FBP Jan/Feb 2009

frontlinebeef producer

JANUARY•FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1

Carcass Merit

A NEWS SOURCE FOR COMMERCIAL BEEF PRODUCERS

Genetic Improvement+

Brangus gold means IBBA genetics and known source.

Look for the Brangus gold tag when buying replacement females.It doesn’t matter what she looks like;

only the real thing gets the Brangus gold tag.

If you are currently using IBBA bullsand are interested in putting more

money in YOUR pocket by supplyingBrangus gold females, contact the

IBBA or your IBBA seedstock supplier.

If you’re not using IBBA bulls,maybe it’s time you take a closer look at the many IBBA Benefits.

www.GoBrangus.comInternational Brangus Breeders Association

The gold standard female for commercial beef production is the crossbred cow. Real world results from profit-driven producers prove that the crossbred female is not only the most productive, but also the most profitable female in the industry. And, one of the most productive and longest lasting females in the business is the Brangus crossbred female.

According to Dr. Bill Turner, Texas A&M University, “The brood cow herd is the cornerstone to profitability of a beef enterprise”. And, Dr. Turner points out that research supports the fact that longevity and functionality are “two major advantages” of the Brangus-cross cow.

IBBa BenefIts...IBBa BenefIts...

www.GoBrangus.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

25 BREEDER DIRECTORY

32 ADVERTISER INDEX

32 CALENDER OF EVENTS

FRONTLINE Beef ProducerProduction EditorDuncan MacRae Features EditorJeff Diles Administration/CirculationFrances Miller Contributing EditorsDr. Dave AndersonMark Enns, PhDDr. Matt HersomDr. Joseph MasseyClifford MitchellMarcine Moldenhauer

Advertising DirectorSara Calhoun Layout and DesignDuncan MacRae Copy EditorCarolyn Kobos ProofreaderJim Bulger OperationsMary DouglassRosanne SrallaPatti Teeler

FRONTLINE Beef Produceris a product of:Brangus Publications, Inc.P.O. Box 696020San Antonio, Texas 78269-6020Phone: 210.696.8231Fax: 210.696.8718 Brangus Publications, Inc. Directors:Dale Kirkham - ChairmanDr. Joseph Massey - PresidentDon Cox - Secretary/TreasurerDr. Robert VineyardE. Lynn White Information appearing in this issue may be reprinted only with written permission of Brangus Publications, Inc. LPCLivestock Publications Council - Member

FEATURES

16 Understanding the USDA Beef Grading SystemThe objective of this article is to answer and simplify some of the most frequently asked questions from producers, and to provide a glimpse into where beef grading is today, and changes that lie ahead.by Marcine Moldenhauer

20 Capturing Value. Genetic Selection Improves End Product.Today, cattlemen face many critical points in the decision making process. Unable to just settle for any herd sire, but one that can produce the right end product.by Clifford Mitchell

DEPARTMENTS

4 The Bottom LineWelcome to FRONTLINE Beef Producerby Jeff Diles

6 Out FrontNext Generation of Genetic Prediction Tools. Multi-Breed EPDsby Dr. Joseph Massey

8 Genetic StrategiesGenetic Improvement: How Fast Can It Be?by Mark Enns, PhD

10 Market IntelligenceUncertain Times Plague the Cattle Marketby Dr. Dave Anderson

12 Nutrition StrategiesHow Do We Affect Carcass Merit?by Dr. Matt Hersom

14 In the TrenchesBetween the Hurricanesby Jeff Diles

4 FRONTLINE Beef Producer

Welcome to FRONTLINE Beef Producer, a magazine devoted to the commercial cattleman of the US beef industry.

FRONTLINE is a “new recruit” with a different, no non-sense approach to servicing the cow-calf producer’s informa-tion needs. While we hope that you will find each issue of FRONTLINE to be enjoyable and somewhat entertaining, our primary goal is to provide an accurate and reliable refer-ence resource for anyone who is striving to maintain a profit-able cow-calf enterprise.

Beef cattle production is one of the toughest agricultural enterprises in America, and one of the most important in terms of economic impact. Cow-calf producers must con-tinually battle the elements, markets, government regulations and a host of other issues to maintain a profitable and enjoy-able way of life. We believe that this battle is real, that it is constant, and that it is worthwhile.

Since the discovery of BSE on US soil in 2003, the strug-gle has become more intense every day. Commodity prices surged, financial markets failed, the stock market slumped, housing markets came apart, then commodity prices plum-meted. Yet through it all, the cow-calf producer perseveres, at times relying on nothing more than sheer will power and his love of the way of life.

No one really knows what to expect next. The opportu-nity lies in being prepared for whatever comes. FRONTLINE is here to, so to speak, support the troops.

So many variables come into play for each individual cow-calf enterprise—we realize there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to management or genetics. But, we do want to help you maintain the profitability of your own unique op-eration by providing management and genetic strategies and tips, along with other relevant industry news and informa-tion; even an occasional laugh.

The editorial and support staff assembled to produce FRONTLINE understands the battle. Regular and guest con-tributors to FRONTLINE are industry savvy professionals with real world experience spanning the entire beef produc-tion chain and beyond.

In this issue, Marcine Moldenhauer, a 25-year veteran of the meat business and independent consultant, provides a de-tailed look at the USDA beef grading process from how it has changed over time to how beef grading ultimately affects the

cow-calf producer’s bottom line. She also gives us a first hand look at the future of beef grading, documenting the pros and cons of the transition to instrument grading.

Which works better for adding value to your calf crop in terms of carcass quality, producing more top-end calves, or eliminating the bottom-end calves? Clifford Mitchell com-mits his livestock journalism talents to building a case for eliminating “outs.” This feature includes expert opinions from the cow-calf, feedlot, and packer perspectives.

“Between Hurricanes” is our In the Trenches producer profile article for this issue. Sharing the ideas and solutions of other producers creates opportunities for new ideas and new solutions. Each issue of FRONTLINE features a new In the Trenches story about a cow-calf producer and the unique aspects of his/her operation. What are the challenges they face? What are their plans for the future? In this issue we travel to the plantation country of Louisiana, just east of the Mississippi River.

Out Front by Joseph Massey is a standard column in every issue of Frontline that highlights various industry opportuni-ties and challenges. Massey has been involved in production agriculture from growing up on a family cow-calf operation in South Texas, to corporate agriculture interests in foreign countries, to genetic prediction and registry services for breed associations. He currently serves as Executive Vice President of the International Brangus Breeders Association and CEO of Genetic Performance Solutions, LLC.

It takes both genetic improvement and improved re-source utilization to keep a cow-calf enterprise moving for-ward, so also included in every issue are Genetic Strategies and Nutrition Strategies articles. Our Genetic Strategies articles are authored by Mark Enns, beef cattle genetics and breed-ing expert from Colorado State University, who provides an in depth look at genetic selection tools and practices. Matt Hersom, a beef cattle specialist with the agriculture extension system in Florida, pens our Nutrition Strategies articles aimed at helping you find ways to make the most of your feed and forage resources.

Another recurring and valuable component of FRONTLINE is Market Intelligence by Dave Anderson, live-stock marketing economist with Texas AgriLife Extension Service. Market Intelligence provides market outlooks and in-sights to help you better understand the pluses and minuses in today’s volatile markets.

And, there are more standard elements planned for fu-ture issues of FRONTLINE including Field Medicine and R and R. Field Medicine will provide a practicing Veterinar-ian’s perspective on management and health issues, as well as, recounting some of the amusing and hair raising things that happen when you combine man, beast and a medical procedure.

Cow-calf producers are some of the hardest working men and women in the United States, but everyone needs a little rest and relaxation, at least occasionally. Our R and R de-partment will bring you information on special events and leisure destinations that are popular entertainment choices for producers like you.

We hope that you will find the information on these pages useful and beneficial to your operation. If there is a topic on which you would like more information, please let us know. We’re here to help make things a little easier for you

THE BOTTOM LINE | by Jeff Diles

ABOUT THE AUTHORIn addition to being the Features Editor for FRONTLINE, Jeff Diles is the Director of Commercial Marketing Programs for the International Brangus Breeders Association and a cow-calf producer with interests in South Texas and Central Missouri.


OUT FRONT | by Dr. Joseph Massey

It’s not too early for the commercial cattleman to be-gin to grasp the significance of multi-breed EPDs (Ex-pected Progeny Differences). An EPD is a prediction of one-half the breeding value of an animal, or it is what the animal is expected to transmit to its future

offspring. EPDs are best used to compare the potential breed-ing value between two animals, such as breeding bulls. To date we have had mostly single breed EPDs for numerous reasons, the main one is that functional multi-breed pro-grams or models are just now gaining acceptance. Another reason is that most breed associations have been apprehensive about making their animal performance records available for multi-breed evaluations. Over the next several years breed as-sociations will have to accept such genetic evaluations if they expect their members to stay viable as seedstock producers.

Multi-breed EPDs will provide the commercial cattleman a tool to compare EPDs across animals of different breeds, thereby providing the opportunity to produce offspring that best meets his expectations or goals. There is a tendency to believe that particular breeds may look less or more valuable in a multi-breed evaluation. The real opportunity will be that individual animals with desirable genetic EPDs will not be penalized due to breed perception rather than actual genetic value. From the seedstock producer’s standpoint, multi-breed EPDs should allow selection of breeding animals that best deliver the desired performance of specific traits for the com-mercial cattle industry. In the long run, this should reduce breed bias. The seedstock producer will have to understand EPDs better than he has in the past and learn what is driv-ing his customers, and maybe more importantly, what his customer’s customers are expecting. Multi-breed EPDs will help establish optimal desired EPD values and they will not just be a low birth EPD or a high yearling weight EPD. Op-timizing multi-breed EPD values will be determined by cus-tomer demand, producer economics, environment and social perception.

As we stand today there are several multi-breed EPD models under development; establishing a consensus as to

what constitutes the right model will be driven by the com-mercial cattleman. Multi-breed genetics evaluations must be driven to a single model, and all participating breeds will have to be reported on the same scale if we are to achieve a vi-able multi-breed genetic evaluation. As an industry we must expect that all breeds participating in a multi-breed genetic evaluation will support one single base as well. It will take time for the industry to learn to use these evaluations, but for the first time, we would be evaluating animals based on their genetic value and using breed characteristics to fit environ-mental conditions or finding animals within breeds that have the genetic potential to compete with other animals across breeds. One would only guess that the next several years will be defined by understanding the best use of a multi-breed genetic evaluations and genetic breeding potential.

The multi-breed models that are developing now will be good for a short period of time, but a cooperative approach will be better for the long term and ultimately prove to be more valuable. The commercial cattleman will have a very direct influence on the time line of this process. This is one time that the commercial cattleman should not sit on the sidelines, but rather get involved now in understanding the potential of a multi-breed EPD. The multi-breed EPD mod-els developing will be challenged by our industry for a period of time because we have a tendency to fight change and we want to hold onto old alliances and models.

We are now facing a very difficult economic environ-ment which presents challenges for all of us to stay viable in the cattle industry. One has to wonder how much of our problems today stem from an over production of cattle with little to no knowledge of their genetic potential. While we may not know the optimal EPD values to select for, there is no doubt that all animals do not have equal economic value and we need the model(s) that will help direct our indus-try in the future. Multi-breed EPDs will be one tool that we should all learn to understand and implement in our cattle programs

Next Generation of Genetic Prediction Tools

Multi-Breed EPDs

ABOUT THE AUTHORDr. Massey has served as Executive Vice President of the IBBA since 2004. In 2007, he started Genetic Performance Solutions, LLC, a breed registry services and performance analysis company serving the cattle and breed association industry— a joint venture between the IBBA and the Red Angus Association of America. GPS manages online registry programs for breed association and the data base management of performance data like multi-breed EPDs.


With the start of a new year, it’s a good time to review how our calves performed last year, identify the strengths and weaknesses of our herd, and think about selection priorities for new bulls—the goal being to select new bulls that will improve our profitability.

While often not in a formal manner, in this process we think about what traits we need to improve. Along those lines, I thought it would be appropriate to review the fac-tors that influence how quickly producers can make genetic progress in the traits they deem important. Given that this issue of FRONTLINE focuses on carcass merit and genetic improvement, the issue is especially timely.

I want to combine these two topics in a hypothetical ex-ample. For this example, assume that we are a producer who retains ownership of our calves through the feedlot. Based on past performance of those calves we want to increase the percentage that grade choice. Also assume that we raise our own replacement females and use Brangus bulls.

For any trait we are interested in, there are four factors that determine how fast we can make genetic progress in our herd. No matter whether we are trying to improve carcass merit, maternal ability or weaning growth, those factors are the same. The four factors are selection intensity, accuracy of selection, generation interval and genetic variability. The first three, we can control to some extent while the last one is not something over which we have much influence and I won’t discuss further. In the context of our example, I want to dis-cuss the three factors over which we have some control.

In our hypothetical breeding program, selection intensity refers to how “choosy” we are at selecting Brangus bulls with the best percent intramuscular fat (%IMF) EPD. Do we pur-chase the bull with breed average %IMF EPD or are we very selective and only choose those bulls in the top say, 10%, of the breed for %IMF EPD. As a rule, the more selective we are in choosing animals, the more rapid genetic progress we will make for the traits we are trying to improve.

The second factor—accuracy—also influences how rap-idly we can improve any trait. Higher accuracy is associated with more rapid genetic progress. This is the primary reason that using EPD (if they are available for the traits in which you are interested) maximizes our rate of genetic progress—EPD are calculated using all available performance data no matter whether it is on the individual bull, on its relatives, or on its progeny. I realize that most young, virgin bulls have about the same EPD accuracy so when selecting among these bulls, accuracy is likely not a big issue. In our example, if we had an AI program, choosing to AI to young unproven bulls for %IMF or to %IMF-proven bulls, using the proven bulls will result in higher rates of genetic improvement, all else equal.

The final factor that we have some control over is the gen-eration interval or how fast we put new, young animals in our herds. Put another way, it is the replacement rate in our herd. As a general rule, the greater proportion of young, superior, replacements that are put in the herd, the faster the rate of genetic progress. Using our hypothetical example, if we turn over our bull battery more rapidly, always selecting those bulls with superior %IMF EPD, we will make much more rapid progress in improving our herd’s percentage choice than we would if we only replace a small portion of our bull battery each year. Practically, there are trade-offs associated with putting many young animals back into the herd. First, young bulls with no progeny have lower accuracy EPD com-pared to older bulls with progeny. Second, on the female side, younger females wean lighter calves and have higher rates of calf death than do mature cows. So while the rapid genetic progress might be great, we have to consider what effects re-placement rate might have on the economic performance of our herd—we have to keep profitability as our goal when we make these selection decisions.

As you begin to consider what bulls you will replace in the upcoming year, remember that there are four factors that are going to influence how rapidly you make genetic progress in your herds. Hopefully this information will help you to make better bull purchase decisions and to improve the speed with which you can improve the traits that are important to your profitability

Genetic Improvement:How Fast Can It Be?

GENETIC STRATEGIES | by Mark Enns, PhD

ABOUT THE AUTHORDr. Enns’ research focuses on methods to genetically evaluate and select animals that fit their production environment both biologically and economically. These efforts include development of new methods for evaluating and improving cow and heifer fertility, cow maintenance requirements, time to finish in the feedlot; and development of methods to better use economic information in selection decisions for increased profitability of beef production.


This is the most uncertain cattle market, and economy for that matter, in years. While beef and meat supplies are tightening, demand is tied to an economy in recession. But, for all the uncertainty there are some things worth a

closer look for the coming year.

THE ECONOMYThe collapse of the economy and stock market into re-

cession has not left the cattle market unscathed. Almost all commodities have seen a similar collapse whether its corn, oil, or cattle. For cattle, the change is even more pronounced when examining the futures market. As the commodity mar-kets and stock market became more intertwined over the last couple of years as prices increased, so they have stayed con-nected as prices have declined. In fact, some market analysts have made the case that the cattle futures market only trades like the stock market does on that day, either up or down.

Regardless of the role of the speculative investors in cattle markets, some of the decline in prices is due to fears of the effects of recession, increased unemployment, and declining incomes on beef demand. Falling gasoline and diesel prices are not a bad thing for consumer’s pocket books and may provide some support for the economy and a variety of prod-ucts.

All livestock markets are continuing to adjust to ethanol shocks in the market. The continued effect of ethanol on the demand for corn and feed prices is forcing calf prices lower and effecting livestock producer’s profits. That transition is going to continue in 2009.

Poultry and pork also face the same conditions that con-front the beef industry. Declining production in those sec-tors, especially in the first half of 2009 may help beef prices by keeping competing meat prices higher. Total meat produc-tion may be down almost 4 percent, year-over-year, in the second quarter of 2009.

The uncertainty surrounding the economy is going to continue to weigh on the cattle market.

TIGHTENING SUPPLIESWhile the demand side of the cattle market is highly un-

certain, the supply side continues to move in a direction that should be good for cattle prices.

Producers continued to reduce cow numbers in 2008. By mid-way through December, about 3.4 million beef cows had been culled over the course of the year. After accounting for Canadian cows, this was about 250,000 head more than in 2007, out of a smaller herd. Combined with fewer replace-

ments, 2009 could potentially start the year with 500,000 fewer beef cows than the year before.

Fewer cattle on feed in the second half of 2008 also trans-lates to declining fed cattle numbers in 2009.

Longer term, fewer cows in 2009 and 2010 also means declining beef production. Tighter supplies have the poten-tial to provide rallies in prices. If the economy turns around late in 2009 then the potential exists for much higher prices.

TRADEOne reason for the sharp decline in cattle prices late in

2008 was a collapse in the “drop credit.” The drop credit is the value of the hide and offals that “drop” off the carcass at slaughter. The drop credit value declined from $11.50 per cwt of cattle to $6.50 per cwt. from October to December, 2008. That means that the value, or price, of cattle declined $5 per cwt due to the lost value in the hide and offals.

The drop credit is highly dependent on the export mar-ket. The U.S. exports hides to leather processors in other countries. We then import finished leather goods. When the world economy unraveled in October demand for finished goods dried up. When no one buys cars the demand for leather seats dries up too. As the dollar strengthened in value and other countries economies began to struggle, the value of products, like liver and other by-products declined sharply. Price recovery for these products will have to wait on broader economic recovery.

One bright spot in most of 2008 was strong beef exports. For the first time since 2003, the United States was a net beef exporter for August and September 2008. Even though exports declined late in the year with the economic situation, they remain above year ago levels. That relative strength in beef exports may remain in 2009 helping beef prices.

LONGER TERMLong term, tighter beef and cattle supplies will contribute

to higher prices. It may take economic recovery to sharply increase prices.

A smaller cow herd means that there may be less demand for replacements in the short run. But, once recovery starts the demand for replacements will heat up quickly. As the in-dustry changes with these uncertain times, several factors will be critical in the replacement market. More efficient, better performing, and, therefore, more profitable cattle herd re-placements will be demanded. Producers with those types of cattle will be rewarded in the future market.

It’s not too early to plan for 2010. In fact, 2010 is almost here for cowherds. Some planning now for a stronger cattle market might be greatly rewarded

MARKET INTELLIGENCE | by Dr. David Anderson

Uncertain Times Plague the Cattle Market

ABOUT THE AUTHORDr. Anderson is a Professor and Livestock Economist with the Texas AgriLife Extension Service at Texas A&M University. His work involves livestock market and policy research.

FRONTLINE Beef Producer 11


The beef products that our consumers purchase are generated from harvested and fabricated carcasses, carcasses that are produced from finished cattle, and finished cattle that start as calves at farms and ranches. So as a beef cattle

producer how can you influence the end-product quality of the beef product that our consumers purchase and enjoy? Opportunities to capture increased value and revenue may be missed if beef cattle producers do not continually examine their production system with an eye towards improving the carcass merit of the calves they produce. The variables that affect beef cattle production and carcass value are numerous and interact with each other. Therefore, each producer during their self-evaluation of their cattle production system should ask the following questions “What is it that we produce, do we meet our customers’ demands, and do we do it consis-tently?”

The concept of carcass merit is a combination of a num-ber of factors. In the simplest sense, carcass merit is con-trolled by the economic value of the carcass, which is de-pendent on the carcass weight, determined carcass quality, and the current price matrix. Cattlemen have little control over the price matrix for carcasses that is offered by the beef processing companies. What cattlemen do have control over are the inputs into the system that affect the carcass weight and carcass quality. For cattlemen, the basic critical control points for carcass merit are genetics, nutrition, and manage-ment practices.

GENETICSI start any discussion of genetics with the disclaimer that

there is no one perfect breed, sire, cow line, etc that will solve every problem a beef cattle producer will encounter. Carcass merit is a perfect example of a multifaceted genetic issue that requires careful and considered decisions. The first step in the process of genetic improvement for carcass merit is to define your production goals. Without a goal or goals there is no way to make coherent decisions for genetic selection. To that end, write them down, the goals will never be achieved without commitment, and putting them down in black and white is the first committed step. The goals have to be real-istic and manageable within the framework of your produc-tion environment. That production environment includes cow nutrition, herd health status, and other management inputs. Secondly, the goals have to be specific, that way you can benchmark your change relative to where you started and where you want to go. However, the only way to effectively benchmark change is through the capture of information. This information includes past and current cow production records, mating/breeding records, and carcass data from pre-vious and subsequent calf-crops. Without adequate record keeping and the information from those records, valid assess-ments and sound decisions can’t be made.

Genetics control the maximum carcass merit potential of the beef end-product. That means management can only go

so far to affect the quality of the steer or heifer produced. So when you turn out the bull or inseminate the cow, you’ve set the genetic ceiling of carcass merit for the resulting calf. So how do we select the traits to emphasize in the breeding program to improve carcass merit? Consider what constitutes carcass merit; generally it is some combination of carcass weight, quality grade, yield grade, and the overall variation of the peer group. The good news is that the carcass merit char-acteristics are relatively responsive to selection because they are moderately heritable. Additionally, the moderate correla-tion between the factors affecting lean and fat allows for some amount of concurrent selection. However, the more traits se-lected, the slower the rate of genetic change. Again, the best way to determine which traits to emphasis is to evaluate the cow herd and previous calf crops. Generally, most programs are trying to optimize the curve of lean yield and the amount of marbling. However, there are marketing opportunities for carcasses that emphasize increased lean yield and decreased marbling or carcass programs that emphasize increased mar-bling at the expense of greater lean yield. Regardless of the end market, capturing the potential increase in value from these markets requires knowing which system your cattle best fit. Producers that endeavor to make rapid change, and hope-fully progress, should emphasize carcass merit in selecting the sires they utilize to generate their feeder cattle. Additionally, some emphasis for carcass traits of the bulls used for siring replacement heifers should be considered. Eventually, these heifers will enter the cow herd and produce calves that should have increased carcass merit potential. However, selection for carcass traits should be balanced with maternal traits and stayability traits for replacement heifers.

Currently most marketing avenues will not directly re-ward dedicated efforts to improve the carcass merit of calves marketed in generic manners. For beef cattle producers to fully realize the reward of improved carcass merit potential in their calves retained ownership is the most viable option. Through some portion of retained ownership the beef cattle producer will realize some of the return on the investment for their effort and utilization of improved genetics. Finally, real-ize a population of cattle with characteristics of carcass merit that are farther from the goal will make greater and faster progress towards the stated production goal compared to a population of cattle that are relatively close to the designated carcass merit goals.

MANAGEMENT & NUTRITIONWhile the herd’s genetic makeup sets the upper limit of

the potential for carcass merit, management practices can sig-nificantly affect the ability of the calves to reach that poten-tial. There are several management practices that have been shown to affect the subsequent carcass merit. One of these management options is to alter weaning management. Differ-ent research sources have reported improvements in marbling of calves that are early-weaned and placed directly on high energy diets. By providing greater amounts of energy (starch)

NUTRITION STRATEGIES | by Dr. Matt Hersom

How Do We Affect Carcass Merit?

ABOUT THE AUTHORDr. Hersom is currently an Assistant Professor and Extension Beef Cattle Specialist at the University of Florida, specializing in the development of strategic nutritional and supplementation programs to optimize beef cattle performance utilizing forage and roughage based diets and evaluation of calf production and growing practices to improve animal performance in integrated beef production systems.

(continued on page 24)


When you think of Louisiana, what comes to mind? Planta-tion homes, Mardi Gras, Cajun cuisine, jazz music, or is it the images of hurricane damage seen on the national

news so often over the last few years?Craig Neal of St. Francisville, Louisiana knows all too well about

the many hurricanes that have battered the coastal state over the last several years. With his commercial cow-calf operation headquartered just 45 minutes north of Baton Rouge in the rolling hills near St. Francisville, Neal has felt the impact of every significant storm to hit the state in the last several years. Many of the storms dumped torrential rains and caused some wind damage, but the “big one” for Neal was Gustav in 2008. The St. Francisville area endured winds of over 100 miles per hour for several hours, causing tremendous dam-age in the area. Trees of all sizes were snapped in two like twigs or simply plucked from the ground like a weed. The area was completely without power for two and a half weeks while miles of downed power lines were replaced. Shortly after the storm, Neal had every man he could find hired to clear debris and rebuild fences. But, as with every set back, Neal took Gustav in stride, “It was bad here, but a whole lot of people got hit a whole lot worse.”

The Neal family first entered the cattle business full time in 1985 buying big framed crossbred cows of whatever breed combinations were available and using Charolais bulls. Neal soon decided that the Charolais cross heifers he was producing made less than ideal replace-ments for expanding his herd, so he began using Brangus bulls. For a decade, the cow-calf operation was the family’s only enterprise, and by 1995 the Neals had built a commercial herd of 2,200 Brangus cross cows.

That’s when the first major storm hit the Neal’s operation. But, this storm was not a hurricane generated by Mother Nature; it was the last major downturn of the cattle cycle. Calf prices dropped be-low 50 cents per pound and Neal had no choice but to sell out. The only good news was that he had built up significant equity in the cow herd, leaving him some money to start a new enterprise.

Neal took what was left from the cattle business and bought a business that included a small motel, a restaurant and a convenience store. The new business prospered and soon expanded and diversified

to include another small motel and construction and earth moving operations. Then, in 2003, Neal was able to return to his passion and reenter the cattle business.

This time, just like before, he also started by buying cows of indeterminable breed crosses from multiple sources, but he did go straight back to Brangus and Ultrablack (Brangus X Angus) bulls. Neal is convinced that Brangus-influenced females are ideal for his operation. As he puts it, “Nothin’s as good as these black mommas; don’t come no better.”

But unlike before, this time Neal maintained a diversified busi-ness plan. Today, his two sons, Michael and Jarrod, manage Craig Neal & Sons Construction, and the family still has their motels. One of the advantages of diversification is that Neal is able to utilize some labor from the construction and earth moving operations during their slow periods to help out with the family’s cattle operation.

IN THE TRENCHES | by Jeff Diles

Between the Hurricanes

Seth, Michael, Jarrod, Austin, and Craig Neal (l-r)


Today Neal has built his herd up to 650 cows; 475 home-raised, Bran-gus-influenced females with the balance being what’s left of the original purchased cows. By the end of 2009, Neal plans to completely transition to all home-raised Brangus sired cows, and he kept back 350 heifers this year to help make sure that happens.

Neal is probably just as proud of his grazing program and pastures as he is of his cows. He just can’t stop to look at cows without also pausing to point out the many varieties of clovers present in the improved pas-tures. Neal leases all of the pasture land and hay meadows for his cattle operation, and pasture improvement is a key ingredient in his success. Bahaigrass is the most common forage in the region. The nutritive value of Bahaigrass remains high when mature, but it is not a very productive forage requiring several acres to support a cow unit. To increase produc-tion and ultimately stocking rates, Neal began to incorporate clovers and ryegrass into many of the pastures. Once established, the clover persists perennially, but the ryegrass is reseeded annually. Neal includes ½ acre of this type of pasture per mature cow and about one acre per heifer, since

ABOUT HURRICANE GUSTAV

Gustav was not the only major hurricane to cause damage in Louisiana in 2008, but the storm prompted a record retreat of close to 2 million coastal residents in advance of its Sept. 1 landfall. Gustav formed from a low-pressure system in the central Caribbean on Aug. 25 and became a hurricane the next day, striking Haiti, weakening to a tropical storm and striking Jamaica on Aug. 28. Leaving Jamaica, Gustav quickly gained strength to become a Category 4 hurricane by Aug. 30, hitting western Cuba with 150 mph winds.

Gustav was one of six named tropical systems in a row to make landfall in the United States in 2008, a new record. In all, there were 16 named storms, of which eight were hurricanes. Five of those reached major hurri-cane status, Category 3 or above. An average season has 11 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes. The string of major hurricanes in five consecutive months, from July to November, also set a record. Since aircraft reconnaissance of tropical systems began in 1944, only 2005, with 28; 1995, with 19; and 1969, with 18, had more named storms. (source: The Times-Picayune)



Have you ever been confused or at the least had questions regarding the USDA Beef Grading system? Like, what are the differ-ences between a Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard beef carcasses? What are the fac-

tors which go into determining Quality or Yield grade? Who and when is the grade determined? Who pays for the grad-ing service? Is it mandatory or voluntary? What changes are currently taking place in beef grading? Lastly, how will these changes benefit the producer, feeders, packers, and consum-ers? The objective of this article is to answer and simplify some of the most frequently asked questions from producers, and to provide a glimpse into where beef grading is today, and changes that lie ahead.

The governing document for the US beef grading system is the Official United States Standards for grades of Carcass Beef promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended. These stan-dards are enforced by the US Department of Agriculture and annual congressional appropriation acts also affect the related authority for enforcement.

Developing national standards for the grading beef car-casses was first proposed in 1916, and the current standards are reprinted with amendments effective January 31, 1997. These standards for grades of beef are written primarily in terms of carcasses. However, they are also applicable to the grading of sides. To simplify phrasing of the standards, the words “carcass” and “carcasses” are used to also mean “side” or “sides.”

Obviously, there have been a number of changes, improve-ments, and clarification over the years (see side bar). Most of the modifications have been science-based attempts to better classify beef in regards to palatability, or to provide improved standards for effective pricing, but in a few instances changes were simply to improve market perception. It should come as no surprise that there continues to be significant improve-ments through the use of modern technologies today.

APPLICATION OF STANDARDS FOR GRADES OF CARCASS BEEF.

The carcass beef grades identify two separate general con-siderations:

(1) Yield Grading or the indicated yield of closely trimmed (½ inch fat or less), boneless retail cuts expected

to be derived from the major wholesale cuts (round, sirloin, short loin, rib, and square-cut chuck) of a carcass, herein re-ferred to as the “yield grade”.

(2) Quality Grading or characteristics of the meat which predict the palatability of the lean, herein referred to as the “quality grade.”

When officially graded, the grade of a steer, heifer, cow, or bullock carcass may consist of the quality grade only, the yield grade only, or a combination of the quality grade and the yield grade. The grade of a bull carcass consists of the yield grade only.

The carcass beef grade standards are written so that the quality grade and yield grade standards are contained in sepa-rate sections. The quality grade section is divided further into two separate sections applicable to carcasses from: (1) Steers, heifers, and cows, and (2) bullocks.

There are five yield grades applicable to all classes of beef, denoted by numbers 1 through 5, with Yield Grade 1 repre-senting the highest degree of cutability or the highest percent of lean retail meat, while Yield Grade 5 represents the least degree of cutability or the fattest.

Eight quality grade designations—Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner—are ap-plicable to steer and heifer carcasses. Except for Prime, the same designations apply to cow carcasses. The quality grade designations for bullock carcasses are Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, and Utility.

YIELD GRADING MADE SIMPLEThere are five Yield Grades (YG) applicable to all classes

of beef, denoted by numbers 1 through 5, with YG 1 repre-senting the highest degree of cutability or the highest percent of lean retail meat, while YG 5 represents the least degree of cutability or the fattest.

While there is an official equation that is used, the trained grader makes a visual estimate of all characteristics, does a quick calculation in their head, and arrives at the final Yield Grade determination. The characteristics used to determine Yield Grade are all easily measured, unlike some of the qual-ity grading characteristics. Each characteristic can be plugged into the YG equation and a calculated YG arrived at. As ear-lier indicated, this has not been the case with Quality Grad-ing, as QG is a much more subjective call.

FEATURE | by Marcine Moldenhauer

USDABeef Grading System

Understanding the

ABOUT THE AUTHORMarcine Moldenhauer has 22 years of experience in cattle procurement and premium beef marketing. She owns Meat Link Management L.L.C consulting business; her company’s focus is on strategic business planning and management, marketing, and the traceability of meat and livestock.


There are 4 basic characteristics of the carcass which are assessed during Yield Grading: (1) Ribeye (REA) muscle size measured in square inches(2) Hot Carcass Weight(3) Kidney, Pelvic Heart Fat (KPH)(4) Outside fat Thickness

There are two more equally important characteristics in deter-mining YG: the measured fat thickness over the REA muscle, overall fat thickness of the carcass, and KPH. Both the overall exterior carcass fat cover and KPH are visual estimates. The fat thickness over the REA is measured approximately ¾ of the way toward the back of the ribeye—see the dark grey line. Each of the four characteristics are calculated, and the resulting Yield Grade is applied.

Keep in mind that even though the USDA graders are making visual appraisals for both QG and YG at line speed, there has been significant research and repeated studies which provide scientific guides on what to look for, what consid-erations come into play, and how to take into account the naturally occurring differences between carcasses.

QUALITY GRADE MADE SIMPLEThere are 4 basic characteristics which are assessed during Quality Grading: (1)The amount of Marbling in the Ribeye REA muscle(2) Lean Color and Texture(3) Ossification of the bone in the vertebral column(4) Fat Color.

There are several additional considerations before a car-cass is eligible to be graded. A carcass, it must be correctly split down the back into two sides and one or both sides must be partially separated into a hindquarter and forequarter. This can be done by cutting it with a saw and knife between the 12th and 13th rib far enough so that there is a cut perpen-dicular to both the long axis and split surface of the vertebral column.

Poor workmanship during the ribbing procedure which prevents an accurate evaluation of the grade determining characteristics will make the carcasses ineligible for grading.

To aid in accuracy and consistency, the USDA grader uses photographs and other objective aids in the current in-terpretation and application of the standards. Each depicts the minimum amount of marbling required to get into the corresponding quality grade.

To verify the size of the REA muscle, an official USDA grid can be placed over the cut surface. Each square that covers the REA is counted and the becomes the official size. Example: If you count the gray area below you will get approxi-mately 112 squares, indicating that the REA in the pictorial is 11.2 inches.The relationship of square inches of REA to Hot Carcass Weight is a critical component in the equation for determining YG. Each carcass weight has a re-quired REA area before it is considered “average” or normal in muscling. For example:

600 pound carcass requires a 11.0 inch2 REA700 pound carcass requires a 12.2 inch2 REA800 pound carcass requires a 13.4 inch2 REA900 pound carcass requires a 14.4 inch2 REA1000 pound carcass requires a 15.6 inch2 REA



Today the USDA beef carcass grading program is voluntary and is only paid for by those in the beef industry who choose to use the service. The current grading process takes place in the sales cooler, which is generally 28-48 hours post harvest and chilling. Nonethe-less there have been many people, packers, universities, and industry stake holders who have invested time and money into moving toward mechanical or instrument grading.

Private industry has been working to perfect instrument grad-ing for years. During this time a number of the major meat packing companies and private companies have invested millions of dollars into the technology so they have better data to make more informed internal production decisions, for calculating cattle payment, and/or as an individual data collection tool.

It is only in the last several years that there has been a strong movement to standardize and write rules around the use of instru-ments for Quality and Yield grading. The adoption and use of instru-ment grading as the main technology for both Yield and Quality grades is not far away. Most agree that it will be a data revolution, delivering data for analysis with a much higher degree of accuracy and consistency from region to region, from plant to plant, and from head to head.

For an update on instrument grading, I posed several questions to Mr. Marty O’Connor, Chief, Standards, Analysis and Technol-ogy Branch, AMS, USDA, to get an update on where the industry and USDA are in using instrument technology for quality and yield grading.

Q. Can you give us a brief background on the role and purpose of instrument grading?

A. The Livestock and Seed Program will utilize beef carcass fac-tors made by approved instruments to assist in determining the of-ficial quality and yield grade of beef carcasses, and to evaluate factors for certified branded beef programs. The overall objective in utilizing this equipment is to provide a more consistent and accurate factor and/or grade application on a national basis.

Instruments are approved by the LS Program for use after dem-onstrating three fundamental requirements: 1) repeatability; 2) accu-racy and precision at line speeds; and, 3) a documented program of

An example of Instrument Grading that shows the results of the computerized grading pro-gram (each carcass side is being graded separately), but also provides the grader with the op-portunity to override the resulting instrument grades based on the actual carcass and the im-ages shown. (Image provided by AMS, USDA)

USDA Prime Quality Grade

USDA Choice Quality Grade

USDA Select Quality Grade

in-plant procedures and verifications to ensure accurate and precise determinations are made by properly calibrated and verified instru-ments.

Although instrument systems have been approved for technical competence (repeatability, accuracy, and precision), their use for de-termining the official USDA grade and factors is contingent upon plants having a written plan approved by the USDA to verify the instruments’ on-going, in-plant operational accuracy as outlined by USDA approval procedures.

Once approved and implemented, USDA’s Meat Grading and Certification (MGC) Branch personnel will provide the day-to-day, carcass-to-carcass monitoring of USDA approved systems, and that the instruments are used only on carcasses that are presented properly for image capture and analysis (free of bone dust, carcass debris, fat pulls, etc., defects known to influence instrument prediction).

Because grading instruments utilize computers for the many complex calculations of grade factors, it is crucial the data integrity in all segments of the USDA approved instrument grading system be protected from unauthorized or inappropriate information system activity. USDA has proactively established cyber-security standard entitled “U.S. Government Protection Profile for USDA Instrument Grading Systems for Basic Robustness Environments.” The standard has been evaluated and certified by the National Security Agency‘s National Information Assurance Partnership. An ASTM (indepen-dent consensus standards body) committee that develops test meth-ods, practices, and specifications related to the livestock, meat, and poultry industries is considering using AMS’s cyber-security standard


as a model for information assurance security requirements for technol-ogy-based instrument grading systems.

Q. Is instrument grading now approved for YG as an augmentation to the line grader call?

A. Presently, no plants have been approved for REA, YG or mar-bling score because final revised versions of plant procedures have not been received for approval after modifications were made to the re-quirements by USDA after field testing the standards.

However, one certified beef program, Nolan Ryan’s All Natural Guaranteed Tender Beef, is approved to use an instrument for REA at two plants as part of a quality managed certification program. Some plants are using instrument YG as a contractual basis for payment but this is not an official USDA YG nor does MGC have oversight of in-strument use.

Q. What is the latest on how USDA will allow instrument grading to call Marbling? How about for Certification of brands?

A. USDA, academic and industry representatives are in the process of finalizing an equation that will match instrument marbling predic-tions with national USDA grade lines currently being applied. This is to ensure that the transition from grader to instrument assessment is seamless and transparent in achieving greater accuracy and precision.

Q. How long will it be before mechanical grading or vision, which ever USDA is going to call it, will be on line with all of the major packers?

A. Once plants have a written plan approved by the USDA to verify the instruments’ on-going, in-plant operational accuracy; instrument implementation will be conducted by USDA to ensure sameness of grading occurs. The approach will provide confidence that either the objective evaluation of the instrument or the subjective determinations made by graders are uniform and consistent among plants.

Having the ability to measure data (REA, and Fat Thickness) on an individual carcass basis at chain speed provides an untapped wealth of information for all segments of the beef industry to use for business im-provement. With this said, it does not mean the data collected will be free to any producer. There continues to be significant costs to capture the data. To charge or not to charge for data is a decision left to each company to determine. However, taking this information and turning it into knowledge will not be easy. A combination of efforts between segments to marry ranch, feeding, and overall carcass performance data (dressing percent, hot carcass weight, REA, YG, QG, Marbling, and Fat Thickness) together would create endless possibilities. On the other hand, using any one piece of data is like single trait selection, it will get you into trouble faster than you can get out.

So, as you think about what data you want or need, and the impact this data can have on the entire industry, you must first ask yourself, have I done my part in the data collection chain. Lastly, there is always a double edge when we get more accurate and new data, 50 percent will like the change and 50 percent will not. Just because it is more accurate data does not mean the new is always good. Nonetheless, you cannot manage what you cannot measure. Instrument grading is one more improvement in the grading program, which will provide us with measured data to use in our business management tool box. Caution, you’re about to enter the “data overload” zone!

Sources used: AMS, USDA LS Certification Branch, Comments from Mr. Marty O’Connor, Chief, Standards, Analysis and Technology Branch, AMS, USDA.

THE DEvELOpMENT OF THE US BEEF GRADING STANDARDS

1916 Tentative U.S. standards for the Grades of dressed beef formu-lated

1917 Uniformly reporting the dressed beef markets according to grades inaugurated as a national service

1923 First grade specifications published

1927 Voluntary beef grading and stamping service begun

1939 Official standards amended to provide a single standard for the grading and labeling of steer, heifer, and cow beef according to similar inherent quality characteristics

1946 USDA established the following grade terminology for all beef: Prime1, Choice, Good, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner

1950 Official standards for grades of steer, heifer, and cow beef were amended by combining the Prime and choice grades and designat-ing them as Prime, renaming the Good grade as Choice, and divid-ing the Commercial grade into two grades by designating the beef produced from young animals included in the top half of the grade as Good while retaining the Commercial grade designation for the remainder of the beef in that grade

1956 Official standards for grades for steer, heifer, and cow beef were amended by dividing the Commercial grade into two grades strict-ly on the basis of maturity with beef produced from young animals being designated as Standard while Commercial was retained as the grade name for beef produced from mature animals

1965 Official standards for grades of steer, heifer, and cow beef were revised to place less emphasis on changes in maturity in the Prime, Choice, Good, and Standard grades. This change was made to re-flect the latest research information available regarding the effect of maturity on beef palatability.

1965 Established standards for cutability grades of carcasses and certain wholesale cuts of all classes of beef

1973 Official standards were revised to provide separate quality grades for beef from young bulls; this class was designated as “Bullock”

1973 References to “Cutability groups” were changed to “yield grades”

1975 Official standards were revised to eliminate the consideration of maturity in determining the quality grade (1) of all bullock beef and (2) of all steer, heifer, and cow beef included in the youngest maturity group referenced in those standards

1975 Minimum marbling requirements for all grades to reflect the latest research results on palatability.

1975 Conformation was eliminated as a quality grade factor and all carcasses graded were required to be identified for both quality grade and yield grade

1980 Changes were made in the regulations to provide generally for grading only in carcass form and only in the establishment where the animal was slaughtered or initially chilled; in addition, a 10-min-ute minimum period between ribbing and presentation for grad-ing was established

1987 Official standards were revised to change the name of the U.S. Good grade to U.S. Select for steer, heifer, cow, and bullock car-casses; the revision did not change the requirements for the grade, only the grade name

1989 Official standards were revised to allow the official grade to consist of the quality grade only, the yield grade only, or a combination of both

1997 Official standards were revised to restrict the Select grade to A ma-turity only and to raise the marbling degree required for Choice to minimum modest throughout B maturity


When we look back at the generations of cattle-men, it seems they faced a whole different set of challenges. If a rancher could get his product to town, he usually got paid. Breed-

ing decisions were as simple as driving a group of cows and a bull to a watering hole on the ranch. Bull buying meant searching for whatever British import that could make the most improvement on the native herd. Each firm knew how many calves they needed to make the payment at the end of the year and keep the ranch running.

Today, cattlemen face many critical points in the deci-sion making process. They are not able to just settle for any herd sire, but one that can produce the right end product. No longer can the industry tell the buying public, “Here’s the product we’re going to produce, like it.” For most cattlemen, it’s the rising costs of production and narrowing margins that cause many sleepless nights.

Cattlemen, for the most part, embrace the long term commitment to genetic improvement and work diligently to

reach end product goals. Focusing on the end point makes a lot of sense in a market that changes every day and seems only to grow more volatile as many questions remain unan-swered. The tools for genetic selection have obviously become more complicated over the years, but also allow producers to make more rapid genetic progress when applied in the right manner.

“It’s not an easy process, but the first step to genetic im-provement is having an end in mind. It could be something as simple as where am I going to market my calves,” says Eric Brast, Texas Christian University Ranch Management Program.

Many ranchers feel that through the genetic selection process, they are producing a good product. One trip to the feedyard often tells the real story. Benchmarking data for a herd of cattle could be extremely important to the future.

“Producers think they have good cattle and sometimes they learn a lot when we hang them on the rail. Retained ownership is an excellent way to get some information back.

FEATURE | by Clifford Mitchell

Capturing ValueGenetic selection improves end product


ABOUT THE AUTHORClifford Mitchell is a second generation cattleman who currently owns and operates Elkhorn Creek, a freelance communications business in Guthrie, Oklahoma. Upon graduation from Oklahoma State University he began a career in communications, starting as a field reporter. Mitchell currently writes for a wide range of beef publications.


You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” says Dan Dorn, Decatur County Feedyard, Oberlin, Kansas.

“Get some carcass data. When we hang cattle from the same genetic population on the rail, we can see tremendous variability, sometimes as much as a $370 per head difference,” says Dr. Brad Morgan, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

“Taking the hide off is really the only way for a producer to know what he has. Either get data back from the packer or feed a set of calves,” Brast says. “Sometimes feeding cattle is a cost of doing business, but the producer walks away having learned a lot about his cattle. If they don’t have the genetics to perform, it doesn’t matter what the hide color is.”

Different stages in the marketing system will allow for emphasis on different traits. Avoiding discounts at every market level could help ranchers add profitability to the bottom line. Eliminating costly outliers could change profit margins drastically.

“We sometimes don’t give producers enough credit for the changes they are making. Since we have been doing the Beef Quality Audit, we can see exactly how we are doing as an industry,” Morgan says. “We have made improvements by decreasing the number of out cattle; how-ever, the discounts associated with these problems are higher today than they ever have been. We have to start looking at individuals and get away from averages.”

“Cattlemen can make more money by eliminating the discounts than any other area. In the feedyard, the bottom 20% account for 80% of the loss on a group of cattle,” Dorn says. “Use some of the data you have collected to cull the cow herd and focus on the losers. Cash flow is always a concern and most producers can’t afford to cull 20% of the cow herd, unless they have the help of a drought or some unforeseen change. Trace data back to individuals and records will tell you which cows aren’t performing.”

“If you have poor performers or outliers, trace those calves back to the cow herd to make some changes. If a producer will identify prob-lem cows, he can make changes in fairly good progression,” Brast says. “Producers should take a stair step approach. Make sure the changes are viable and affordable for the operation. Identify cows that take away from the bottom line and be in a position to cull them when the time comes.”

Outliers are costly. No matter what improvements cattlemen make, there will still be some cattle that don’t work, no matter what their ge-netic background is. These cattle continue to plague the industry, even though they are a small percentage of the population.

“We still have a problem with too many Yield Grade 4 and 5 cat-tle. Some of these cattle have an inch of back fat and still barely grade choice. Producers are doing a better job eliminating these cattle and they are fewer and fewer, but we still see seven outs in every 100 carcasses,” Morgan says. “Standard grading carcass, hard bones, dark cutters and heavy weight carcasses make up the majority of the out cattle. There can be a variety of causes for these problems. Dark cutters, for instance, can be blamed on disposition, trucking or even the packer. Weather changes or implant strategies could hurt marbling. There is a trickle down affect that makes it hard to fix the problem.”

“Although the outs we see today are a smaller percentage, they are still costly. In closeout data on 1,400 head this fall, I see roughly 4.5% out cattle,” Dorn says. “Causes are all over the board: hard bones, no roll carcasses, dark cutters, light weight and heavy weight carcasses. I think it’s about 85% genetic and 15% management. Heavy weight car-casses are probably our fault and we didn’t manage those cattle cor-rectly.” Costs associated with these products are dictated to the rancher; the consumer and the industry are telling producers there is no place for these carcasses.

“Cattlemen have to understand it takes a lot to overcome the dis-count for one bad carcass. You might have to produce 11 or 12 more choice carcasses to make up for one dark cutter,” Morgan says. “When we do produce a substandard product, there are fewer places to go with them. The big packing plants have changed management and there are also contamination issues we face today. No one really wants to deal with this product.”

There is an old proverb, “Don’t put the cart in front of the horse.” This concept sounds simple, but cattlemen must keep this in mind be-fore they try to change genetics and get caught in the single trait selec-tion bottleneck.

“A typical cow/calf man must look at an acceptable birth weight first, when selecting a herd sire. Even before we worry about all the other Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) or future performance, we


must get live calves. Then cattlemen must decide which traits are most important for their genetic selection and place a value on them,” Brast says. “Once the basics are covered, things like feed efficiency and carcass genetics become increasingly important. Build a genetic model and justify paying more for sire power because of what the genetic package is worth to the program. Once you apply a value to the important traits, you can focus on bulls that you can afford.”

“The cow/calf man has to know his environment and find the genetics that fit. Find a breed of cattle that you like and that fits your management style,” Dorn says. “There are all colors that fit your environment and have carcass merit. We feed cattle that come from Florida to Hawaii that will work, if a producer uses some carcass data to make culling decisions.”

Tools for genetic selection and improvements in technology allow for producers to gain more knowledge on the cow herd today than ever before. Willing partners are available to help cattlemen learn more about what they are producing. Gathering this data could boost profit potential in many areas.

“Many interesting things happen when we have the ability to match calves with both sire and dam. We find out real quickly, one bull is cover-ing the majority of the cows, which is fine if he’s a good bull. We find out one sire is usually responsible for siring standard grading carcasses or sub par performers,” Morgan says. “You can also find out good things like the sire that is producing very desirable growth and carcass traits, is also pro-ducing tender carcasses. This is huge from a negotiating standpoint when it’s time to market calves.”

“I’ll step up and partner with a cattleman one time. It’s a relation-ship business as well. We’ll do it again, if the cattle are what the producer said they were upon arrival and they perform. It’s often worth an extra $2 to $3 per hundred, for partnership cattle, because I know the cattle can perform,” Dorn says. “Cattle are worth less to me without some historical data, even though everything is right from a management standpoint. If you can only feed part of the calf crop, feed that middle cut.”

“If your cash flow situation doesn’t allow you to feed the whole calf crop, feed part of your calves or try to partner with the feed yard,” Brast says. “There are costs and a learning curve associated with genetic improve-ment. Be decisive on an end point, typically, when people get sidetracked or lose sight of the overall goal is when they get into trouble.”

The information chain associated with genetic improvement has grown over the years. Today, there are so many things to consider, a pro-ducer could get bogged down trying to make the right decisions. Making simple changes to position the herd for a more profitable scenario always makes good sense.

“Some producers who get carcass data don’t know how to interpret it. You have to know what each number means. Extension or other university staff can help cattlemen make the best use of this information. Don’t get bogged down in all the numbers; look at the full economic value and try to make money,” Morgan says. “Benchmark data will tell you what you’re producing. Don’t brag on the ones that made it, figure out how to get rid of the ones that didn’t. Packers are starting to pay for what you produce.”

“Focus on the return to the ranch. Don’t worry about the arrival value. The market changes every day,” Dorn says. “It’s not a simple process going over a close-out sheet because we all look at different numbers first. There can be more to it than just the percent that graded choice. What’s the rib eye area, how many outs, how’d they feed or were they sick? When you strive for excellence you’re going to make mistakes. It’s hard to keep im-proving; something as simple as updating the herd bull battery can change how the calves perform.”

“Record-keeping can be as simple as having a pad in your pocket. Write down when you turned out the bulls and when you took them out. Document when the first and last calf were born. Source and age verifica-tion will pay when you market those cattle or feed them. There can be many benefits associated with a little better record-keeping,” Brast says. “Margins are small and we have to take care of the housekeeping chores.

There is a lot of thought and time at the kitchen table, especially, when genetic changes are being made.”

Just like generations past, cattlemen face many unknowns. Taking care of business at home could be the biggest indicator of future profit. Tools of genetic selection, record keeping and information go a long way to restor-ing profitability to the bottom line. Overnight changes or quick fixes are uncommon in the beef industry. Producers can improve their product by taking simple steps and staying the course.

“Start somewhere, group information is better than none. You can make huge changes, but the frustrating part is it takes time. By the time you get the data back on set of calves that you fed, the cow already has a calf in her belly. That’s why it’s so important to focus on eliminating that bottom 20 percent,” Dorn says. “Use carcass and performance data to help make management decisions. Genetics, management and accurate record keeping will help increase the profit returned to the ranch.”

“There is a lag factor in bovine to make genetic changes within the herd. Producers need to be willing to invest the time to get there because it’s a long term process,” Brast says. “Objectively assess the cow herd; iden-tify what you need to do to reach production goals and maintain profit margins.”

“We’re working with a biological system. Usually we can’t see the prob-lem until it’s too late. The pork and poultry industries have an audit every year. We do the Beef Quality Audit every four years because it takes that much time to make improvement,” Morgan says. “We can’t afford the flavor of the month mentality. It’s a long term process and we have to make small subtle changes that provide the most bang for our buck, to the bottom line.”


they are required to calve first as two-year-olds and breed back to calve annually thereafter. The practice has proven extremely beneficial both for grazing and for making high quality haylage to maintain the cows in the tough times. Times like the Fall of 2008, perhaps the driest ever recorded for the region.

In a couple of instances the pasture renovation efforts have paid off in an even bigger way. Two of the land owners leasing their pastureland to Neal have forgone collecting lease payments simply because of the improvement they have seen in their land.

Neal’s calving season begins about November 10 each year, which lets him make the most of his improved pastures. Conception rates for the operation are routinely upwards of 90%, which Neal attributes both to the grazing program and keeping the proper mineral supplement in front of his cows at all times.

August not only is one of the peak months for tropical storms, but the month that Neal markets his steer calves. This year he marketed three loads of steers weighing 650-675 lbs straight off the cow to a single buyer. Neal believes direct marketing is the best option for his steer calves, but is continually looking for new ways to add value to what he produces. Because he has a controlled breeding season, Neal is now contemplating USDA Source and Age verification to expand his mar-keting options for his steers through the Brangus OptimaxX program. He sees the minimal record keeping requirements and the $1.25 for the OptimaxX ear tag as an easy trade for the extra value that Age and Source verification could bring for his calves.

But, Neal has different plans for his heifer calves. Since reentering the industry, Neal has been keeping back large numbers of heifers to replace his older cows and to grow his herd. Today, he is approaching the numbers and herd makeup that he set as his original goal, which means he will soon have excess numbers of the same kind of quality

heifers that he has used to build his herd. As a result, he plans to market his first large set of bred heifers in the Fall of 2009. And, because he has been using only registered Brangus and Ultrablack bulls, he’s decided to enroll and market the heifers as Brangus Gold replacement females, expecting that the genetic and source verification program will earn him a little extra per head.

Storms will continue to come ashore in Louisiana. Some will cause serious wind damage, some will bring flooding, and some will pass with little impact to West Feliciana Parish. Craig Neal knows he’ll see his share of rough weather, but between the hurricanes he’s content with his black cows and clover

earlier in life and spending more time on the high energy diet, carcass quality and marbling can be increased compared to normal weaned calves finished on similar diets. It would appear that creep feeding does not have the same magnitude of effect, likely because creep diets do not provide great enough energy (starch) content and are not consumed in a great enough amount to stimulate fat deposition.

The discussion of weaning management is the perfect spring board to the discussion of nutrition to influence carcass merit. To put it simply, growth is dependent upon energy content of the diet. Protein content of the diet is important, but energy is the main driver. Dietary nutri-ents are utilized for maintenance, lean tissue growth, and fat deposition in that order. Proper nutrition is imperative for calves to reach their genetic carcass potential. Again, depending upon the final endpoint de-sired for the cattle, input costs, and market signals, there are numerous management and nutritional avenues from which to choose. On farm nutrition is in the hands of the producer and can position the calf for future performance and the desired carcass merit. Feedlot nutrition is often out of the control of the producer that retains ownership, how-ever, each cattle owner should have an awareness of the feeding program and practices of the feedlot they utilize.

Health appears to be the single management factor that can col-lectively negate proper nutrition and superior genetics for performance and carcass merit. A sick calf will not grow; a sick calf is altering nutri-ent use away from growth and carcass accretion to mounting an im-mune response. An immune response to a disease challenge is an energy, protein, vitamin, and mineral intensive metabolic process that rob the calf of the growth opportunity during and after the immune challenge. Producers should be well aware of the Texas A&M Ranch-to-Rail data that reports decreased performance, net return, and quality grade for cattle that get sick during finishing. Cow-calf producers must work with

their local veterinarian or production system coordinator to design and implement effective cow herd and calf health protocols.

Finally, various management processes and technologies that are implemented can affect performance and subsequent carcass merit. Calf processing techniques including castrating, de-horning, and branding should be accomplished as early in life as feasible. These are stressful episodes for calves, therefore removing the stress sooner provides the calf a longer stress free period to express their gain potential and begin the development of the carcass characteristics. Likewise, the negative effects of not castrating or dehorning or delaying those procedures on carcass merit should not be ignored. Implants have differential effects depending when the implant is administered, strength of the implant, and lifetime implant regime. Mild implants approved for use in calves generally have little to no influence on subsequent carcass quality. Whereas, an aggressive implant regime administered early during the finishing period does have the potential to depress marbling score but increase carcass weight and growth efficiency. In contrast, implant use during the end of the finishing period has much less effect on the carcass quality of the cattle. The key to optimal implant use is to know your cattle’s carcass merit potential and the marketing/harvesting system that they will enter. Then tailor the production management to facilitate calves to meet the parameters.

BOTTOM LINEWhen we turn bulls out, we’ve made the single largest decision

dictating carcass merit for our future calves. Once the calves are on the ground, management and nutrition decisions become critical for optimizing the expression of ultimate carcass merit. The first step is to understand where you are today and define specific goals for what you want from your operation

BETWEEN THE HURRICANES continued

HOW DO WE AFFECT CARCASS MERIT? continued

ABOUT ST. FRANCISVILLESt Francisville is the county seat of West Feliciana Parish, known for

its stately, historical plantation properties, like Rosedown, Greenwood, the Myrtles, Oakley and others.

“The rich magnolias covered with fragrant blossoms, the holly, the beech, the tall yellow poplar, the hilly ground and even the red clay, all excited my admiration. Such an entire change in the fall of nature in so short a time seems almost supernatural, and surrounded once more by numberless warblers and thrushes, I enjoyed the scene.” So reads the journal of John James Audubon as he recorded his arrival in 1821 at Oakley Plantation near St Francisville. Now home of the Audubon State Historic Site, the plantation has been restored to the period when the artist completed or began 32 bird paintings during his four month stay.

West Feliciana Parish is bordered to the west and south by the Mis-sissippi River, to the north by the state of Mississippi and to the east by Thompson Creek. It’s marginal soils are best suited to forage and timber production.


ALABAMA

To place your ad in the STATe DirecTory, please callthe BPi office at 210.696.8231

AriZoNA


AriZoNA



cALiForNiA


FLoriDA


GeorGiA


KANSAS



LoUiSiANA


MiSSiSSiPPi


MiSSoUri


NeW MeXico


USDA-approved AGE and SoUrcE verification.

optimAxx iS not AboUt thE tAGit iS AboUt mArkEt AccESS

NorTH cAroLiNA


oKLAHoMA



SoUTH cAroLiNA


TeNNeSSee


TeXAS



JANUARY5-9 Gus T. Canales Prescribed Burning Lectureship, Kingsville, TX 361-593-5401 web: krirm.tamuk.edu.

6 South Dakota Grasslands Coalition Meeting, Oacoma, SD 605-280-0127 web: [email protected].

6-8 BEEF 2020 Workshop, Brookings, SD 605-688-5448 web: ars.sdstate.edu/extbeef/BEEF_2020.htm

9 Conference on Reproduction, Calving and Calf Care in Cow-Calf Herds, Manhattan, KS 785-532-5569 web: www.vet.k-state.edu.

10-25 National Western Stock Show, Denver, CO web: www.nationalwestern.com.

13 2009 International Livestock Congress, Denver, CO web: www.theisef.com/ilcusa1.aspx

13-14 Southwest Beef Sympoisum, Midland, TX 432-336-8585 web: cahe.nmsu.edu/ces/swbeef/

16-Feb 8 Forth Worth Stockshow & Rodeo, Fort Worth, TX web: www.fwssr.com.

24 AGRItunity 2009, Brooksville, FL 325-793-2728 web: sumter.ifas.ufl.edu.

24 Texas Brangus Breeders Texas Source Bull Sale, Sealy TX 210-558-0800 email: [email protected]

24-31 25th National Cowboy Poetry Gathering, Elko, NV web: www.westernfolklife.org

25-27 BVDV Symposium, Phoenix, AZ web: www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=10851

28-31 Cattle Industry Annual Convention & Tradeshow, Phoenix, AZ web: www.beefusa.org.

FEBRUARY5-22 San Antonio Livestock Show & Rodeo, San Antonio, TX web: www.sarodeo.com

7 Southwestern BBA Best in the West Brangus Sale, Marana, AZ (520) 820-5210

28 Spitzer Ranch Performance Tested Bull Sale, Calhoun, GA email: [email protected]

10-12 World Ag Expo, Tulare, CA web: www.woldagexpo.com.

19-21 Strategic Planning and Management of a Ranch Lectureship, Kingsville, TX 361-593-5401 web: krirm.tamuk.edu.

24-25 Mid-South Stocker Conference, Cadiz, KY web: www.midsouthstocker.og/Conference.htm.

MARCH3-22 Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, Houston, Texas web: www.hlsr.com

4-9 Holistic Management International Texas 2009 Spring Conference, Abilene, TX 325-348-3014 email: [email protected] .

7 Genetic Edge XIV Brangus and Red Brangus Sale, Reliant Center, Houston, TX web: www.GoBrangus.com or www.redbrangus.org

8-10 2009 Meat Conference, Denver, CO web: www.meatconference.com.

17-20 2009 International Animal Health and Nutrition Symposium, Lexington, KY email: [email protected]

31-April 2 National Institute of Animal Agriculture Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY web : www.animalagriculture.org

CALENDEROFEvENTS

ADVERTISERSINDEXADvERTISER pAGE WEB SITE pHONE NUMBERABS Global, Inc. 1 www.absglobal.com 800.ABS.STUD

Champion Ranch 11 903.536.7103

Circle X Land and Cattle Co., Ltd. 21 www.circlexbrangus.com 979.776.5760

IGENITY 3 www.igenity.com 877.IGENITY

International Red Brangus Breeders’ Association 11 www.redbrangus.org

Oak Creek Farms 5 www.oakcreekfarms.com 979.836.6832

OB Ranch

SBBA Best in the West Sale 23 520.820.5210

Spitzer Ranch 7 email: [email protected] 864.972.9140

TBBA Spring Sale 15 512.422.3123

Triangle K Ranch 9 www.trianglekfarm.com 713.829.0270

vineyard Cattle Company 13 www.vineyardcattlecompany.com 713.805.8636

Move Your Sales to the FRONT of the LINE.

Advertising in FRONTLINE Beef Producer gets your message out to 20,000 potential customers.

ISSuE FOCuS MAILING DATE AD DEADLINE

Herd Health & Grazing Management March 15 February 20

Feeder Calf Marketing & Bull Power September 15 August 20

Cow Efficiency & Industry Trends November 15 October 20

frontlinebeef producer

Call the BPI Office today at 210.696.8321 to highlight your sale in FRONTLINE Beef Producer.

www.GoBrangus.comwww.GoBrangus.comInternational Brangus Breeders Association

OptimaxX is … • USDA approved Genetic verification of at least 50% IBBA blood of your choice:

Brangus®, Red Brangus, Ultrablack®, Ultrared, or Certified Percentage• USDA approved Source verification to ranch of origin• USDA approved Age verification for group age• EASY – Minimal documentation requirements• about Market Access … - to export markets - to true value based grids - to branded programs - to IBBA marketing assistance programs

Age & Source verificationthat lets you keep moredollars in YOUR pocket.

ALL FOR THE COST OF THE TAGNo Data Management Fees - No Enrollment Fees

If you’re not using IBBA bulls,maybe it’s time you take a closer look at the many IBBA Benefits.

OptimaxXBrangus

Beef Genetics

®

FBP Jan/Feb 2009

Documents

Transcript of FBP Jan/Feb 2009