FBP Nov/Dec 2009

A NEWS SOURCE FOR COMMERCIAL BEEF PRODUCERS

NOVEMBER•DECEMBER 2009

VOLUME 1

ISSUE 4

FRONTLINE beef producer

Cow Efficiency & Industry Trends

TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURES

15 Bundle of Traits

Longevity and Fertility are Profit Drivers for Most Operations

by Clifford Mitchell

FRONTLINE Beef Producer Commerical Marketing Director

Grant Keenen

Administration/Circulation

17 Cow Efficiency

Is it Related to Retail Product Value?

by Marcine Moldenhauer

DEPARTMENTS

4 Out Front

Multi-Breed EPDs versus Single-Breed EPDs

by Dr. Joseph Massey

Frances Miller

Contributing Editors

Dr. Dave Anderson Dr. Mark Enns Dr. Matt Hersom Dr. Joseph Massey Clifford Mitchell Layout and Design

Duncan MacRae Copy Editor

Carolyn Kobos

6 Field Medicine

Preparing for the Calving Season

by Soren Rodning, DVM, MS, DACT

8 Genetic Strategies

Evaluating Cow Herd Efficiency

by Mark Enns, PhD

10 The Bottom Line Industry Trends

by Grant Keenen

12 Nutrition Strategies

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues

by Dr. Matt Hersom

Proofreader

Jim Bulger Operations

Mary Douglass Rosanne Sralla Patti Teeler

FRONTLINE Beef Producer is a product of:

Brangus Publications, Inc. P.O. Box 696020 San Antonio, Texas 78269-6020 Phone: 210.696.8231 Fax: 210.696.8718 Brangus Publications, Inc. Directors: Don Cox - Chairman Dr. Joseph Massey - President David Vaughan - Secretary/Treasurer Dale Kirkham Angelo Zottarelli Information appearing in this issue may be reprinted only with written permission of Brangus Publications, Inc.

LPC Livestock Publications Council - Member

21 STATE DIRECTORY 26 SERVICES 27 ADVERTISER INDEX 27 CALENDER OF EVENTS

OUT FRONT | by Dr. Joseph Massey

Multi-Breed EPDs versus Single-Breed EPDs Is it time that we in the cattle industry start to standardize vocabulary and stop playing games and misleading our customers? In the last year it has become clear to me that it is extremely easy for one group or other to play with words to achieve narrow goals that do not tell the whole story particularly when talking about performance data. Specifically, I am talking about Expected Predicted Differences (EPDs) used to indicate the likely breeding value of an animal for a specific trait like expected weaning weight, yearling weight or ribeye area. This has come about because we sometime have a poor understanding about technological advances and we fear what we might learn from them.

Single breed EPD models generally take into account the performance of the actual animal compared to the performance of its contemporaries (the group of animals with which it was raised and which were treated the same) plus the performance of its parents. This is a simple explanation to give us a working definition to explore recent developments; one can refer to the BIF guidelines for a better understanding of what EPD models take into account. For now, it is important to realize that once a model

4 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

has been defined, data from animals within the breed can be analyzed to produce EPDs for animals in that breed.

During the last two or three decades, many breeds of cattle have introduced genetics from other breeds leading to additional considerations when running EPDs. Since the first models did not take into account that performance data may have been contributed from other breeds, this has led to the development of multi-breed EPD models for single breed EPD analysis. Generally this means that data used for these animals still ABOUT THE AUTHOR comes from one database or breed organiza- Dr. Massey has served as tion but the model takes into account that Executive Vice President of the IBBA since 2004. In not all performance data comes from one 2007, he started Genetic breed.

Performance Solutions, LLC, As the commercial cattle industry has a breed registry services evolved, we have and performance analysis recognized that the company serving the utilization of cross- cattle and breed association breeding programs industry— a joint venture is extremely impor- between the IBBA and the Red Angus Association tant to a constant of America. GPS manages supply of good online registry programs for quality beef. This breed associations and the brings EPD analy- data base management of sis into a new era performance data like multiin which models breed EPDs. are being produced that not only take into account multi-breed influence on a single breed but can involve analyzing data from different breed databases to look at the comparisons of EPDs across breeds and individual animals, thus producing a multi-breed EPD for the breeds of cattle included in the analysis. The significance is that these EPDs allow one to compare performance across breeds. This multi-breed EPD analysis may be the most important tool that the commercial cattleman will have at his disposal since most commercial operations depend on some sort of cross breeding program.

Now is the time to get a good handle on these definitions because as DNA technologies continue to further evolve, you will see DNA information incorporated into EPD analysis

FIELD MEDICINE | by Soren Rodning, DVM, MS, DACT

Preparing for the Calving Season

S

uccessful calving seasons are the result of good planning and hard work. Observation of cows and heifers before and during the calving season is necessary to ensure a good calf crop.

Cows should be checked at least daily during the calving season, and heifers should be checked more frequently, perhaps several times a day. Having the cows and heifers in an easily accessible pasture will make this task more manageable. Also, allowing animals to calve in clean pastures is better for the health of the calf and the cow or heifer.

One of the complications encountered during the calving season is dystocia (a difficult delivery), and sometimes calving assistance is required. Therefore, producers need to be familiar with the signs of impending parturition as well as the sequence of events associated with normal labor and delivery to determine when assistance is necessary.

Signs of impending parturition (calving): • The udder and vulva will often enlarge 1-3 weeks prior to parturition.

• Cows and heifers often become more nervous (restless) and, if possible, may isolate themselves from the rest of the herd just prior to parturition.

• Cows and heifers may show signs of abdominal discomfort by kicking at their belly; they may also glance to the rear nervously.

• The tail-head appears raised as ligaments around the rump of the cow or heifer relax.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Soren Rodning is an Assistant Professor and Extension Veterinarian in the Auburn University Department of Animal Sciences and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Current Extension efforts primarily involve promoting herd health management for beef cattle.

Normal parturition is divided into three sequential stages: Stage I – Preparatory • Duration – cows (4-8 hours); heifers (6-12 hours) • The cow or heifer may become nervous and isolate herself from the rest of the herd.

• Uterine contractions begin.

• ‘Dropping’ of colostrum/milk into the teats.

• ‘Water bag’ appears towards the end of this stage. Stage II begins when the water bag breaks.

Stage II – Delivery of the calf • Duration – cows (< 1 hour); heifers (1-4 hours) • The cow or heifer is now actively straining.

• In normal parturition, the calf ’s forelegs and head protrude first about 70% of the time, and the hind legs and tail come first about 30% of the time.

• The calf is delivered.

Stage III – Expulsion of the placenta (afterbirth) • Duration – cows and heifers (1-12 hours; usually occurs within the first few hours) • Cow or heifer straining decreases.

• Uterine contractions continue and the placenta is expelled.

• If the placenta is not expelled soon after birth, do NOT manually remove the placenta by pulling it out. Retained placenta will be discussed in more detail next month.

Assistance may be necessary when parturition does not proceed as described, and early intervention is the key to a successful outcome. Waiting too long to provide assistance unnecessarily risks the life of the cow or heifer and her calf. Seek the help of a veterinarian or experienced producer when needed.

Supplies used to assist with calf delivery: • Obstetrical (OB) chains or ropes, and chains are preferred because they can be easily disinfected after use. OB chains and ropes are used for pulling on the legs (see picture for proper placement of OB chains). NEVER attach OB chains or ropes to the jaw and pull on a calf, as the jaw will almost always fracture.

6 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

Continued on page 18

GENETIC STRATEGIES | by Mark Enns, PhD

Evaluating Cow Herd Efficiency

W

ide fluctuations in feed prices and costs of beef production have brought discussions of how to improve “efficiency” to the forefront of many beef producer’s minds. Efficiency is one of the more vague terms used in beef production and often carries a different meaning from producer to producer. Efficiency has been used in reference to biological efficiency, economic efficiency, and production efficiency. All of these are appropriate at different times, as typically efficiency is the ratio of the ef- ABOUT THE AUTHOR fective or useful output of any system to the Dr. Enns’ research focuses on methods to genetically total input for that system. Given these dif- evaluate and select ferent approaches to efficiency, what should animals that fit their we breeders measure? How should we track production environment and improve efficiency? both biologically and For a cow/calf producer selling weaned economically. These efforts calves, biological efficiency is typically include development of tracked as a ratio of weight of calf weaned new methods for evaluating to the weight of the cow. So a 1200 pound and improving cow and heifer fertility, cow cow might produce a 650 pound calf for a maintenance requirements, ratio of .54, while another 1200 pound cow time to finish in the feedlot; might wean a calf weighing 700 pounds for and development of a ratio of .58 with the latter cow being con- methods to better use sidered most “efficient”. This method is a economic information in good way to monitor biological cow herd selection decisions for efficiency however this does not serve very increased profitability of well as a selection tool for genetic improve- beef production. ment nor as a means to assess changes in profitability. Consider that while these cows weighed the same and one weaned more pounds of calf, the heavier calf likely was produced by a cow with more milk production. In nutritionally restricted environments, higher milk producing cows might not rebreed and/or may lead to the need for higher supplementation levels. This deficiency is an important consideration when evaluating “efficiency” as ratios such as this do not account for all factors that determine profitability. Additionally, if this were used as a basis for selection not only could one inadvertently be selecting for higher milk production but there also might be downward selection pressure on cow size (which may not be bad in all situations).

Realistically the measure of efficiency that is most important is the total cost required to maintain the productive cow and eventually replace her when she comes in open relative to the value of the calf she produces.

Ultimately that is what determines profitability.

To appropriately evaluate cow herd efficiency, we need to look at it from the standpoint of profitability. Granted we have some producers that own cows, not because they rely on the income generated, but because they enjoy cows as a hobby or perhaps they enjoy the recognition that goes along with producing high quality animals. That said, the majority of producers want to be profitable. Profitability is a function of costs associated with production and the revenue generated. Therefore to fully evaluate “cow-herd efficiency,” we should really be looking at production from the standpoint of profitability. By looking at cow herd efficiency from this standpoint, we are able to factor in whether the

8 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

Continued on page 18

THE BOTTOM LINE | by Grant Keenen

Industry Trends

F

all is here once again. With it comes the cries of auctioneers, the taps of their gavels and those beloved ringmen hollering and turning in your bids at the numerous bull sales across the country. And of course, I hope those bids are being turned in at Brangus bull auctions!

As we all know, the beef industry as well as the general economy are going through some tough times. I know you have heard all of this be-

10 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

fore… unemployment rate is up, consumer spending is down, feeder and fat cattle prices are weak, corn is up and the total US cow inventory is the smallest it has been since the 1950’s.

So what does all of this mean for the cowcalf producer?

Well, I am no expert, but I will give you my perspective. And of course, you will receive my always ABOUT THE AUTHOR optimistic outlook. Grant Keenen is the DriecA person must note tor of Commercial Martking Programs for the IBBA. For that this article is any questions or inquiries opinion based, but regarding IBBA Commercial with regard to facts. Programs, such as OptimaxX So, please read in and Brangus Gold, Grant its entirety to get can be reached by phone at the overall focus 210.696.8231 or by email at and the positive grant@int-brangis.org. outlook I have for the future of our industry.

First of all, the economy is weak and unemployment rate is up drastically, but there is nothing any of us can do solely to fix it. However, we need to be aware because it does affect the prices and the demand for beef compared to other protein sources. When overall consumer spending is down, the total dollars spent domestically on beef are historically lower. Why is this important to note? It is important because we must plan in advance for lower prices and hope for market and economy recovery. And it will recover.

It always has.

Feeder cattle prices have gotten softer the last few weeks. Historically, we see feeder cattle lower this time of year anyway. But in addition, corn has been gaining momentum driving feeder cattle prices lower as well. The deferred live cattle futures have also declined in late September which in turn affects feeder cattle prices. I personally look for live cattle futures to rebound $2-$3 in mid-late October. This will help feeder cattle prices stay at least steady moving into the winter and hopefully higher in 2010. With this current market in regards to history, I expect to see reputation cattle that are pre-conditioned bring somewhat of a premium compared to commodity cattle.

Fat cattle are being traded in the low $80’s generating little to no profits on those cattle with some taking losses. This is due to a significant decline in beef demand of 14 to 15 percent on a monthly basis compared to a year ago. Beef has to compete with other protein sources and there Continued on page 19

NUTRITION STRATEGIES | by Dr. Matt Hersom

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues Introduction

Proper nutritional status is critical for optimal production efficiency in the beef cow herd. Meeting the nutrient requirements of the productive cow is a prime factor in the cow’s reproductive success and overall herd profitability. However, beef producers often take a “one size fits all” approach to feeding the cows in the cow herd. This singular approach to nutrient supply for the cow herd can have nutritional and economic ramifications. Nutritional requirements vary with age, breed, sex, body condition, environment, physiologic status, and body weight. It should be obvious that not all cows have the same nutrient requirements. By acknowledging differences in nutrient requirements that exist in the beef cow herd, management strategies can be implemented to feed beef herds which will optimize pasture forages, feed resources, and overall production. While there are many factors that affect nutrient requirements, body size (weight) and milk production are the two factors with the greatest impact on requirements. This discussion will focus on cow body weight (BW), acknowledging that milk production is an additional driving factor for the following discussion.

Cow Body Weight Implications

Simply put, BW drives the intake of forages and feedstuffs. Heavier cows have greater dry matter intake potential to consume feed, likewise lighter cows consume less. Through dry matter, intake cows consume the required energy, protein, fats, vitamins, and minerals required for maintenance and production. There is plenty of literature that demonstrates the dry matter intake potential, total digestible nutrients, and crude protein requirement differences between cows of different weight during a produc-

12 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

tion cycle. Regardless of the time of year, differences in weight are manifest in differences in dry matter intake.

So why are differences in intake so important for the cow herd? The cow herd’s feed requirements amount to 50% to 75% of the annual maintenance costs for the herd.

Grazed forages comprise the largest and most important feedstuff for the cow. So, utilization of forage through grazing is the most economical feed that is available to the cow ABOUT THE AUTHOR herd. That said, the stocking density of the Dr. Hersom is currently pastures for the cow herd becomes an in- an Assistant Professor creasingly important management control and Extension Beef Cattle point. Stocking density is often thought of Specialist at the University as number of cows or cow-calf pairs per unit of Florida, specializing in the development of of land area (head/acre). Additionally, stockstrategic nutritional and ing density for many of government agen- supplementation programs cies (USDA, NRCS, BLM) is described by to optimize beef cattle animal units. An animal unit is defined as performance utilizing one mature, non-lactating bovine weighing forage and roughage based 1000 lb and fed at maintenance. However, diets and evaluation of calf as previously stated, not every cow will con- production and growing sume the same amount of feed based upon practices to improve animal performance in integrated differences in weight. Therefore, if our asbeef production systems. sumptions about stocking density are based on poor information or absent weight information, then the stocking density and pasture carrying capacity will be wrong.

Cow-calf producers who don’t routinely collect cow weight data on their cow herd often under-estimate the actual weight of cows in the herd. It seems a pervasive assessment about cow herd weight that most cows or at least the herd average is 1000 lb. Likely, a more correct assessment of the herd cow weight would reveal a much smaller proportion of the cows at or near the 1000 lb benchmark and a greater proportion of the cow herd with weight greater than 1000 lb. The increase in cow weight over the years is likely an effect of cow-calf producers placing greater emphasis on calf weaning weight, yearling weight, and the necessary increase in cow milk production required to support desired calf growth performance. The desire for larger calves with more growth potential likely contributes to increase actual cow weight over time.

An assessment of cow weight at weaning of three cow herds demonstrates the fallacy of assuming that the herd average cow weight is 1000 lb. Figure 1 demonstrates the distribution of cow weight in the three herds. None of the three herds’ average cow weight is 1000 lb; one herd average cow weight is 1053 lb, but the other two herds have average cow weight over 1200 lbs. Not only is the average cow weight not 1000 lb, but only 17, 16, and Continued on page 14

Nutrient requirement Cow weight, lbs

DMI, lb/d

TDN, lb/d

Calf Weaning Weight (% of cow BW) CP, lb/d Location

Early lactation 1,000

25.4

14.9

2.6

1,200

28.4

16.4

2.8

% difference

11.8

10.1

7.7 B

After weaning 1,000

21.1

9.5

1.3

1,200

24.2

10.9

1.5

% difference

14.7

14.7

15.4

1,000

21.4

11.9

1.9

1,200

24.6

13.8

2.2

% difference

15.0

16.0

15.8

Late gestation

Table 1. Relationship of cow body weight to dry matter intake (DMI), total digestible nutrients (TDN), and crude protein (CP) requirements during lactation, at weaning, and mid-late gestation.

21% of the cows are within ±50 lb of 1000 lb and the range of cow weight is over 500 lb or more in all three herds. Therefore, if total cow herd nutrition and stocking density decisions were made on the basis of 1000 lb cows, those decisions would be wrong.

Nutritional Implications

A

Let’s examine the difference in feed requirements for the mythical 1000 lb cow and the more realistic 1200 lb cow. Table 1 outlines the dry matter intake, total digestible nutrients, and crude protein requirements for a single cow on a single day in three distinct periods: early lactation (three month after calving), at weaning (seven months after calving), and late gestation (one month before calving). For this comparison, lactation potential (moderate milk, 20 lbs at peak) is considered the same for both weights. The difference in dry matter intake, total digestible nutrients, and crude protein amounts are quite evident during any of the three periods.

The question arises, how to feed these two different cows when they are in the same herd. Obviously, the amounts of feed required are different, but with only minimal managerial input how are these cows effectively fed; which cow is utilized as the reference to feed to; and which cow suffers or which cow is overfed? If pasture is utilized to meet nutrient requirements

C

Heaviest Cow

Lightest Cow

Avg. Cow

Greatest %

Lowest %

(cow weight)

(cow weight)

(cow weight)

(cow weight)

(cow weight)

33

51

46

72

18

(1750)

(808)

(1233)

(901)

(1518)

27

48

51

65

27

(1650)

(902)

(1215)

(1110)

(1650)

35

56

55

64

27

(1380)

(806)

(1053)

(892)

(964)

Table 2. Relationship of cow weight to calf weaning weight (% of cow weight) of three example herds.

the issue becomes one of stocking density. However, if supplements or stored forages are provided accurate feeding programs are a must because of the increased financial cost associated with providing stored and supplemental feeds.

Upon close examination of Table 1, you would discover that the difference for dry matter intake, total digestible nutrients, and crude protein between a 1000 and 1200 lb cow vary from 7% to 16% increase for the heavier cow. The percent difference between cow weight for dry matter intake of 11.8%, 14.7%, and 15.0% can be directly translated into increases in stocking density of pastures. Alterations in stocking density directly affects the total number of cows an enterprise can carry, the amount of pasture needed to maintain cows, and the amount of supplemental feed that may have to purchased to sustain the cow herd. The interaction of the number of cows and the fixed cost of land can have significant effects on the beef cattle enterprise bottom line. Likewise, if the stocking density can be positively adjusted purely based upon cow weight and more forage is available for consumption, then implicitly the nutritional environment of the cow herd will improve. Improving the cow nutritional environment likely will lead to an increase in the overall cow herd body condition. Cow body condition score is directly related to the reproductive success of the cow, which in turn results in calves on the ground and salable product at weaning.

The preceding discussion could be interpreted as advocating for a smaller cow; a smaller cow has nutrient requirements that are less than larger cows. Thus, smaller cows generally are easier to maintain in any given nutritional environment. There are objections associated with a smaller cow, one issue is the potential for lighter weaning weights for the calves produced from lighter weight cows. True enough, if weaning weight as a percentage of cow weight remains constant between heavy and lighter weight cows, the total calf weaning weight can’t be compensated by realistic increases in stocking density (number of cows in the herd). So the first response to the smaller cow objection and lighter calf weaning weights would be to increase the quality of the bull utilized with greater weaning weight potential. However, in actuality, cow weight and calf weaning weight do not track positively. In examining the data from the three herds there is a trend that as cow weight increased the calf weaning weight as a % of cow weight decreases. This trend was consistent across the three herds even though the herds have different breed composition, sires, sire types, and overall breeding programs. Table 2 illustrates the calf weaning weight (percentage of cow weight). The heaviest, largest cows never come close to weaning 50% of their weight, which is a general industry bench mark. Whereas, the lightest, smaller cows wean calves close to, or over 50% of the cow’s weight. In the example, the two herds with average cow weight in the 1200’s lb range had a mean cow weight of 1224 lb and weaned 48.5% of the cow weight. In that situation, a 15% increase in cow numbers associated with 1000 lb cows that wean 50% of the cow weight would not result in the same amount of calf weight weaned. In order for the 1000 lb cows to wean the same amount of calf weight, the 15% increase in cow herd number would Continued on page 19

14 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

FEATURE | by Clifford Mitchell

Bundle of Traits

Longevity and fertility are profit drivers for most operations.

P

roducers in the 21st century beef industry come better prepared than ever before. Continued education programs and an abundance of online resources help cattlemen stay well informed.

Record keeping practices have improved and cattlemen have a good handle on the costs associated with their operation.

Tightening margins have forced producers to further evaluate the management plan, running through many different scenarios to find the best production model. For some this was a real eye-opener, for others it reinforced the approach they were taking to manage the herd for a profit.

A genetic base complete with a bundle of traits also played a key role in the success of the operation. Many cattlemen have argued with neighbors and colleagues until they were blue in the face over their point of view; however, most will agree longevity built into the female is a definite advantage for most outfits.

“Every year I can keep a cow it cuts my costs $1,500. Because that’s what it costs to get a female into production,” says James Henderson, Bradley 3 Ranch, LTD, Memphis, Texas.

“Operations have to be profit driven. Fertility is a good trait to have and will lead to a long life on many ranches, but females have to be productive. Make sure cows are able to live in your environment, breed back and do it profitably year after year,” says Dr. Robert Wells, Livestock Consultant, Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

“Longevity is one of the reasons we have Brangus females. A lot of times you wouldn’t know that old cow, is not a six or seven year old, because she’s still milking well and raising a good calf,” says Adam Whitesell, Lockwood, Missouri. This operation maintains 600 to 650 Brangus females and retains ownership of the calf crop most years at Decatur County Feedyard in Oberlin, Kansas.

Cattlemen have been programmed into two schools of thought; either buy or raise the replacements that the operation needs. Costs are associated with each method; another big debate among cattlemen looking for the most profitable answers.

“I know it costs us something to get that heifer into production. I have never put a pencil to actual costs. When it’s time, we select our replacements they go to grass and the cull heifers go to the feedyard,” Whitesell says. “I would think a five-year-old after producing three calves would have paid for herself in our program.”

“The cost of a replacement will vary from one operation to the next depending on if heifers are home-raised or bought. The first thing producers need to do is maximize the salvage value of that cull cow,” Wells says.

“Quality replacements, from a known source and bred to good calving ease bulls are costing any where from $1,000 to $1,200 in our current

market. Most females, depending on the value of the calf she is producing, should pay for themselves by the time they are four or five years old.”

“Just to break even in our operation a cow has to be six and produced four calves,” Henderson says. “According to my calculations, it costs me $1,500 every time I replace a cow. This includes feed, facilities, pasture, semen and labor. None of these things come without a cost.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Care and handling of these replacements Clifford Mitchell is a second will bring genetics to the forefront when done generation cattleman who right. Management could help these females currently owns and operates lead long productive lives just by making the Elkhorn Creek, a freelance right decisions as they are introduced to the communications business in Guthrie, Oklahoma. Upon next stage in the production cycle.

“One of the things we’re trying to do to graduation from Oklahoma State University he began a get these females to 90 to 95% of their macareer in communications, ture weight when they calve as two year olds. starting as a field reporter.

If these females don’t have to grow and lac- Mitchell currently writes tate at the same time we get a better breed up for a wide range of beef percentage,” Henderson says. “It takes a lot publications. of energy for heifers to grow and lactate and that’s why some operations see low conception rates in first calf heifers.”

“It’s extremely important to get females into production at 24 months of age. Starting with a good tight calving interval will help these cows become productive employees and that’s how you should treat them,” Wells says. “Getting that first calf with no problems is really important. You are setting up a future employee for a successful career. As a heifer, she needs to be mated to the right calving ease bull and managed correctly. Calving problems could jeopardize her future because some heifers, experiencing dystocia won’t breed back.”

Longevity and fertility are two traits that are often tied together with productive members of the cow herd. High turnover rates prove costly to most operations. Firms that can retain productive females, year after year, will have an advantage over those who fail to retain this valuable asset. A defined calving season will also help supply selection pressure needed to identify productive cows.

“When operations replace cows at a young age and have a high turnover rate it’s extremely costly. There are costs in training any new employee and this in affect is what the rancher is doing,” Wells says. “Every time you wean calves you should evaluate the cow herd. Find out if that cow is bred.

See if she brought a calf to the weaning pen. Replace your non-productive employees. Don’t make excuses for them unless there was a management problem. Lifetime productivity is 100 percent tied to fertility, because the first thing she has to do is have a calf every year to stay in the breeding program.”

“Maintaining a defined calving season helps us eliminate those open females. Every cow I have shipped for being open, I have shipped a relative

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 15

at some point in time,” Henderson says. “It costs me $1,500 to replace a female, if she leaves before she’s six I have to figure in whatever she owed me to break even. Turning over young females is costly. Some seedstock operations turn over the cow herd every five years, we have guidelines in place where only our older productive cows are donor candidates.”

“Some of our Brangus females may be a little slow to mature, but once you get them bred and in the herd, it’s like clock work their ability to breed and produce every year,” Whitesell says. “Even in our large operation you notice the cows that keep doing it every year and it’s amazing to see their daughters when they get into production.”

Evaluation begins with a producer studying his lesson. Looking over those records to help identify which cows are getting older. Some operations have a cut and dried policy of when they’re going to cull females, like a birth date and when they reach a certain age they are gone. Other outfits work and watch the cows and make a decision based on her performance.

“A lot of people subscribe to a date on a calendar or age as to when it’s time to cull the cow. Some look to see if she’s open or when she starts to fail because of structure or other ailments. I think there is a hybrid decision making process in there somewhere that combines both theories,” Wells says. “When cows reach ten years old you need to evaluate them pretty closely. Is she bringing a big healthy calf to the weaning pen or is she having a hard time earning her keep? Producers can lose a great deal of salvage value keeping a cow one year too long.”

“We look for problems year round to try and identify cows that we need to remove form the herd. We can still maximize our salvage value a lot of times with a 10 or 12 year old cow and this goes a long way to help cover her replacement costs,” Whitesell says. “We really watch the older cows when they get a calf on the ground if they are unable to maintain there condition then she’s a cull candidate. If she can maintain her condition and supply that calf with milk, I’ll keep her. Most of the time we’re culling 12 and 13 year old cows pretty heavily in our operation.”

“There are two components to longevity. If their teeth wear out they are probably not going to maintain body condition. Her overall ability to maintain condition, there comes a point in every cow’s life when she can’t maintain with a calf on her,” Henderson says. “We sell our culls as 11 year old bred cows and still manage to get a pretty good price for them. If we had a little better country we could keep them another year or two and still get good value for our culls.”

Management is always the X-factor for every operation. Some outfits have access to more resources than others allowing for different management protocols. Special care is taken with potential replacements in most cases. Some producers are taking better care of the older cows.

“I have a pasture I put all my nine and 10 year old cows in. It’s a little closer and a little better pasture. I don’t drive them to the other side of the ranch,” Henderson says. “I think this is good management. It doesn’t cost that much to maintain those older cows and they are paying a good portion of the bills.”

“Most producers don’t have the capability to group cows based on age.

It is really hard for most operations to do this,” Wells says. “If you have the ability to sort those older cows, make sure the costs of maintaining that older cow allow for her to still be a productive employee. A lot of times the extra costs will limit this as a management tool.”

Certain breeds of cattle are known for their ability to lead long productive lives. The Brahman influence was introduced for a variety of things; however, there is a reason these females and their American cross counterparts thrive at being productive employees for the operations they work for.

“There is a heterosis affect when we cross bos indicus and bos taurus cattle and it’s a wonderful thing. These females come with heat and insect tolerance, the ability to maintain body condition while covering a lot of country and longevity is really a strong point,” Henderson says. “It is not uncommon to hear of Brahman influenced females that are16 or 17 year old cows still raising calves. How much money have those females made you over the years? Once she pays for herself, whatever her calf is bringing

16 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

above the cow’s maintenance cost is net profit. The returns will be a little different for each operation.”

“The bos indicus influenced females will typically bring longevity to the table. These females have fertility built in and they are going to bring us a calf every year,” Wells says. “The udders won’t break down and they have the ability to get out and range for their own food. These females will typically have long productive lives and maintain themselves at an older age without becoming a special care case for the operator.”

“Longevity with the Brangus cattle is just icing on the cake. These females come with a lot of other traits that I like,” Whiesell says. “It is not uncommon for us to have 14 year old females that have produced us 12 calves. As long as they are good mommas and have good udders, we’ll keep them another year.”

The advantages of built in longevity within the herd have somewhat of a trickle-down affect on financial statements. More importantly cow herds that excel in longevity should be more profitable and help operators make better decisions in the replacement pen.

“Bottom line in my operation, the more years I can keep a cow, the more selective I can be picking replacements,” Whitesell says. “Certain years, because we didn’t have to replace as many cows as we thought, we can sell the replacements that we don’t need and add a little cash flow to the operation. I don’t have any problems selling these Brangus females and they bring a premium.”

“The longer I can keep females in the herd the more selection I can do on our replacements,” Henderson says. “We’re really starting to see longevity built in the herd because we have been selecting for it. It is really costly to replace two and three year old cows. By applying more selection pressure to that group of replacements, you should see fewer females fall out of the program at a young age.”

Obviously, different operations will identify profit drivers and translate this into the selection process. This bundle of traits will be different for most operations looking to carve a profit. Working to eliminate the nonproductive members of the cow herd could come with a huge operating cost in the beginning.

Building fertility and longevity with genetics known for these traits could pay dividends well into the future. Producers must remember there is a fine line for when that older cow is paying the bills or costing you money. Streamlining management with genetic selection should help producers maintain a healthy bottom line and productive cow herd.

“As long as a cow can maintain herself in your environment it is cheaper to keep her than replace her,” Henderson says. “Fertility and longevity tend to go hand-in-hand. There are few traits you can build into the cow herd that will pay you as much as fertility and longevity. Having cows that can maintain long productive lives are key to the overall success of the operation.”

“As cows get older we need to pay close attention to teeth, udders and body condition. Brahman influenced females are known for their longevity and ability to remain productive for a long time,” Wells says. “Genetic selection and taking advantage of this crossbred cow will go a long way to limiting some issues down the road. Maintain productive employees and fire the non-producers.”

“I see the Brangus affect on longevity every day. That’s one of the reason we have had Brangus females for the last 20 years. These females wean a big calf and are problem free for many years,” Whitesell says. “Fertility and longevity are important traits for any cow herd. Brangus females have sure worked well in our operation.”

FEATURE | by Marcine Moldenhauer

Cow Efficiency

Is it related to retail product value?

If you are expecting an article steeped in research data and doctorial facts, this isn’t it. Rather this is strictly from an industry perspective with the goals of stimulating thinking about how you define cow efficiency and what is the demand for producing a high quality, valuable end product.

This is not to say that research around these topics is not important or not needed, that is not the intent of this article.

While I will try to provoke a discussion through asking questions, much of these thoughts in this article are to challenge the balance of maximum production versus final value creation and at the end of the day, there is no perfect answer. As I fully realize that each of us are challenged to balance production traits and traits which create demand or quality traits while maximizing profitability.

Since the beef industry is so segmented, the communication between segments gets blurred with noise that many times makes it difficult to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, where is value created and at what cost to which segment. This is not always a very clear picture for all segments, however we each are going to have to find ways to break down these barriers and work together toward increasing demand.

Many things come to mind when we in industry talk about cow efficiency…for this article, we will define cow efficiency as the volume and cost of inputs which are required to sustain the expected or identified production traits at the cow herd level.

Of course depending on the region of the country where your operation is located, these inputs and cost will greatly vary. None the less, what we are talking about in this particular article is the relationship of cow efficiency in a production system and the connection to the key retail value drivers. Again, for this article we are defining retail drivers as the traits which are valued by the end users; consumers, chefs, and further processors. I full realize that for a seed stock breeder, it might be easy to make the argument that your “Key Retail Drivers” are those traits your commercial cow/calf customer is looking for or needing….that is a valid point, but is also somewhat one dimensional. Even though it has been argued that the trickledown effect of understanding the end user needs and demands are contradictory to production needs and demands, there is and can be a balance.

There is strong evidence that cow efficiency is, as we have defined it, directly related to the size and scale of the cow. There then becomes more

pressure and concern when workStandard Cow Efficiency Traits ing to produce for those “Key Retail • Fleshing Ability Drivers” we have identified. For ex• Milking Ability ample, if we take the rule of thumb • Maintenance Costs • Percent Calf Crop that a finished steer weight will gen• Calving Interval erally be 150 pounds heavier than the • Pounds of Weaned Calf cow; using this general but relatively • Longevity accurate rule a 1150 lb cow will then • Others you may identify normally produce a steer that when finished will weigh around 1300 Key Retail Value Drivers pounds. Of course there are obvi• Percent Prime ous factors which can and do change • Percent Choice & Premium this equation one way or the other Choice (smaller or larger) such as: the bull • Percent YG 1,2,3’s used, genetic capability, management • Rib Eye Area techniques, growth promotions, and • Muscle Size / Carcass Weight days on feed to name a few. None the • Acceptable Tenderness • Ability of Carcass to become less it is a relatively accurate gage for more tender, flavorful and size of finished steer. maintain juiciness throughTo put this into perspective, the out the aging process. table below might be a clearer illustration for this discussion.

The conclusion could be made that to produce the highest retail product value, while working to produce the maximum pounds of saleable live animal weight….the 1350 pound cow is the ideal. Not so fast…it has been proven that a large framed cow costs more to maintain, takes more acres per cow and the average weight of the steer calf is then 1500 pounds.

Most cattle feeders, feedlot managers and cattle buyers will agree that the average calf crop will vary in weight at finish from 50 – 200 pounds either way of the average. If we were to use a 100 pound spread as our average as an indicator of what the most overall ideal cow size would be….then we would select a cow between 1100 and 1200 pounds for the most part.

The last and final rule of thumb I will share is this, for every 1 pound of carcass weight we produce; it is the same as adding 1000 head of live cattle available supply. Current feeder and live cattle prices would suggest that with the 14 pound increase in carcass weight from last to this year, there is relative need to understand and control cow size, genetic capabili-

Finished Steer Live Weight

Dressing Percent (Live Wt. x DP)

Calculated Carcass Weight

Approximate REA for Carcass Wt Based off USDA Scale

Carcass Weight Scale

Required REA for Carcass Wt

by USDA

Desired REA Size For Maxium Retail Value

1100

1250

64.5

806

13.4

600

11.0

10.5 – 15.0

1150

1300

64.5

838

13.8

650

11.8

10.5 – 15.0

1175

1325

64.5

854

14

700

12.2

10.5 – 15.0

Mature Cow Weight

1200

1350

64.5

870

14.2

750

12.8

10.5 – 15.0

1225

1375

64.5

886

14.5

800

13.4

10.5 – 15.0

1250

1400

64.5

903

14.6

825

13.7

10.5 – 15.0

1275

1425

64.5

919

14.9

850

14.0

10.5 – 15.0

1300

1450

64.5

935

15.1

875

14.3

10.5 – 15.0

1325

1475

64.5

951

15.5

900

14.6

10.5 – 15.0

1350

1500

64.5

967

15.7

925

14.9

10.5 – 15.0

1375

1525

64.5

983

15.9

950

15.5

10.5 – 15.0

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 17

COW EFFICIENCY. IS IT RELATED TO RETAIL PRODUCT VALUE?

Continued from page 17.

Efficiency Traits versus Retail Value Traits • Cow size vs Rib Eye Area • Cow size vs Marbling Ability • Cow size vs Yield Grade • Cow size vs Tenderness • Cow size vs Feed Efficiency • Cow size vs Feed Conversation We can insert breed, genetic ability, mature weight, and other traits instead of size and have the same debate or discussion.

ties, and most of all to share information which will allow each segment to better manage and plan for the diversity in the production pipeline.

As we work to create efficient production, maximize weight, and gain in profitability, we too must consider the nagging end user issues, and challenges like, plate coverage from steaks too big around, food cost to menu price, and availability of what they need seasonally, if we are committed to continue to improve beef demand….more beef sold at higher prices About the Author Marcine Moldenhauer, Owner and President of Meat≈Link Management, a Livestock and Meat Business Consulting Firm; Contact Information: Wichita, Kansas 67230, Office 316-733-8506, marcine_moffice@att. net

PREPARING FOR CALVING SEASON

Continued from page 6.

• OB lubricants • Plastic gloves • Buckets • Towels and paper towels • Iodine for disinfecting the calf ’s navel

• OB handles for pulling on the chains or ropes • Mechanical calf puller (‘calf-jack’) – USE WITH CAUTION AND DO NOT APPLY EXCESSIVE FORCE. A calf-jack can exert substantial force on the cow or heifer and the calf. When used improperly the cow, heifer, and/or calf can be injured or killed. NEVER ATTEMPT TO DELIVER A CALF BY PULLING WITH ANY TYPE OF VEHICLE.

Some things to keep in mind when trying to decide when to call your veterinarian: • Calving takes time, and it often takes longer for heifers than cows, so be patient. However, progress should be steady and generally fit within the time-frames previously mentioned. Once Stage II begins (delivery of the calf ), the cow or heifer should make visible progress about every 15 to 20 minutes.

• Use the ‘2+1 rule’ to help determine when to call. Upon examination, 2 feet and 1 head (or 2 feet and 1 tail) should be felt or seen for a normal delivery to proceed.

• If the cow or heifer becomes exhausted and quits trying to calve, then assistance is necessary.

• When in doubt, call your veterinarian. The outcome is always more favorable if assistance is provided sooner rather than later.

If possible, and if safe for you and the animal, capture the cow or heifer needing assistance before your veterinarian arrives. This will make his or her job easier, and minimize your expenses

evaluating cow herd efficiency

Continued from page 8.

cow produced a higher percentage of her weight in calf than did another cow due to increased milk production or some other factor. We can also account for reasons behind better efficiency and potential consequences.

For instance, did the cow that produced a higher percentage of her weight in weaned calf do so through higher levels of milk production and if so did that result in lower fertility and/or increased feed requirements. Or does the environment allow for higher milking females with little negative consequence. The point being, as a selection tool, try not to use just ratios,

18 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

as this may be an inadequate indicator of efficiency – utilize all of the traits that directly influence profitability and hence efficiency.

Likely many producers will continue to rely on the ratio to monitor cow herd efficiency, but using this alone may have unintended consequences. So continue to track the genetic change in other traits as well, selecting on these other traits as appropriate. Just as with any trait, the key is to avoid single trait selection even on “ratios for efficiency” and view your ranch as a system where changes in one area likely influence other traits and overall profitability

industry trends

Continued from page 10.

is a large pork supply at discount prices that is also applying pressure to our prices. The total number of live cattle harvested YTD are considerably lower, but total production is up 7 pounds per carcass YTD placing the industry about 35 pounds ahead of the 10 year average in terms of total carcass weight. Our overall numbers are down, but production is a significant price factor and we have been adding pounds to every head harvested.

Corn? Well, the beef industry has to have it and corn continually impacts the price of cattle. A person should always pay close attention to the corn market and crop conditions in order to prepare for future feed costs.

Corn prices have gained momentum the last few weeks due to wet weather across the corn-belt and fears of an early frost. The corn crop is still expected to yield record numbers and I am certain we will see corn priced back below $3.80/ bushel following harvest. Nevertheless, the current corn rally has softened cattle prices. On an optimistic note, even at current prices we are feeding cattle much cheaper than we were 12-18 months ago and should be able to continue that trend for quite some time.

The US total cow inventory is the smallest it has been since the 1950’s.

This would suggest that beef supply would be down resulting in higher prices. Right, but wrong also. Our total supply for 2009 is down and we should expect the same for the next few years, but we will not see higher

cattle prices until we regain beef demand. The economy must turn around and jobs be created to gain the demand we have lost domestically. And if we could ever re-gain the market share we lost over-seas, cattle prices would improve considerably. Nevertheless, the progressive cow-calf producer that is running his or her operation efficiently will be in the driver’s seat when recovery begins.

The Bottom Line: Strategically run your operation as cost-effective as possible and produce the most efficient cattle you can. Be realistic and plan for the market as it is. But, be hopeful and optimistic as I am for an economic recovery.

Remember our numbers are the smallest they have been in over 55 years.

Remember the global population is growing every day. This means the numbers are most definitely in our favor. Remember people like BEEF, especially US raised. Always have! Always will! Therefore, I think each of you should be prepared for what I think could be the BEST times the cattle business has ever seen. wants more pounds at weaning. So, why not use Brangus? I sure can’t think of a reason not to use Brangus

RELATIONSHIP OF COW SIZE TO NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS And production management issues

Continued from page 12.

Figure 1. Distribution of cow body weight in three example cow herds.

have to be coupled with a 3% increase (53% of the cow weight) in weaning weight. Certainly, a 3% increase in calf weaning weight is achievable; in fact one of the example cow herds has a mean calf weaning weight (percentage of cow weight) of 55% surpasses that benchmark.

Production Implications

Cow size or weight also has some important effects on cow herd productivity. Starting at the developing heifer, projected mature weight effects the rate of maturation associated with reproduction of developing heifers.

As mature weight increases, age at puberty increases and this effect is greater for late-maturing breed types compared to early maturing breed types.

Likewise, as weight increases the percent of heifers cycling and conception rate decreases, again the effect is greater in late maturing than early maturing breed types. Florida based research support these generalizations, as cow frame size (ie, weight) increased from small to medium to large, age at puberty increased from 633 to 672 days of age.

The Florida work is also a great demonstration of the effect of cow size on cow productive traits across first, second, and third or greater parity. As cow size increased calving rate decreased by 14% to 25%. Calving rate difference specifically led to differences in survival rate during the first parity.

Large-sized cows had a 48% survival rate compared to 81% survival rate for small-sized cows. Calving date within the calving season was similar

among cow size however, the change in calving date from first to third parity was two times greater for large-sized compared to small-sized cows.

Weaning rates during the first and second parity were greater for small and medium-sized cows compared to large sized cows that had weaning rates of less than 50%. Weaning weights and pre-weaning average daily gain of calves was greater for calves from large-sized cows compared to small and medium sized cows. This is likely a function of milk production capacity as large-sized cows potentially produce proportionally more milk, which also increased cow nutrient requirements on top of the greater nutrient requirements based on weight. Despite smaller calves, cows of small and medium size produced more pounds of calf weaned relative to the total number of cows exposed for breeding during the first and second parity.

Cow mature weight has important implications for many of the production parameters associated with the overall cow herd. Heifer development, cow reproduction, and calf performance can be affected by cow weight. However, subsequent post-weaning performance of calves can be similar between small and large sized cows.

Conclusion

As production costs associated with beef cattle production increase, particularly those associated with feeding the cow herd, the size and nutritional requirements of the cow herd have to be addressed. The challenge for every beef cattle enterprise is to produce calves that meet market requirements as efficiently as possible. A key component to efficient calf production is the appropriate cow size. Like much in life, moderation is the key to success. Cows with moderate size (weight) with good maternal traits and genetics for calf growth are the cows to target and retain in the cow herd. Certainly a good set of scales to assess cow weight might be one of the most important tools a beef cattle producer could have. Indeed, if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it, and cow weight certainly falls in that important category. Better identification of efficient, low-weight cows is one management strategy to employ as production economics tighten and total enterprise efficiency becomes an important and measurable property of profitable beef cattle enterprises

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 19

USPB offers Age and Source Verification Premiums premiums totaling $64 per head (including the $35 per head ASV premium) for all USPB ASV cattle marketed through the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kansas plants during the 2009 fiscal year. The International Brangus Breeders Associationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s OptimaxX program is approved at the ranch level to supply ASV cattle to USPB. For more information contact: On August 18, 2009, U.S. Premium Beef (USPB) announced the extension of a $35 per head Age and Source Verification (ASV) premium through May 29, 2010. This premium will be paid on ASV cattle that are 20 months of age and younger at time of harvest and are marketed through USPB. The announcement included a report of grid

20 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

U.S. Premium Beef Brian Bertelsen 866-877-2525 Brian.Bertelsen@uspb.com

ALABAMA To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

ARIZONA To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

ARKANSAS

FLORIDA

To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 21

MISSISSIPPI To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

GEORGIA To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

KANSAS

MISSOURI

To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

22 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

NEW MEXICO To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

OKLAHOMA To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

TENNESSEE To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

TEXAS To place your ad in the State Directory, please call the BPI Office at 210.696.8231

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 23

24 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 25

SERVICES Tommy Barnes - Auctioneer -

P.O. Box 8 • Galion, AL 36742 email: barnes@westal.net

Ph. 334/289-7001 Fax: 334/289-7000 Mobile: 334/462-4004

Lakin Oakley Auctioneer

7081 Highway 82 West DeKalb, Texas 75559 903/667-3251 Home 903/277-9610 Mobile

26 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

Embryo Transfer • Estrus Synchronization Programs Complete Reproductive Services • InVitro Fertilization Toll Free: 866-4EMBRYO P.O. Box 3038 • Bryan, TX 77805 979/731-1043 • Fax: 979/731-1086 info@ovagenix.com www.ovagenix.com

ADVERTISERSINDEX ADVERTISER

WEB SITE

PHONE NUMBER

Advanced Video Auctions

PAGE 9

www.advancedvideoauctions.com

228.236.7874

Camp Cooley Genetics

7

www.campcooleygenetics.com

800.251.0305

Circle X Land and Cattle Co., Ltd.

13

www.circlexbrangus.com

979.776.5760

Heart of Alabama Brangus Bull Sale

8

IGENITY

5

JM Cattle Company

4

Southern Cattle Company

1

830.393.6079 www.igenity.com

877.IGENITY 979.279.5649

www.southerncattlecompany.com

850.352.2020

Spitzer Ranch

3

864.972.6140

TBBA Sale

10

210.558.0800

The Cattleman

6

800.242.7820

Triple JR Cattle Company

12

Valley View

14

Zottarelli Ranches

11

www.triplejrcattleco.com

979.561.8168 660.736.4696

www.zottarelliracnhes.com

254.471.5675

CALENDEROFEVENTS NOVEMBER • 2009

DECEMBER • 2009

6-7

GeneTrust at Chimney Rock Bull & Female Sale, Concord, AR

5

GeneTrust at Cavender’s Bull and Commercial Sale, Jacksonville, TX

13

Florida Brangus Bull Sale, Webster, FL

12

14

Mound Creek Ranch & Blackwater Cattle Co. Fall Bull Sale, Lake Park, GA

2nd Annual Heart of Alabama Bull and Commercial Sale, Uniontown, AL

28-01/01

61st Annual Arizona National Livestock Show, Phoenix, AZ

14

Perry Ranch Brangus Bull & Female Sale, Pauls Valley, OK

JANUARY • 2010

14

Annual Hill Country Brangus Sale, San Angelo, TX

9

TBBA 1st Annual Coastal Area Sale/Field Day, Beeville, TX

20-21

Camp Cooley Annual Production Sale, Franklin, TX

23

TBBA Bull & Commercial Female Sale, Navasota, TX

21

TBBA Female & Bull Sale, West, TX

23-24

Coldwater Cattle Company Dispersal Sale, Holly Springs MS

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 27

FRONTLINE beef producer

Move Your Business to the FRONT of the LINE. Advertising in FRONTLINE Beef Producer gets your message out to 20,000 potential customers.

ISSUE FOCUS

MAILING DATE

AD DEADLINE

Carcass Merit

January 1, 2010

December 15, 2009

Call the BPI Office today at 210.696.8231 to highlight your products and services in FRONTLINE Beef Producer.