Page 1

JUNE 2016


Protect the Harvest Profitability Drivers Technology and You


To reinforce and strengthen brand recognition, all guidelin on this sheet should be followed at all time

P O Box 634 Carthage, MO 64836



Inside: The Dog Lover



Movie 1 JUNE 2016 Premiere

Pantone # 4975 CMYK: 50_70_80_70 RGB: 60_36_21 Pantone # 728 CMYK: 25_40_65_0 RGB: 196_154_108

Pantone # BLACK CMYK: 50_50_50_100 RGB: 35_31_32

Now St Wire ocking Fence T-Pos & ts

est of l w t s Ju giona e R n i Jopl kyards Stoc



Sucker Rod


New & Used Pipe 5, Hea 6, & 7 vy Ba Cust Duty G r a t Latc om S izes es hes , or H inge s


OK Brand • Sheffield Stay Tuff • Bekaert Red Brand • W.Silver Chicago Heights


Precut Posts



Top Rail - New & Used Continuous Fence Cable Fence Supplies Caps, Clips, Hardware

Cattle Guards Structural Steel Culverts Rebar & More

417.358.5555 EXIT 22 OFF I-44


JUNE 2016

Field Representatives



t’s really hard to get a handle on what’s going on with the market. Slaughter cattle traded at $134 and dressed meat at $230. Then, the board crashed after the Cattle on Feed Report was released. It’s a little hard to track. I’m not sure anyone in the industry really knows what’s going to happen with the market. Right now it’s very vulnerable to anything that comes along. The bright spot in the cattle market was in the Show-MeSelect Heifer sale last month. Those cattle have some value and deserve to bring a good price compared to the rest of the market. The long-range projections for the future of the cattle business are down simply because we’ll have more cattle. I don’t expect the market to go straight down, but rather bounce around, and some pretty good prices will still be realized. We’re all just going to have to watch

what we’re doing, and it’s hard to do that when the market moves in a wide range in a short period of time. Summer is a good time to sell slaughter cows and bulls. It’s grilling season and that segment of the market will hold its own. A lot of events are happening at JRS this summer. Our big value-added sale is coming up the 23rd of this month. We’ll have a big offering of preconditioned feeder cattle in that sale. Our monthly cow and bull sale is Thurs., June 16, and we’re also having special video sales the first Friday of every month this summer. We’ve got to play the cards we’re dealt. Input costs will be less with ample feed available. We’ll all survive this market, even if it’s a tough ride. Good luck and God bless.


Bailey Moore: Granby, MO M(417)540-4343

Skyler Moore: Mount Vernon, MO M(417)737-2615

ARKANSAS Dolf Marrs: Hindsville, AR H(479)789-2798, M(479)790-2697

MISSOURI Dan Haase: Pierce City, MO M(417)476-2132

Billy Ray Mainer: Branch, AR M(479)518-6931

Jim Hacker: Bolivar, MO H(417)326-2905, M(417)328-8905

Jr. Smith: Melbourne, AR M(870-373-1150

Bruce Hall: Mount Vernon, MO M(417)466-5170

Kent Swinney: Gentry, AR H(479)736-4621, M(479)524-7024

Mark Harmon: Mount Vernon, MO M(417)316-0101

KANSAS Chris Martin (Video Rep): Alma, KS M(785)499-3011

Bryon Haskins: Lamar, MO M(417)850-4382

Alice Myrick: Mapleton, KS H(620)743-3681, M(620)363-0740 Bob Shanks: Columbus, KS H(620)674-3259, M(620)674-1675 LOUISIANA James Kennedy: DeRidder, LA M(337)274-7406 CATTLE RECEIVING STATION OKLAHOMA Russell Boles: Watson, OK M(903)276-1544 Chester Palmer: Miami, OK H(918)542-6801, M(918)540-4929 Dennis Raucher M(417)316-0023 John Simmons: Westville, OK M(918)519-9129, M(417)310-6348 Shane Stierwalt: Shidler, OK M(918)688-5774 Troy Yoder: Chouteau, OK M(918)640-8219 MISSOURI Rick Aspegren: Mountain Grove, MO M(417)547-2098 Clay Barnhouse: Bolivar, MO M(417)777-1855 Sherman Brown: Marionville, MO H(417)723-0245, M(417)693-1701 Joel Chaffin: Ozark, MO M(417)299-4727 Rick Chaffin: Ozark, MO H(417)485-7055, M(417)849-1230 Jack Chastain: Bois D’Arc, MO H(417)751-9580, M(417)849-5748 Ted Dahlstrom, DVM: Staff Vet Stockyards (417)548-3074 Office (417)235-4088 Tim Durman: Seneca, MO H(417) 776-2906, M(417)438-3541 Jerome Falls: Sarcoxie, MO H(417)548-2233, M(417)793-5752 Skyler Fisher: Collins, MO M(417) 298-9051 CATTLE RECEIVING STATION Nick Flannigan: Fair Grove, MO M(417)316-0048 Kenneth & Mary Ann Friese: Friedheim, MO H(573)788-2143, M(573)225-7932 CATTLE RECEIVING STATION Fred Gates: Seneca, MO H(417)776-3412, M(417)437-5055 Brent Gundy: Walker, MO H(417)465-2246, M(417)321-0958

Doc Haskins: Diamond, MO H(417)325-4136, M(417)437-2191 Mark Henry: Hurley, MO H(417)369-6171, M(417)464-3806 J.W. Henson: Conway, MO H(417)589-2586, M(417)343-9488 CATTLE RECEIVING STATION Joe David Hudson: Jenkins, MO H(417)574-6944, M(417)-342-4916 Steve Hunter: Jasper, MO H(417)525-4405, M(417)439-1168 Larry Jackson: Carthage, MO H(417)358-7931, M(417)850-3492 Jim Jones: Crane, MO H(417)723-8856, M(417)844-9225 Chris Keeling: Purdy, MO M(417)860-8941 Kelly Kissire: Anderson, MO H(417)845-3777, M(417)437-7622 Larry Mallory: Miller, MO H(417)452-2660, M(417)461-2275 Kenny Ogden: Lockwood, MO H(417)537-4777, M(417)466-8176 Jason Pendleton: Stotts City, MO M(417)437-4552 Charlie Prough: El Dorado Springs, MO H(417)876-4189, M(417)876-7765 Russ Ritchart: Jasper, MO H(417)394-2020, M(417)237-0988 Lonnie Robertson: Galena, MO M(417)844-1138 Justin Ruddick: Anderson, MO M(417)737-2270 Alvie Sartin: Seymour, MO M(417)840-3272 CATTLE RECEIVING STATION Jim Schiltz: Lamar, MO H(417)884-5229, M(417)850-7850 David Stump: Jasper, MO H(417)537-4358, M(417)434-5420 Matt Sukovaty: Bolivar, MO H(417)326-4618, M(417)399-3600 Brandon Tichenor: Fairview, MO M(417)540-4717 Mike Theurer: Lockwood, MO H(417)232-4358, M(417)827-3117 Tim Varner: Washburn, MO H(417)826-5645, M(417)847-7831 OFFICE: (417)548-2333 Sara Engler VIDEO CATTLE PRODUCTION Matt Oschlaeger: Mount Vernon, MO M(417)466-8438 JUNE 2016


inside this issue About the Cover

Find out how technology helps cattlemen stay on the cutting edge of production. — Cover photo by Jillian Campbell.

Features 7 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 22

Grappling with BRDC Solving the Herd Health Puzzle Setting Sights on the Future Gadget Gurus On the Cutting Edge The Drivers of Profitability More Beef The Right Side of Right Outside-the-Box Technology There’s an App for That

In Every Issue 3 5 6 8 10 24 25

View from the Block Beef in Brief On Target with Justin Sexten Health Watch with K-State’s Dr. David Rethorst Next Generation with Darren Frye Market Watch Event Roundup

Contact Us

Publisher/Advertising: Mark Harmon | Email: Phone: 417-548-2333 | Mobile: 417-316-0101 Fax: 417-548-2370 Editor/Design/Layout: Joann Pipkin | Email: Ad Deadline: 2nd Monday of Each Month for Next Month’s Issue Cattlemen’s News, PO Box 634, Carthage, MO 64836 Subcription questions can be answered by calling 417-548-2333. Although we strive to maintain the highest journalistic ethics, Joplin Regional Stockyards limits its responsibilities for any errors, inaccuracies or misprints in advertisements or editorial copy. Advertisers and advertising agencies assume liability for all content of advertisements printed, and also assume responsibility for any claims arising from such advertisement made against the Stockyards and/or its publication.

If you wish to discontinue a subscription to Cattlemen’s News, please send request or address label to: Cattlemen’s News - PO Box 634, Carthage, MO 64836

Cattlemen’s News, published by Joplin Regional Stockyards, is a nuts and bolts news magazine dedicated to helping cattle producers add value to their operations. From “how-to” articles to economics and industry trends, our mission is to put today’s producers in touch with the information and products that will make them profitable for tomorrow. Published monthly. Circulation 10,000.

Scan Me or Visit 4

JUNE 2016

beef in brief MU to Study Beef Genetics, Environment Genetics of beef cattle vary by region across the United States. Those differences develop over time as beef herds evolve in local environments. Jared Decker, University of Missouri Extension geneticist, will explore those DNA differences. From that, he says, better performances can be predicted. The USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) provides funding enacted in the 2008 farm bill. USDA calls AFRI its premier peer-review grant program. The local adaptations include heat stress as well as response to cold, humidity, altitude, parasites, water and feed intake. Decker expects to find other local adaptations in the study. Of prime interest to Missouri and nearby states is tolerance to toxic tall fescue grass. A 1993 study showed fescue toxicosis cost U.S. producers $609 million yearly. —Source: University of Missouri Cooperative Media Group.

Research Shows Tightening Fiscal Farm Conditions A new joint study by the Kansas State University Department of Agricultural Economics and the University of Georgia shows lenders from across the nation are expecting the financial outlook for farmers to tighten in the upcoming seasons. The 2016 Spring Ag Lender Survey shows the current financial conditions are taking a downturn due to an expected increase in nonperforming loans and land devaluations that are causing landleasing issues. Lower commodity prices have had an immediate effect on producers, but more trouble could be ahead as leveraged farmers are feeling the pressure from lower grain and livestock prices. The survey points to lenders seeing a need for increasing risk premiums for agricultural lending. From the fall season of 2015 to the spring of 2016, lenders noted that the number of non-performing loans rose for total farm loans. Lenders are expecting the number of non-performing loans to continue to rise, particularly for the corn and soybeans, wheat and beef sub-sectors. Demand for farm operating loans remains high as liquidity and cash flows are problematic for many producers, according to the study. Lenders report elevated cash rental rates and a slow adjustment to the lower commodity prices seen in today’s market. K-State’s Department of Agricultural Economics conducts the Ag Lender Survey semi-annually to capture short- and long-term assessments for the future of the agricultural credit environment. —Source: Kansas State University Extension.

Privacy Protection Bill Sent to Missouri Governor The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association (MCA) initiated legislation nearly three years ago to protect the private information of farm and ranch families that is often collected through voluntary and mandatory government programs. Rep. Jay Houghton (R-43) sponsored the legislation each year and, according to MCA Executive Vice President Mike Deering, the bill is finally heading to the desk of Gov. Jay Nixon. The Missouri House of Representatives passed the legislation Tues., May 10, 2016, with a bipartisan 111-40 vote. This was the final vote needed before heading to the governor for consideration. Deering said the legislation gives producers the confidence to participate in the Animal Disease Traceability program, and other state and federal programs, without fearing their private information will end up in the hands of those with improper motives. —Source: MCA Prime Cuts

JUNE 2016


On Target

Is She Too Big or Too Small? A look at ideal mature cow size Story By Justin Sexten


ew topics today are cussed and discussed as widely as ideal mature size for the average beef cow. This is not the first time I have joined in and likely won’t be the last, but two recent articles in the Journal of Animal Science provide an interesting platform on the roles of mature size, weaning efficiency and environment. Paul Beck’s team at the University of Arkansas evaluated the role of mature size on two groups of cows that weighed 1,020 and 1,258 pounds at variable stocking rates locally. Across the Plains to the northwest, Derek Scasta led efforts at the University of Wyoming to examine five groups varying 100 pounds from 1,000 to 1,400 pounds on semi-arid rangelands. As you can gather, these settings stand out for their con-


JUNE 2016

trast. Arkansas cattle grazed fertilized, warm-season pastures inter-seeded with ryegrass, while the Wyoming cattle grazed native range. Stocking rates per acre were markedly different as well, from 140 pounds on the range to 1,273 pounds in Arkansas. Such differences limit our ability to directly compare results, but they reinforce the importance of environmental context to cow size. With respect to stocking rate anywhere, we have to consider two factors: mature cow size in weight — not frame because requirements are based on mass not height — and grazing acres not to include land reserved for haying. And while the forage environments were very different in this case, there were several similarities between the trials.

Fortunately for the researchers, though not for ranchers, both experiments spanned the drought years of 2011 and 2012 so widespread as to affect both regions. Drought provided a natural limit for studies of cow size in the context of limited resources. That was not a key focus of the Arkansas work, but the Wyoming group suggested planning the herd’s genetic potential around the possibility of sustained drought from global climate change. I’ll note that other research has shown virtually no correlation between selection to include superior beef marbling and any other economically important traits, across the wide range of environments where cattle are raised. In these trials, the Angusbased herds were evaluated in October for weaning efficiency based on pounds of calf weaned divided by mature cow weight. In both herds, the smallest cows had the greatest weaning efficiency; that is, they weaned more pounds of calf per unit of mature weight, which was no surprise having been reported in other studies.

The different stocking rates evaluated in Arkansas showed increased weaning efficiency per acre as stocking rate increased, regardless of cow size. That might point to short-term opportunities that don’t need to wait for genetic change, but stocking rates taken to extremes require caution to ensure sustainability over time. In Wyoming, researchers further determined the efficiency of weaned-calf weight relative to forage intake using metabolic animal-unit-equivalent calculations. “Equivalent” is the operative word in that formula, assuming the forage intake relationship for all cattle is dependent only on mature weight. While mathematically correct to assume a consistent relationship, we know genetics exist that stand out for efficiency and allow ranchers to select bulls with smaller mature size and exceptional pre- and post-weaning growth. More and more bulls are also being tested for metabolic efficiency, where residual feed intake evaluates their ability to consume less forage than conCONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

TOO BIG OR TOO SMALL • FROM PREVIOUS PAGE temporaries with comparable tives of weaning weight and cow weight, among many posperformance. sible endpoints. While these The take-home? There is no traits are easily measured universal ideal. Wyoming with a scale and recognized by data suggests smaller cows are ranchers, they do not repremore efficient in restricted-re- sent the true endpoint for any source environments. Arkan- calf in the beef production syssas data agreed in part, but the tem, nor do they address gegreater efficiency in smaller netic opportunities to reduce cows there provided no profit nutrient demand. advantage over large cows because greater forage resources The abundance of genetic knowledge and diversity availwere available. able within the leading breeds This debate on cow size will offer commercial ranchers the continue because she is re- chance to select for larger or sponsible for transmitting half smaller cows that match ranch of the genetic potential to her environment while ensuring calf, and moving beyond the calves carry genetics to supply universally ill-defined ideal the increasing demand for premight increase her nutrient mium quality beef beyond the demand beyond what the en- ranch gate. vironment can fulfill. —Justin Sexten is director of supThese experiments evaluated ply development for Certified Anefficiency from the perspec- gus Beef LLC.

Get More for Your Cattle! The commingling program at Joplin Regional Stockyards groups together cattle from producers into larger lots to offer buyers a greater selection.

2,113 producers served and 9,215 head marketed through our commingling program since Sept. 1, 2015. Arrive Sundays by 5 p.m. to commingle.


Grappling With BRDC Bovine respiratory disease complex research critical for consumer confidence Story By Lisa Henderson for Cattlemen’s News


cientists are hoping new genomic tools can help producers fight an old cattle nemesis — bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC). Often referred to as pneumonia or shipping fever, veterinarians say it is the leading cause of death in dairy and beef cattle, causing the loss of more than one million animals annually and financial losses in excess of $1 billion. Beyond the financial impact of BRD, the disease creates an animal welfare concern that diminishes consumer acceptance for beef. “Identifying sick cattle immediately and treating them with the appropriate antibiotics is a critical element to any animal welfare program,” said Dan Thomson, Jones professor of veterinary medicine at Kansas

State University. “It’s essential for your operation, and it’s the right thing to do.” But what if you could begin the battle against BRD before the calf is conceived? That’s the objective of a multi-university project led by Texas A&M professor James Womack. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Research Initiative provides funding to large-scale efforts called Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAP), which encourage the exchange of information and coordination among states and institutions. The BRDC CAP coordinates the efforts of veterinarians, geneticists, epidemiologists, animal behaviorists, microbiologists, livestock economists and livestock cooperative extension specialists. CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

You don’t buY his loYaltY. You earn it. With superior retention, unsurpassed ease of application and outstanding readability, no wonder so many cattlemen are fiercely loyal to genuine Z Tags one-piece ear tags. To view actual comments from satisfied Z Tags users, visit today.

© 2014 DATAMARS, Inc. Z Tags is a registered trademark of DATAMARS, Inc. All rights reserved.

JUNE 2016



Rethink Anaplasmosis Control Management considerations beyond antibiotics Story By David Rethorst for Cattlemen’s News


here are times when, rather than looking for new technology to address an issue, we need to rethink what we are doing. Currently, this is the case with anaplasmosis control. Many producers have used chlortetracycline (CTC), a feed grade antibiotic, to prevent, control and treat anaplasmosis in their cows for a number of years. The Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2017, will require a producer to have a VFD signed by their veterinarian and filed with their feed supplier before purchasing CTC. Extra-label use of feed grade antibiotics, using a dosage that is not on the label

or in a manner not on the label, will not be allowed and certainly will not be prescribed by a veterinarian in the VFD era. CTC is labeled for “the control of active infection of anaplasmosis.” Control, by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition, means that signs of clinical disease are present in the herd, and the antibiotic is being used to control the spread of disease to other animals in the herd. In the case of anaplasmosis, if CTC cannot be used until clinical signs of the disease are present, the pro-

ducer is behind the eight ball. The primary concerns of FDA are that the VFD is written for control and that label dosages and delivery methods are followed. These changes should make every producer ask, “What can be done to control anaplasmosis other than feeding CTC in our mineral program?” Anaplasma marginale is a blood parasite that is spread by wood ticks, dog ticks, horse flies, deer flies, stable flies and fomites such as injection needles, tagging tools, tattoo pliers and other instruments that might be contaminated with blood. Cattle and the male wood tick are the primary reservoirs of the disease with the organism multiplying in the salivary gland of the male wood tick. In the central states, clinical signs of the

disease are seen late summer through the fall months. These signs are the result of a marked anemia caused by A. marginale including open mouth breathing, staggering and an aggressive attitude — all attributable to hypoxia created by the anemia. Other signs are yellow membranes of the eyes and vulva, abortion and death of mature cows. Death of mature cows during late summer and fall is one of the more common signs of anaplasmosis. Previously in this column, we have discussed making sure the basic animal husbandry practices are done well for the prevention of bovine respiratory disease. Practices that can be utilized in the control of anaplasmosis include tick control, fly control and being diligent in avoiding the transfer of blood from animal to animal via needles, tattoo pliers and other CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

Effective, Year Long External Parasite Treatment.

620.408.6387 888.256.5544



JUNE 2016

GRAPPLING WITH BRDC FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 7 “Our goal is to integrate research, education and extension activities to develop cost-effective genomic and management approaches to reduce the incidence of pneumonia in beef and dairy cattle,” Womack explained. “Newlyavailable genomic tools offer an opportunity to employ novel genetic approaches to select for cattle that are less susceptible to disease.” The BRDC CAP project recognizes that decreasing the incidence of BRD is important “given increasing concern about food animal welfare and the use of therapeutic treatments. Incorporating disease-resistance into breeding programs offers a sustainable, long-term approach to reducing disease incidence and improving animal health.”

the cost of BRD to feedlots was $253.97 per animal, or $1.034 billion in total losses to cattle feeders. Using those estimates, the economists believe a 1 to 2 percent improvement in BRD susceptibility can be achieved by selecting cattle with an accurate BRD susceptibility genetic test could yield gains of more than $13 million to $21 million per year, based on 2013 costs and market prices. In order to produce genomicenhanced EPDs for BRD resistance, researchers need to collect phenotypic data on which animals get sick and which do not. They believe if those genomic predictions are successful, they will have a significant economic and animal welfare

impact on both the dairy and beef industries. Unfortunately, scientists claim the accuracy of prediction equations developed for one breed of beef cattle have not proven to be useful in other breeds with genomic selection using 50,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (50k SNP) chips. Womack says that the project’s long-term goal is to reduce the incidence of BRD in beef and dairy cattle by capitalizing on advances in genomics to enable novel genetic approaches to select for cattle that are less susceptible to disease. BRDC CAP also seeks to develop improved DNA-based tests for disease diagnosis, and pro-

duce and deliver a variety of educational materials for beef and dairy producers on best management practices to reduce disease. Similar to the BRD studies, scientists are also using genetic technologies to improve feed efficiency. Researchers claim a 1 percent improvement in feed efficiency has the same economic impact as a 3 percent increase in rate of gain, which could result in a costs savings of more than $1 billion per year. The project involves developing tools for marker assisted selection and for marker assisted management. The project expects to generate across-breed molecular EPDs for feed efficiency, feed intake, growth and carcass traits.

In addition to Texas A&M, institutions involved in the research include the University of California-Davis, Colorado State University, the University of Missouri, New Mexico State University, Washington State University and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. The BRDC CAP researchers looked to identify reduced susceptibility to BRD in their Genome-Wide Association Study. The genomic research into BRD began with identifying large populations of beef and dairy cattle that were sick with the disease. Temperature, cough, nasal drainage, eye scores and ear scores were used to define whether an animal was sick. At dairies, researchers walked down rows of calf hutches to find sick calves, and a healthy calf in an adjacent hutch. A similar procedure was followed in feedlots. More than 200,000 calves were screened in California to identify 1,003 sick calves and 1,003 healthy controls. The scientists say genetics explained 21 percent of the variation in BRD susceptibility in dairy calves and 18 percent of the susceptibility in beef calves. Economists on the BRDC CAP team evaluated the feedlot data from the research and using the national estimate of 16.2 percent BRD prevalence in feedlots, calculated that more than 4 million feedlot cattle were afflicted with BRD in 2013. They estimated that

JUNE 2016



Stay up-to-date on everything JRS

YOUR ANJIMAL H]EALl'fa PROf[SSIOltf ALS Keepinq ijou11 He11d Health11 & £Hicient Best Quality Products Shipped or Delivered to Your Door at the Lowest Prices • Antibiotics • Electronic ID • Implants • Pest Control • Vaccines • Animal Health • Supplies


Exit 70, Springfield, MO 417-863-8446

417-235-6226 • 1-888-360-9588

How to Keep Your Farm’s Future in Mind Remember your future even when it’s busy



Story By Darren Frye for Cattlemen’s News


hen it gets really busy on the farm, a lot demands the leader’s attention: directing employees, dealing with suppliers, ensuring everything is getting done and more. So many urgent items are on our to-do list each day. With these urgent demands on the farm leader, the whole day could be easily consumed with putting out the fire of the day. As the farm leader moves from fire to fire, dealing with each crisis, it’s tough to get into a future-oriented frame of mind. But that’s exactly what you need as you guide your overall business and think strategically. Taking this strategic business mindset brings up questions like: Where is our farm headed? Why? Where do we want to go? What’s the plan for how we’ll get there? How will we measure progress toward our goals? How will we know when we’ve reached our goals?

The long-term Time is something that we can’t get any more of, whether we’re a farm leader, employee or family member. Each of us gets 24 hours a day, no more, no less. Having a long-term vision to evaluate activities against can give farm leaders a way to examine how they’re spending their precious time. It can help as they work to steward that time more wisely, in service of the future vision. They can evaluate what will move the needle most in the business. Even as the farm leader handles day-to-day operational demands and wears many different ‘hats’ in the course of a single day, the long-term vision for the future is what brings purpose. It makes all


JUNE 2016

the work worthwhile. Knowing where you want the farm to be in the future can lead to making decisions now that help you ensure it will get there. Once you’ve set your long-term vision, you can start getting the right plans and people in place to achieve the future you desire.

Building a legacy This is also relevant when it comes to the legacy you’re building – and hope to leave in the future. With those thoughts come questions like: In which time frame do I hope to retire? What do I hope the farm will be like in the future? Who will be involved, and in what ways? How will I train and prepare them for their involvement? Do you have a long-term vision for your farm operation? How does that vision inform the legacy you want to leave? Will that vision involve members of the next generation or a successor leader in your operation? A legacy advisor acts as a guide for the farm family throughout the legacy planning process. They help the family members walk through the emotions and details of the process before the family goes to meet with their estate planning attorney. The legacy advisor works with the family to understand things like the time frame in which the older generation hopes to retire and what each generation is hoping to see happen. They play a valuable role on the farm’s legacy planning team, which includes the family’s estate planning attorney and their accountant. Legacy advisors help ensure that CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


continues to be a priority? Could your family use a guide to help navigate the uncertain territory of legacy planning?

family members and the members of the professional team are on the same page and have the same understanding of what is desired.

If this has generated some questions in your mind, you might discuss your concerns with one. Make it a priority to talk with a legacy advisor this summer about your hopes and plans for your farm’s future. You can contact a legacy advisor at our farm consulting firm by calling 866-249-2528.

Get your guide Are you thinking about the future you want for your operation – and what your hopes are for the next generation – but aren’t sure where to start? Or, how to make sure the planning process

RETHINK ANAPLASMOSIS CONTROL FROM PAGE 8 instruments. Insecticide pour-ons can aid in the control of both ticks and flies. Reducing and eliminating potential breeding sites is necessary for proper fly control. Studies indicate pasture burning reduces tick numbers, however, anecdotal reports following burning indicate that ticks are driven to the draws during burning.

Get more information about farm business planning and ideas for today’s farm leader in our quarterly publication, Smart Series. The latest issue features some aspects to think about before you plan your retirement. Your free issue is available at: —Darren Frye is President and CEO of Water Street Solutions, a farm consulting firm that helps farmers with the challenges they face in growing and improving their farms – including the challenge of transitioning the farming operation to the next generation. Contact them at or call (866) 249-2528.

Other considerations include the use of practices that do not suppress the immune system, such as low-stress handling methods. Supporting the immune system through the use of a sound nutrition program is also advisable. The timely marketing of older animals whose immune systems could be comprised because of age is another possibility. A killed, provisional use anaplasmosis vaccine is currently being produced at Louisiana State University. This vaccine was a federally licensed product at one time, but a change in marketing strategy by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company removed it from the market. The vaccine is reported to not prevent infection by A. marginale, but will reduce the clinical signs of the disease. The state veterinarian must authorize use of this vaccine. Numerous anecdotal reports exist that support the use of this vaccine, but because of lack of a current federal license, good clinical efficacy studies do not support its use. Once again, more questions need to be answered. Anaplasmosis control strategies vary greatly across this country. A number of beef producers in Florida do not use CTC nor do they use the LSU vaccine, yet they do not experience major problems with the disease. They are, however, in a sub-tropical environment where disease vectors are present year-round. Many California beef producers do not use CTC, but they utilize the LSU vaccine as well as an intrastate only vaccine, depending on the prevalence in their herd. They are also diligent in their efforts to control vectors. I encourage each of you to think outside the box for ways to control anaplasmosis while reducing the use of CTC. The availability of antibiotics in the U.S. is not going to improve nor is the consumer acceptance of the use of antibiotics in food producing animals. Let’s put on our thinking caps! —Dr. David Rethorst is director of outreach for The Beef Cattle Institute at Kansas State University.

JUNE 2016



Solving the Herd Health Puzzle Calf immunity begins before weaning Story By Rebecca Mettler for Cattlemen’s News


erd health on a cow-calf operation can be likened to a complicated puzzle with many pieces. But, when the border pieces go in first, the inside ones fall in place more easily. Genetics, reproduction, respiratory disease and colostrum are all pieces of the puzzle and should be precisely evaluated to determine their impact on herd health and performance. One of the main goals for cowcalf producers is to produce a healthy weaned calf that is ready to respond favorably once sent to the next stage in beef production — whether that is to a stocker/backgrounder or the feedyard. The immunity at weaning is determined by whether a specific disease has been vaccinated for on a farm or ranch. And as we all know, weaning is the most stressful time in a calf’s life. “Even if you don’t have many diseases on the ranch, and if the calf looks good and weans off good, if you take that calf to a stocker or backgrounder the disease challenges go up,” said Doug Ensley, technical services veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedia, Inc. However, preparation for a disease challenge at the calf’s new home does not involve a quick vaccination as it’s loaded onto the semi trailer. Developing an appropriate level of immunity at weaning starts long before the calf hits the weaning pen.

Puzzle Piece #1: Timing of Reproductive Vaccinations A live, healthy calf starts with a good vaccination protocol for the cows, including proper reproductive vaccination. The best time for reproductive vaccinations is prior to breeding season for protection against many reproductive diseases including bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), IBR and leptospirosis, which among other complications, can cause early embryonic loss, abortions and infertility, according to Ensley. For convenience’ sake, producers have the option to wait un-


JUNE 2016

til after weaning during preg check to vaccinate for reproductive diseases, but it’s not the most ideal timing. “We have a lot of vaccines that have good 365-day protection and duration of immunity but on the other side of that, if we have a pretty severe challenge up front at breeding, that can be an factor,” Ensley said. “So the best time for reproductive vaccinations is up front.” When starting a new vaccination protocol, producers need to speak with their local veterinarian, but a few general rules do apply for reproductive disease vaccination. “If I’m using a modified-live and especially in naive heifers, give the vaccination at least 30 to 45 days prior to breeding,” Ensley said. “If they’ve seen multiple doses of modifiedlive, I’ve seen studies at 10 days prior to breeding and had good conception rates, but only if they’ve had multiple modifiedlive vaccinations.” Ensley defines multiple doses of modified-live as at least two doses after seven months of age.

Puzzle Piece #2: Young Calf Health “If a calf doesn’t get good colostrum, they are at a 5.4 times greater risk of death prior to weaning, and data through the feedyard says that those calves that didn’t get good colostrum didn’t perform as well as the calves that got good colostrum intake,” Ensley said.

EVALUATE Genetics • Colostrom Reproduction • Respiratory Disease to determine their impact on herd health and performance. Even with all of that said, young calf health also can be bolstered with disease prevention through vaccination. Previously, vaccination before the colostridial antibodies were gone was not recommended— colostridial antibodies are present until roughly seven months of age. However, a study with the use of Pyramid® 5+Presponse® was tested to evaluate the level of protection against a bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) challenge after receiving a vaccination at four to five weeks old. The calves were then challenged with BVD after seven months of age, which was when the colostridial antibodies were gone. The study determined that calves receiving colostrum and vaccinations had only mild or no clinical disease. Calves that did or did not receive colostrum and were not vaccinated developed severe disease, with a mortality rate of 33 to 50 percent, according to the study notes.

“This means that the vaccine, not the colostridial antibodies protected those calves against a BVD challenge,” Ensley said. “Now I know that I can protect those calves and vaccinate them early to protect them against a challenge.”

Puzzle Piece #3: Early Calf Vaccination Contrary to the traditional vaccination schedule of pre-weaning vaccination three weeks prior to weaning with a booster at weaning, it is possible to vaccinate calves with a modifiedlive vaccine at 60 days of age and then again at weaning. “We need to think how we can move that immunity up so when the calf meets those different challenges, we are in better shape and can be successful,” Ensley said. Studies show that an early vaccination with a modified-live vaccine at 60 days old, with a minimum of 30 days of age, provides good exposure and response to the vaccine with some added memory to fall back on when vaccinated at a later point in the calf’s life, according to Ensley. “I have a window,” Ensley said. “After 30 days old, it gives me protection until weaning.” Improved herd health can ensure the opportunity for each calf raised to meet its genetic potential. Calf immunity is something that should be on producer’s minds months before the first bawling calf walks into the weaning pen.

management matters

Setting Sights on the Future Heat stress research, drones among technological advancements on horizon Story By Lisa Henderson for Cattlemen’s News


odern consumers want assurances that the beef they buy for their families is raised under appropriate animal welfare guidelines. Toward that end, researchers are continuously seeking methods to improve animal care at every stage of production.

Tackling Heat Stress

ly reflective and chemically inert,” says Steve Bartle, research director at the BCI. “It is also the same substance that is approved for use in feeds, food coloring and sunscreens.” The K-State experiment used feedlot heifers (n = 30, 29 black and 1 red; 591 lbs +/- 60.8 lbs) to evaluate the theory of a reflective coating. Using randomly assigned heifers, the coating was applied on the dorsal midline with an electronic airless sprayer except for the area over

Animal scientists have long known heat stress can have serious animal welfare and economic implications for feedlot cattle. Former University of Nebraska animal scientist Terry Mader conducted research that documented feedlot cattle losses due to heat stress have exceeded 5,000 head in seven of the last 20 years, and non-death costs are estimated at five to 10 times greater than death loss- Unmanned aerial vehicles like this one shown at a University of Missouri farm field day could es. Environmen- help farmers and ranchers improve animal care tal conditions and performance in the future. — Photo from including ambi- University of Missouri College of Agriculture. ent temperature, humidity, wind and solar radiation can affect the shoulders, which served as a control. To continuously heat load. record internal body temperaNew research at Kansas State ture, vaginal thermometers University (K-State) is aimed attached to blank CIDRs were at reducing the negative ef- inserted into six heifers in each fects of heat stress. Results treatment. published by the Beef Cattle Institute at K-State shows that Heat stress can cause various coating cattle hides with a re- problems, including reduced flective substance might signif- breeding efficiency, weight icantly reduce the heat stress gain, feed intake and even of the cattle. The experiment death. “Using a reflective substance on the hide of the cow used titanium oxide coatings. is another way we can look at Cattle with darker hides are reducing heat stress in cattle,” at higher risk for heat stress. Bartle says. Since it is estimated that 75 to experiment proved 77 percent of domestic beef The through the use of an infrared cattle are black, the majority of America’s beef herds could be thermal imaging sensor that vulnerable to heat stress and in areas covered by the reflecproducers are at risk for cattle tive substance, there was a 5.7 to 10.3 greater heat reflectance economic losses. than in the non-covered control The reflective coating used to areas in the shoulder region. reduce the heat stress is “

Kansas State University researchers are hoping to reduce the negative effects of heat stress. Results published by the K-State Beef Cattle Institute shows that coating cattle hides with a reflective substance such as titanium oxide might significantly reduce the heat stress of cattle. — Photo from Kansas State University.

This research has had a conditional patent for the past year, and a full patent has been submitted. Those involved in this study include Elsie McCoy, K-State PhD candidate, Chris Reinhardt, K-State extension feedlot specialist, Dan Thomsen, K-State professor of veterinary medicine and Bartle. “This idea is still an ongoing process, but all data so far has been positive,” Bartle said. “It is early, but we have high hopes going forward.”

Watching from Above Another technology that might provide both feedlot and ranch opportunities is the use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Much of the recent news concerning drones and animal agriculture involves some activist groups who seek ways to criticize animal agriculture and misinform consumers. But, farmers and ranchers are also finding ways to use drones to improve animal care and performance. In Australia, feedlot operators are finding practical applications for the use of drones. According to the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association, the group has enlisted the expertise of chief pilot and managing director Rob Gilmour from Hummingbird Drone Solutions, to outline the practical application of drones and how they can positively impact cattle feeding.

for drone use in a feedlot are many, including using highdefinition imagery to monitor cattle in the pens and the monitoring of water tanks and feed bunks. “I believe drones will, over the next 3-5 years, become a reliable tool for feedlots to conduct remote inspections,” Gilmour said. A report from RnR Market Research in March suggests the worldwide market for drones is set to explode. Currently, the worldwide market is about $494 million, but RnR expects that to balloon to $3.69 billion by 2022. Agriculture, according to the RnR report, will play a significant role in that growth. The use of cameras on stable flying platforms that are used to help implement precision farming is one of the primary uses. Crop visualization allows farmers better spray control and helps isolate areas in addition to actually letting drones perform the spraying. The RnR report said, “Agricultural drones use automated process to make farming more productive. Drones provide better, more flexible visualization. Smart drone agricultural uses cameras and provides the prospect of trillions of dollars in farming economic growth. Smart commercial drones connect seamlessly and securely to the Internet and to each other.”

Gilmour says the applications JUNE 2016


Trending now

Gadget Gurus

“The sooner we can get stuff baled, cut or planted, the faster it gets up and gets nutrients and water to perform the best,” he said.

Technology finds a place in daily farm life

Precision pays

Story By Austin Black for Cattlemen’s News

Onstott farms with his brother and dad in a diversified operation with cattle, hogs and row crops. Their main use of technology is in their row crop operation. Precision soil sampling and a GPS yield monitor is their mainstay. “We run fertilizer variable rate according to the soil samples,” Onstott said. “We’ll do that every other year.”


arming relies on technology more than ever. Barton County Missouri cattlemen T.J. Onstott and Brett Todd say it helps them save money and time on their operations. From smartphone apps to precision agronomy technology, purchasing and management decisions are completed more quickly and easily.

There’s an app for that Todd’s family operates a beef cattle and row crop farm. His favorite device to use on the farm is his phone, which helps him communicate with others and access the Internet while he’s away from home. He also uses several apps to help make management decisions.

sion Cattle Calculator app helps him determine how to feed them. “I use it to see how much feed to put out for the feeder calves to get the right gain and help them perform,” he said. The app tells him the amount of feed needed and how long the calves need to be fed to reach the desired weight. “Instead of keeping them three months, you can keep them for two months and use less feed,” he said. Todd spends about an hour each day on his phone, but saves time doing so. The information he gets makes him more efficient.

After harvest, Onstott uses the yield monitor data to estimate his nutrient removal rate. This helps determine how much fertilizer to spread in the fall. Between the two applications, he maintains proper nutrient levels in his fields year-round.

While his family has incorporated technology in their operation for a long time, it took a few years for them to see a return. “There for a long time, we were using GPS on equipment that cost a lot of money but wasn’t making anymore,” Onstott said. “We have enough stuff in place that it’s saving us money now.”

Onstott sees records and data contributing to producer’s success. “If you keep good enough records, you can probably tell what cows are performing best on certain grasses and be able to cut the bad ones out of the herd,” he said.

When he’s in the field, Todd uses the Calf Book app on his phone to document all the information. Then he enters it on the computer when he gets home.

JUNE 2016

Combining soil sampling and variable rate fertilizer has proven beneficial for the operation. “We’re saving money and putting fertilizer where the field yields more,” Onstott said.

Both men see technological advancements in the beef industry just around the corner. “Guys can get on their phones now and watch a video sale,” Todd said. He thinks drones will find a place with producers as a way to remotely check their cattle. “They’re gonna be more helpful to keep an eye on the herd when you’re not there,” he said.

To help manage his cattle operation, Todd uses his phone and computer to keep herd records. “I keep a spreadsheet to track vaccines, when the bull was turned in, when he was pulled out and what each calf is when it’s born,” he said.


“There was a foliar product we started using last summer,” Onstott explained. “We had an airplane spray it across our corn. We sprayed perpendicular across the corn, and you could tell where he sprayed by watching the yield monitor.”

Both Todd and Onstott say they are early adopters of new technology. “You have to use it to see how it will work,” Todd said. He likes to research products and visit with folks to get their opinion. But ultimately, he wants to try it himself. “Everything works different for everyone,” Todd said. “If I can get ahold of it, I do. If it works while I’m using it, I’ll probably get it,” he said.

“I use the Weather Channel app to see if we can mow hay or if we’ll have enough drying days,” Todd said. In addition to putting up their own hay, his family custom bales for farmers in the area. The weather can be unpredictable, and Todd relies on the app to help him decide when to be in the field. He also uses the Joplin Regional Stockyards app to monitor the markets. This keeps him updated on cattle, corn and soybean futures as well as the current JRS market.

Todd keeps some of his calves back at weaning and backgrounds them before selling. The Mississippi State Exten-

“Yield monitors in general have been pretty awesome tools for us,” he said.

Precision soil sampling and a GPS yield monitor help TJ, Rodney and Ed Onstott capitalize on technology in their farming operation. The trio operates a row crop, cattle and hog operation in Barton County Missouri. — Photo by Jillian Campbell.


On the Cutting Edge Technology gives producers competitive advantage Story By Jillian Campbell for Cattlemen’s News


ike everything else in our world, technology has its pros and cons. It has developed our nation into something an older generation is amazed to observe. Some look at computers in awe and are thrilled to Skype their grandchildren from miles away. Others scoff at the idea of purchasing a smartphone when they could simply write a letter or talk in person. In the world of agriculture, technology has changed vastly. From John Deere’s first plow in 1837 to smart tractors in 2016, technology is changing the way we perform in the agriculture industry and the farming community. Jeff Silvey and Ryan Thater are cattlemen who have welcomed technology into their busy lives, saving time and work.

pencil to put it down, keep track of it, change it and keep notes that way, which I’m sure a lot of guys still do. I just get a spreadsheet to see what’s going on. That way I can go back through to check the cows with the calves. It shows who is bred and open.” Keeping information up-todate also helps Thater with his farm insurance needs. “You can go off of tags so much and then you can tattoo, brand, freeze-brand, and you can write it all down, but if you can take a picture and put a tag number with it, you’re pretty well narrowing it down. For insurance purposes, it’s perfect,” he explained.

From cell phone to laptop computer to smart tractors, Ryan Thater relies heavily on technology on his commercial Angus operation. — Photo by Jillian Campbell.

gives him grief about his cell phone and laptop, Thater hasn’t changed his opinion about the benefits of using technology on the farm. “It’s your benefit,” he said. “If you don’t want to use it, that’s your deal, but it can help you out so much.” Thater isn’t alone in his beliefs on technology. Jeff Silvey admits technology assists him with 60 to 75 percent of his average work day. Like Thater, Silvey uses his cellphone and Google on a regular basis to answer basic farming questions.

Thater, a 33-year-old commercial Angus producer from Southwest Missouri, relies heavily on technology as an information source. He finds it helpful to use the National Association of Securities Dealers and Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) source on his cell phone to view cattle futures and beef market fluctuations. For daily events, Thater goes to Facebook. He is able to check his email and social media regularly through the use of two cellphones and a laptop. “As bad as I hate to say it, I probably use it (technology) more than I’d like to admit,” Thater said. “I keep on top of it pretty regularly.” Technology is especially helpful to Thater when it comes to the important task of record keeping. He keeps track of more than 300 head of cattle, so for him, record keeping is a must. Thater uses computer spreadsheets to enter information such as calf birthdates and identification numbers as well as health records. “I just try to keep track of (the cattle) the best I can,” Thater said. “It’s still kind of old school technology, but it works. It’s better than using paper and

Jeff Silvey says technology helps him as much as 75 percent of his daily activities, saving him valuable time. — Photo by Jillian Campbell.

Thater uses a variety of equipment technology to assist him with beef and hay production. In addition to his truck and DewEze bale bed, fourwheeler and portable corral system, the young cattleman utilizes two smart John Deere tractors, a Silencer chute and a 900-gallon Demco sprayer. Although his father jokingly

At 41, Silvey enjoys the amount of time he saves with the use of today’s technology. “I guess I’m just a child of the 70s and the 80s, but I’m kind of used to using an encyclopedia for certain things, so being able to have an iPhone and an iPad makes it extremely nice for us,” Silvey said.

Some of Silvey’s favorite technology is located within his cattle working facility. He purchased a Silencer hydraulic squeeze chute in March 2015 and has since saved countless hours working cattle. “I love it,” Silvey said. “It’s fast and easy. If anyone doesn’t have a hydraulic chute and they have numbers, even if they don’t have numbers, you’ve gotta have one.”

Like Thater, Silvey believes it is necessary to use technology to grow in today’s agricultural industry. “Step up,” he said. “You’ve got to make changes. If you don’t make changes you are going to be left behind. That’s the thing about it. Times are changing, and I’m not as technical as I should be, but my job makes me be technical. It’s like putting paperwork on a thumb drive. I didn’t know how to do that until two or three years ago.” Silvey finds the use of antibiotics to be one the biggest technological advantages within today’s beef industry. “There’s a whole slew of antibiotics you can give an animal to be able to cure it now, and 25 years ago you went to one thing and now you have 10 different medications you can go to,” he said. “That’s probably what I would say is the biggest advantage to technology.” Although both Thater and Silvey find more advantages than disadvantages in their use of technology on the farm, they understand that all good things are not without flaws. “I think technology has given people way more information than they actually need,” Silvey said. “I think it has made them smarter than what they should be.” While some cattlemen have sworn off anything but a pen and paper, many producers have used technology to give their operation the cutting edge it needs to compete in today’s market.

JUNE 2016



The Drivers of Profitability Finding balance with output and animal performance Story By Rebecca Mettler for Cattlemen’s News


n its most elementary state, profitability in a cow-calf operation comes down to balancing revenue and cost. However, life on the farm or ranch is never that simple. While the basis of the equation is revenue minus cost, it’s the innumerable factors that interject themselves into the simple math to make it much more difficult.

per acre as compared to just thinking about profit per cow, according to Lee Leachman, owner of Leachman Cattle of Colorado.

Diving deeper into profitability means taking a look at profit

Profitably per acre encompasses many factors, but there’s

“The fixed asset is your land,” Leachman said. “Land is not easy to come by and at the end of the day, profitability per acre is a better way to look at it.”

Pounds weaned per cows exposed is thought to be the most important driver in cow-calf profitability. Colorado cattleman Lee Leachman, says the easiest way to increase pounds weaned per cow is to capitalize on the advantage of gains of hybrid vigor through crossbreeding.

one that’s often overlooked. Genetics matter when analyzing the revenue and cost. “If we focus on the cost side, we really haven’t been thinking about genetics, the factory that we are building on our operation” Leachman said. “Is that factory set up to be low-input or high-input, low-cost or highcost.” “Those of us in the genetics business have done really good at getting you bulls that will increase output,” Leachman said. But does access to high-output genetics always equate to increased weaning weights? Leachman cited a study from North Dakota that says it doesn’t. In the study the sire EPDs were going up, but the weaning weights of the calves were not. While the potential for increased weaning weights was present, an increase in animal feed efficiency or an increased amount of forage wasn’t available.

Equations for Profit Perhaps the most important driver of profitability in the cow-calf operation is pounds weaned per cows exposed. The simple formula encompasses each stage of production from conception to weaning and, as Leachman quickly pointed out, the easiest way to increase pounds weaned per cow exposed is by taking advantage of the gains of hybrid vigor through crossbreeding. “If you are trying to select for fertility and longevity, the best tool you have is crossbreeding, CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE


JUNE 2016

DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY FROM PREVIOUS PAGE because those traits are lowly heritable.” Data has shown that crossbreeding can result in 23 percent more pounds weaned per cow exposed. Hybrid vigor is the increase in performance over the average of the parents. Obviously, if a producer utilizes high quality parents they get a better average, but don’t forget about the 23 percent above that average. “Can you afford to give up this 23 percent increase,” Leachman questioned. “I don’t think you can.” The increase can be seen in maternal and individual heterosis. Two and 3-year-olds breed back better as do 9 and 10-yearold cows, plus there is the advantage of weaning a heavier calf. Crossbreeding has been made simple for the vast majority of producers through the creation of hybrid or composite animals. Using hybrid or composite bulls is more simple than trying to maintain the “perfect”

amount of hybrid vigor when using purebred animals. Hybrid or composite breeds will maintain 50 to 75 percent hybrid vigor. “Hybrid vigor only falls off if you line breed. Hybrid vigor depends on the unrelatedness of the parent,” Leachman said.

Back to the Balancing Act Still, cattle producers often must perform a balancing act when it comes to farming and ranching. That case can be made when speaking of output and as it relates to animal performance. “Be careful of chasing output,” Leachman said. “The higher growth animals that wean a heavier weight at a given age don’t do so by converting better, but by eating more. You’ve created a higher input feed requirement in your cows.” It’s easy for producers to ignore the fact that the higher growth mature cows are going to eat more feed and make larger cows. For every 100 pounds the cow goes up in weight, she loses 2.5 percent of her weight in weaning.

Leachman is good at providing food for thought for producers to take back and evaluate in their own operations, but is he asking too much? He’s asking a 1,100-pound cow to wean a 600-pound calf and for the calf to gain four pounds a day and finish with a feed conversion of 4:1, all while topping 70 percent Certified Angus Beef (CAB). Leachman said it’s the use of multi-trait selection indexes that will make this scenario reality. It’s up to producers to evaluate the indexes to make for certain they include all the factors important to the operation’s strategy. This type of economically relevant indexes have traditionally been made available to beef producers via beef cattle breed associations, but Leachman Cattle Company markets bulls with its own collection of multi-trait selection indexes. “It’s not easy,” Leachman said. “The job you have is to have a cow that makes money on your place that produces a calf that is highly demanded in the feedlot, and it’s not an easy thing.”

JUNE 2016



More Beef Get lower stocking rates by increasing feed efficiency Story By Austin Black for Cattlemen’s News


enomic testing gives new insight into cattle selection. Scientists can predict the genetic merit of an animal before it’s produced offspring. This allows producers to improve their herd’s genetics at a faster rate. Dr. Jerry Taylor, University of Missouri genetics professor, is at the forefront of genomic research. His latest study focuses on feed efficiency in cattle. Taylor’s research began in 2011, the result of a substantial USDA grant. “My role has been to coordinate team activities and act as a central warehouse of DNA samples, tissue samples and genotypes on animals,” he said.

you look at per pound of feed consumed,” he said. Both types of animals will eat the same amount of feed and produce the same amount of methane gas. But animals that convert feed efficiently grow faster and produce more beef at slaughter. Thus, using less feed to pro-

dance to achieve a difference in feed efficiency, but the genotype of efficient cattle enables a gut environment that is favorable to microbial populations that permit more efficient rumination and extraction of energy from feed,” he said.

assays have a high allele frequency, which make genotyping easier. “If you assay a few hundred animals, you see animals with all three genotypes, and we can train software to correctly call the genotypes,” Taylor said.

“If we can show that feed efficiency depends on the genotype of the host, then we can just select cattle to be more efficient and they will do it physiologically,” Taylor said. “On the other hand, if we can find ways to modify the rumen proportions of microbes to match what is found in efficient animals, we will have nutritional options for improving the effi-

According to Taylor, the new assay has about 100,000 variants that can change the proteins encoded by the genes. “Many of these are rare variants that only occur at frequencies of about 1 or 2 percent in the population,” Taylor said. Most animals carrying these variants are heterozygous with only one copy of the gene. Thus, his team needs DNA from thousands of animals to get enough homozygous chromosomes. The research team combined animal genotypes from different genomic projects to gather enough information. They currently have 18,300 animals genotyped using the new assay. After training the program to identify the genotypes, the team enters DNA into a database. The final step is analyzing the data to find variants that affect growth, feed intake and feed efficiency.

Eleven institutions comprise the research team that includes universities, research centers and genomic Researchers at the University of Missouri are studying the role genetics plays in cattle companies. Together feed efficiency. Dr. Jerry Taylor’s research is the result of a USDA grant, which he hopes they have worked to will improve land utilization and meat production. —Photo by Joann Pipkin. identify nutritional “In the next year or and genetic compotwo, once we are connents of feed efficiency. fident in our results, we can migrate those (variants) to “The interest is looking at im- duce more beef, those animals ciency of animals.” industry chips and allow the proving land utilization and produce less methane gas per Taylor’s team also discovered industry to compute estimates meat production. Feed effi- pound of beef.  “We know that that feed efficiency has a high of genetic merit for efficiency ciency affects both of those,” reducing greenhouse gases is and intake regardless of breed going to take a lot of work. In- heritability. Taylor said. type,” Taylor said. creasing feed efficiency helps,” While that study was schedThe initial procedure involved Taylor said. uled to finish the end of April His goal is to produce tools that feeding animals and collectthis year, the team received help producers make more ing individual feed intake and One of the research groups, an additional grant and a one- money and reduce methane DNA samples. “Our original the U.S. Meat Animal Research year extension to complete the emissions. objective was to put together Center, examined the effect genetic research. They have a set of 8,000 animals that rep- of microbial bugs on feed efbuilt a new genotyping assay, “Looking at the cowherd, if resented common breeds in ficiency. “They found there the GGP-F250, which contains we’re selecting to produce the U.S. beef industry,” Taylor was no difference between functional DNA variants. The more efficient steers in the said. The team combined actu- high- and low-efficiency aniteam hopes to use the assay to early growing and late finishal feed intake data with animal mals in terms of the number identify some of the variants ing phase, (those cows) will genotypes to estimate herita- of microbe species present that directly affect feed effi- produce heifer counterparts bility. The goal was creating within the jejunum,” Taylor that are more maintenance efciency. equations that predicted the said. However, the relative ficient,” he said. animal’s genetic merit for feed proportions of different spe- Taylor said the assay was difficies varied between the two cult to build. Many of the vari- Feed-efficient animals can efficiency. animal groups. Prior studies ants in the new assay are low lower stocking rates, which alThe study’s results confirm pri- suggest the host’s DNA has lows producers to raise more frequency in cattle breeds. or work done on greenhouse variants that alter the proporbeef with fewer resources. Adgases. “We’ve found that there tion of microbes.  “To this point, the industry has ditional product without inis essentially no difference in used assays that primarily in- creased cost means more profmethane production in high- “Maybe it isn’t simply that the clude common (genetic) vari- it for producers. and low-efficiency animals if microbes differ in their abun- ants,” he said. SNP’s in these


JUNE 2016

Trending now

The Right Side of Right Forrest and Charlotte Lucas share Protect the Harvest message on the big screen Story By Joann Pipkin, Editor


heir shield says it all. Whether guarding our food supply or preserving our right to ownership, Protect the Harvest is all animals, agriculture and educating the public about the industry that feeds it. Founded in 2011 by oil company owner Forrest Lucas, the Indiana native is passionate about fighting for a good cause. Lucas’ wife Charlotte recalls a time in 2010 when they learned of a proposition to be placed on the Missouri voters’ ballot aimed directly at people with animals.

The Lucas’ are steadfast in their passion not only in fighting for a good cause, but also in their love of animals. And, the couple works diligently to share that zest. Protect the Harvest, under Forrest Lucas’ PROTECT THE HARVEST STYLE GUIDELINES To reinforce and strengthen brand recognition, all guidelines guidance, guards on this sheet should be followed at all times. against animal rights groups who SHIELD LOGO want to end meat Charlotte and Forrest Lucas, founders of Protect the Harconsumption, halt vest have a passion for sharing animals and educating the consumer access public about agriculture. — Submitted photo. to affordable food, eliminate all hunting practices, and PROTECT THE HARVEST MISSION outlaw rodeos, circuses and pet ownership. INFORM America’s consumers, businesses and decision-makers about the threats posed by animal rights groups and antifarming extremists. Ali Afshar and Christina Pantone # 4975 CMYK: 50_70_80_70 RGB: 60_36_21

Pantone # BLACK CMYK: 50_50_50_100 RGB: 35_31_32

Pantone # 728 CMYK: 25_40_65_0 RGB: 196_154_108


on black background

Moore (left and center) play in the movie The Dog Lover. Protect the Harvest founder Forrest Lucas (right) produced the movie with Afshar to help tell the story of animal agriculture. — Photo by Joann Pipkin

one color

for embroidery

PROTECT our freedoms and way of life by creating lasting legal safeguards for farmers, hunters, anglers and animal TEXT ONLYranchers, LOGO owners. Pantone # 4975 CMYK: 50_70_80_70 RGB: 60_36_21

Pantone # 124 CMYK: 0_27_100_7 RGB: 236_177_17

RESPOND to the activities of radical groups by opposing their Pantone # 728 CMYK: 25_40_65_0 RGB: 196_154_108

Pantone # BLACK CMYK: 50_50_50_100 RGB: 35_31_32

efforts to pass laws or enact regulations that would restrict our rights, limit our freedoms, and hinder our access to safe, affordable food. Pantone # 1955 CMYK: 28_100_71_25 RGB: 148_25_56

Forrest has had a lifelong —Source: association with the agriculture industry, onworking told heronehusband. “Wefor embroidery need movie will also be available on black background color on a cattle farm in his teens to let this be told in a story so DVD at Wal-Mart and other reto help support his family. more people will know what’s tail outlets beginning July 12. happening and see what’s hapDuring one of Lucas Oil’s annu- pening.” Charlotte Lucas is hopeful The al company picnics where they Dog Lover makes a difference host many of their partners, Not knowing much about the for dog breeders and for agbusiness associates and race film business, Forrest Lucas riculture. The movie tells the teams at their California-based would partner with Afshar to story of an animal rights accorporate office, Ali Afshar produce the movie The Dog tivist who goes undercover at asked Forrest to share with him Lover: the Wrong Side of Right. a large-scale dog-breeding opthe Protect the Harvest mes- The movie is being released eration in order to expose it for sage. Lucas’ role in animal ad- across the U.S. in select cities potential corruption, but finds vocacy took took a new turn. and on Video on Demand on something else entirely. It stars July 8. Two showings will take James Remar, Lea Thompson, “We need to tell more people,” place at the Gillioz Theatre Allison Paige and Jayson Blair, Charlotte Lucas said Afshar in Springfield, Missouri. The and is directed by Alex Ranarivelo. GRAY FOR VIEWING ONLY.

The owner of Missouri-based Lucas Cattle Company jumped on the bandwagon to fight Proposition B, which would have allowed the animal rights movement and the Humane Society of the United States to attack the state’s food producers, pet and livestock owners. “We were concerned that (Prop B proponents) were defrauding people to get money,” Charlotte Lucas explains. “And, that they were not using it for what they said they were using it for.” She said the group also wanted to completely stop all animal reproduction. “For the most part, these radical animal groups don’t tell both sides,” Lucas said. “They tell the gruesome side of one part of it, but they don’t tell you what the opposite side is going to be for the animal if their program is allowed to go forward.”

WANT TO GO? WHAT: The Dog Lover: The Wrong Side of Right, movie release WHEN: July 8, 2016 • 3 p.m. & 7 p.m. WHERE: Gillioz Theatre, Springfield, Missouri MORE FUN: After Party: 8:45-Midnight

Ozark Empire Fairgrounds, E-Plex Springfield, Missouri MORE INFO:

“I hope all of our movies have a message in them to make people realize while they’re watching it and say ‘wait a minute, that’s not what I heard,’” Lucas said. “We want (movie goers) to think a little bit longer and do some research, find out for sure whether they’re on the right side or not.”

JUNE 2016



Outside-the-Box Technology Think beyond computers and cell phones Story By Elizabeth Walker for Cattlemen’s News


or my husband and I, technology can sometimes be a dirty word. For example, the husband spent more time than he intended talking with our cell phone provider because of the number of dropped calls we had experienced. Of course, that call never had a problem. Murphy struck and the very next call he made dropped several times. Technology is only as good as the folks using it — and I guess geography. The value of technology is relative. For example, what good is a smartphone if we don’t have reliable coverage? What good is an electronic scale without electricity? We have a new assistant professor at Missouri State University, Dr. Phillip Lancaster,

and since he is younger than I am, I asked him about technology. We began by talking about the pros and cons of technology. As we discussed, a dart gun is a great tool for treating an individual animal, but only if used correctly. In Beef Quality Assurance trainings, we are reminded that needles get broken in the hide of an animal; that animal should be taken to a veterinarian so that the broken needle can be removed. While the dart gun can save a producer time, can decrease stress on animals, and possibly prevent a whole host of issues, it, like all technology, must be used wisely and with caution.

As I look over my desk, I see mounds of papers, binders, books and pamphlets. Most of these have cows, farms, grass and pigs on their front covers. Technology comes in many forms including new information. Technology and information does us no good if we refuse to consider its merits and/or determine if or how we can use it. My advisee, Micheal Hickinbotham, has been a great resource to me. He is always out grabbing informational booklets about beef cattle, and he always brings a copy for me. I have a stack of stuff on my desk that has all been acquired via Micheal. We have information at our fingertips, yet how many of us use it? In a previous article, I said, “Knowledge is certainly a tool necessary for the 21st Century.” With price fluctuations of cattle and inputs, knowledge is the one thing that perhaps has the lowest investment, but deepest possible returns. Michael is excited about cattle and the beef industry. Yesterday, he asked me to follow him to his truck so he could show me his new ice chest.

Yes, an ice chest is included as technology, at least to me. This wasn’t your ordinary ice chest. Nope, this ice chest had holes on the top so you could put your pistol grip syringes in them. Hence, your medicines could be kept cool while you are out working cattle. Technology doesn’t have to be fancy; it has to be practical and helpful. Keeping expensive medicines and vaccines at the proper temperature to ensure they work properly is the type of technology that some of us might find useful. The size of your herd should influence your investments in technology. The average cattle herd in Missouri ranges from 30 to 40 head. If we look at raising cattle as a business, we have to make smart investments that can be paid for by the cattle and/or other farming enterprise. Technology shouldn’t be about prestige of ownership; it should be about the value to your business. The last thing I am going to mention on technology might be a stretch – even more so than a cool ice chest. Michael CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Replacement Cow & Bull Sale

6 p.m. | Thurs. | June 16, 2016 Joplin Regional Stockyards | I-44 & Exit 22 | Carthage, Missouri

Expecting 700 head of cows and several bulls Call your field rep or the JRS office today to consign! All bulls must be semen and trich tested

JRS Office | 417-548-2333 Tan is 7505c (0c, 70m, 30y, 55k) Red is Pantone 186 (0c,100m, 81y, 4k) Jackie Moore | 417-825-0948 Joplin Regional is Knomen Stockyards is Playbill Tagline is BaskertonSW-Italic

20 JUNE 2016

Bailey Moore | 417-540-4343 Skyler Moore | 417-737-2615


Heifer Prices Remain Robust Joplin SMS sale averages $2,236


uality beef heifers showed price strength in the ShowMe-Select Replacement Heifer Sale, Friday, May 20. The 291bred heifers averaged $2,236 at Joplin Regional Stockyards. The sale high was $3,200 per head. “There’s never been a larger spread in prices paid for heifers carrying AI (artificial insemination) sired calves compared to heifers with bull-sired pregnancies,” said Dave Patterson, University of Missouri Extension beef specialist. AI pregnancies brought $496 more. The price spread was greater, $679, for Tier Two heifers. Those are daughters of superior AI sires, bred to proven ShowMe-Select approved AI sires.

OUTSIDE-THE-BOX TECHNOLOGY FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Hickinbotham and the young men and women like him, are technological resources that must be utilized in our beef cattle industry. The next generation of farmers and ranchers and the information, passion and work ethic they bring should be respected and valued. Having a Michael around teaching me things, showing me things, and sharing his passion for the industry is a resource that I have valued over the past years. I hope everyone finds at least one Michael in their life and takes the time to learn from the younger generation. Working with our next generation is truly the technology we can all use, regardless of the size of the herd we run, the land we manage, or the business we operate. Just like a dart gun, we can misuse the next generation and instead of taking your cow to a veterinarian, you sell the farm to a stranger. —Elizabeth Walker is associate professor of animal science at Missouri State University.

“In declining cattle markets, its clear buyers choose to pay more for high quality heifers,” Patterson said.

The high average paid to a farm was $3,028 per head for Shiloh Land & Cattle Co., Darrel and Anita Franson, Mount Vernon. Second-high average of $2,523 went to John Wheeler, Marionville, for 57 head of black, white-face, heifers. This was Wheeler’s 24th SMS sale. Wheeler sold the sale-high lot. The five heifers went to Michael Scarlett of Billings. Gilmore Farms, Aurora was third high average with $2507 on 15 heifers. Fourth-high average of $2,433 went to Don Hounschell, Stark City. His 24 black white-face and black heifers included 11 Tier Two. He added a new level of quality with Show-Me Plus heifers with genomic enhanced EPDs (expected progeny differences). The DNA test results go with heifers sold. All consignors enroll in the year-long management and breeding program. That includes genetics, reproduction, pre-breeding exams, and at least three veterinary exams. SMS also covers health, nutrition and body condition of heifers. Standards continue to rise with new technology. The latest upgrade is genetically-enhanced EPDs. Breeding is more precise with DNA. —Source: Duane Dailey, University of Missouri Cooperative Extension.

JUNE 2016



There’s an App for That Get tech-savvy to increase productivity Story By Brittni Drennan for Cattlemen’s News


f you aren’t quite as tech-savvy as you’d like to be and are asking yourself what an app is, let’s start with the basics. An application (app) is a selfcontained program used to make computer functions and tasks simpler. In many ways apps can increase efficiency, and many of these apps have been designed specifically for farmers and cattle producers. Suited for mobile use, these apps are available for download on smartphones and/or tablets, streamlining tasks on the go. In an environment where producers are pressured to do more with less, apps can help increase productivity, lower costs and allow decisions to be made more quickly. Technology also compiles materials and resources into one device, eliminating the need for carrying around pen and paper. A producer can synchronize data from the field straight to his computer. The Joplin Regional Stockyards app, JRS Mobile, provides futures market reports for live cattle, feeder cattle, corn and soybeans as well as market recap reports for Joplin Regional Stockyards’ feeder cattle and cow and bull auctions. In addition, the app shares trending news, a calendar of events and a feature to locate a JRS representative. All of this in one app. Download it today and give it a try. Every cattlemen should have at least five apps – an app that provides futures markets, a weather app, a GPS app, an app for record keeping and a herd management app. Most apps are available for free or a small fee. Be sure to read the details and reviews before purchasing an app. It is also recommended to download two or three apps, particularly if they are free, to test them out and see which ones are most accommodating and user-friendly.

Markets JRS Mobile does more than provide futures market reports for

22 JUNE 2016

live cattle, feeder cattle, corn and soybeans. The app also provides the latest news from USDA and Drovers CattleNetwork. App users can also stay up-to-date on sales and events at Joplin Regional Stockyards and locate a JRS field representative. The app is free to users. Beef Market Central provides real-time futures market reports and instantly compares auction prices by state, location or region. Users also have the option to customize feeder cattle reports. This app is also free. CattleFax allows producers to follow futures markets, browse cattle prices, view industry news and check weather forecasts in one place. It’s free for users. Track prices on commodity futures and options with the KIS Futures app and view a detailed snapshot of multiple commodities markets. Reviews boast the app’s functionality and user-friendliness. A $1.99 fee is charged for downloading and using the app.

Weather Everyone involved in agriculture could use a weather app. All weather apps are not created equal, but they do forecast the weather. Most have interactive maps with a radar feature and will include the option to notify the user of severe weather conditions. Some will even report soil temperatures and moisture, rainfall accumulation and wind speed like the Mesonet in Oklahoma. Examples of some good weather apps are The Weather Channel, AccuWeather, WeatherBug, NOAA and a local weather station app.

GPS Apps (with ability to measure distances and area) The key with GPS apps is the ability to measure distances and area. Brody Wallis, a cowcalf producer in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, said the Planimeter app for $7.99 is helpful in determining supply costs.

Phone applications are available to assist cattlemen with everything from the weather forecast to record keeping.

“It is very handy for quickly measuring a prospective new fence line, for ordering fencing materials or measuring an unknown area for something like a fertilizer or herbicide application,” Wallis said. “It is also GPS-enabled so you can drive or walk a perimeter of something and drop pins to show distances and area.” Farm Sprayer GPS uses the phone’s GPS to track position and movement in the field while spraying to helps maintain straight lines and prevent overlapping application or missed areas. The Farm Sprayer app has a $6.99 user fee.

Record Keeping With numerous options available for record keeping, these apps help collect, manage and organize business using multiple data points and categories. Whether keeping track of the calves, the herd or receipts and expenses, these apps can be advantageous for record keeping. Find one that works best with the operation’s needs. Some apps require additional computer software and/or equipment. The Cattle Tags app, for example, is only compatible with the Allflex RS420 EID Reader. The highest rated and most recommended record-keeping apps are CowCalf, The Calving Book, Farm and Ranch Record Keeping, iHerd, Calf Book, Ranch Manager and Cattle Tags.

Herd Management The ORIgen Beef and Trans Ova apps both provide gestation calculators and allow users to view the embryo/semen

inventory as well as heat synchronization protocols. Both apps are free. According to developers, the Bovine Estrus Synchronization app was designed to help producers select and implement an effective and efficient estrus synchronization method. The app enters preferences, and the app recommends a program, generates a supply list, calculates calving date, and sets reminders. Cost is $14.99. AI Cowculator assists in determining the cost of artificial insemination (AI) based on producer inputs. Using the producer’s location, the app will locate product suppliers and provide educational resources and outlets. It’s free of charge. Countless apps are available to assist with other functions on the operation such as weed identification, fertilizer calculators, nutrient-removal calculators, feed cost calculator, stocking rate calculator, body condition scoring, and service and parts manuals for machinery. Cow-calf producers also have the option to use breed association apps available to identify which breeding sires are available and would be useful for the herd, and several land grant universities and extension programs have apps available as well. To get started using these apps, search for the app title in the iTunes App Store if using an iPhone or in Google Play for Android users. Then, download the app to the device. Click on the icon to open and begin using the app.

JUNE 2016



JRS Sale Day Market Phone: (417) 548-2012 Mondays (Rick Huffman) | Wednesdays (Don Kleiboeker) Market Information Provided By Tony Hancock Mo. Department of Agriculture Market News Service Market News Hotline (573) 522-9244 Sale Day Market Reporter (417) 548-2012

Joplin Regional Stockyards Market Recap | Feeder Cattle & Calf Auction May 2016 • Receipts 17,753 | Last Month 24,603 | Last Year 15,481 Video Markets from 5/06/16 • Total Video Receipts 2,573 head

Tune in to the JRS Market Report

Monday 12:15 p.m. Wednesday 12:15 p.m.

24 JUNE 2016

Monday 12:40 p.m. Wednesday 12:40 p.m.

M-F 9:55-10:05 a.m. (during break before AgriTalk) M/W/F Noon Hour (during Farming in the Four States) T/Th Noon Hour (after news block)

Monday 11:30 a.m. Wednesday 11:30 a.m. Monday 11:45 a.m. Wednesday 11:45 a.m.

Monday 11:38 a.m. Wednesday 11:38 a.m.

Monday 12:50 p.m. & 4:45 p.m. Wednesday 12:50 p.m. & 4:45 p.m.


Teagarden Back as Territory Manager in Missouri for Merck



Regional Grazing School Crowder Collge, Neosho, Missouri FMI: 417-451-1007, ext. 3


6 p.m. Special Cow and Bull Sale

elcome Steve Teagarden back to Missouri Joplin Regional Stockyards, Carthage, Missouri as a territory manager for Merck Animal FMI: 417-548-233323 Health. Steve is a 3023 Value-Added Feeder Calf Sale year veteran in the Joplin Regional Stockyards, Carthage, Missouri animal health indus FMI: 417-548-2333 try, bringing a wealth 30 6 p.m. Lawrence County 4-H Steer Carcass Evaluation of knowledge to the Cloud’s Meats, Carthage, Missouri cattle producers of FMI: 417-466-3102 Missouri. Steve’s pasJuly sion is working with 1 Special Video Sale cattle producers to Joplin Regional Stockyards, Carthage, Missouri help them be more FMI: 417-548-2333 profitable in their re21-23 Gold Buckle Extravaganza spective sector of the Ozark Empire Fairgrounds, Springfield, Missouri cattle business. Steve FMI: 417-833-2660 has spent the last eight 28-8/6 Ozark Empire Fair years in the corporate Ozark Empire Fairgrounds, Springfield, Missouri office of Merck as mar FMI: 417-833-2660 keting manager for Safeguard and Merck’s grass implants Ralgro and August Special Video Sale Revalor G as well as fly control products. If you 1 Joplin Regional Stockyards, Carthage, Missouri have not met Steve, look forward to seeing him FMI: 417-548-2333 around your area soon.

JUNE 2016



Semen Tested Trich Testing on Request




5 • Purebred Angus bulls sired by EXAR Blue Chip 1 • Purebred Angus bull sired by Bushs Unbelievable 1 • Purebred Angus bull sired by Tombstone 1 • Purebred Angus bull sired by EXAR Classen 1 • Purebred Angus bull sired by Insight 1 • SimAngus bull sired by Broker

Call MARK MORIONDO • 417.366.1249

What is CowBos™?

CowBos™ is a free-choice liquid feed supplement fed in open-top troughs supplying protein, energy and trace minerals in optimal proportions for maximum performance. CowBos™ increases microbial yield, efficiency and nutrient utilization. CowBos™ Bitter and Sweet are custom blended together on your farm in bi monthly personal deliveries to control consumption matching your specific herd needs and budget! Let us make a no obligation cost/content comparison to anything you are using now. What have you got to lose? You could GAIN time and labor. Be surprised at the value. Call today!

Jim / Mary • 417.350.5878 • | Hi Hopes Farm Neil Bowers 417.398.1928 • | SW Missouri & SE Kansas



Your New Gooseneck Dealer Is:

B & B Sales & Service Bolivar, Missouri 65613





Top of the breed genetics Guaranteed • Longevity Forage-developed • 20 mos. old Many heterosis benefits


Sea Minerals NO MINERALS • NO LIFE Build your organic matter number Buy no fertilizer or chemicals Stimulates life in the soil Organisms farm around the clock

Harriman Santa Fe (Bob) | Montrose, MO 660/492-2504 |


Apply to any growing forage! Free $50 per 50 lb. bag • $1600/ton shipping ton lots 918-367-5146 OR 918-698-5308

FEED & HAY AC-DC Hay Company Specializing in your hay needs

Your Ad Could Be Here Contact Mark Harmon at 417-548-2333 to advertise in


KO Reg. Angus Bulls | AI Bred Heifers Bred Cows & Pairs | Quarter Horses

Trevon 417-366-0363

Kenny 417-466-8176

Need Hay?

Prairie ~ Alfalfa ~ Straw ~ Brome Tony Carpenter 208 North NN Hwy Lamar, MO 64726 Call: 417.448.7883





26 JUNE 2016


I T ’S


Where Did Your $1 Go?


Details at


IMPLANTS BOOST POUNDS IN CALVES AND STOCKERS Pounds pay the bills when the calf crop is sold and when stocker cattle leave pastures for the feedlot. However, over 50 percent of cow/calf and stocker producers could be leaving pounds in the pasture and cash on the table simply by not taking advantage of one of the safest and most profitable management tools available in the beef industry.

Normal healthy implant site


“Implanting has been used in the beef industry since the 1950s, so it’s one of the most widely researched and time-tested technologies we have available. Implants are used in more than 90 percent of feedlot cattle in the U.S. today,1,2 yet fewer than 50 percent of cow/calf and stocker operations are using this highly effective tool,” says Doug Hufstedler, Ph.D., PAS and Elanco technical consultant. In each phase of beef production, implants have been shown to increase rate of gain, live weight and value.3 Grazing-phase implants continue to be one of the most profitable management tools available to beef producers, consistently adding 15 to 40 more pounds of weight gain to cattle, compared to nonimplanted controls.1 With these improvements in production, implants increase value by an average of $15 to $41 per head when used in calves and stocker cattle, respectively.4,5* Most people would never consider walking past a $20 bill laying on the ground, so why leave them lying all over your pasture?

Misconceptions are often barriers to implanting According to Hufstedler, there are several common misconceptions related to implant use in grazing cattle. First, producers may believe that consumer demand for non-implanted or non-hormone treated cattle (NHTC) has created substantially higher premiums. “A few programs may advertise premiums for non-implanted cattle, however, the available premium has to make up for the pounds given up by not implanting,” Hufstedler says. “If you’re paid a premium, make sure the premium per head makes up for the value of the additional pounds you are giving up by not implanting.” Data collected by Superior Livestock from 2011 to 2013 shows the premium was only $1.13/cwt for non-hormone treated calves — not statistically different than the price received for implanted calves.7 “Giving up $40 per head from the additional weight gain on a 700 pound implanted steer to get a non-implanted premium worth only $8 per head doesn’t make much sense,” says Hufstedler.

Defective unhealthy implant site


Implant capsule

A healthy implant site provides optimum blood flow to deliver the active ingredients in the implant to the animal.

Cartilage Implant capsule

A capsule surrounding the infected implant site contains the implant and abscess.

For more detailed implant protocols fit for your operation, work with your Elanco sales representative and Elanco technical consultant. The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow label and use directions. Important Safety Information: A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. DO NOT USE COMPONENT E-C WITH TYLAN IN CALVES LESS THAN 45 DAYS OLD.

Component with Tylan Administer one dose in the ear subcutaneously according to label directions. *Based on grazing implant data presented by Kuhl5 and the calculated value of gain described by Peel6 using current economic data means. 1 Lalman, D. L., et al. 2015. “Cow/calf and stocker implant update.” 2 Botts, Robert. 1996. Synovex Plus technical manual. 3 2013. “The use of growth-promoting implants in U.S. feedlots.” United States Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO. 4 Duckett, S. K. and J. G. Andrae. 2001. “Implant strategies in an integrated beef production system.” J. Anim. Sci. 79:E110. 5 Kuhl, G. L. 1997. “Abstract: stocker cattle responses to Implants.” Oklahoma State University Symposium: Impact of Implants on Performance and Carcass Value of Beef Cattle, 51-62. 6 Peel, D. Plains Nutrition Council 2012. 7 Superior livestock auction data: 2010 to 2013. Data on file. 8 Sharman, E.D., P.A. Lancaster, G. W. Horn, and G. D. Hufstedler. “Effects of energy supplements and a combination grazing implant to performance and carcass characteristics of growing cattle on wheat pasture.” Plains Nutrition Council 2011. 9 Sharman et al. (2012) J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 90 (Suppl. 3): 669. 10 McMurphy et al. (2013) Prof. Anim. Sci. 29:27 11 Tatum, J. 2006. “Pre-harvest cattle management practices for enhancing beef tenderness.” Executive summary: Prepared for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 1–22. 8 12 McCollum, F. “Implanting beef calves and stocker cattle.” AgriLife Extension Texas A&M System. L-2291: 4–98.

Elanco®, Component®, Tylan® and the diagonal bar are all trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. © 2016 Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. NCFD 37054-1 USBBUCPT00054

Cow/calf producers also may not be implanting because they believe implants negatively impact reproduction or feedlot performance, they have concerns about choosing the right product, or they’re not sure how to properly administer the implant. “By working with their veterinarian, producers can understand the true value of implanting and how these objections may be hamstringing the pounds of beef they generate per acre,” says Hufstedler.

Implants fit every phase of production Cow/calf producers who retain heifers often have the greatest concerns about implanting. Because implant formulations have been extensively researched, we know implanting heifers at birth detrimentally effects reproduction. However, a summary of implant research studies reports there was little or no negative impact on reproductive performance when heifers were implanted at approximately 2 months of age.5 “Typically, cow/calf operators who retain heifers for the herd know which heifer calves may become replacements, and they should simply skip implanting those heifers,” says Hufstedler. “For producers who aren’t sure if a heifer will become a replacement female or be sold as a feeder, one ‘calf’ implant is recommended after she is 2 months old.” Although many producers have been misled to believe there is a negative impact of implanting suckling and/or grazing cattle on subsequent production phases and quality, multiple studies have demonstrated that implanting steers with Component® TE-G with Tylan® significantly improved grazing phase gains without negatively impacting feedlot performance or carcass quality.8-10



We’ll keep this short. Your cattle are worth more than ever, which means protecting your profit potential is more important than ever. Make sure your investment reaches that potential, with the only implant that offers the added value of Tylan’s abscess defense to ensure you’re helping maximize your implant ROI.

Zero Defect Implant Training†

ROI Protection

Consistent Conversion & Gain

End-point Management Protocols

To learn more about protecting your 24:1 ROI1*, contact your Elanco sales representative or

The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow label and use directions. Administer one dose in the ear subcutaneously according to label directions.

†Implant training does not guarantee zero defects.

*Calculation assumes 700 lb. feeder weight, $141.00 cwt, 150 days on feed, $280/ton dm feed price. 1 Duckett 2013. Anabolic implants and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science. 92: 3-9.

Choosing the right implant is simple Four things to remember: • Cow/calf producers should use a calf implant, Component E-C with Tylan,† “C” for calf • Stocker/backgrounder operators should use a grazing implant — Component TE-G with Tylan, “G” for grazing • Duration of payout is critical to maximizing production. Component with Tylan implants last 20 to 50 days longer than Ralgro11,12 • Only Component implants with the Tylan advantage — a localized antibacterial — can protect your investment in the technology that delivers one of the greatest ROIs in the industry

NCFD37054-1_June CattlemensNews_4a.indd 1

with Tylan

JUNE 2016


Tylan® is a trademark for Elanco’s brand of tylosin. Elanco, Component® and the diagonal color bar are trademarks of Eli Lilly and Company. © 2014 Elanco Animal Health. OPTA 32017-4 USBBUCPT00037

5/12/16 6:02 PM

Ricochet FESQ Max Mineral

Helps Prevent Calf Scours

Mineral supplement for cattle • Vitamin fortified for improved animal health, covers animal’s dietary vitamin requirements • Supplies essential minerals of high bio-availability: calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, sodium, selenium, iodine, zinc, manganese, copper, cobalt; covers animal’s mineral requirements • Medicated for control of anaplasmosis: improved animal health • Options available, nonmedicated; with CTC; with Methoprene IGR/CTC: an effective pesticide to reduce the pressure of hornfly predation

• When Ricochet is used as a yearlong mineral program, it has high enough magnesium levels to prevent grass tetany

• Flavored for good acceptance, consistent intakes • Uses Rain-Off® technology to reduce weather damage to exposed product • Uses Shield™ Technology to improve colostrum quality and production, stimulates the animal’s immune response • Uses essential oils which have been shown to improve animal performance grazing fescue pastures

28 JUNE 2016

For information on MFA mineral supplements call 573-876-5473 or visit

Catn june16 web  

June 2016 Cattlemen's News published by Joplin Regional Stockyards

Catn june16 web  

June 2016 Cattlemen's News published by Joplin Regional Stockyards