisdom, you kept us on track We’ll trust your advice, To “study the species” Remember: “No chicken salad from Avian feces.”

Love, Dr. Doug pacdvms.com 13

Industry Update

Understanding Medicated Feeds

Part Three - How feed intake affects consumption of medicated feed additives By: Dr. Pete Anderson, Midwest PMS, LLC With the implementation of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), veterinarians will be involved in assuring that medicated feed additives are fed according to label instructions.

A key to that compliance will be understanding how variation in feed consumption within a population of cattle affects the levels of feed additives that are consumed.

Labels for FDA-approved feed additives often list allowable levels, one for feed and another for consumption by the cattle. For example, monensin can be mixed into feed at levels from 5 to 40 grams per ton of feed (g/t), to provide not less than 50 nor more than 480 milligrams per head per day (mg/hd/d). Monensin is not covered by the VFD but is used as an example because most feeders have experience with monensin. Allowable limits for common medicated feed additives are listed in the appendix at the end of this article.

Since monensin primarily affects the bacterial population of the rumen and does not directly affect the animal, it makes sense to dose the feed (or the rumen), rather than selecting a dose based on the weight of the animal.

As cattle increase in weight, they tend to eat more and have more rumen contents so providing more monensin per animal makes sense. Formulating diets and supplements to provide a constant amount of monensin in each ton of feed allows cattle that eat more to get a higher daily dose.

Chart 1 illustrates monensin consumption, in mg/hd/d, at common feed intake levels (dry basis) with monensin included in the diet at 30 or 35 g/t. As would be expected, monensin consumption per head increases as intake level increases and is higher with 35 g/t than 30.

Chart 2 includes the same data but with two additional elements. The bell-shaped curve (in blue) describes a distribution of average dry matter intake, based on a population of 6.8 million cattle fed in yards that submitted closeout data for the Midwest PMS database.

14 pacdvms.com

Chart 1: Calculated monensin consumption (mg/hd/d) at different intake levels 30 or 35 grams per ton of dry feed

Chart 2: Calculated monensin consumption (mg/hd/d) at different intake levels 30 or 35 grams per ton of dry feed Shown with feed intake distribution (right axis)

and Veterinary Feed Directives The curve illustrates the percentage of all lots in the database that consumed each level of intake, with percentages listed on the right axis. Most lots of cattle averaged 21, 22 or 23 lb but a small proportion ate as little as 16 or as much as 28.

The dashed line box encompasses the most common levels of intake, from 19 to 25 lb and includes 81% of all cattle in the database. Monensin consumption in these lots would range from 285 mg/hd/d in lots that ate 19 lb with 30 g/t, to 438 mg/hd/d in lots that ate 25 lb with 35 g/t.

This range of consumption is well within the label allowance.

The table above shows how intake level affects the diet formulation required to deliver the intended amount of ractopamine to each animal.

Another common feed additive, ractopamine, has a different mechanism of action and does not materially affect rumen bacteria. In this case, a nutritionist may recommend a dosage in mg/hd/d, in order to dose the cattle, not the feed. Since ractopamine is only fed at the end of the feeding period, the last 28-42 days, cattle are heavier and con-

suming more feed than the average of the entire feeding period.

There are three common routes of delivery of medicated feed additives into finished feed: through a supplement, a microingredient machine or as a top dress.

A supplement can be a liquid suspension, a dry meal or a pellet. A nutritionist will formulate a supplement based on an inclusion rate, usually about 5% of the final diet dry matter, and will include the medicated feed additive at a concentration in the supplement that delivers the right amount of additive to the finished feed.

Other ingredients in the supplement provide energy, vitamins, minerals, etc. The proper amount of supplement is mixed with corn, silage, hay or other ingredients to make a load of finished feed, which is delivered to a pen. When manufactured and mixed properly, all feed within a load, and all loads of a specific ration, will contain the same concentration of the feed additive so all cattle receiving that feed will get the same concentration.

A microingredient machine meters out individual microingredients, like medicated feed additives, mixes them with water and disperses that water over a load of feed as it is being mixed. With proper calibration and mixing, this creates a load of feed with the right concentration of feed additive.

When a top dress is used, the majority of feed delivered to the pen does not contain the feed additive. The additive is mixed into a small amount of feed, typically around 1 lb per head of something easy to mix, like ground corn, and that feed is spread over the feed already in the bunk shortly after feeding.

Using this method allows targeting of specific pens and, if done properly, the right amount of a feed additive can be delivered to each pen, but it does not mix the additive into the entire amount of feed delivered. Not all feed additives can be delivered via top dress so the label should always be consulted before choosing this route.

pacdvms.com 15

Whichever route of administration is chosen, some knowledge, arithmetic and skill are required to properly deliver feed additives. The knowledge required means reading and understanding label restrictions and accurately predicting how much feed cattle will consume.

The arithmetic is necessary to convert recommended feed additive levels into the proper formulation of a supplement or ration and calibration of a microingredient machine. The skill lies in manufacturing supplements and feeds properly, mixing finished feed properly and getting it delivered to the right pen. It takes preparation, diligence and teamwork to make it all happen.

Appendix: Selected details for medicated feed additive labels: Monensin (Rumensin), when used to improve feed efficiency in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter:

Allowable levels in feed, 90% dry: 8 to 10 g/t Allowable levels in feed, 100% dry: 8.9 to 11.1 g/t Allowable levels of consumption: 60 to 90 mg/hd/d Note: The tylosin label does not specify that the 8-10 g/t level is 90% dry or 100% dry. All other labels specify 100% dry so it assumed for this purpose.

Ractopamine (Optaflexx or Actogain), for increased rate of weight gain and feed efficiency in beef cattle fed in confinement for slaughter during the last 28 to 42 days on feed: Allowable levels in feed, 90% dry: 8.2 to 24.6 g/t (9 to 27 ppm) Allowable levels in feed, 100% dry: 9.1 to 27.3 g/t Allowable levels of consumption: 70 to 430 mg/hd/d Note: Top dress is also allowed, see label for details.

Allowable levels in feed, 90% dry: 5 to 40 g/t Allowable levels in feed, 100% dry: 5.6 to 44.4 g/t Allowable levels of consumption: 50 to 480 mg/hd/d

Melengestrol acetate (MGA), heifers fed in confinement for slaughter: For increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency and suppression of estrus (heat):

Tylosin (Tylan or Tylovet), for reduction of incidence of liver abscesses in beef cattle associated with Fusobacterium necrophorum and Arcanobacterium pyogenes:

Allowable levels of consumption: 0.25 to 0.5 mg/hd/d

right for your operation.

Talk to your veterinarian about prescription ZACTRAN. For more information, visit ZACTRAN.com.

14 pacdvms.com

®ZACTRAN is a registered trademark of Merial. ©2015 Merial, Inc., Duluth, GA. All rights reserved.

RUMIOTD1405 (01/14)

Industry Update

Nebraska Livestock Coalition Responds to Launch of HSUS National Agriculture Advisory Council By: We Support Agriculture (WSA) On Friday, May 6th, 2016, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced the formation of a National Agriculture Advisory Council which would “advise the organization on national agriculture issues.”

Members of We Support Agriculture, a livestock coalition comprised of Nebraska animal agriculture organizations, encouraged everyone to take a closer look at the history of HSUS and understand the consequences of the organization’s actual agenda.

“HSUS is not interested in enhancing animal welfare.

It’s a Washington D.C.-based interest group led by a vegan animal rights activist,” according to Ansley Mick, Executive Director. “The group raises money under the auspices of helping local animal shelters, while the true objective is much more extreme.”

“I would encourage livestock growers – and meat-eaters for that matter – to take a closer look at HSUS, an organization which encourages “eating with a conscience” by replacing meat and other animal-based foods with plantbased foods,” said Pete McClymont, President of the Nebraska Cattlemen and WSA Board President. “The activists pushing these extreme agendas aren’t interested in working

with our farmers and ranchers; they’re trying to put them out of business.”

“We work with experts and veterinarians to ensure modern animal agriculture practices are humane and sustainable,” said Al Juhnke, President of the Nebraska Pork Producers Association. “Family farmers and ranchers are tired of HSUS and other fringe animal rights organizations being touted as animal welfare experts.”

We Support Agriculture (WSA), a coalition comprised of the Nebraska Cattlemen Association, Nebraska State Dairy Association, Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation, Nebraska Pork Producers Association, and Nebraska Poultry Industries, Inc., represents livestock producers who recognize their obligation to provide for the well-being of their animals and to raise them in a humane and compassionate manner.

The coalition continues to work to bring transparency to entities with agendas which ignore science and threaten farm families, global consumers, our way of life, and Nebraska’s economy.

pacdvms.com 17

Asking of Our Cattle By: Ted Howard, Production Animal Consultation We have all been told to do something at one time or another. We have also all been “asked” to do the same thing.

Our reaction and follow through to being “asked” is normally more genuine and compliant than being told. I have found that cattle react in much the same manner as we do when they are “asked” versus being made or forced.

As I work with some talented stockmen and women in feedlots, we discuss proper horsemanship. We work towards developing better habits with our feet and hands to build our horse’s confidence in us. Once that confidence has been established, our horses are quiet with low headsets and easy movements that help build the confidence in the cattle we handle.

The next step we discuss in building on our stockmanship principles is to know how to properly “ask” of our cattle.

Whether we are pulling a sick calf, emptying a pen or sorting cattle in an alley, we need to be aware of the proper angles that are required to be successful in each situation.

When we want to “ask” cattle to move we must put pressure behind their eye. Once they begin to move we need to stay at approximately a 30-degree angle and not directly behind them “pushing”. If we are between a calf and the gate we can slightly angle toward the calf ’s hip and move his eye toward the gate versus moving around to the other side and pushing him out of the gate.

When we are empting pens, we “ask” our cattle to leave by starting the front end of the pen by applying pressure at the correct angle. These first cattle to be “asked” out of their pen take the rest of the pen out by their steady flow. This prevents us from having to push or force them out of their pen. “Asking” these cattle to leave in a calm, confident manner prepares them to be “asked” onto a scale or truck or into a processing area much easier.

Finally, when we are sorting cattle in an alley, we “ask” these cattle to pass by or remain in the herd by proper position of our horse. How close we are to the cattle depends on the amount of pressure they can handle. The closer we are to them the more pressure it puts on them. Therefore more sensitive cattle will not tolerate a horse being as close as those cattle that aren’t as sensitive.

Every one of us appreciates being “asked” to do something instead of being told. Cattle and horses are no different. If we keep that in mind, our jobs will be much easier and more rewarding. pacdvms.com 19

Animal Stewardship

The Purpose of Acclimation By: Dr. Tom Noffsinger and Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz, Production Animal Consultation, & Dr. LeeAnn Hyder, Robinson Hospital for Animals Excerpt from “Feedlot Processing and Arrival Cattle Management,” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 31.3 (2015): 323-340.

Acclimation is the process and result of proper caregiver-cattle interaction that allows cattle to accept their new home environment. Caregivers demonstrate to cattle that they understand cattle instincts and sensory systems and can effectively communicate with the new arrivals.

The performance and health goals of acclimation efforts with newly arrived cattle in feedlots are to provide rehydration, nourishment, and rest and to improve immune function.

Water is the most important nutrient for any animal. Yet often times, cattle have been without food and water for 24 to 48 hours before arrival at a feedlot, leading to dehydration. Richeson and colleagues(1) evaluated the hematocrit of cattle arriving at a feedlot and found the range to be 23.5% to 46.9%, with a mean hematocrit of 36.9 ± 3.7%.

The tendency for cattle to exhibit an elevated hematocrit at arrival is consistent with dehydration. Caregivers must make rehydration a priority for new arrivals because cattle depend on water to carry out basic metabolic functions. Dehydrated cattle are also reluctant to eat.

Inadequate consumption of safe water can negatively affect feed intake, health, and production.(2–4) Brew and colleagues(5) found increased water intake was correlated with increased average daily gain (ADG) and increased

20 pacdvms.com

feed intake in growing beef cattle. Preston(6) concluded that providing water to calves shortly after arrival increases feed intake to appropriate levels (greater than 1% of body weight) more quickly than providing feed alone.

The requirements for timely rehydration include access to fresh clean water, complete confidence in the new environment, and confidence in the new caregivers. Cattle that are not confident in their new space are reluctant to be confident in the water supply.

Caregivers need to be aware that proper caregiver-cattle interactions can have a positive impact on pen distribution and willingness to aggressively drink. There is huge potential within the industry to install tank flowmeters that would allow the monitoring of daily water intake.

Average water intake can vary from 25 to 35 L/head/d.

(5) Systems such as GrowSafe (GrowSafe Systems Ltd, Airdrie, AB, Canada) enable producers to measure individual animals’ food and water intake, even when they are housed in a group pen, through use of radiofrequency identification technology.(5) Efforts to document water intake levels as a predictor of future health and performance could help identify priority pens and validate caregiver acclimation progress.

In addition to being without water, cattle typically do not have access to feed during transport to the feedlot.

The combination of transport and lack of food and water leads to decreased body weight beyond that associated with lack of food and water alone. Falkenberg and colleagues(7) found relocated cattle that had food and water withheld up to 12 hours had up to a 6% decrease in body weight compared with cattle that were starved but were not relocated that had a 2% decrease in body weight.

Historically, intake expectations have been accepted less than 1% of body weight for multiple days after arrival to a feedlot, especially in high-risk, stressed arrivals. Yet dry matter intake levels to meet daily requirements are usually between 1.1% and 1.7% of body weight, varying with ration formulation.

Caregivers and nutritionists should jointly elevate expectations for calves to have proper intakes from day 1. Total intake levels expressed as an average for the pen are important, but more important is the observation that all herd members are participating equally.

Trained caregivers can facilitate uniform bunk activity via pen acclimation procedures within herds of new arrivals.

Starter diets should be formulated to provide appropriate levels of protein, energy, trace minerals, and vitamins from commodities friendly to the ruminant digestive system.

Donovan and colleagues(8) found that “lymphocytes from calves that were ketotic or acidotic exhibited a generally decreased responsiveness to superantigen stimulus.” Acidotic and ketotic states can result from an improperly formulated diet with energy excess and improper intakes that lead to energy deficits, respectively. Handler promotion of proper intake can prevent these detrimental energy imbalances.

Transport prevents lying down and resting behavior in cattle, which can lead to increased stress levels and an increased risk for lameness. Although normal resting behavior has not been well documented, Calderon and Cook(9) found that, in dairy cattle, it is “influenced by calving month, temperature humidity index, body condition, parity, and lameness.” Other studies have shown a variation in average lying time in dairy cattle between 9.6 and 13 h/d.(9,10) Several studies have shown when dairy cattle are deprived of lying for long or repeated periods they can have a decrease in growth hormone concentrations and an increase in levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH),(10) a measure of cortisol that is increased in stressed animals.

Cooper and colleagues(10) showed that after deprivation of time to lie down, dairy cattle spent more time standing without ruminating. Another study showed very low lying times have been associated with higher incidences of lameness in dairy cattle.(11) It is evident from these studies that deprivation of rest has harmful effects on the health and well-being of cattle. Caregivers should recognize that the amount of rest cattle have received is affected by the distance shipped. It is the responsibility of caregivers to encourage new arrivals to rest through caregiver-cattle interaction, bedding, and pen surface management.

Relocating to a new home is a major stressor in the life of an animal, and it has been well documented that such stress causes a decrease in immune function. Griffin and colleagues(12) note that the nasal passages of stressed ani-

mals often have higher densities of bacteria that cause bovine respiratory disease (BRD).(13,14) In addition, the temporary increase in plasma cortisol levels caused by transportation stress may be associated with increased risk for BRD.(12,15) A decrease in the circulating levels of acute phase proteins haptoglobin and fibrinogen found by Buckham Sporer and colleagues(16) provides further evidence of immunosuppression in transported cattle.

Buckham Sporer and colleagues(17) evaluated the effects of elevated cortisol levels on neutrophil expression genes Fas, MMP-9, BPI, and L-selectin. Fas, a proapoptotic gene, was downregulated in response to elevated cortisol levels during transport, whereas MMP-9 (involved in tissue remodeling) and BPI (responsible for bacterial killing) were upregulated. L-Selectin is responsible for the vascular margination of neutrophils, and levels of L-selectin were decreased during transport, leading to an increase in the number of circulating neutrophils.

Neutrophils that express L-selectin have preferential migration into the respiratory tract.(17) According to Buckham Sporer and colleagues,(17) “the elevated expression of MMP-9 may imply an increased potential for neutrophils to cause excessive inflammatory damage in infected lungs during transportation stress, which may be augmented further by the cells’ reprogramming for longer lifespan (depressed Fas expression).”

Increased migration of neutrophils with increased bactericidal activity into the respiratory system can result in the “‘neutrophil paradox’... whereby these normally beneficial leukocytes can also contribute to the pathogenesis of infectious diseases if their proinflammatory activities are not properly regulated.”(17) Thus, stressed cattle entering a feedlot are at higher risk of BRD and other diseases. Acclimation of cattle to their new environment can reduce anxiety and help to relieve some of the stress they experience, improving immune function and health.

References 1. Richeson JT, Pinedo PJ, Kegley EB, et al. Association of hematologic variables and castration status at the time of arrival at a research facility with the risk of bovine respiratory disease in beef calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;243(7):1035-41.

2. Morgan SE. Water quality for cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2011;27(2):285-95.

3. Brew MN, Carter J, Maddox MK. The impact of water quality on beef cattle health and performance. University of Florida: IFAS Extension; 2009. Publication #AN187.

Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an187. Accessed April 19, 2015.

4. Faries FC Jr, Sweeten JM, Reagor JC. Water quality: pacdvms.com 21

its relationship to livestock. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension; 1998. Publication L-2374. Available at: https://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87665/pdf_370. pdf ?sequence51&isAllowed5y. Accessed April 19, 2015.

5. Brew MN, Myer RO, Hersom MJ, et al. Water intake and factors affecting water intake of growing beef cattle.

Livest Sci 2011;140:297-300.

6. Preston RL. Receiving cattle nutrition. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2007;23:193-205.

7. Falkenberg SM, Carroll JA, Keisler DH, et al. Evaluation of the endocrine response of cattle during the relocation process. Livest Sci 2013;151:203-12.

8. Donovan DC, Hippen AR, Hurley DJ, et al. The role of acidogenic diets and ß-hydroxybutyate on lymphocyte proliferation and serum antibody response against bovine respiratory viruses in Holstein steers. J Anim Sci 2003;81:3088-94.

9. Calderon DF, Cook NB. The effect of lameness on the resting behavior and metabolic status of dairy cattle during the transition period in a freestall-housed dairy herd.

J Dairy Sci 2011;94:2883-94.

10. Cooper MD, Arney DR, Phillips CJ. Two- or fourhour lying deprivation on the behavior of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:1149-58.

11. Leonard FC, O’Connell JM, O’Farrell KJ. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers.

Br Vet J 1996;152(4):459-72.

12. Griffin D, Chengappa MM, Kuszak J, et al. Bacterial pathogens of the bovine respiratory disease complex. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2010;26(2):381-94.

13. Frank GH. Bacteria as etiologic agents in bovine respiratory disease. In: Loan RW, editor. Bovine respiratory disease. College Station (TX): Texas A&M University Press; 1984. p. 347-62.

14. Srikumaran S, Kelling CL, Ambagala A. Immune evasion of pathogens of bovine respiratory disease complex. Anim Health Res Rev 2007;8(2):215-29.

15. Filion LG, Willson PJ, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, et al.

The possible role of stress in the induction of pneumonic pasteurellosis. Can J Comp Med 1984;48:268-74.

16. Buckham Sporer KR, Weber PS, Burton JL, et al.

Transportation of young beef bulls alters circulating physiological parameters that may be effective biomarkers of stress. J Anim Sci 2008;86:1325-34.

17. Buckham Sporer KR, Burton JL, Earley B, et al.

Transportation stress in young bulls alters expression of neutrophil genes important for the regulation of apoptosis, tissue remodeling, margination, and anti-bacterial function.

Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2007;118:19-29.

Cattle Performance Enhancement Co. FROM THIS

TO THIS

Lynn Allen, CPEC Sales & Marketing

P.O. Box 630 • Stratford, Texas 79084 806-753-7979 cell • lallen6423@aol.com www.cpec.us

Animal Stewardship

Respiratory Disease in Horses: Common Types, Significance and Prevention By: Bryant Craig, DVM, Merck Animal Health Runny nose, fever, cough, fatigue. Respiratory disease complex – we see it in our cattle, but it’s also commonly found in our horses. Infectious upper respiratory disease can have significant consequences for our horses’ health, and come in several forms.

The most common causes in the horse include equine influenza virus (EIV), equine herpesvirus (EHV) – also known as rhino – and Streptococcus equi subspecies equi (S. equi) – better known as strangles. In a nationwide surveillance study by Merck Animal Health, equine influenza and equine herpesvirus type 4 (EHV-4) are diagnosed more frequently than strangles and EHV-1.

Some of the biggest risk factors are travel, exposure to new horses and environments, and stress from training or work pressure. These are challenges that all feedlot animals encounter. Vaccination coupled with good husbandry is the most economical and effective way to protect these individuals.

Equine Influenza Virus Equine influenza virus is one of the most common infectious upper respiratory diseases of the horse. It is widespread in the equine population of the United States and throughout the world. It spreads quickly because the incubation period is only 24 to 48 hours, and the virus can be

transmitted through the air. In fact, coughing can spread nasal droplets more than 200 yards. Horses that are sick for the first time can shed the virus in nasal secretions for as long as seven to 10 days. Indirect transmission of the virus can also occur via hands, clothing and common use articles such as bits, brushes and buckets.

Recovering horses require a minimum of three weeks of rest or at least one week of rest for every day of fever.

Premature return to exercise may be associated with complications including secondary bacterial infections, reactive airway disease and exercise intolerance.

Once thought to be a disease primarily of the young, Merck Animal Health has discovered through its ongoing respiratory disease surveillance program (conducted in partnership with University of California, Davis) that EIV is common in broader age groups, as well. Study data shows positive cases in horses ranging in age from 8 months to 22 years. The equine influenza virus is constantly undergoing change (known as antigenic drift), and the latest changes seem to have made older horses more susceptible to the disease.

A strict vaccination protocol incorporating the modified live EIV vaccine (Flu Avert® I.N.) coupled with good biosecurity measures is the best method of prevention of equine influenza. pacdvms.com 23

Equine Herpesvirus Equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1) and equine herpesvirus type 4 (EHV-4) can each infect the respiratory tract, causing disease that varies in severity. EHV-4 is typically associated with upper respiratory disease in younger horses, while EHV-1 can cause respiratory disease, late-term abortions, early foal deaths and neurologic disease. After initial infection, equine herpesvirus remains dormant (latent) in the horse. Stressful events, such as hauling, handling and training can reactivate the virus, and viral shedding can occur “silently” – without symptoms.

A horse affected by the neurologic form of EHV-1 does not typically show outward signs of respiratory disease associated with EHV-1 but does exhibit fever and depression, in addition to neurologic deficits. Currently, there is not a vaccine labeled to prevent the neurologic form of EHV-1.

Vaccination protocols decrease the severity of respiratory disease and reduce nasal shedding in infected horses, thereby increasing herd immunity.

Both EHV-1 and EHV-4 spread via coughing horses, by direct and indirect contact and nasal secretions and, in the case of EHV-1 abortion, contact with aborted fetuses, fetal/placental fluids and the placenta.

Strangles (Streptococcus equi) Strangles is a highly contagious disease caused by the abscess-forming bacteria Streptococcus equi. Also referred to as “distemper,” strangles commonly affects young horses, but horses of any age can be infected. A hallmark of the disease is enlarged, swollen and tender lymph nodes around the head, under the jaw and around the throat latch that frequently abscess, rupture and drain.

Abscesses can develop in other places of the body, both externally and internally. (Internal abscesses are called “bastard strangles” and are much more difficult to treat.) The bacteria itself is hardy and survives in a moist environment and organic debris such as manure for up to six to seven weeks. While vaccination is available, a good biosecurity plan is paramount in controlling this disease.

Equine infectious respiratory diseases can attack suddenly and be devastating to your horse, as well as other horses in the herd, farm or ranch.

Preventing disease through proper vaccination is far safer, easier and more economical than treating the disease after the horse is already sick. Consult with your veterinarian to design the most appropriate vaccination protocol for your horses, and remember a critical part of any preventive care plan is proper biosecurity measures.

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.

ELANCO.US/TITANIUM

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

1

Millennials: 5 Tips for Working with Baby Boomers and Gen-X By: Jeralyn Novak, Communication Coordinator, Beefmaster Breeders United

I am a proud member of Generation Y, not ashamed that I grew up using computers and the internet. If you’re a college student reading this, you are most likely a member of Gen-Y, too, so go ahead and work your “Millennial” label to your advantage.

Generally speaking, as you enter the workforce, you may be at an advantage because our generation is more tech-savvy than previous ones. But even though you have fresh ideas and can work Photoshop like a pro, that doesn’t mean you will (or should try to) take over the business in one week. You have to build and maintain relationships with your managers, coworkers and mentors who are Gen-X and Boomers, and that takes time. You can’t Google yourself out of this problem, no matter how hard you try.

I graduated from college five years ago and since then I have learned first-hand what it takes to build relationships across different generations within a workplace. For each year I have been learning, I will provide a tip to you, my fellow Millennial, on how to work alongside Boomers and Gen-X. 1. Gen-X and Boomers had to “learn the hard way.”

Do not be discouraged if you feel your manager is holding back information. They want you to experience learning the way they did. Be resourceful. Today we can all gain quality information quickly, with the world at our fingertips. They had to talk to peers, use trial and error or go to a library.

2. Boomers appreciate real live conversations. I have been guilty of communicating all too often via email or text, but nothing can replace what happens when you are faceto-face or having a real conversation with someone. Do more of this and think before you send that next email. Ask yourself, would this be more effective if discussed live?

3. Boomers do not always adapt well to change.

Many of the Boomers have stayed in the same role most of their lives. Remember this when you spring on that new

idea to completely change a process that has been in place for several years. One, they may actually have valid reasons to resist change and two, even if you are totally on target it may take more time and information for your manager to come around.

4. Gen-X and Boomers may not be as used to collaboration as are Millennials. Millennials are on the “we” team and generally prefer to solve problems and work in teams whereas some Boomers and Gen-Xers are used to doing much on their own. I’ve experienced push back in the past when scheduling a team meeting to talk about solving a client problem. In hindsight, I realize they did not understand why I couldn’t solve that on my own. Also, a Gen-X or Boomer manager is not going to act like a helicopter parent.

They tend to be entrepreneurial thinkers and results-oriented, so they may not tell you how to do every step of the job.

5. For many Boomers and Gen-Xers, work has been/is their number one priority. Do not be upset if you aren’t greeted with excitement when you ask to take that two-week vacation to clear your head. They built their career with the mindset that work comes first.

Lastly, as more Boomers work past retirement age, and tech-savvy millennials continue to graduate and enter the workforce, differences in values, communication styles and work habits of each generation are becoming increasingly pronounced. However, it is important to remember that each generation brings their own set of work skills and knowledge to the table.

A successful team should be a melting pot of different generations working towards a common goal. While you are proud to be a member of Gen-Y, make sure you build those relationships with others and you will be surprised at what other generations will teach you.

Thank you to Jeralyn Novak and Beefmaster Breeders United for allowing us to reprint the article. pacdvms.com 25

Systematic Approaches to Biosecurity Investments By: Dr. Jim Lowe, Production Animal Consultation

As producers we all want to minimize the number of new diseases that are introduced in our herd. We use biosecurity practices to accomplish that. Because biosecurity practices often disrupt routine production practices or require significant capital investments there are tradeoffs when making decisions.

When constructing a biosecurity system it is critical that a whole-system approach be applied, where biosecurity investments address the most likely routes of disease introduction first. Often the most effective practices (i.e., those that address the most likely routes) are the most expensive or hardest to implement therefore making it tempting to pick the “low hanging fruit” from the biosecurity tree but being frustrated when the rate of new disease introduction is higher than you would expect. I like to think about biosecurity as buying insurance.

Developing robust biosecurity systems starts with understanding how likely new diseases are to be introduced and what the most likely routes are. Practically this means that farms in dense regions are more risky than farms in low density regions and need to “buy more insurance”.

We can determine the amount of “insurance” you should purchase by estimating the number of times the farm has contact with the “outside world” multiplied by the probability that the pig, thing or person is contaminated with a new infectious disease. Higher density regions mean that pigs, things and people contacting the farm are more likely to be infected. We will use a case example to see how we can apply this idea in practice.

2,500 sow breed-to-wean farm located in a swine-dense region.

This farm has a long history of new PRRS outbreaks that has tried multiple things over the years with little impact on the rate of new introduction. Each new PRRS virus costs about $1 million. The owner and the manager have different ideas about the best way to improve biosecurity.

The owner wants to build a compost bay as rendering is the biggest issue; the manager wants to build a new load out facility to allow for staged loading. The owner does not buy the truck argument. He pays for the trucks to be washed and disinfected but not dried. He thinks the $300 per truck twice a week is a big investment, but the truck hauls pigs for at least 4 other farms. The manager is not concerned that the rendering is a real issue because they have a good two-sided rendering shed.

pacdvms.com 27

The farm doesn’t have the money to do both so they have to choose. The first step is to understand the costs of both options. The next step is to determine the risk that each route of transmission creates for the farm. The final step is to determine the value of the change by determine the amount of risk (contact rate x contamination rate) that remains after the intervention and subtract that and the costs from risk created by that route. In this case: Owner Plan for Composting Costs: $50,000, operating costs and amortized annual investment Risk: 2 pickups per week x 26 weeks (cold weather) x 5% contamination rate x 20% cross contamination rate x $1 million per failure = $520,000/year losses from rendering.

Value: New contact rate is 0 meaning that all of the risk from dead stock disposal is eliminated. Value of Composting = $520,000 - $50,000 cost - $0 remaining risk = $470,000 per year

Risk: 104 loads per year x 10% contamination rate x 10% cross contamination rate x $1 million per failure = $1.04MM/year losses from trucking.

Value: Contact rate unchanged, cross contamination rate drops to 1%. The remaining risk is $104,000/year. Value of new staged loading = $1.04MM - $7,500 cost - $104,000 remaining risk = $928,500 per year.

Summary In this case the staged loading investment, while not eliminating all of the risk of trucking, produces about twice the value per year as the composting investment even though all of the rendering risk is eliminated with composting.

The key point is that by understanding the likelihood of a given route being infected with a disease we can direct biosecurity practices and investments in a manner that results in the greatest economic return. These risks will vary from farm to farm and require an understanding of the entire system if you want to make the best business decisions.

Manager Plan for Staged Loading Costs: $75,000 construction, amortized over 10 years = $7,500 per year cost

REWRITING THE BOOK ON

BRD TREATMENT Zelnate™ DNA Immunostimulant is a new chapter in BRD management.

Zelnate is the first licensed immunostimulant that aids in the treatment of BRD associated with Mannheimia haemolytica.

By jumpstarting the innate immune system — which has been shown to provide a rapid, potent and broad protective response to infectious agents — Zelnate helps reduce lung lesions and mortality in cattle. Administer Zelnate at the time of, or within 24 hours after, a perceived stressful event.

visit zelnate.com for more information This product is based on technology developed by Juvaris BioTherapeutics and is patent protected. Animal health applications are being exclusively developed by Bayer Animal Health and are the subject of Bayer patent applications. ©2015 Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health, Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201 Bayer (reg’d), the Bayer Cross (reg’d), Zelnate™ and It’s not an antibiotic. It’s not a vaccine.

It’s Zelnate.™ are trademarks of Bayer.

ZNT151142

The Stranger at 2:00

By: Dr. Greg Quakenbush, Geissler Corp., & Dr. Doug Ford, Production Animal Consultation

As I pulled into the corner of the walnut grove I noticed that the outside temperature registered 100 degrees on the pickup thermometer. The day was hot and getting hotter and the 2nd leaf walnuts seemed to enjoy and revel in the hot weather. They were putting on a growth spurt somewhat reminiscent of field corn.

I got out of the truck and dropped the tailgate to provide my lithe frame some support as I sat down and switched into my work boots. As I was finishing up, the Queensland Heeler behind the adjacent neighbor’s fence began barking incessantly while running back and forth as fast and as far as the fence would allow. I knew the dog was not barking at me, yet I could not figure out what had her so excited. I followed her line of vision and focus into the young stand of walnut trees and I saw nothing. As more time passed, her barking and pacing became even more intense. I looked again into the field, staring and searching to see what had possibly set this dog off.

Suddenly, my eye caught a slight movement about 80 yards out. As I followed the movement through the trees I became able to make out the profile of a man walking all alone through the grove. As he came to the end of the tree row he turned in my direction and started to walk along the highway.

As I watched him slowly approach I was wondering why anyone would be all alone in this heat, walking somewhat aimlessly through the fields. What kind of mischief had this guy been up to… and why was he in my grove?

As he walked closer I notice that he looked dirty and had on ill-fitting, somewhat sloppy clothes. My experience, which has taken me from rural America to New York City and back, first tagged this individual as possibly a “homeless” person. “Homeless” certainly does not make sense in a rural setting on a hot day, but I saw no other explanation.

Having been “ambushed” in the past by people at gas stations who invariably have a worn-out vehicle, a sad story, and naturally no money, I imagined that he was possibly going to hit me up for a similar shakedown. My imagination continued its course bringing to mind those crusty looking individuals found at certain intersections, walking the line of idling cars stopped at the intersection begging for money. Typically they communicate via a cardboard sign that succinctly explains their situation and need. The messages are almost universally similar as they explain they have fallen on hard times, are a veteran, lost their job, are hungry, etc.

Many, but not all, classically end their cardboard tweet with

“God Bless”. A closing statement that seems somewhat full of contradictions.

As the stranger drew closer, I awoke from my daydreaming and continued to go about my work somewhat purposefully moving away from his path. As he came upon my truck he passed behind it and went directly to the neighbor’s domestic well (outside the fence), turned on the faucet, and proceeded to take a long and well-needed drink. That’s bold of him I thought, but also certainly necessary as he had to be somewhat dehydrated after all of his walking.

After getting his fill of water he turned off the tap, reversed course and headed back along the same path that had brought him to the well. As he passed behind my truck yet again I looked back his way to hear him call to me, “Sir?” “Yes,” I cautiously replied.

“Would you happen to have the time?”

“Just a little after 2:00, I responded.”

“Thank you,” he politely offered and continued on his way.

As I continued with my work I kept close tabs on him as he followed the highway back along the route from which he came. At about the 80-yard marker he made an abrupt 90-degree turn and headed back into the grove.

From my vantage point the tree branches made it a little difficult to follow him as he continued walking. I lost track of him for a moment and then to my surprise I found him on his knees, seemingly stroking his hands up and down around the base of the tree. “What the heck is he doing?” my mind asked. “This is beyond strange. Why is he seemingly molesting my young tree? Is he digging a hole? What is going on?” I was now far more intense and focused than the Queensland had been. I moved a bit to obtain a less obstructed view… and then with better positioning, the awful truth finally came into full view. My supposed homeless loner, my self-imagined grifter… was out painting (whitewashing) my tree trunks.

Whitewashing the trunks of young fruit and nut trees serves the purpose of reducing sunburn and stress created by extensive sun exposure. Just like cattle can suffer under an unrelenting hot sun, so can young trees. I had forgotten that my farm manager and I had just discussed the week before the need to get these young trees painted and protected as soon as possible. When I finally understood why he was there and what he was doing, I felt a sense of regret and shame. Shame on my part because I had incorrectly prejudged this individual and regret because I had let selfishness temporarily blind me and alter my priorities.

Selfishness is a signal that I have an ownership problem. pacdvms.com 29

Whose money is it anyway? It’s mine, right? If I continue along this line of reasoning I end up with an even greater question. Whose life is this? It’s mine! If one follows this self-centered script to its end point, what is the result of a life lived in this manner? Would the result be a life well lived? I doubt it…

If someone gave me a $100 and told me to share it with someone else, I would have no problem with that request and would freely pass it along. On the other hand if I were told to give a $100 out of my pocket to someone else there would likely be hesitation. Why the hesitation? The hesitation is due to the fact that in the first instance the money was someone else’s and I had no actual “rights” to it. In the second situation the money rights belong to me and thus I can do with it what I want. This is the contrast between “ownership” and “stewardship”.

The Bible has made it clear that God is the true owner of everything and is the one who is the source of what we have… both physically and in regard to our ability and opportunity to make wealth. When we live our lives without “rights” and see ourselves as stewards of God’s program, we are in a sense set free. Instead of a closed fist, we can offer an open hand.

Imagine the difference if I had money in my pocket and was looking for someone to share it with. It would have created a completely different scenario with the tattered looking farm laborer in the story above. Instead of a concern

Feedlot Shade Sytems that deliver: • Cost-effective shade solutions • Design flexibility • Spans to keep pens clear of posts • Uniquely designed canopy material

regarding what he wanted to “take” from me, the situation becomes one of what I might do for him. And at the end of the day as a steward, the response and responsibility of the individual receiving the gift is between him and God. Realizing my earlier mistake I decided to drive out to meet the man laboring for my benefit and share some of my bottled water. To my surprise I could not find him anywhere in the grove. He had no vehicle and I never noticed someone coming by and stopping to pick him up. Once again, what was going on? I gave up. However, in the end, this entire encounter provided a lesson for me. My hope is that this experience goes a bit deeper and you might see yourself in this story as well. SDG Matthew 25:34-40 (ESV) Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Set up your Consultation Today!

Midwest NetPro Gary Kreikemeier Phone: 402-563-4712 Fax: 402-527-5594 Email: midplainscattle@gmail.com • Even distribution of rainfall • 10-year pro-rata UV warranty Website: netprocanopies.com • Easy maintenance

Chuckles From Down Under

By: Jane Sullivan, Bell Vet Services

A man who lived next door to a pub had a favourite tabby cat. Sadly, the cat was run over by a truck and killed. A year later, at around midnight, the publican was tidying up the empty bar when suddenly the ghost of the cat appeared, holding its severed tail in its paw.

“Can you help me?” asked the cat’s ghost. “I used to live next door to you until I was run over by a truck.”

“Yes, I remember you,” said the publican. “You were a very nice cat – the customers really liked you.”

“The thing is,” the cat went on, “this bit of tail I’m holding was cut off in the accident that killed me and I’ve been wandering around with it for a year. I know it’s late, but would you sew it back on for me?”

“No, I’m sorry,” replied the publican. “Much as I would like to help you, I’m afraid I can’t. You see, I’m not allowed to retail spirits after eleven o’clock.”

A man awoke one day feeling not at all well. He went to the doctor and passed out in his office.

When he awoke, he found he was in a hospital bed and several doctors were checking on him through an observation window.

He managed to croak out, “Wha? What happened?

What’s wrong with me?”

One of the doctors answered through the intercom, “You have a very serious condition. It’s a rare tropical disease, very highly contagious.”

The patient cried, “Oh no! That’s terrible! What are we going to do?”

The doctor replied, “Well, the first thing we’re going to do is put you on a strict diet of pizza, pancakes and pita bread.”

The man asked, “Will that help?”

The doctor answered, “No, but it’s the only stuff we can slide under the door.”

In church one Sunday the vicar was disappointed to find that his congregation consisted of just one farmer. Wondering whether he should hold the service, he decided to ask the man’s opinion.

“If I take a bucket of food to my hens,” said the farmer thoughtfully, “and only one turns up, I don’t send it away hungry.”

Moved by this simple analogy, the minister climbed into his pulpit and delivered a vigorous and lengthy sermon.

“Did you enjoy the service?” enquired the vicar when he had finished.

“When only one hen turns up,” the farmer said testily, “I don’t give it the whole bucket!”

Newest PAC Member

Newest PAC Members

Gabriel Leos

Miranda, Lydia and Lucas

Birthday: March 3rd, 2016 Parents: Sergio Leos and Ileana Garcia

Parents: Sam and Araceli Cossio

pacdvms.com 31

Don’t Send that Cow to Market!

By: Dr. Dan Thomson and Dr. Tiffany Lee, Kansas State University

Cull cows and bulls represent 35 to 45% of all cattle slaughtered for beef in the United States (NASS-USDA, 2013). Even though the welfare of most beef and dairy cows is good for the majority of their lives, as they reach their production potential and decline due to disease, anatomical/mechanical disorders, or old age, welfare can become severely compromised.

When cows depart from the herd because of sale, slaughter, or death, they are usually termed “cull” animals (Fetrow et al, 2006). In dairy cows, reproduction, mastitis, decreased yield, udder conformation, and feet/leg problems are the most common reasons that animals are culled from herds (Bascom & Young, 1998). In beef cattle, reproductive failure, feet problems, vaginal and uterine prolapse, cancer eye, lump jaw, and udder conditions are the most common reasons for culling (Greer et al, 1980).

Cull cows from beef and dairy farms are a significant source of beef produced in our country. Cull cows and cull bulls can represent up to 20% of a cow/calf operation’s revenue.

Although cull cows and bulls are important to beef production, they are often not discussed when it comes to food safety and animal welfare. In this column, we will discuss improving the quality of cows presented to the auction barn or the slaughter facility.

Why is this topic important? The producer perception is that cull cows wind up as ground beef. However, in the 2007 Market Cow and Bull Quality Audit performed by BQA, the authors indicated that 84.7% of cow slaughter facilities were producing ribeyes, tenderloins, inside round, strip loin and other cuts of beef from cull cows. Regardless of whether the beef is ground or sold as steaks, cull cows should be fit to transport and be fit to enter the food supply chain.

The animals we send to slaughter reflect our industry as a whole. Some cows are not fit to be transported nor should they be sold to enter the food chain. Auction markets are public places of business and it must be considered that animals sold there are being presented to the general public. In the end, we need to stop sending impaired cattle through the marketing system and we need to keep them out of the food chain.

Down or debilitated cows going to slaughter or mistreated are not representative of our industry, but they are the potential poster child for a group wanting to make a video of animal mistreatment.

By law, animals which are unable to walk are not accepted at any packing plant, small, medium or large.

pacdvms.com 33

Furthermore, down animals should never be dragged or lifted with chains. These animals should be moved with some sort of support underneath the animal such as a sled, a lowboy or the bucket of a loader. These animals are intensive care patients for veterinarians and producers.

A recent survey of slaughter facilities around the world indicated that most down cows presented at slaughter were specific farm issues (Vogel et al., unpublished data). This indicates that while most producers practice good welfare and keep these animals on the farm, a small group still send inappropriate animals to slaughter.

On the farm, when down cows are not responsive to therapy, relief of suffering through humane euthanasia should be conducted sooner rather than later.

If you are wondering what constitutes animals not fit for transport, the World Animal Health organization or the OIE has published a list on their website at: http://web.oie. int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.7.3.htm. According to this source cows with the following conditions are not fit for transport: those that are sick, injured, weak, disabled or fatigued; those that are unable to stand unaided and bear weight on each leg; those that are blind in both eyes; those that have a severe open wound or prolapse; those that cannot be moved without causing them additional suffering; newborn animals with an unhealed navel; pregnant animals which would be in the final 10% of their gestation period at the planned time of unloading; females travelling without young which have given birth within the previous 48 hours; and those whose body condition would result in poor welfare because of the expected climatic conditions.

34 pacdvms.com

It is essential that the conditions that cull cows leave the farm be discussed by the producer and the veterinarian.

Animals with conditions such as those discussed here are not fit for transport to any facility other than a veterinary clinic for evaluation and correction, or in cases such as severe cancer eye and non-ambulatory animals, euthanasia.

If and only if these problems are addressed, corrected, and proper withdrawal times are observed for any drug administered, cull cows can be transported to an auction barn or slaughter facility. Veterinarians must be astute when evaluating these animals, and honest when giving their educated opinions on whether these animals are fit for transport.

It is very easy for one to look the other way, or pass the problem along when culling cows from the herd. With good ethics and sound husbandry skills, we can improve this area of the cattle industry and create sound animal welfare practices that consider both producers’ interests and those of the industry as a whole.

In the end, sending cull cows to slaughter is an important source of revenue to beef producers and a great source of beef for consumers.

We as an industry need to be sure that we send animals that are fit for slaughter and fit to eat. Never send down cows, non-ambulatory cows or cows that may go down during transport to slaughter.

Producers need to make the decision on when to cull a cow from the herd sooner rather than later. Many times, it is difficult to define exactly which animals should or should not be sent to slaughter. However, if you wouldn’t slaughter the cow or bull for family beef or if you wouldn’t want folks on the evening news to see the animals you send, we recommend that the animal not be presented for slaughter.

Again, make sure to work with your local veterinarian on such decisions and make sure to adhere to all drug withdrawal guidelines.

Cull cows are a significant source of revenue and beef.

We need to be vigilant in the process of providing a safe, wholesome, nutritious product for our customers, and use good welfare practices while doing so.

Cow-Calf

How Many Clean-up Bulls Are Needed After Estrus Synchronization and AI

By: Hazy Nielson, Nielson Reproductive Service, Ellsworth, NE, & Rick Funston, Ph.D., West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska

The following article is a summary of an article reviewing scientific literature evaluating bull:female ratios following estrus synchronization and artificial insemination (AI) found in the 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report on page 9, (http://beef.unl.edu/2016-nebraska-beef-cattle-report).

One of the benefits of estrus synchronization and AI is purchasing and maintaining fewer bulls. However, an idea has been circulating that synchronized females not becoming pregnant to AI will return to estrus at the same time and require the same number of bulls as natural service without AI. Research has indicated cows not conceiving to AI will return to estrus over a 12d period following a single timed AI. The most active day had 18 percent of the herd in estrus, with the remainder of the distribution a bell curve (Figure 1 http://go.unl.edu/f0gx). Each cow’s estrous cycle is slightly different. Some cows have 2 follicular waves during the estrous cycle, while others have 3. This results in a natural variation in cycle length, causing the non-pregnant cows’ return to estrus to vary.

There will be three or four days when many of the non-pregnant females will be in estrus; on those days it is important to increase observation of bulls, especially in large or multi-windmill pastures, to ensure they are all sound and working.

No effect of bull to female ratio or number of females expressing estrus per bull on pregnancy rate was found when comparing bull to heifer ratios ranging from 1:7 to 1:51 in heifers synchronized with Synchro-Mate B. In a comparison of bull to heifer ratios ranging from 1:16 to 1:50 in herds of 100 heifers synchronized with melengestrol acetate (MGA)-PG and immediately exposed to bulls, the optimal bull to heifer ratio for synchronized heifers was 1:25 based on both biological and economic criteria. If the optimal bull to heifer ratio in a synchronized natural service setting is 1:25, it can be extrapolated with a hypothetical AI

pregnancy rate of 50 percent, the number of clean- up bulls needed is decreased by 50 percent.

Data was summarized from published studies reporting AI and final pregnancy rates, and bull to female ratio. Of the data collected, studies were divided into bull to female ratio groups including Normal-Natural Service (NS, 1:20 to 30 bull to female ratio), and 3 groups following estrus synchronization and AI; normal (NORM, 1:20 to 30), intermediate (INT, 1:31 to 49), and half (HALF, 1:50 to 60).

The final pregnancy rate of a normal bull to heifer ratio in a natural service setting was 87.8 percent. Final pregnancy rate in the NORM was 87.7 percent. The final pregnancy rate in the INT group was 82.6 percent and the final pregnancy rate of the HALF was 89.2 percent. Bulls turned in at half the normal bull to female ratio following estrus synchronization and AI resulted in final pregnancy rates similar to normal bull to female ratio both in a natural service situation and following estrus synchronization and AI. A consideration to make prior to choosing a bull to female ratio is bull age. Experienced bulls are more efficient breeders, while yearling bulls are less experienced. Another consideration is pasture size and terrain; a rugged, multiwindmill pasture may demand more from a bull than a flat single-windmill pasture. In conclusion, producers utilizing estrus synchronization and AI should keep in mind the similarity between final pregnancy rates when using a 1:25 bull to female ratio and 1:50 bull to female ratio. Producers need to evaluate the cost difference of purchasing and maintaining twice as many bulls to maintain a 1:25 bull to female ratio following estrus synchronization and AI. Rick Funston, reproductive physiologist purchases 100 heifer calves every fall for the West Central Research and Extension Center and AI in the spring and has never used more than half the normal number of bulls that is recommended without AI and has consistently reported over 90 percent final pregnancy rates in a 60d clean up breeding season. This includes more than 1,200 heifers to date.

Producers interested in synchronization protocols and reproductive management resources can access them from UNL at http://beefrepro.unl.edu/. pacdvms.com 35

Pathologies of Acute Interstitial Pneumonia in Feedlot Cattle By: (1)Jose A. Valles, (1)Michael D. Apley, (2)Chris D. Reinhardt, (1)Steven J. Bartle and (1)Daniel U. Thomson, Reprinted with permission from American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences

(1) Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University (2) Department of Animal Science and Industry Abstract: Acute Interstitial Pneumonia (AIP) is a costly issue that affects feedlot cattle. Research has yet to elucidate the etiology of AIP; therefore a case-control study was conducted to evaluate possible management and physiological factors that contribute to AIP in feedlot cattle. The experiment was conducted during the summer of 2011 in a commercial feedyard in Kansas. Animals exhibiting clinical signs of AIP and a control animal from the same pen were selected for ante-mortem examination.

Post-mortem AIP cases were also selected for additional examination. Ante-mortem measurements included rumen gas cap hydrogen sulfide and pH, rectal temperature and body weight. Post-mortem examination added histological examination of lung tissue. Rectal temperature was greater in the AIP cattle (40.6±0.16°C) than controls (39.7±0.16°C; p<0.001). Body weight (499±56 Vs. 506±60 kg), hydrogen sulfide (136±133 vs. 269.8±311 ppm) and rumen pH (6.4±0.5 Vs. 6.2±0.6) were similar between AIP and control cattle (p>0.10).

Post-mortem rumen pH values were 6.3±0.4 and 5.7±0.6 for AIP and control cattle, respectively.

Histological evaluation of lung samples showed that bronchiolitis was present in about 90% of the cattle affected with AIP. About 75% of the cattle with AIP also had bronchopneumonia.

No relationships between feed intake patterns, or serum amylase or lipase levels were noted between treatments (p>0.20). This study generally confirms that AIP tends to occur more in heifers relative to steers, occurs in cattle at heavier weights or later in the feeding period and tends to be associated pathologically with bronchiolitis and bronchopneumonia.

The lack of differences in rumen measures and the feed intake data between AIP and control cattle suggest that feed intake patterns and rumen fermentation may not impact AIP in feedlot cattle and that it may be more directly related to bronchiolitis/bronchopneumonia due to chronic irritation or infection.

Introduction: Acute Interstitial Pneumonia (AIP) is a respiratory disease that affects feedlot cattle, especially during dry and hot weather patterns (Woolums et al., 2005a). This disease is also known as atypical interstitial pneumonia, fog fever and dust pneumonia (Woolums et al., 2005b). Following Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD), AIP is one of the most costly diseases confronted by feedlots (Amosson et al., 2006). It tends to affect cattle that are near to their market weight and in addition to the loss of the animal, economic costs include the value of a large amount of feed, yardage, interest and any other investments in the animal (Loneragan et al., 2001b). In 2000, the National Animal Health Monitoring System reported that 78.4% of all feedlots had at least one animal develop AIP (NAHMS, 2000b). A survey of U.S. feedlot personnel estimated that 3.1% of the total cattle placed on feed develop AIP (NAHMS, 2000a).

Cattle affected by AIP develop clinical signs such as extension of the neck to facilitate breathing, excessive salivation, grunting, panting, breathing through the mouth and refusal to travel (Blood, 1962; Doster, 2010). Affected animals also may express aggressive attitudes when being approached for handling (Loneragan and Gould, 1999). Cattle that display AIP-like symptoms tend to respond poorly to treatments (Woolums et al., 2005b). At necropsy, lungs grossly display edema and emphysema (Doster, 2010). Even though it is a very costly disease, research has yet to elucidate the exact etiology of AIP in feedlot cattle. Factors such as heat stress, dust exposure, viruses, feed toxins, toxic gasses such as hydrogen sulfide produced in the rumen, gender, parasites and several other factors have been associated with AIP (Sorden et al., 2000; Doster, 2010).

pacdvms.com 37

Feedlot veterinarians have speculated that pancreatitis may be involved with AIP. Hydrogen sulfide has been shown to cause lung lesions in rats (Lopez et al., 1987; Prior et al., 1988).

Also in grazing cattle, AIP been tied to the L-tryptophan content of lush forages and the resulting 3-methylindole metabolism in the rumen (Loneragan et al., 2001a). This study was conducted to clinically observe ante-mortem cases of cattle suffering from AIP compared to their non-affected pen cohorts and examine management conditions or cattle feeding behavior that might lead to AIP incidence in cattle feeding facilities. Also, an objective of this study was to assess the gross and histological pathology of cattle that died due to AIP to better understand the pathenogenesis of the disease.

Materials and Methods Cattle: All procedures in the study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Kansas State University (No. 3044).

The study was conducted in a commercial feedlot with a capacity of approximately 55,000 head in southwest Kansas during the summer of 2011. The cattle population demographics consisted of 75% heifers and 50% black-hided animals. Average body weight at arrival of cattle was 354 kg. At initiation of the study the cattle ranged from 3 to 166 Days On Feed (DOF) with an average of 64 DOF. The finishing diet was about 44% flaked corn, 20% high moisture corn, 22% wet distillers grains, 3.7% dry distillers grains, 5.1% ground corn stalks and 5.1% liquid supplement on a dry matter basis. Feed consumption data were obtained from the feedlot records.

Case animals suspected of AIP were identified ante-mortem based on clinical signs, which included: extension of the neck, panting, excessive salivation, breathing through the mouth and refusal to travel (Blood, 1962; Doster, 2010).

Suspect animals were removed from their pen and taken to the hospital facilities for examination or were collected in the home pen if the animal was unable to rise. Animals diagnosed with AIP (case) were paired with a healthy control animal of comparable physical characteristics from the same pen. At the time of sample collection, the date, sex, lot and tag number and hide color were recorded. All sample collections were performed by a Kansas State University graduate student and properly trained personnel from the feedlot hospital crew.

Samples: In both case and control animals, samples from the rumen gas cap were collected using a rumen puncturing technique (Kleen et al., 2004). A total of 200 mL of rumen gas was collected for measurement of H2S (100 mL per gas measured). Rumen hydrogen sulfide levels were determined using 2 detector tubes with different detection ranges (Gastec Corporation, Ayase-shi, Kanagawa, Japan). Hydrogen sulfide samples initially used a NO.4H tube which had a range of 100 to 2,000 ppm. If the amount of H2S exceeded the scale range, a second 100 mL sample was taken using a NO.4HH tube with C

D

38 pacdvms.com

a 0.1 to 2.0% scale range. Rumen fluid was obtained following a rumen sampling procedure similar to the technique used to collect the rumen gas samples. A 12-gauge needle was introduced into the rumen on the left side of the animal just caudal to the 13th rib at the level of the point of the elbow. At least 6 mL of rumen fluid was obtained to measure the rumen pH. Blood samples were obtained for serum chemistry analysis. Approximately 12 mL of blood was obtained from the jugular vein and divided into 2 aliquots of 6 mL each, allowed to clot, centrifuged and refrigerated. The samples were then shipped for laboratory analysis of amylase and lipase contents (IDEXX Laboratories, Westbrook, Maine) to observe pancreatitis as a possible cause for acute lung injury as evidenced in human medicine (Zhou et al., 2010).

Rectal temperature was determined using an electronic digital thermometer. Body weight was recorded in the hospital chute for those animals receiving an ante-mortem examination. The weights for the animals receiving a post-mortem examination but without an ante-mortem examination that died in their home pen were estimated using their home penmate’s weight average.

Post-mortem examination was performed on suspected AIP mortalities independent of whether they had received an ante-mortem examination. Post-mortem case animals were confirmed based on lung histopathology. At the time of necropsy, post-mortem controls were selected from animals that were suspected of dying of causes other than AIP. Post-mortem AIP suspects and controls were paired by the best match of the animal’s demographic information (sex, weight, home pen). Throughout the study, necropsies were performed by experienced personnel trained by the feedyard consulting veterinarian. Only animals suspected of AIP that died early in the morning and showed no signs of physical decomposition were examined.

Rumen gas-cap samples were obtained at necropsy following the same technique as the ante-mortem examination, except that the rumen was exposed. Rumen pH was collected by making a small incision in the rumen wall to insert the pH meter into the rumen liquor.

Lung tissue samples were obtained by a single trained person. Samples (4 total lung samples for each animal) were collected from lung lobes with consolidated tissue. In the majority of animals, the caudal lobe contained consolidated tissue and was the site of sample collection. Samples were collected along lines demarcation between consolidated and non-consolidated tissue so that each sample contained both types of tissue. Tissues were sectioned in blocks of similar dimensions (approximately 6.35 cm length x 1.9 cm width x 1.9 cm depth). Each sample was individually placed in formalin, labeled with the lot number, animal ID and lobe location. Formalin fixed-samples were stored in a room with no sunlight and at a temperature of approximately 21°C. Samples were shipped on a weekly basis to the Arizona Veterinary Diagnos-

tic Laboratory at the University of Arizona for histopathology analysis.

Post-mortem, animals were classified AIP positive by presenting histopathological lesions such as alveolar fibrin, hyaline membrane formation and pneumocyte hyperplasia in at least one lobe (Sorden et al., 2000; Woolums et al., 2004).

Histopathological lesions were further defined as focal AIP (less than 10% of lobule affected), patchy AIP (more than 10% but less than 50% of the lobule affected), diffuse AIP (more than 50% of the lobule affected), bronchopneumonia (focal or diffuse acute/chronic), chronic bronchopneumonia (broncho-pneumonia plus evidence of chronicity such as fibrosis or atelectasis), histopathological interstitial pneumonia (interstitial pneumonia lacking gross lesions described for AIP but having interstitial cellular or acellular interstitial infiltrates upon histopathological analysis). The presence of bronchopneumonia, bronchiolitis and interstitial pneumonia lesions were also evaluated.

Variation in 14-day feed consumption was compared in a case-control approach between pens with at least one case of AIP (n = 44) verses selected control pens with no reported cases of AIP. A second comparison in feed variation was made using a 5-day rolling average compared to the 6th day feed consumption. The control pen was selected based on sex, DOF, average weight, number of cattle in the pen and location within the feedlot. For statistical analysis, dry matter intake variations were categorized as the number of pens varying from the previous day or the rolling average by ≥0.11, 0.23, or 0.34 kg·animal (-1) day(−1).

Ambient temperature and humidity at the feedlot location were automatically recorded by a central station and a weather censor located on site. Samples collection was conducted from June 10 to August 10, 2011. High and low daily temperatures were graphed with the daily incidence of AIP in cattle.

Statistical Analysis: The experimental design was a case-control study to evaluate possible factors contributing to AIP in feedlot production settings. A P value ≤0.05 was selected to establish statistical significance among evaluations. Probability values >0.05 but ≤0.1 were described as values approaching statistical significance. Ante-mortem observations of rectal

temperature, weight, rumen H2S and rumen pH were analyzed using a mixed-effects model analysis of variance (SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC) with ante-mortem classification as a fixed effect and with sex and pairing as random effects. Means were separated using the PDIFF option of SAS. This ante-mortem analysis focused on 23 pairs of AIP affected animals and controls.

Ante-mortem observations of serum amylase and lipase demonstrated biphasic distributions of zero and positive values and therefore, were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Ranked Sum procedure in SAS. The number of cattle in the various ante and post-mortem examination groups varied. Due to the large differences in numbers and the lack of histological confirmation of control animal lung pathology, serum amylase and lipase were reported but not statistically evaluated.

Feed consumption changes were analyzed using the Proc Mixed procedure to compare the pens with AIP cases to control pens without AIP cases. Pen classification, with or without an AIP case, was a fixed effect and no random effects were included in the model.

Results: The number of animals in the various ante-mortem and post-mortem groups are shown in Table 1. In this study, AIP affected cattle from 24 to 131 DOF and at an average body weight of 505 kg.

Ante-Mortem: A total of 31 animals were diagnosed with AIP and received an ante-mortem examination. Serum chemistry was completed on 30 animals. Eighty-seven percent were heifers compared to the estimated heifer percentage in the feedlot of 75%. Hide colors for the 31 animals were 74% black, 16% red and 10% white.

Twenty-three case controls were examined ante-mortem.

Live weights were similar between the two groups (499±56 Vs. 506±60 kg). Sixteen of the 31 animals with ante-mortem examination also received a post-mortem examination.

The remaining 14 animals were in an advanced state of decomposition and necropsies were not performed. In addition, 44 possible AIP cases that died prior to the opportunity for an ante-mortem received post-mortem examination.

Eleven post-mortem cattle that died from obviously non-AIP causes were selected as controls at the time of necropsy. A

pacdvms.com 39

total of 71 cattle received post-mortem examination.

In the ante-mortem examinations, there were no differences (P = 0.99) in serum amylase or lipase concentrations, indicators of pancreas function, between control animals and AIP suspects (Table 2). Suspected AIP cases had numerically lower (P = 0.09) rumen gas cap hydrogen sulfide concentration (H2S; 110±68) than the control group (273±59; Table 2). Rumen pH values among the control and the AIP suspect groups approached significance (P = 0.06, Table 2). Cattle suspected of AIP had greater (p<0.0001) rectal temperature (40.6±0.16°C) than the control animals (39.7±0.16°C). There were no differences in body weights between the control cattle and the AIP suspect cattle (P = 0.22).

Post-Mortem: Lung samples from 60 animals were submitted to the laboratory. Diffuse, focal and patchy AIP lesions were present in 45 of the 60 animals at levels that met the criteria for AIP diagnosis (Fig. 1). Single type lung lesions diagnosed 15 animals with AIP (5, 6 and 9 for diffuse (Fig. 2), focal (Fig. 3) and patchy, respectively) and 30 animals had more than one type of lesion present. In addition, AIP lesions were present in 10 animals but at less than 10% of lobule. Bronchopneumonia was confirmed to be present in 34 of the 60 animals.

Fig. 1. Example of Lung showing gross AIP lesions

Fig. 2. Image of diffuse AIP lung lesions

Fig. 3. Image of focal AIP lesions around bronchioles

Fifty-five of the 60 had lesions consistent with bronchiolitis.

In the post-mortem examinations, rumen pH values of the 60 AIP animals were numerically greater than the values obtained from 11 control animals, 6.3±0.4 and 5.7±0.6, respectively. Cattle with AIP also had numerically lower H2S concentration (1,280 ppm) than the control group (1,841 ppm).

Statistical significance between the AIP and control groups was not calculated for the rumen pH or hydrogen sulfide due to the lack of lung histology of the control group.

Ante- and Post-Mortem: Sixteen animals had both ante-mortem and post-mortem examinations; 13 (81%) had diffuse, focal and patchy AIP confirmed by histology.

Acute and chronic bronchiolitis lesions were found in 12 of the 13 animals with AIP and in the 3 animals with no histological AIP lesions. Of the 16 animals, 10 (63%) had some form of bronchopneumonia.

Weather and Feed Patterns: High and low daily temperatures were gathered from the weather station for a graphical analysis in comparison with the daily incidence of AIP in cattle. No association between temperature changes and the incidence of AIP was observed.

Comparisons of feed variations between the pens with at least one AIP incident during the time of the study and their assigned control pen were made. Feed variations were statistically evaluated between the AIP and control groups in ≥0.11, 0.23 and 0.34 kg/animal daily change. During both 14 (compared to the previous day) and 5 day (compared to the 5 d rolling average) periods prior to the AIP incidence, the number of pens with changes of ≥0.11, 0.5 and 0.34 kg·animal (-1) day(-1) did not differ between pens with and without AIP cases (p = 0.13 to 0.88). The results are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Discussion: Acute interstitial pneumonia was found in a higher numeric proportion of heifers than would have been expected based on the proportion of heifers in the feedlot (75%). During the ante-mortem phase of this study, 87% of the animals suspected of AIP were heifers (n = 27) and during the post-mortem phase 96% of the cattle with AIP confirmed on histology were heifers. This numeric finding agrees with previous studies that reported feedlot heifers were more prone to be affected by AIP than steers. In a study conducted in southern Alberta feedyards, all the animals suspect of AIP were heifers even though the heifer to steer ratio during the time of the study was 8:1 (Ayroud et al., 2000). Woolums et al.

(2001) also reported that heifers died of AIP at higher ratios than steers.

In this study, AIP affected cattle from 24 to 131 DOF and at an average body weight of 505 kg. Acute Interstitial Pneumonia has been reported in cattle as early as 45 d and to continue in cattle up to 15 to 45 d prior to expected slaughter date (Woolums et al., 2001; Stanford et al., 2006). In other studies, AIP was observed to be a prevalent cause of death in cattle that are nearing market weight (Jensen et al., 1976; Loneragan and Gould, 1999). In a nationwide survey evaluating the association between management practices and the risk of AIP, feedlot managers reported that about 80% of all the AIP deaths were in cattle that had been on feed for 60

days or more and averaged 24 d before expected slaughter date (Ayroud et al., 2000).

Acute Interstitial Pneumonia has been reported to affect cattle more commonly during hot and dry summers (Ayroud et al., 2000; Woolums et al., 2005a) or during the fall season (Hammond et al., 1979). It is possible that heat stress contributes to the incidence of AIP. This study was conducted for about 60 d during the months of June, July and August. Cattle suspected of AIP were shown to have (p<0.0001) greater rectal temperature values (40.6±0.16°C) than the control animals (39.7±0.16°C). It is not possible to determine if the increased rectal temperature was an immune response, accumulated heat load, or caused by other factors.

At necropsy, animals suspected of AIP presented pulmonary characteristics such as enlarged lungs, dark red color, rubbery texture and interstitial edema and intralobular emphysema. These lesions were often diffusely distributed throughout the lung lobes. These observations were similar to gross lesions reported in previous studies (Curtis et al., 1979; Woolums et al., 2005b; Doster, 2010). Histological evaluation of lung samples showed that bronchiolitis lesions were present in more than 90% of the cattle affected with AIP. About 75% (34/45) of the cattle with AIP also had bronchopneumonia lesions. The percentage of AIP cattle with bronchopneumonia was in agreement with previous reports. In a study of feedlot-associated AIP, 97% of the cattle affected with AIP (n = 149) also presented evidence of bronchopneumonia (n = 144) (Hjerpe, 1983). In another study, 75% of the cattle with AIP (n = 28) also became affected with bronchopneumonia (n = 21) (Sorden et al., 2000).

Ante-mortem serum amylase, lipase and rumen pH did not differ between cattle diagnosed with AIP and those without AIP. Hydrogen sulfide has been shown to cause lung lesions in rats (Lopez et al., 1987; Prior et al., 1988). If rumen H2S concentrations contribute to AIP, it would be reasonable to

expect H2S to be higher in cattle affected by AIP than control animals. However in this experiment, AIP animals had numerically lower concentrations of H2S than the control animals.

The post- mortem H2S levels were about 8 times greater than the ante-mortem levels. Post-mortem rumen pH values were numerically greater in the 60 AIP animals than 11 control animals (6.3 Vs. 5.7, respectively), which agrees with previous reports (Miles et al., 1998).

Feed factors such as readily available L-tryptophan and disturbances in feed intake patterns have been suggested as factors that contribute to increased AIP incidence. Feedlot diets typically do not contain high levels of highly available protein and the amino acid L-tryptophan that can be present in lush forages. However, increased levels of breakdown products of L-tryptophan have been found in the lungs of feedlot cattle with AIP (Loneragan et al., 2001a). In this study, there were no differences in feed intake patterns between pens that experienced a case of AIP and those that did not.

Conclusion: This study generally confirms the observations that AIP tends to occur in heifers, late in the feeding period and tends to be associated with bronchiolitis and bronchopneumonia. Cattle suspected of AIP had greater rectal temperature values (40.6±0.16°C) than animals classified as controls (39.7±0.16°C). The lack of differences in rumen measures and the feed intake data between AIP and control cattle suggest that feed intake pattern and rumen fermentation may not impact AIP in feedlot cattle. Future AIP research topics include the complications of heat stress, dusty conditions and water availability. Also, there are currently few effective treatments.

References listed at pacdvms.com/newsletter

Lowe Speaks at Duke University Forum Series on Conservation and Health By: Dr. Jim Lowe, Production Animal Consultation In February 2016 I was one of two speakers at the Duke University Forum in Durham, North Carolina, entitled “Modern Livestock Production: Are the Benefits Worth the Risks?” With a subject like that, there was plenty to talk about as I explained how modern livestock production is critical in meeting the world’s food needs over the next 30 years.

My presentation which was titled “Assuring there is enough to go around” described how modern agricultural practices have helped assure a safe, affordable food supply while using fewer resources and enhancing environmental sustainability.

The forum was attended by over 100 people including Duke University students; faculty from Duke University Schools of Medicine, Law and the Environment; faculty from North Carolina State University Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture; and staff from state and federal government agencies.

In my presentation I reviewed the food needs of the 9 billon people that will inhabit our planet by 2050, explaining that as a society we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide food for everyone in a way that creates the least damage to the environment.

Making our food system less efficient is not an option. So how do we use the available land and water with increased efficiency to produce twice as much food as we do today?

Achieving this will depend partly on reducing post-harvest losses – estimated to be 30% of all production world-wide –

but will mostly rely on adapting and using novel technology.

To predict the future, it is important to understand the past. For most of history, agricultural farmers have been price takers, not price makers. Therefore they respond to market trends and demands, which is very different from other industries. Several long-term megatrends have influenced how we raise food in industrialized countries: 1. People want to live in cities.

2. People desire low-cost food.

3. People desire convenient (prepared or partially prepared) food.

4. People are eating out more instead of eating at home.

These megatrends have led to many changes in the food supply chain over time. In the US, there has been a 450% increase in the amount of food consumed outside the home since 1961 (figure 1) and supercenters have replaced small local grocers (figure 2). In addition, the top 4 grocery chains now control 40% of the market, up from 20% of the market 20 years ago (figure 3). These consumer and supply chain trends coincided with consolidation in the packing and production segments of the food chain. It is likely not a coincidence that at the same time consolidation was occurring in the food supply chain, there was an increase in the efficiency of the food supply chain (figure 4).

Some in society believe we should revert to a more local food system that relies less on technology in order to minimize the environmental impact of food production and increase food safety. The facts do not support that these benefits would materialize.

If we change to a local food system where all food is produced within 100 miles of where it is consumed, we would need 25% more fossil fuel to produce the same crop and we would produce 22 million more pounds of carbon dioxide per year than current methods (Sexton 2011). Looking at ONE crop – corn – it would take 37 million more acres, 35% more fertilizer, 23% more chemicals and 23% more fuel to meet human food demands with similar increases for other crops.

Using livestock as part of the sustainable food production cycle and raising them where grain is produced is a critical part of long-term environmental sustainability. Using the manure from 1 pig as fertilizer will replace 74 pounds of nitrogen, 0.17 pounds of phosphorus and 7.58 pounds of potassium per year. This results in a reduction of 81.65 pounds of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere. Tom, Fischbeck and Hendrickson investigated three dietary and food production scenarios and how they would impact greenhouse gas emissions. They state: The three dietary scenarios we examine include (1) reducing Caloric intake levels to achieve ‘‘normal’’ weight without shifting food mix, (2) switching current food mix to USDA recommended food patterns, without reducing Caloric intake, and (3) reducing Caloric intake levels and shifting current food mix to USDA recommended food patterns, which support healthy weight. This study finds that shifting from the current US diet to dietary Scenario 1 decreases energy use, blue water footprint, and GHG emissions by around 9%, while shifting to dietary Scenario 2 increases energy use by 43%, blue water footprint by 16%, and GHG emissions by 11%. Shifting to dietary Scenario 3, which accounts for both reduced Caloric intake and a shift to the USDA recommended food mix, increases energy use by 38%, blue water footprint by 10%, and GHG emissions by 6%.

Local food production and smaller supply chains, with more “natural and organic” production, will not improve

food safety. Reinstein et al. (2009) demonstrated that the prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organically and naturally raised beef cattle was the same as conventionally raised cattle, suggesting that there is no food safety benefit to alternative production methods (figure 5).

In addition, Chipotle, who touts its “local, natural” supply chain, has experienced a high number of food poisoning outbreaks at its restaurants over the last 6 years, again demonstrating that small local supply chains are not safer.

In fact, there appears to be a benefit of tighter supply chains (fewer suppliers) because of increased transparency and therefore accountability for who is supplying unsafe food.

Local and alternative food production methods also create economic hardships for consumers as organic foods have a much higher price (68% in 2012 shopping comparison, Thomson, personal communication) than conventionally produced foods.

This higher food price can have broad-ranging implications by shifting spending patterns. According the US Census, the bottom quartile of incomes in the US spend 13% of their disposable income on food. If food prices increase 68% due to changes in the food supply chain, they will now be spending 22% of their disposable income on food.

This shift is likely to change demand for other goods and services in the economy. As an example, for every $1 spent on housing, an additional $1.40 is created in the overall economy (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200317/200317pap.pdf). Over the last three years, the US has spent over $4.4 trillion per year on new home construction. This is worth $6.2 trillion to the economy. If there is a 10% change in food price, on average there will be a 6% change in money available for housing and a resulting reduction of 2.4% in housing prices. This means there will be a reduction of $100 billion in new housing construction

pacdvms.com 43

and $150 billion in associated economic activity.

If “local” food systems are not the way forward, what is?

In the US, the market is already driving changes to meet the demands of the consumer. The integration and consolidation of the retail and food service sectors are sending clear market signals that different models of production and processing are desired in the market and over time there will be many different supply chains feeding the US at different price points and many products with different “attributes” that are valued differently by different people.

We see these examples in the market every day: organic, natural, grass fed, antibiotic free, cage free, etc. The most interesting part of this change is that these products are no longer the sole province of specialty retailers like Whole Foods; Walmart, the discount chain, is now a major player in the “organic” business. Conversely, Aldi, who is known for no frills groceries, is still a rapidly growing chain in the US, suggesting there is still a large part of the US consumer base that expects low-cost, high-quality, safe food. What we are seeing is that choice will be king: the top of the market will continue to expand and differentiate, but the core commodity product will always be there.

A key to feeding 9 billion people will be to transfer the right technology to areas where food needs to be grown, to allow those regions to develop and feed themselves in a sustainable way. Optimizing the efficient use of resources and minimizing environmental impact at a pace and scale the world has never seen is the challenge before us.

We can export food or technology or BOTH… but the challenge is daunting: 22% of the world’s people (1.2 billion) live on less than $1.25 per day and 40% (2.2 billion) live on less than $2 a day, but 75% of these people raise livestock – livestock are literally LIFESTOCK for these people (BeVier, 2016).

The US and western Europe are mature markets and 44 pacdvms.com

meat production will stabilize or shrink over time in response to slowing population growth. Growth of livestock production will happen in the rest of the world. If we are worried about the US then our strategy is wrong as the game will be played half way around the world.

The challenge will be to increase livestock production in a sustainable way as we strive to meet the needs of a growing middle class. The pace and scale needed for growth while dealing with issues of bad government and climate change is truly a daunting challenge. Think about the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the environment – these coming changes will be orders of magnitude larger.

Roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion tons of food per year. This appears to be an area where gains in food availability can be made quickly. We have already developed technology to minimize post-harvest food losses in the large-scale US production system.

Adapting this technology in developing countries will be key. But we cannot forget the critical role that animals play as they can serve as a storage of grain and converter of “waste products” for human consumption. Our goal is to retain calories in the human food chain and improve the quality of those calories by using animals.

The key will be to understand HOW to apply those technologies for them to be successful. Dennis DiPietre, a well-respected ag economist said, “Every new technology has to come wrapped in a set of standard operating procedures for it to be successful” (2016). His key point was that while “technology” is useful, it only works if the people with access to it know how to use it correctly. This is the key part of any development program that is often forgotten and hard to do.

In his 2016 article in JAVMA, Gregg BeVeir noted, “Improvements in livestock genetics, nutrition and health are needed to increase efficiencies of production, but these improvements will not succeed without greater veterinary support services.” He like DiPietre suggests that the US food production system needs to be able to export not only the technology that has made it successful but the human capital to make it work where it is most needed.

There is not a “simple solution” and going backwards is not an option. Our challenge is to meet the needs of everyone, especially those most in need, but to do it in a way that creates the greatest good for the most people. Integrated, systems-based approaches are needed but they have to be market based if they are going to be sustainable. People have to WANT and be willing to PAY FOR the food that we produce if any food production system is to be sustainable.

Right People On the Bus

By: Dr. Nels Lindberg, Production Animal Consultation

As I sit in this seat on this bus, going from the hotel to the airport, I am reminded of the author Jim Collins who coined the theory of getting the right people on the bus and the right people in the right seat on the bus. The analogy serves for us in the beef business as we guide our teams each day and all the people we lead. Some of us may have 3 members on the team and some may have over 50 members on their team, but this theory applies for all team leaders, whether you are the manager, head cowboy, cattle foreman, mill manager, owner, etc.

It starts with getting the right people on the bus. I ask you to examine your hiring process. How many interviews do you do? Do you spend enough time with that person to truly understand who they are, and do they spend enough time with your team to see if they fit your culture and your team?

We recommend multiple interviews, and more importantly, have them spend a few days at your yard, horseback, in the feedtruck or in whatever area they may be applying for. For your yard, this may not be possible, given liability, but look to figure out how you can have them come into the operation for a few days. This is best for the yard and for them. Both parties get to interview each other. And one or the other may figure out, “Hey, this isn’t going to work for me,” before the hire even occurs, which can be a very good thing.

Often time in the ag industry we hire the first warm body we can find because “we need help yesterday.” I know one business that has over 6 interviews for all job candidates!

In the end, we are looking for a “tell-tale” sign, an indicator, signal, or sign that conveys the status of a situation, mechanism, or system. We are looking to see how they may react when you ask them to do a job, or even, do they just jump in and do the job, or how do they react in a situation with your crew. Maybe as you visit with them, they begin to talk about their current bar scene experiences. Or maybe they spend the entire time telling you how much they know and how much they have done. We all know those types, right?

For one specific question, ask all applicants what other people would say is their greatest strength: being humble, hungry, or smart? What is their greatest weakness of those three?

Going deeper in the process, if they are married, how about “interviewing the spouse”? Out of failures I have learned from, this has been, hands down, one of the best

business practices I have adopted. We can all understand plenty of reasons why that is the case. Their spouse might tell you some details that make you realize your job isn’t for them! It’s all about time, conversation, and being keenly aware of every response they or their spouse give verbally, physically, and emotionally. Those are signs that will give you potential looks into “the crystal ball.”

Another piece that is very key, and you will think is unusual, but can be powerfully helpful is to ask them for their personal budget. We all have financial struggles but the first step in resolving them is through a personal budget. If we can help relieve our people’s financial struggles, we will help their performance for our team at work. And if they don’t have a personal budget, help them develop one!

We all look to make the proper hire, but we struggle with it and can think of the bad hires we have made! Furthermore, we think of what have they cost us and the entire team, financially, mentally and emotionally. We must remember, proper hiring creates a good team, and a good team lowers turnover. We look to find the thoroughbreds and limit bringing in donkeys. Thoroughbreds have big hearts and big muscles, which is what we want. Donkeys and thoroughbreds don’t mix! And at some point, we often have to do a Donkey-ectemy! Cut the donkey out! The best way to not fire (doing a donkey-ectemy) is to not hire! For key positions, bring your spouse to the interview as well, such as a dinner or night out. Why, you may ask? Because your spouse is a serious donkey indicator! They can sense or smell bad little green apples better than you can often times!

Next issue, we will go over the process of getting them in the right seat on the bus after we have them on the bus.

And for a bit of persistence mid-year, where are you on your goals? Get after them, and keep at it!

pacdvms.com 45

Getting Your Ideas on Paper

By: Jacob Mayer, P.E., jmayer@settje.com Settje Agri-Services & Engineering, Inc. In the last two issues of Protein Producers, Dr. Kip set the frame work for designing a cattle handling facility for us. The first step in this process is to identify your specific needs and objectives.

Thorough planning at this initial phase can eliminate lots of challenges down the road. Once we have established our design criteria, the next hurdle is finding a location at the feedlot or ranch where we want to construct the facility.

Consideration should be given to accessibility by both animals and humans along with potential interference with and from other routine production activities.

By now your head is swimming with potential pen configurations and gate placements for the easiest sorting. If you haven’t already, now would be a good time to visit with a consulting livestock engineer to discuss your project.

I am confident that you already have an active and well-established relationship with your veterinarian and nutritionist, but when was the last time you talked to an engineer?

The role of an engineer in a feedlot has typically been restricted to the regulations associated with manure management and environmental permitting. I might be a bit pacdvms.com 47

1. Precisely locates existing infrastructure especially fence corners, hydrants, power poles, etc.

2. Becomes the foundation for a grading plan for the facility, which ensures adequate and controlled drainage.

3. Establishes elevation control that will be used throughout the project by contractors to construct the facility.

biased, but engineers are an underutilized resource in animal agriculture.

After reviewing the objectives you set in step one, our next task is conducting a topographic survey of the proposed handling facility site you selected in step two. A survey accomplishes three important things:

A good survey enables us to convert the mental image of what you’ve been envisioning for your facility into two-dimensional plans and to-scale drawings.

With your ideas on paper, we can start to evaluate and refine the facility layout. I plan to discuss that process in greater detail next issue. Until then, God Bless.

Jacob Mayer is a Project Engineer for Settje Agri-Services & Engineering (www.settje.com) located near Raymond, NE. He is a licensed Professional Engineer and has a B.S. in Agricultural Engineering from Iowa State University and M.S. in Biological Engineering from Mississippi State University. He resides in Wahoo, NE with his wife, Katie, and daughter, Kirkland. He does not wear a pocket protector and does not know how to use a slide rule.

Daniels Manufacturing Co. World’s Finest Livestock Equipment For Over Fifty Years •

•

•

•

Double Alleyway o Stationary & Portable o Fast, easy and safe way to process cattle All Hydraulic Squeeze Chute o Stationary & Portable o Quietest and most user friendly chute on the market, featuring our unique squeeze design and neck stretcher Complete Corral Units, Panels, Gate and Continuous Fence o Manufactured from the finest high tensile strength tubing Facility Drawings and Consultations o Low stress cattle handling that encourages voluntary cattle flow and animal well being

PO Box 67 87725 State Hwy 7 Ainsworth NE 69210 www.danielsmfg.com

Office: 402-387-1891 Fax: 402-387-1961 Email: daniels@danielsmfg.com

Business Management

Engaging the Workforce By: Quint Finney, Business Management My last article examined the reasons why feedyards tend to be understaffed, what can be done differently to maintain staff and reduce turnover, and how to attract productive employees.

In this article, I would like to focus a bit more on why yards are short-staffed. There are several reasons, from payscale to competition from other industries, but most managers do not have any control over either of these issues.

Compensation is generally fairly consistent from yard to yard. What managers do have control over, however, is the type of culture that is in place and the way they motivate people. The “why” (pertaining to being short-staffed) is sometimes simple — employees are not fully engaged.

Understanding that most people want more from their job than just a paycheck is a great start, but how do we engage employees’ need to be involved? Every basic task performed in a feedyard is crucial to cattle performance — the way pens are ridden, placement of feed in the bunk, moisture-management and quality control in the mill, clean water tanks, injection-site management, and the list goes on.

If this were not the case, why would we pay someone to perform them?

When considering the importance of the above tasks, why aren’t there more time and resources devoted to educating employees about how these tasks impact performance? For example, do feed truck operators understand why hitting calls and proper feed placement are important and how these tasks, when executed properly (or not) affect dry matter conversion? Do they even have a clue as to what

dry matter conversion is? Do feedyard cowboys have an understanding of the impact each additional percent of death loss has on conversion? What about the effects of clean versus dirty water tanks? Do they understand the correlation of water to feed intake? Do managers and department supervisors think it’s important for their people to understand the above or are they concerned only with whether or not the tasks are completed?

Dry matter conversion is one of the best measures to track efficiency and one that is tied to all basic functions of the feed yard. It’s critical to educate everyone at the yard about how their day to day responsibilities impact feed conversion. It is no small task but it is essential to improving performance and efficiency.

In the cattle feeding business, we all have access to the same cattle, the same feedstuffs and the same technology.

The greatest competitive advantage your feedyard can have is developing your people. It starts with purpose. If people understand what the purpose of your operation is and why their contributions are important to the fulfillment of that purpose, they will execute their responsibilities more thoroughly and efficiently.

The time and money you spend on education will always earn you a high return. Teach the crew, help them help the organization. A strong core of dependable, engaged, loyal employees will be the result.

pacdvms.com 49

What is the Impact of Implementing Whisper® Technology in a Feedyard?

By: Dr. Kev Sullivan, Production Animal Consultation, Australia

Whisper® technology, the electronic stethoscope and accompanying software, has been used in seven feedyards in Australia for the past twelve months or so.

The technology enables hospital crews to make an objective diagnosis on respiratory pulls. In the past, the diagnosis was based on observation and possibly rectal temperature. The pen checker would pull an animal based on observations including depression, appetite and respiratory distress. Once in the hospital, treatment decisions were based on parameters such as rectal temperature, days on feed, weight gain or loss, the opinion of the crew, volume of dose, syringability, withholding period, and cost. While these are all valid parameters, the limitations of these methods have been known for many years.

Whisper® has added another dimension to the suite of diagnostic tools which enables feedlots to improve the respiratory case definition by objective analysis of lung sounds. Lung sounds are given a score of 1 – 5. A Whisper® score of 1 is normal, 2 is mildly acute, 3 is moderately acute, 4 is severely acute and 5 is chronic. By using the technology, the feedyards were able to tailor the treatment schedules based on the severity of the disease and not only reduce the number of animals receiving antibiotics but also finesse the antibiotics chosen to reduce overall medicine cost.

When Whisper® was first introduced, some training was needed before a consistently high percentage of good sounds was obtained. The target was to be 90% or better every day. Once the crew was comfortable and confident using Whisper®, protocol changes were implemented.

Prior to using Whisper®, one feedlot treated animals based on its DART (depression, attitude, respiration, and temperature) score.

Historically they treated 65% of cases with Draxxin, 25% of cases with Engermycin, and 10% of cases with Moxylan. Three percent of cases received no treatment. After implementing Whisper®, the feedlot changed their protocol as follows.

-With a Whisper® score of 1 there was no treatment.

-With a Whisper® score of 2, Engermycin 100 (Oxytetracycline 100 mg/ml), dosage 1 ml/10 kg IV, IM or SC, was administered and repeated in two days.

-With a Whisper® score of 3 or 4, Draxxin, dosage 2.4 ml/100 kg SC, was administered once and the animal was sent to the “go home” pen.

-With a Whisper® score of 5, Moxylan (Amoxicillin 150 mg/ ml), dosage 1 ml/20 kg IM, was administered daily for 3-5 days. pacdvms.com 51

What was the result? Over the twelve-month period following implementation of the new treatment protocol based on Whisper® score, there were 5,500 respiratory pulls.

-1,200 received a score of 1 -1,500 received a score of 2 -2,740 received a score of 3 or 4 -60 received a score of 5 Twenty-two percent of cases received a score of 1 and received no treatment. Draxxin treatments were reduced from 61% to 27% of treatments. Engermycin treatments increased from 25% to 51% of treatments. The Moxylan treatment rate remained about the same.

The differential cost between a Draxxin treatment and Engermycin treatment was $28.00 per head. Over the twelve-month period the medicine cost per head was reduced by $1.92 per head, resulting in savings of $91,200 per year on 47,500 animals placed.

Where did the savings come from? The animals with a Whisper® score of 1 received no treatment, saving $48,000 per year. The reduction in the cost of treating animals with a Whisper® score of 2 resulted in savings of $42,000 per year. This is a total savings of $90,000 per year. The cost of Whisper® to the feedyard was $20,160 per year. The net savings for the yard was $69,840 per year. This is a return on investment of 3.46:1 – a nice return.

What happened to the case fatality and retreatment rates? First, the overall case fatality rate (CFR) decreased

from 1.9% to 0.9%. Second, the first treatment success rate remained the same prior to and after implementation of Whisper® (98%). Third, there was a change in the first treatment success and case fatality rates of different drugs used (Figure 1). Having better case definition led to an improved CFR in Engermycin. The Moxylan CFR also improved, possibly because cases that previously received Moxylan are now receiving Draxxin with a Whisper® score of 3 or 4. The CFR for Draxxin, used on more severe cases, did increase but is still quite good.

Conclusion: Whisper® technology not only has the potential to reduce the usage of antibiotics by not treating animals that do not need to be treated with antibiotics, it also lowers the cost of antibiotics used on animals with less severe scores without affecting the case fatality rate. The ability to make decisions based on an objective case definition will improve antibiotic stewardship in the feedlot industry and reduce medicine cost in the feedyard.

Leadership

Transitioning Employees to Team Members By: Dr. Larry Firkins, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine

When given the chance over the past year, I have tapped into the depth of experience represented in sessions spent with owners, managers, and employees of livestock operations.

In particular, I inquired as to what has been successful in transitioning employees into team members and what were areas of opportunities yet to be realized in developing people. Hundreds of years of experience populated every setting and there was no hesitation in addressing these two questions.

Central themes developed from each and every gathering regardless of geographic location or whether cattlemen or pork producers were involved. It was encouraging that the lists of successful strategies were uniformly longer than what was compiled as “gaps” that needed to be filled. However, when given the opportunity to report their findings, the vast majority of the individual groups chose to discuss one of their identified areas of opportunity.

Many times what was reported elicited a robust confirmation of it being an issue of importance, and in some cases frustration, for the entire assembly.

My primary takeaway from all of these discussions was the importance of establishing fully-staffed, long-term, stable teams. This belief has been validated through an analysis of NBA teams over a 15-year period that demonstrated the greater the stability of the team’s roster - the fewer trades, moving players on and off the team - the better they played.

A better team record depended on players learning the nuances and patterns of their teammates. This resulted in an increase in trust through enhancing the level of tactical

knowledge that can only be learned through experiences with teammates. (Wagner, 2006) Below are the three most common responses on what’s working and areas of opportunity in transitioning employees to team members.

These findings are offered as a vehicle to continue this discussion at your business. Perhaps you would benefit from a strategy that has worked well for others in transitioning employees or you may identify a shared gap in the area of developing people that needs your attention.

What has been successful in transitioning employees to team members?

1. Fostering a feeling of inclusion, giving responsibility, holding accountable, and recognizing great effort. While these were cited multiple times as separate areas, there is an interdependency on each of these serving as a domino effect toward achieving a culture that resulted in engaged employees.

2. Providing a clear understanding of job descriptions and expectations. Teams that have a clear understanding of what is expected of them are more productive, more profitable and more creative. A national survey showed that less than half of employees have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Not knowing what the target is results in frustration.

3. Providing the latitude to make decisions. When we are merely told to follow instructions, our suggestions pacdvms.com 53

are ignored, and our creativity is unnoticed, our focus changes to “just getting by.” Engagement, motivation, and initiative increase when we are allowed opportunities for increased decision making.

What are areas of opportunity (gaps) for developing people?

1. Lack of time. This was consistently the most commonly referenced issue holding managers back from transitioning employees to team members. Within any organization, at least 80% of our days are spent maintaining production levels. It’s the remaining 20%, the above-andbeyond efforts that move us forward. If this time is spent repairing errors rather than doing what matters most, it is impossible to move ahead (Gostick and Elton, 2010). Utilizing a portion of the remaining 20% of your time to enhance the competence of your workforce will catalyze the transition to team members.

al expectations. Knowing and understanding what makes us different is the secret to determining strategies and actions that can transform the workplace.

3. Measuring, accountability, and rewarding people.

It is interesting that what was listed as being successful by some groups was listed as a gap needing to be filled by other groups. It is time well spent to determine what needs to be measured, holding people accountable, and rewarding people to the point they feel compelled to tell those most important to them about the recognition.

2. Generational differences and work ethics. What seems natural to individuals in any given generation is anything but that for members of the other workplace generations. The key is how can one incorporate what comes natural for each generation into their business. This requires developing relationships and managing generation-

Have More Control of Your Data With FUSION, the standalone feedlot management software!

Highest Quality Grade & Grade Yield

Reached Finishing Weight 2 Weeks Early Chronic Lameness

Arrange Ranch Direct Purchase Next Year Drug Withdrawal

Highest Rate of Gain Decline Future Purchase Opportunities

FUSION offers... individual cattle tracking - historical GPS audit trail inventory tracking - carcass data importing projection calculator - feed guard ...plus much more!

For a FREE Consultation Contact: sales@ssgfusion.com ssgfusion.com

Special Interest

An Agricultural Art

The comeback of hand cornhusking By: Miranda Reiman, on behalf of the Gothenburg, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce

When Roland Lauer, of Gothenburg, Neb., “graduated from grade school” somewhere around 65 years ago, he started picking corn by hand. As he walked the rows in his father’s fields, there was some good natured competition among the entire crew. They maybe even teased each other over who could pick the most or the best.

“We didn’t have hybrid corn, and one of the neighbors planted it,” the farmer says. “We picked for him and came home and we demanded dad plant hybrid corn.”

It made for easier picking and better corn.

Decades later, hybrids were as commonplace as the combines that harvested the crop, but the sport of corn husking was reinvigorated.

Lauer was surprised to find himself registered to compete in a formal contest.

“My son signed me up,” he laughs now. “I must have bragged about it a little too much.”

He went on to win, and even made time to travel to nationals on occasion. He credits his success to all the experience he gained growing up.

Similar stories could be repeated across the Midwest, as many of the oldest competitors today learned first on the farm.

The ‘hay days’ of husking The earliest corn husking contests got their start in the 1920s, says Dick Humes, 2015 national corn husking historian.

“Henry Wallace would listen to the people come in and brag around the old store, when they were playing checkers or dominos, about how much they’d picked in a day,” he

says. “Finally he said, ‘Let’s have a contest!’”

Eventually nine states allowed contestants to vie for two qualifying spots for nationals, and the large events drew crowds from across the country. Vendors set up and it was the precursor to events like today’s Farm Progress show.

“Of course electricity was coming to the farm in the ’30s, and they’d bring washing machines and refrigerators and the gas stoves,” Humes says. “It was really quite a deal.”

But then, World War II and leaner times intervened. The 1942 contest was planned, but never held.

Husking history relived It may have went down as blip in the agricultural history books, if not for a couple of Kansas residents who decided to revive the sport as a way to draw interstate traffic. They held their first contest in 1971.

“Barring weather cancellations, Oakley has been hosting the Kansas State Cornhusking Contest the second weekend in October every year since,” says Laura Millensifer, of the town’s Buffalo Bill Cultural Center.

At the same time the Living History Farm in Urbandale, Iowa, was doing the same and today there are nine states involved again.

The same qualities that would’ve made somebody a good picker on a 1920s farm, are the ones that will win a contest today.

“You got to be fast, but you’ve got to be clean,” Humes says.

During the allotted time, a judge and a gleaner follow a contestant with a bag. They pick up what’s missed and weigh that, issuing deductions for every left-on-the-ground pound. They also sample what’s picked, and discount the husks. pacdvms.com 55

“They didn’t want a dirty load of corn to go in the cribs,” he explains. “That’s one way they controlled rodents, because there wasn’t anything for them to hide in except corn and they wanted something to make a nest out of.”

Today, state hand corn husking contests involve a lot preparation: planting certain hybrids at specified spacing, lining up teams of horses and wagons and lining up volunteers.

Competition, community and corn Still, residents in small towns like Gothenburg, Neb., and Oakley, Kan., are happy to help. This fall they’ll each hold the competition for their respective states.

“The contest is a way for us to share our heritage and agricultural history,” Millensifer says of the Oct. 7 and 8 Kansas event. “The contest allows people to get in the field and see how it is done with horses and tractors and wagons.

They can put on the hook and learn how it was done back in the day.”

The Oakley Corn Festival also includes activities for the family, from hay wagon rides and pumpkin decorating to rural life demonstrations and concessions.

Their neighbors to the north will put on the Nebraska state contest on Saturday, Sept. 17, just south of Gothenburg as part of the town’s Harvest Festival. It will feature

additional activities, such as vendors, a kids pedal tractor pull, and an antique tractor display.

“We are such an agriculturally-centered community that it’s fun to step back and remember what it was like on the farm years ago,” says Shannon Peterson, chair of the Gothenburg ag committee. “We’re really excited about our location and hope that it draws not only the ‘regulars,’ but also those who have never experienced hand corn husking before.”

For Millensifer, seeing the horse teams is always one highlight.

“I also love the camaraderie between the contestants.

They travel together, most know each other, and entire families participate from young to old,” Millensifer says. “We hope to get a new generation of huskers interested in the contest.”

That’s exactly what’s happened with Lauer--the sport has become a family affair. Four of his grandchildren regularly participate.

“They like to compete against each other,” he says.

It’s a sport that spans generation, and keeps one connected to the other.

Simply put: “It’s a good challenge,” Lauer says.

Getting to Know the PAC Team: Lisa Taylor Born and raised in Oakley, Kansas, my career aspirations varied from secretary to veterinarian to professional organizer to math teacher. In the end, I followed my love of numbers and analysis, and I received my bachelor degrees in mathematics and economics from Kansas State University in 2009. It was during my time at Kansas State that I first met Dr. Dan Thomson and went to work at the Beef Cattle Institute. I did not fully appreciate it at the time, but this experience would spark my interest for working in the beef industry.

In 2010, I moved to College Station, Texas, to begin my graduate studies in economics at Texas A&M University. Staying true to my Kansas roots, I moved back to Kansas City after completing my Master of Arts in economics in December 2011. I then spent 2.5 years with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City as a research associate, supporting the economists in their macroeconomic research and monetary policy work. While I enjoyed the work and my colleagues at the Federal Reserve, I realized that I wanted to return to the agriculture industry and work more closely with producers. Thus, I seized the opportunity to work with PAC in July 2014. Since then, I have divided my time between data reporting and analysis, project management, general accounting responsibilities, development of training materials, and attempting to keep track of the PAC veterinarians.

In my leisure time, I enjoy playing softball and volleyball, playing Aunt Lisa to my nephews and niece, working on projects around the house, reading, and representing Kansas State in the land of Jayhawks.

Left: Lisa, her mom and two nephews.

Right: Lisa with her dad, Dr. Wade.

pacdvms.com 57

PROTECTS DAYS LONGER THAN

Bovi-Shield Gold One Shot.™1

NO OTHER PRODUCT CAN MATCH THE PROVEN DURATION OF VISTA® ONCE.1,2 Vista Once, Vista 5, and Vista 3 vaccines demonstrate protection for 86 days longer than Bovi-Shield Gold One Shot.1 Pyramid® 5 + Presponse® doesn’t have any duration claims.2 All Vista vaccines are labeled for use in pregnant cows and calves nursing from pregnant cows.

Vista Once and Once PMH® SQ also provide 16-week protection against Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida – the only products with duration claims against these respiratory bacteria.

Ask your veterinarian for Vista vaccines.

It’s the only name that matters when protection matters most.

1 Vista product labels and Bovi-Shield Gold One Shot product label 2 Pyramid 5 + Presponse product label merck-animal-health-usa.com • 800-521-5767 Copyright ©2016 Intervet Inc., doing business as Merck Animal Health, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.

54670 8/15 BV-VST-54085

Events

July

May

4th World Buiatrics Congress

21st - 28th BISA LEAD Program, Barcelona, Spain, Dr. Jim presenting

June 7th

Schwartz Farms Sow Leadership team meeting, Des Moines, IA, Dr. Jim presenting

Dublin, Ireland, Dr. Jim presenting

13th PAC Kansas Beef Summit, Oberlin, KS, PAC members attending

13th - 16th NCBA Summer Business Meeting, Denver, CO

16th Merck Animal Health - OSU Extension Cattle

Conference, Chikasha, OK, Dr. Tom presenting

8th - 9th Nebraska Cattlemen’s Midyear, Broken Bow, NE, Dr. Shane and Kelly attending

20th - 21st Drovers Cow-Calf College, West Des Moines, IA, Dr. Tom presenting

Production Animal Consultation PO Box 41 Oakley, KS 67748 pacdvms.com

2016 KS PAC Summit Meeting Register Today!

The Gateway Civic Center Oberlin, KS- July 13th, 2016

The meeting will take a deeper look at the latest research, technologies and best practices to help you better serve the feedlot industry!

Healthy Start for Healthy Cattle 7:30am - Breakfast and Registration Opens 8:30am - Welcome, Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz 8:45am - Anatomy and Mechanics of the Foot, Dr. Jeff DeFrain, Progressive Dairy Solutions 9:30am - Lameness Prevention, Dr. Dorte Dopfer, University of Wisconsin-Madison 10:15am - Break 10:45am - Veterinary Feed Directive Update, Dr. Mike Apley, Kansas State University 11:15am - Heat Load Management, Dr. Kev Sullivan 12:00pm - Visualizing and Monitoring Health Data, Lisa Taylor and Garrett Taylor 12:15pm - Lunch 1:30pm - EntreLeadership, Dr. Nels Lindberg 2:30pm - Break 3:00pm - Keynote Speaker, Dr. Sam Barringer, Merck Animal Health 4:00pm - Concluding Remarks, Dr. Kip Lukasiewicz

To register early, visit pacdvms.com We look forward to seeing you there!