Land and Livestock Post

July 2018 - Issue I

VALUED VETS

USDA, AgriLife unite to help veterans start in agriculture.

PAGE 10

GUAR-ANTEE AgriLife helps implant new guar regulations.

PAGE 11

WILLFUL BEHAVIOR

Make sure your estate is protected when you die.

PAGE 16

CHOOSE TO LOSE When is the best time to castrate calves?

PAGE 21

PRSRT PRSRTSTD STD US USPOSTAGE POSTAGE PAID PAID BRYAN, BRYAN,TX TX77802 77802 PERMIT PERMIT# #23 23

SIZE MATTERS

Cow size and efficiency are important PAGE 12

FREE DELIVERY! • TRADE-INS WELCOME • UP TO 6 YR WARRANTY † OVER 8 ACRES of TRACTORS RTV’S, ATV’S and MOWERS to CHOOSE FROM NEW KUBOTA

MX 5200DT 54.7HP 4WD Tractor – WITH – • Kubota Front End Loader • 6’ Shredder

Cash PriCe

$27,699

NEW KUBOTA

L3301DT 33 HP 4WD Tractor – WITH – • Kubota Front End Loader • 5’ Shredder

NEW KUBOTA

L4701HST 47.3 HP 4WD Tractor – WITH – • Kubota Front End Loader • 6’ Shredder

Cash PriCe

Cash PriCe

$27,799

$19,999

NormaNgee TracTor & ImplemeNT co.

NEW KUBOTA

Corner of Hwy 39 @ OSR • Normangee, TX

L2501F 25 HP 2WD Tractor – WITH –

www.normangeetractor.com

• 3pt Quick Hitch • 5’ Box Blade w/ Teeth

1.800.396.3101 • 936.396.3101

Cash PriCe

†For complete warranty, safety and product information, consult your local Kubota dealer and the product operator’s manual. Power (HP/KW) and other specifications are based on various standards or recommended practices. Only terms and conditions of Kubota’s standard Limited Warranty apply. For warranty terms, see us or go to KubotaUSA.com.

2

$10,599

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

News From the General Manager

M

Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Beth Luedeker

LeAnne Campbell and Dr. Keerti Rathore examine the quality of engineered transgenic cotton plants regenerated from tissue cultures.

Newly developed fertilizer system would kill herbicide-resistant weeds

By Kay LedBetter Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

A newly developed fertilizer system will provide nutrition to engineered cotton crops worldwide and a deadly dose to weeds that are increasingly herbicide resistant, according to a Texas A&M AgriLife Research study.

The new system applies phosphite to cotton crops engineered to express a certain gene — a gene that makes cotton able to process the phosphite into nutrition while the same compound suppresses weeds that are unable to use it, researchers said.

“Our researchers here at Texas A&M AgriLife have addressed an issue that costs producers billions of dollars,” said Patrick Stover, vice chancellor of agriculture and life sciences at Texas A&M University in College Station and AgriLife Research acting director. “This is an economical, environmentally safe and sus-

tainable solution.

Stover said this is an exciting and timely discovery in the movement to get ahead of the ongoing problem of weeds evolving faster than the chemicals and other methods developed to control them.

“We believe the ptxD/phosphite system we have developed is one of the most promising technologies of recent times that can help solve many of the biotechnological, agricultural and environmental problems we encounter,” said Keerti Rathore, an AgriLife Research plant biotechnologist in College Station.

“Selective fertilization with phosphite allows unhindered growth of cotton plants expressing the ptxD gene while suppressing weeds” is the title of a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America journal article released the week of June 4. The

See COTTON, Page 4

The Land & Livestock Post



y office supplies pens.

That is to say, there is a drawer, with a box of pens in it, and if you are an employee, you are welcome to them. The same box of pens has been in that drawer for roughly 15 years, if I were to guess. If banks used these types of pens, they could save a ton on those little chains that attach them to the counter because no one would steal these pens.

So, I end up buying my own pens usually, and I will admit I am a bit of a pen snob. Pilot G-2 is my go-to, and luckily the Walgreens near my office keeps a pretty good stock: I’m talking fine, bold, blue, black — heck they even have purple and green options for all the crazy, drugged-out, hippy weirdos out there on the edge who would dare to write with such an ink shade.

I was down to my last G-2, and it was getting low on ink, so I recently found myself in the office supplies aisle there at Walgreens. I grabbed a bold tip, and a fine tip, because I figured it was summertime, why not go a little nuts? I made my way to the check-out line, and I was deeply pondering whether I should add the watermelonflavored Bubblicious gum to my purchase, or if I should go for the grape. I was so engrossed in this debate in my mind that I barely noticed it was my turn and I was a bit shocked when the cashier addressed me.

“I bet you’re a professor,” she said, “Are you a professor?”

I looked up, shocked, having been presented with a question far more perplexing than my internal gum debate.

“Um, no. No I am not a professor, “ I stammered as I swiped my card.

“Well, you sure look like one,” she said handing me my receipt.

July 2018 — Issue I

I walked out the door, in a sort of daze, completely questioning everything about myself that had caused her to have that view of me. Was it my outfit? I was wearing a golf polo, khakis and boots, so it couldn’t have been that. Had I been wearing a corduroy jacket with patches on the elbows and a cravat, maybe I could see her reasoning, but such was not the case. Did she think I looked old? I am knocking on 40, so I don’t want even to consider this option, but I have all my hair, and it’s not gray, but still I don’t want to delve into that water.

Did she think I looked smart?

Again, some waters should just remain un-delved. The only other option I could come up with was that perhaps I looked like I murdered a socialite, in the conservatory, with a candlestick.

All these thoughts swirled through my head as I walked back to the office. About halfway there, I realized I forgot to buy gum. But, I decided buying X-treme Watermelon Wave gum was not very professorial, so I

continued on my way.

I share this tale of pens and gum and mistaken identity because, well, it’s July. It’s hot, and there’s not a whole lot going on at the moment. But despite being in the doldrums of summer, we did manage to pull together a pretty good issue for you.

Our cover story takes a look at the question of cow size, and we have a new ag law feature that I am excited about. We also have news and information from all around the ag industry, so be sure to find a cool shady spot and sit and read awhile.

Hope you enjoy it and, as always, thanks for reading. ’Til next time,

z For more information about content or advertising, contact Jesse Wright at jesse.wright@theeagle.com.

3390 Winbrook Dr. Memphis, TN 38116

3

News Cotton, from Page 3

Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Beth Luedeker

A cultured somatic embryo developing into a normal cotton plantlet following introduction of a transgene into cotton cells some 10 months previously.

article can be found at tinyurl. com/ptxDcottonphosphite.

Phosphorus is a major element required by all living beings. Life is not possible without it. Most organisms can utilize phosphorus only in the form of orthophosphate.

“We have determined ptxDexpressing cotton plants can utilize phosphite as a sole source of phosphorus while weeds cannot, thus making it effective at suppressing weed growth,” Rathore said.

The transgenic plants expressing the bacterial ptxD gene gain an ability to convert phosphite into orthophosphate, he said.

Such plants allow for a selective fertilization scheme, based on phosphite as the sole source of phosphorous for the crop, while offering an effective alternative to suppress the growth of weeds that are unable to utilize this

form of phosphorus.”

The international research team led by Rathore consists of Devendra Pandeya, Madhusudhana Janga, Muthu Bagavathiannan and LeAnne Campbell, all with Texas A&M AgriLife in College Station. Others are Damar Lopez-Arredondo and Priscila Estrella-Hernandez at StelaGenomics Inc. and Luis Herrera-Estrella at the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute, all in Irapuato, Mexico.

This research was funded in part by Cotton Inc. Weed herbicide resistance and weed control are the No. 2 and No. 3 concerns of U.S. cotton farmers after input

See ENGINEERED, Page 5

l a u nn A h t 47

A C PR

July 19-21

2018 o e d o r

com BRazos County EXPo ComPlEX . o e d nRo BRyan, tEXas H 7:30 Pm a y r B . w w w Box Seat ticketS call: 979-822-7700

eveRy Night

ADvANCe tiCKet PRiCeS

ADULTS $10 H KIDS 12 & UNDER $8

Austin Anderson and the texas trick Riders Mini bareback Riding Championship Series

Presented by:

an Br

Br y

lithia of bryan H Cavender’s boot City texas rose boutique H the eagle ProduCers CooPerative H Catalena hatters

NPbR bull Riding

CATALENA

s C l ub

4

AvAilAble At:

thuRSDAy Night July 19

on

kfast Li ea

Kids 2 & under free

Mutton bustin’

COWGIRLS

July 2018 — Issue I



HBOOT CITYH

The Land & Livestock Post

News Engineered, from Page 4 costs.

“We can and will deliver for our cotton producers in Texas and beyond, in collaboration with Cotton Inc. and partners,” said Bill McCutchen, executive associate director of AgriLife Research in College Station.

Weeds typically are managed manually, mechanically or chemically. He said, chemical control options are rapidly shrinking due to an increasing number of herbicide-resistant weeds in crop fields, however, with few alternatives on the horizon.

“Over the years, it has become abundantly clear that new strategies are needed for weed control to sustain agriculture production while reducing our dependence on herbicides,” Herrera-Estrella said. “There is an urgent need for alternative weed suppression systems to sustain crop productivity, while reducing our dependence on herbicides and tillage.”

Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Beth Luedeker

Keerti Rathore examines the health of ptxD-cotton plants being grown in the greenhouse for seed increase for a field trial with Devendra Pandeya and LeAnne Campbell.

Rathore, who has been researching genetic improvement of cotton for more than 20 years, said herbicide-resistance in weeds is not just a U.S. problem, but rather a global challenge for producers of cotton, corn and soybeans.

Such a development also will relieve some of the negative perceptions associated with the use of herbicide-resistance genes and heavy dependence on herbicides, he said.

Rathore has also developed cotton plants that produce very low levels of gossypol in the seeds to improve the safety and nutrition aspects of the cotton seed, but simultaneously maintain normal levels of this chemical in the foli-

See Weeds, Page 6

Circle Land and Cattle Co., Ltd.

Proud Members of

Bobcat Bottoms Ranch • Persimmon Creek Ranch • Camp Cooley Ranch Spring Valley Ranch • Windy Hill Ranch • Vista Ridge Ranch

Located just off Hwy. 6 and OSR 1415 East OSR • Bryan • (979) 776-5760 • Steve: (979) 450-0819

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

www.circlexbrangus.com 5

News Weeds, from Page 5 age, floral parts, boll rind and roots for protection against insects and pathogens.

He previously published a report identifying ptxD as a selectable marker gene to produce transgenic cotton plants.

The ptxD gene derived from Pseudomonas stutzeri WM88 encodes an enzyme that changes phosphite into orthophosphate, a metabolizable form of phosphorus, when expressed in transgenic plants.

Importantly, the ptxD/phosphite system proved highly effective in inhibiting growth of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, Rathore said. Resistance to current technologies in this highly noxious weed started showing up in fields about 10-15 years ago.

“The results presented in our paper clearly demonstrate the ptxD/phosphite system can serve as a highly effective

means to suppress weeds under natural, low-phosphorus soils, including those resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, while allowing better growth of the ptxD-expressing cotton plants due to lesser competition from the debilitated weeds,” Rathore said.

Unlike weeds acquiring resistance to herbicides, he said it is highly unlikely weeds will gain the ability to use phosphite as a source of phosphorus.

“In order for a weed to acquire the ability to utilize phosphite, one of its dehydrogenase genes will have to undergo a complex array of multiple mutations in its DNA sequence — that’s unlikely to happen by random mutations that occur in all organisms,” Rathore said.

Another important point, he said, is compared to phosphate, phosphite has higher solubility and a lower tendency to bind soil components. So, if it is applied in proper formulation to

Texas A&M AgriLife photo

Palmer amaranth, more commonly known as pigweed, infests a High Plains cotton field. prevent leaching, lower quantities can be used without sacrificing the crop yields.

“Even if some phosphite ends up in streams and rivers and eventually in lakes and the sea, the algal species will be incapable of using it as a source of phosphorus, thus preventing toxic algal blooms that kill fish and other creatures in water bodies,” Herrera-Estrella said.

Future studies will focus on testing ptxD-transformants in the fields that are low in phosphorus as well as evaluating the utility of phosphite as an over-the-top “herbicide,” Rathore said.

Also, long-term impact of the use of phosphite as a source of phosphorus on the soil microflora under field conditions needs to be investigated.

w.wctractor.com ww

WCTRACTOR 75 Ye e ars of Servic

your

1-888-8TRACTOR

Local kubota dealer!

Temple Bryan Navasota Brenham

6

Br Bryan 1960 N. Earl Rudder Fwy

July 2018 — Issue I

BRYAN 979-778-0325 NAVASOTA 936-825-7577 BRENHAM 979-830-0692 TEMPLE 254-742-1212



The Land & Livestock Post

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

7

News Minimum water consumption requirements for beef cattle

By Kalyn Waters University of Florida

When producers think about nutritional requirements for beef cattle, protein, energy and minerals often come to mind. However, none of these nutrients will meet an animal’s needs without adequate water consumption.

There are minimum amounts of water required for growth, fetal development, lactation and the replacement of water from urine and evaporation (Table 1). Going into the summer months in the Southeastern U.S., it is critical to remember that water is required for the animal to regulate body temperatures, as well as to maintain health and maximize production.

For producers, this means ensuring cattle have clean and abundant water sources available to them at all times. The total amount of water that is required for cattle is influenced by weight, stage of production, and weather conditions.

Factors influencing water requirements for cattle include:

• stage of production — Lactating cows will have a much higher water requirement.

Milk composition in beef cows is about 4 percent fat and 8 percent other solids (proteins, carbohydrates, and minerals). The remaining 88 percent of milk is water. Research in dairy herds shows that for every pound of milk produced by a cow, an additional 0.87 to 0.9 pounds of water will be required for consumption by that cow.

• Environment — Temperature and humidity are key players in water consumption.

For every 10 degrees above 40° F cattle consume about 1 more gallon of water per day.

• Diet — Water content in the feed is highly variable. For example a total mixed ration such that would be fed at a feed yard is much drier than what cattle grazing lush forages will be consuming. As the water content of feed consumed increases, the amount of water cattle will drink decreases.

All of these factors impact the total water requirements and intake by cattle. Cattle pro-

See WATER, Page 17

TJS S Hardware

Jet Dealer & Service For Over 30 Years

Texas Jet Systems, “Specialists in Waste Water Treatment”

9 miles N. of Carlos 19685 FM 244, Iola, Tx 77861 (936) 394-2507

Cattle Guards Custom Cattle Guards Also ATV Cattle Guards

Concrete leg feed trough

Concrete Products

190 Gallon Concrete Water trough

We Carry Certified Dealer

Cable Fencing Supplies

Water Troughs, Cattle Guard Beams, Septic Tanks, Storm Shelters

Authorized Sprayer and Sprayer parts dealer

The J Bunk Length: 10 ft Width: 24”/20” Back: 30”/22” Weight: 2680 lbs

The H Bunk WINCO Generator Tractor Driven PTO

Cattle Panels • Water Well Supplies • Waste Water Chlorine • Corral Panels Aerobic Sewer Systems • Gates Poly & Galvanized Culverts

8

New Pipe

No Threads - No Bell Ends

Length: 8 ft Back: 26”/10” Width: 5”/4.5” Weight: 3260 lbs

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

News LIVESTOCK MARKET REPORT Anderson Results of the Mid Tex Livestock Commission’s June 14 sale.

Head: 725 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $145-$190; 300-400 lbs., $140-$190; 400500 lbs., $135-$173; 500-600 lbs., $125-$155; 600-700 lbs., $120-$150; 700-800 lbs., $110$128 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $120-$165; 300-400 lbs., $125-$205; 400500 lbs., $130-$155; 500-600 lbs., $120-$148; 600-700 lbs., $110-$130; 700-800 lbs., $105$120 Slaughter bulls: $60-$80 Slaughter cows: $35-$60 Bred cows: $550-$900 Cow/calf pairs: $900-$1,700

Brazos Valley Results of the Brazos Valley Livestock Commission’s June 12 sale.

Head: 854 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $160-$190; 300-400 lbs., $155-$183; 400500 lbs., $145-$166; 500-600 lbs., $135-$160; 600-700 lbs., $128-$149; 700-800 lbs., $128$132 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $135-$165; 300-400 lbs., $130-$151; 400500 lbs., $128-$146; 500-600 lbs., $124-$148; 600-700 lbs., $116-$137; 700-800 lbs., $110$118 Slaughter bulls: $62-$79 Slaughter cows: $45-$65.50 Bred cows: $750-$1,175 Cow/calf pairs: $850-$1,575

Brenham Results of the Cattleman’s Brenham Livestock Auction’s June 8 sale.

Head: 713 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $145-$202; 300-400 lbs., $150-$189; 400500 lbs., $143-$166; 500-600 lbs., $139-$157; 600-700 lbs., $123-$144; 700-800 lbs., $115$132 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $140-$182; 300-400 lbs., $145-$179; 400500 lbs., $135-$172; 500-600 lbs., $120-$160; 600-700 lbs.,

$115-$140; 700-800 lbs., $107$120 Slaughter bulls: $57-$78 Slaughter cows: $32-$61 Bred cows: $650-$1,350 Cow/calf pairs: $900-$1,400

Buffalo Results of the Buffalo Livestock Commission’s June 9 sale.

Head: 1,479 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $160-$200; 300-400 lbs., $145-$190; 400500 lbs., $140-$175; 500-600 lbs., $135-$160; 600-700 lbs., $130-$145; 700-800 lbs., $115$138 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $130-$180; 300-400 lbs., $130-$160; 400500 lbs., $125-$150; 500-600 lbs., $120-$145; 600-700 lbs.,$115-$136; 700-800 lbs., $105-$128 Slaughter bulls: $65-$100 Slaughter cows: $35-$62 Bred cows: $750-$1,210 Cow/calf pairs: $950-$1,450

Head: 501 Steers: 300-400 lbs., $160$200; 400-500 lbs., $150-$187; 500-600 lbs., $140-$175; 600-700 lbs., $130-$145 Heifers: 300-400 lbs., $130$162; 400-500 lbs., $125-$149; 500-600 lbs., $120-$145; 600-700 lbs., $110-$135 Slaughter bulls: $76-84 Slaughter cows: $36-$62.50 Bred cows: $900-$1,300 Cow/calf pairs: $900-$1,200

Jordan Results of the Jordan Cattle Auction’s June 14 sale.

Head: 2,979 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $170$200; 300-400 lbs., $165-$208; 400-500 lbs., $150-$183; 500-600 lbs.,

$145-$175; 600-700 lbs., $138-$154; 700-800 lbs., $125-$143 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $150$172; 300-400 lbs., $150-$172; 400-500 lbs., $140-$166; 500-600 lbs., $130-$151; 600-700 lbs., $120-$147; 700-800 lbs., $110-$129 Slaughter bulls: $68-$83.50 Slaughter cows: $48-$66 Bred cows: $800-$1,500 Cow/calf pairs: $800-$2,225

Groesbeck Results of the Groesbeck Auction and Livestock Company’s June 14 sale.

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

— Special to The Post

Navasota Results of the Navasota Livestock Commission’s June 9 sale.

Head: 1,471 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $115$195; 300-400 lbs., $115$182.50; 400-500 lbs., $115-$160; 500-600 lbs., $110-$156; 600-700 lbs.,

Subscribe to the award-winning

Caldwell Results of the Caldwell Livestock Commission’s June 13 sale.

Head: 634 Steers: 200-300 lbs., $175$182; 300-400 lbs., $166-$182; 400-500 lbs., $151-$160; 500-600 lbs., $145-$155; 600-700 lbs., $138-$142; 700-800 lbs., $130-$133 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $150$195; 300-400 lbs., $152-$172; 400-500 lbs., $141-$180; 500-600 lbs., $133-$148; 600-700 lbs., $126-$137; 700-800 lbs., $115-$120 Slaughter bulls: $79-$85 Slaughter cows: $42-$65 Bred cows: $625-$1950 Cow/calf pairs: $975-$1,275

$110-$145 Heifers: 200-300 lbs., $115$180; 300-400 lbs., $115-$170; 400-500 lbs., $115-$165; 500-600 lbs., $110-$150; 600-700 lbs., $105-$140 Slaughter bulls: $55-$85 Slaughter cows: $35-$56 Bred cows: $700-$1,175 Cow/calf pairs: N/A

and receive 24 issues of the latest ag news and information about the issues that affect you!

For only $19.95

q q

New Subscription Address Change

mail or register Online:

c/o Land & Livestock Post P.O. Box 3000 • Bryan, TX 77805 Or www.landandlivestockpost.com and click “subscribe”.

Name: Address: City:_____________________ St: ________ Zip: Phone #: Old Address (if applicable): City: _____________________St: _______Zip: Email Address: PAymENt INfOrmAtION

q Check Enclosed (Please make checks payable to The Eagle) q Please Bill my: q Mastercard q VISA q American Express

Account#:_____________________________CIV#:_____________ Name on Card: Amount: _________________________Expiration Date: Signature: Date:

9

News Joining forces to help veterans get started in agriculture

By GaBe Saldana Special to The Post

DALLAS — The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue have announced expansion of loan opportunities through an ongoing initiative to help military veterans start their own agricultural businesses.

Veterans participating in AgriLife Extension’s “From Battleground to Breaking Ground” pro gram now can receive comprehensive and expedited one-on-one loan qualification assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency.

“The barriers are high to getting into commercial agriculture,” Perdue said during a late May announcement event at the Dallas Farmers Market. “But (veterans) who work hard and want to get their hands dirty out here and want to feed the world, we’re anxious to help them.”

From Battleground to Breaking Ground works alongside public and private organizations to reach returning military veterans with ground-up agribusiness training, business ideas, business planning, financing options, face-to-face expert mentoring, veteran transition assistance, agricultural production training and more.

“It’s really making a difference, not only in the operational aspect of their businesses, but also in their personal lives and family lives,” said AgriLife Extension interim director Parr Rosson. “It’s really a light at the end of the tunnel for a lot of people.”

Beginning in 2012 as a series of daylong workshops, From Battleground to Breaking Ground expanded into a yearlong agricultural training program with funding from USDA in 2016. Since then, about 35 Texas military veteran families have received

10

assistance breaking into the agriculture industry. More than 900 veterans and civilian farmers and ranchers have participated in the program since 2012, organizers said.

Returning veterans interested in entering the agriculture industry through From Battleground to Breaking Ground can go to txagrability.tamu.edu for program, contact and application information.

U.S. Marine Corps veteran Benjamin Hasel, after five years of military service, pursued a career in corporate information technolog y, where he said he never quite fit in. With no agriculture experience, Hasel said, he received a “Battleg round” flyer from his therapist.

“I realized, ‘I can actually be a farmer now and I don’t have to be in the corporate world anymore,’” he said. “I was going down into a really bad place and (the program) kind of saved me really. It put me in a new direc-

Texas A&M AgriLife photos by Sarah Pyatt

Above, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue plants blackberry shrubs alongside a military veteran as part of an announcement on expanded financing opportunities for returning veterans starting agribusinesses.

Above right, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue meets with U.S. Marine Corps veteran Benjamin Hasel to discuss the department’s new agribusiness financing opportunities with the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Battleground to Breaking Ground program. tion and gave me a new life.”

“You get to participate in something that is truly life-giving,” Perdue said. “And it’s important not only for the ag economy, but the U.S. economy, to have young people who are invested in the production of food, fiber and fuel for the world.”

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

News

AgriLife helps change guar production guidelines

By Kay LedBetter Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

VERNON — When a Texas Rolling Plains guar producer found himself potentially to be out of compliance with government guidelines, he turned to Texas A&M AgriLife to help get the guidelines updated.

Guar has been grown in Texas for more than a century and is becoming more attractive to producers because of its drought tolerance and relatively low water use, said Curtis Adams, Texas A&M AgriLife Research crop physiologist in Vernon.

“Guar being a legume and adapted to the region’s semi-arid dryland agriculture is increasing producer interest,” said Calvin Trostle, a Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service agronomist in Lubbock and long-time investigator of guar.

“There are few legumes that are adapted in this type of environment,” Trostle said.

“That is why this latest decision is important; to give producers another rotational

Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Curtis Adams

Guar is gaining in interest as a rotational crop.

crop, one that can provide nitrogen to the soil in an area where it doesn’t rain a lot.”

Together Adams and Trostle provided updated guar residue measurements and data demonstrating reduced soil erosion due to modern reduced-till soil management. This prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service to revise its guidelines on using guar in a crop rotation.

Initially, NRCS classified guar as a lowresidue crop, and therefore under USDAFarm Service Agency guidelines, grower Guy Spears was not allowed to plant it in rotation with other crops considered low residue under his farm’s conservation plan.

The high-residue parameters are required at a certain frequency in NRCS conservation plans on “highly erodible land.”

See GUAR, Page 20

!"#$ &'(#

!"#$%

)! 0#'1 2 3#$,('! +-45 ● ● ● ●

'!#,1!.,

&

)#,6//

Corrects Soil Acidity Furnishes Available Magnesium and Calcium for Plants and Animals Increases the Efficiency of Fertilizers Aids the Growth of Beneficial Soil Organisms

!"#$ &'$ ('$# #&&!)!#")*

!"#$ &'($)!* +,-.! &-/ P. O. Box 1000 Georgetown, TX 78628 Telephone 800�772�8272 www.texascrushedstoneco.com

txcrushstone@msn.com txcrushstone@msn.com

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

11

News

The BIG issue

Cow size: does it really matter?

C

By ROBERT FEARS Special to The Post

•

cow productivity.

Forage degradation, decreased cow production and additional input costs accumulatively increase production risk.

Forage demand exceeding supply can have a snowball effect. effect. Without stocking pressure adjustments, stability and productivity of the forage base continues to decline, creating more and more production risk.

In addition, more and more input costs are needed to stabilize cow productivity, further escalating production risk.

Management often alters the production environment to fit the production system by overgrazing rather than changing the production system to match the production environment by reducing the stocking rate.

ow size often is debated among people associated with the beef cattle industry and there are many opinions on what is the

optimum.

Cow size and efficiency were discussed by Ted McCollum III of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension during the 2017 School for Successful Ranching at the Cattle Raisers Convention. Most of the information in this article is taken from McCollum’s presentation.

McCollum first asked, “What is the criteria for the right-sized cow? Is it calf weight and eventual slaughter weight, optimal use of forage resources to produce a calf, optimal dollar net returns to the cow/calf operation or a lower risk production system?” The answer to these criteria questions is “yes” because they are all interrelated.

Efficiency

One of the opinions on cow size is that big cows are less efficient efficient because they eat more feed. The latter part of the statement is true, but the initial part is not necessarily a fact.

Feed consumption is an input and has an impact on efficiency, efficiency, which is output divided by input. Output is marketable weight and the resulting income dollars while input is the amount of forage grazed or harvested.

A proxy measurement of utilized forage is the acres used in the cow/calf operation.

Effi Efficiency, ciency, therefore, is income dollars effi-divided by utilized acres. Calculations of effi

Balancing act

Providing proper cow nutrition requires a balancing act between animal forage demand, primary forage supply and a management buff er (emerbuffer gency fund). A good example of a management buff buffer er is availability of supplemental feed or forage to use in the event of a drought or some other adverse weather condition.

When animal forage demand exceeds the primary forage supply, stability and productivity of the forage base decline, which causes a decrease in cow productivity. Additional input costs are needed to stabilize

12

See tables on Page 15

See SIZE, Page 14

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

Pride You Can Taste

Your Texas Beef Checkoff is elevating the Beef Loving Texans brand through an advertising campaign celebrating Texas pride, heritage and our shared love for beef.

To learn more visit TexasBeefCheckoff.com

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

13

News Size, from Page 12 ciency will determine if output from larger cows will offset the extra inputs.

As body weight increases, total calories per day energy requirements increase. The number of calories required per unit of body weight decline, however. When on the same forage base, larger cows need more forage daily than smaller cows, but require less forage per unit of body weight for maintenance.

If cow numbers are not reduced as their body size increases, stocking rates increase.

Stocking rate is defined as number of acres per animal unit. An animal unit is a 1,000-pound cow nursing a calf.

A 1,200-pound cow is 1.2 animal units and a 1,500-pound cow represents 1.5 animal units.

If a pasture is properly stocked with 1,000-pound

Photo by Robert Fears

When animal forage demand exceeds the primary forage supply, production risk increases. heifers and they grow into 1,500-pound cows, then stocking rate is increased 0.5 times the number of animals. If herd size is not reduced in this situation, cow productivity will decrease.

Failure to reduce stocking rate will result in a requirement for supplemental feed inputs in order to maintain cow productivity. Again, the question is: “Will the larger cows produce calves large enough to offset the added costs?�

Data in Tables 1 through 4 use a hypothetical herd of 100 cows and is based on research studies. Production between 1,000-, 1,200- and 1,400-pound cows is shown in Table 1. Stocking rates were constant across weight

See CATTLE, Page 15

metal Roofing metal Building supply

HAYBARNS CARPORTS STORAGE SHEDS AND MuCH MORE.

FOR All YOuR RESIDENTIAl AND AGRICulTRuAl NEEDS lET uS HElP YOu CuSTOMIZE YOuR NEXT METAl PROJECT. DElIVERY AVAIlABlE

30X60X12 EAVE 1-10X10 FO All GAlVAluME

Â

Â? Â Â?Â? Â? Â?Â? Â

SAVE MONEY MANuFACTuRER DIRECT

1 2 5 0 3 H W Y 6 N AVA S O TA , T X 7 7 8 6 8 • 9 3 6 . 8 2 5 . 0 5 0 0 w w w. h i l c o s u p p ly . c o m • F O l l O W u S O N

14

July 2018 — Issue I

ď‚Ť

The Land & Livestock Post

News Cattle, from Page 14 classes, which resulted in fewer cows as their weights increased.

Calf weaning weights increased as cow weights increased, but calving percentages decreased.

Total herd weaning weight decreased as cow size increased due to the lower calving percentages.

Total calf marketing weights were entered in Table 2 with cull cow weights added. Ten 1,000-pound cows, nine 1,200 pounders and eight 1,400-pound cows were culled. Market value per hundred-weight of the cows was the same regardless of their weight class, which resulted in the heavier cows having higher values.

The heavier calves, however, were discounted on sales price leading to less total gross market dollars for the higher weight classes.

Table 3 displays the weaning weights required to equalize production among the cow weight classes.

In this example, 1,000-pound cows weaned 500-pound calves, 1,200-pound cows weaned 524-pound calves and 1,400-pound cows weaned 548-pound calves. To equalize weaning weight production with the 1,000-pound cows, the 524-pound calves would have to weigh an additional 50 pounds and the 548-pound calves an additional 96 pounds.

These requirements are due to the reduction in stocking rates dictated by the larger cows.

Table 4 shows that calves from the 1,200-pound cows have to weigh an additional 75 pounds to equal gross income from a 1,000-pound cow. Calves from a 1,400-pound cow would have to weigh an additional 162 pounds to produce the same income.

The “take-home” message from the data in the tables is that larger cows will have to produce heavier weaning

weights in order to equalize gross income per acre. Heavier calves sell for less dollars per hundred-weight, so even at equal weaning weight per acre, gross income per acre is lower from larger cows.

Will the larger cows produce calves large enough to offset the smaller size? This is still the big question. Relative to the 1,000-pound cow, 99 pounds additional weaning weights are required from the 1,200-pound cow to produce equal income and 210 pounds is needed from the 1,400-pound cow. This is a 50 to 52 pounds per 100-pound increase in cow weight. Will these increases occur? In 2011, Lalman et al reported a 6.07-pound increase in weaning weights per 100-pound increases in cow weights.

In 1996, National Research Council reported about 23 pounds increase in weaning weights per 100-pound increases in cow weights.

When weaning weights are increased to maintain gross income per acre, milk production will increase as cow size increases.

More milk production increases forage intake during lactation resulting in the need for a larger forage supply. Daily nutrient requirements also increase with the larger cows creating a demand for higher quality forage or more supplement.

This increases the cost to maintain the cow creating more production risk.

Big cows are OK if stocking rates are adjusted to carrying capacity and weaning weights are large enough to maintain gross income levels. Making cows produce larger weaning weights requires selection of the right bulls.

Retaining heifers, however, can cause a continued increase in cow size.

It is best to maintain a twoherd system with one for replacement production and the

The Land & Livestock Post



other for market calf production.

To stop the drift toward larger cows, pay attention to yearling weight and mature weight in bull selection — not frame score.

Retain good heifers from cows of desired size and then mate

July 2018 — Issue I

them to the appropriate bulls.

Efficient cows have early sexual maturity, a high rate of reproduction, low rates of calving problems, longevity, minimum maintenance requirements and the ability to convert forage resources to pounds of beef.

15

News

When Grandma’s will causes a family feud

By Tiffany Dowell lashmeT Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

A recent case from the Texas Supreme Court offers a reminder about how disputes can arise from language used in a will when not carefully reviewed by an attorney.

Background Vada Allen owned a 316-acre ranch in Robertson County. Upon her death, she was survived by her son, Bobby, and three grandchildren, Annette, Allison and Stanley. Her will included the following provision: “Now Bobby, I leave the rest to you, everything, certificates of deposit, land, cattle, and machinery, Understand that the land is not to be sold but passed on down to your children, Annette Knopf, Allison Kilway, and Stanley Gray. Take care of it and try to be happy.”

Bobby then conveyed the land in fee simple to Polasek Farms LLC. At that point, two of his children (the third passed away previously), filed suit against Bobby, his wife and Polasek Farms. The children argued that their grandmother’s will gave Bobby only a life estate, with the land passing to them upon Bobby’s death. Thus, he was unable to grant a fee-simple interest to Polasek as that was a greater interest than he held in the property.

Litigation

The trial court sided with Bobby and Polsak Farms, granting them summary judgment. The court held that the will granted fee-simple interest to Bobby and the language about the land not being sold but given to the children was an invalid disabling restraint. Thus, Bobby owned the land and his children had no interest in it.

The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the land was bequeathed to Bobby and the language about passing the land down was merely an instruction to Bobby, rather than an actual gift to the children. One justice issued a dissenting opinion and would have found the language to be ambiguous, thereby refusing

16

to grant summary judgment and letting the case proceed to trial.

Texas Supreme Court opinion “The cardinal rule of will construction is to ascertain the testator’s intent and to enforce that intent to the extent allowed by law. We look to the instrument’s language, considering its provisions as a whole and attempting to harmonize them so as to give effect to the will’s overall intent. We interpret the words in a will as a layperson would use them absent evidence that the testator received legal assistance in drafting the will or was otherwise familiar with technical meanings,” the state’s highest civil appellate court said.

Under the law, a conveyance of land is presumed to be in fee simple, unless limited by express words. There are, however, no magic words that must be used to create a life estate. The Court explained that a life estate is created “where the language of the instrument manifests an intention on the part of the grantor or testator to pass a

grantee or devisee a right to possess, use, or enjoy property during the period of the grantee’s life.”

Looking at the language in this case, the court seemed to have no problem determining that Mrs. Allen intended to create a life estate. “We need only read the provision as a whole to see a layperson’s clearly expressed intent to create what the law calls a life estate.”

The will granted the land to Bobby, subject to the limitations that he not sell it and he pass it down to his children. This, the court held, represents the “essence of a life estate.”

The court rejected the argument that the language about not selling the land was an invalid disabling restraint. The court said that it was taking those words out of context to focus on only the limitation on selling rather than the entire clause. Instead, the language was a part of Mrs. Allen’s intent to grant a life estate.

Thus, the court reversed the lower court decisions, holding that the will granted Bobby a life estate and his children the remainder interest. Because of this, Bobby’s attempt to convey fee simple ownership to

July 2018 — Issue I



Polsak Farms was invalid.

Take aways

Drafting a will can be tricky business.

Here, Mrs. Allen likely did not know the legal definition of “life estate” when she attempted to draft the provision in her will disposing of the ranch.

This case offers a reminder that in order to ensure a testator’s wishes are carried out, and to avoid disputes over a will, having an attorney draft or at least review a will is extremely important.

In this case, had Mrs. Allen sought out an attorney who had helped her craft language stating that she granted Bobby a life estate with remainder interest to his children, it’s possible that a family feud could have been avoided.

Additionally, the legal fees that Mrs. Allen would have spent to have an attorney help with her will were likely minuscule compared to the legal fees spent by her family in taking this lawsuit to the Texas Supreme Court.

For more Ag Law topics and information go to agrilife.org/texasaglaw/.

The Land & Livestock Post

News

$5,350

$16,399

Photo Kalyn Waters, IFAS Extension

Things are heating up, and everyone is trying cool off. Clean, fresh drinking water is critical for cattle performance in the summer heat.

Water, from Page 8 ducers must continuously supply clean, fresh water to ensure they are meeting all of the nutritional

requirements of their herd.

If you believe you have an issue with your water source or supply, please contact your county extension agent.

AgriLife to offer healthy weight workshops AUSTIN – The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service in Travis County will present two series of wellness workshops at public libraries in Austin — one in the summer and one in the fall — focused on promoting healthy weight in adults.

The workshops are free and will be presented from 10:15 a.m. to noon at their respective locations. There will be a total of six workshops and those interested may participate in any or all of them.

The f irst workshop series will be at the Millwood Branch Library, 12500 Amherst Drive.

Dates and topics will be:

• July 14, Impact of Sugar in Your Health: Making Healthier Choices.

• Aug. 11, Nutritional Value on Labels.

• Sept. 29, Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables by Color.

The second series will be at Little Walnut Creek Branch Library, 835 W. Rundberg Lane. Dates and topics will be: • Oct. 13, Dashing Your Way to Improve Health.

• Nov. 10, Principles of Healthy Weight Loss.

• Dec. 8, Fad Diets.

Attendees should RSVP to Angela Reyes at 512-854-9600 or amreyes@ag.tamu.edu.

The Land & Livestock Post



The FieldNET™by Lindsay technology line provides growers/owners with easy-to-use products that maximize time, labor and water/resource savings.

Zimmatic Systems, For Large Acreages, Center Pivots, Lateral Moves, Mobiles

July 2018 — Issue I

If it’s remotely possible, FieldNET can do it™

17

News Temple center welcomes producers, industry pros during second field day

By AdAm Russell Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

TEMPLE — The Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center and U.S. Department of Agriculture Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, which operate on the same campus in Temple, recently opened their doors to more than 60 area producers and agriculture industry professionals during their second annual field day.

Attendees toured the 600-acre facility to hear presentations by Texas A&M AgriLife Research

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service photo by Adam Russell

Bill Fox, Texas A&M AgriLife Research rangeland ecologist in Temple, discusses a growing trend among landowners who are re-establishing native plant species on their properties as a sustainable production resource and to encourage overall ecology health. and USDA Agricultural Research Service staff regarding projects ranging from native prairies to the use of remote-sensing technology in agriculture to spacing and soil fertility trials in cotton

See FIELD DAY, Page 19

Graham Land and Cattle Co. Custom Feedlot and Growing Programs • 30,000 Head Feedyard • 14,000+ Head Growing Program

Do you have your Boyd Built Feeder?

• Fully assembled and ready to use.

• Made of heavy-duty materials to withstand the toughest conditions.

• Used all over the Southwest for over 50 years.

• 1,500 lb. to 60,000 lb. capacity.

• Feeders to meet all your feeding needs.

• Available at:

• Personal Customer Service • Licensed Feedyard for Nolan Ryan Tender Aged Beef • Pen sizes range from 1-250 head • Access to all performance and carcass data

P.O. Box 925, Gonzales, Texas 78629 Phone: 830-672-6504 Dr. Charles W. Graham, Owner Jay Gray, General Manager www.grahamfeedyard.com

Tyler Graham, Owner Maurice Janda, Feedyard Manager e-mail: grahamcattle@gvec.net

also home of:

sunset

Livestock Carriers, Inc.

Pete Peterman (830) 857-3562

18

Boyd Industries, Inc.

Phone: (800) 611-3540

Fax: (940)-433-8540

www.BoydBuilt.com

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

News Field Day, from Page 18 to wheat, oat and barley.

Tom Gerik, AgriLife center director in Temple, said the field day is a great opportunity to meet with area producers, allow them access to facilities and staff and discuss how technology and research can benefit them now and in the future, including precision farming using the latest technologies to maximize efficiencies.

“It was a successful day,” he said. “It was a good opportunity to introduce producers to the future of farming. Precision farming is that future, and I think producers are open to technology because they see it as a way to manage their land to its utmost potential.”

During tours of the facilities, producers were introduced to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, that can be used to monitor fields to glean a full range of information, such as disease or pest presence or soil temperature and moisture, or mapped for yield potential based on soil conditions and data from previous growing seasons.

Producers were introduced to seed and fertilizer application technology that can reduce waste, such as from overplanting, which can waste seed and reduce

yields as improperly spaced plants compete for resources.

“It’s about productivity and how efficiently can you produce your crops,” Gerik said. “We’re talking millions of acres for various crops across Texas. So, reducing the per-acre costs to producers while increasing the productivity of those acres — and all of that while making positive environmental impacts by making herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer applications more effective — it’s going to be huge.”

Producers also were introduced to potential growing options, including barley and new wheat varieties as they toured ongoing research trials.

“We’re always looking for another option for growers,” Gerik said. “There are niche markets that growers can capitalize on if they know what performs well and the production processes necessary to make it an economically viable crop. We’re here to provide that information alongside our USDA-ARS counterparts.”

Gerik said he is proud of the ongoing cooperative efforts

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service photo by Adam Russell

Wayne Polley, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service ecologist in Temple, explains the use of remote sensing devices, including unmanned aerial vehicles, in agriculture and how technology is making and will make crop management and production more efficient in the future. b e t we e n A g r i L i f e Research and USDA-ARS and USDANatural Resources Conservation Service scientists and appreciates their important role in the field day.

“We’re so closely aligned with what they are doing here at the Blacklands Center,” he said. “It really is an amazing model for cooperation that works to the benefit of our producers, consumers and the environment.”

Rural Land Loans

CAPITAL

Country Home Loans

FARM CREDIT

Farm & Ranch Loans Livestock Loans Equipment Loans Published by Bryan-College Station Communications, Inc. (979) 776-4444 or (800) 299-7355

President - Crystal Dupré .....................................................Ext. 4613 Publisher and Editor- Darren Benson ....................................Ext. 4653 Sales and Marketing Director - Sean Lewis .......................... Ext. 4740 Advertising Sales/General Manager - Jesse Wright ...............Ext. 4721

Operating Capital Leasing

Bryan Credit Office 3000 Briarcrest Dr., Ste. 101 979.775.0404 | 877.775.0404 CapitalFarmCredit.com

Texas’ LargesT ruraL Lender

Finance Director - Rod Armstrong.........................................Ext. 4605 Production Director - Jerry Buck...........................................Ext. 4671 Circulation Director - Greg Parker ........................................Ext. 4752

Published by Bryan-College Station Communications, Inc., P.O. Box 3000, Bryan,Texas 77805.

E-mail: thepost@theeagle.com All offices are located at 1729 Briarcrest Drive Bryan,Texas 77802.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Eagle, P.O. Box 3000, Bryan,Texas 77805-3000

BULL SERIES UTV - 6 SEAT VERSION 686cc fuel-efficient gasoline. 6 month warranty, optional extended coverage. 600 lbs Bed Capacity. 1500 lbs towing capacity.

We Offer: TYM & Zetor Tractors giving you a wide range of 18 to 150 HP tractors with various chassis sizes to fit your needs insuring you can get the job done!

34.2 Gross HP Yanmar Diesel Engine.

28.1 PTO HP. 2,646 lb Loader Lift Capacity. Quick attach loader & bucket. Four wheel drive. Gear or hydrostatic transmission. 6 year warranty

74 Gross HP Duetz Diesel Engine. 64.1 PTO HP. 5,115 lb Loader Lift Capacity.

Quick attach loader & bucket. Four wheel drive. Mechanical or power shuttle transmission. 5 year warranty.

The Post is printed in part on recycled paper and is fully recyclable.

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

19

News Guar, from Page 11 Being out of compliance would make farmers ineligible for a variety of government benefits, including government-sponsored crop insurance, Adams said.

Spears began working with Trostle and Kelly Lindsey, the local NRCS county director, to push for a change. Then Adams was asked to provide on-theground data that, combined with Trostle’s ongoing research, determined guar residue was sufficient to meet NRCS criteria. This prompted a review and update of NRCS policy, which would regard guar as a residue equivalence, comparable to a “high residue” crop.

Fred Schrank, NRCS agronomist in Weatherford, said compliance isn’t automatic. To know if a producer’s plan will be in compliance will require a field-by-field determination. Each producer considering the inclusion of guar must check their original plan or revise the plan.

“The Vernon field office and I will be utilizing the Integrated Erosion Tool, or IET, templates developed to streamline assistance for planning HEL fields and farmers decisions,” Schrank said. “We will work with you and other farmers to keep compliance, production and conservation concerns achievable in these matters.”

“Thanks to AgriLife Research in Vernon and the measurements provided, which prompted the NRCS to re-examine their original documentation from 1985,” Spears said. “I have been notified that after reconsideration, NRCS has ruled a cotton/guar rotation or a continuous guar rotation will be in compliance if a grower is using minimum, no-till or strip till. Also, every grower will have to update their plan accordingly.”

Spears said he contacted NRCS officials not only for himself, but for owners of the thousands of acres of farmland designated as highly erodible land that could benefit from the wind erosion protection and soil–building properties guar provides as a rotational crop.

The NRCS was relying on guar residue data from 1985, post till-

20

age, though management practices have changed since then, Adams said. Research showing reduction in erosion with no-till and minimum-till soil management, such as that done by Paul DeLaune, AgriLife Research environmental soil scientist in Vernon, and others was incorporated into the altered policy of NRCS. Management also includes row spacing of 20 inches or less, which is required to provide adequate crop residue coverage.

Adams said his lab took residue measurements on harvested guar fields and did visual scoring of percent ground cover on the Spears’ farm to establish the crop’s residue levels.

Adams said he measured a residue concentration at about 2.5 tons per acre.

“This level of cover is less than you would commonly see with grain crops, like corn and sorghum, but it is greater than many broadleaf crops, like cotton,” he said. “On the guar field, we noted that the soil was stable, with no evidence of erosion.”

Adams, Trostle and others are working on multiple federally funded projects aimed at providing more information for producers on guar in relation to agronomics, rotation and other issues.

“The fact is times change,” Spears said. “What is reassuring as a grower is having Texas A&M, the FSA and NRCS all working together to fix a problem for all of the farmers and leading us in the right direction.”

More information on guar can be found at lubbock.tamu.edu/ programs/crops/other-fieldcrops/guar/.

Courtesy of the Noble Research Institute

‘Preg’ check and cull replacement heifers early

By Glenn Selk Oklahoma State University Extension

Many ranchers choose to breed replacement heifers about a month ahead of the mature cows in the herd. In addition, they like to use a shortened 45- to 60-day breeding season for the replacement heifers. The next logical step is to determine which of these heifers failed to conceive in their first breeding season. This is more important today than ever before.

As the bulls are being removed from the replacement heifers, this would be an ideal time to call and make arrangements with your local veterinarian to have those heifers evaluated for pregnancy in about 60 days. In two months, experienced palpaters should have no difficulty identifying which heifers are pregnant and which heifers are not preg-

Brazos Valley Livestock Brazos Valley Livestock Commission, Inc. Commission, Inc.

Sales: Tuesdays @ 12 Noon 6097 East Hwy. 21 • Bryan, TX

(979) 778-0904

nant (open). Those heifers that are determined to be “open” after this breeding season, should be strong candidates for culling.

Culling these heifers immediately after pregnancy checking

See CULL, Page 23

SALE EACH SATURDAY

CALDWELL LIVESTOCK COMMISSION REGULAR SALE EVERY

WEDNESDAY, 1:00 PM Carl Herrmann 979.820.5349 Hank Herrmann 979.820.5277 Hwy 36 South, P.O. Box 542, Caldwell, TX 77836 Sale Barn Phone: (979) 567-4119

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post

News Calf castration considerations: Which method to use?

Castration is a very important economic management technique that needs to be performed for increased returns to the beef operation. The technique used will vary from operator to operator. The important factor to remember in each technique is that the job be done as early as possible to minimize stress and it must be done correctly. Sloppy castration means lower profits.

Several extension publications describe the economic benefits of early castration.

If you have any questions concerning castration, contact your local veterinarian or extension agent.

By Lew StrickLand University Of Tennessee

One of the questions that I hear the most concerning castration is when should I castrate my calves, Doc? Many producers will castrate their calves when they are 2 or 3 days old, which is my preferred period.

Castration should occur when the calf is rather young.

The older the calf, the more likely that calf will suffer a setback (which cost the producer money).

In addition, larger calves are more difficult to handle and restrain for the procedure.

The latest castration should be done is one month prior to weaning to avoid any extra stress from the weaning process. Bull calves castrated at or following weaning can retain a stag like appearance and attitude that the feedlot operator discounts. Purebred operators still can castrate bull calves that are culls and still realize some profit.

The choice of castration method is the preference of the operator, age and weight of the calf, and the time of year the procedure is performed. In all techniques, sanitize the hands and castration instruments between each calf to prevent the spread and/or introduction of disease.

There are three methods of castration, which range from bloodless to surgical removal of the testicles. In each case, there are advantages and disadvantages of each various procedure:

Emasculatome (burdizzo)

The burdizzo is a bloodless method of castration. Some producers refer to this as “pinching a calf.” This method shuts off the blood supply to the testicle and causes the reabsorption of the testicle if properly done. For best results, perform this procedure when the bull calf is standing and restrained with a tail hold. Prior to starting, make sure the burdizzo closes or clamps down properly. Then use the instrument to crush each cord individually. As the calf is restrained, place a cord to the outside of the scrotum wall and clamp about midway between the testicle and the scrotumbelly wall junction. Hold the burdizzo with one hand on the far handle and the other handle against a knee. With the free hand, check to see that the cord has not slipped out and be sure not to clamp part of the inner quarter of the calf or the tail. Close

The Land & Livestock Post

z Lew Strickland is extension veterinarian at the University of Tennessee.

Courtesy of New Mexico State University

the burdizzo and hold for approximately 30 to 45 seconds. Then clamp the other cord using a gap of uncrushed scrotum and prevent it from falling off. disadvantages Theresultof thismethodcanbeclamped bulls that actually are stags. This can be due to improper technique or equipment (a sprung burdizzo).

Elastrator bands

Another bloodless method is the elastrators method. Many producers who castrate at an early age use this method.

Elastrators also shut off the blood supply to the testicle and causes the scrotum to fall off (10 to 14 days). To use the elastrators, restrain the calf, expand or stretch the elastrator band and place both testicles through the band. Then release the band from the elastrator and around the scrotum. disadvantages This method has the danger of clostridial infections and tetanus. Make sure to add a tetanus toxoid vaccine in older calves prior to and at banding. Elastrator bands can break and castration may not occur.

Always insure that both testicles are below the band. A testicle retained in the belly cavity results in a stag.



July 2018 — Issue I

Surgical removal

This is the technique of choice. This technique does involve a knife or scalpel and is not bloodless. On 1- or 2-day-old calves, one person can restrain the calf and perform the procedure. Tie both rear legs and at least one of the front legs securely. With the knife or scalpel remove the bottom third of the scrotum. This will allow proper drainage. Press the testicles through the removed/opened portion of the scrotum one at a time. Then pull downward on the testicle towards the calf’s hocks until the blood vessels stretch and break. If a portion of the spermatic cord remains, cut with a knife or scalpel as high up the cord as possible. Once removed, apply an antiseptic that is effective, yet not irritating. Try to perform the procedure outside the fly season. If done during the fly season, use some type of repellant to keep insects away from the opened tissue. On larger calves, use an emasculator to minimize the amount of bleeding by crushing the cord above the severed cord. disadvantages There is blood with this procedure. It is preferred to remove the lower third of the scrotum as to vertical incisions as drainage from the lower scrotum can be hindered and cause infections. If possible, avoid surgical castration at the height of fly and insect season.

Courtesy of the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario.ca

21

To adverTise conTacT: Jesse Wright - 979.731.4721 or jesse.wright@theeagle.com

Call for priCing

936-294-9428

All types of structurAl steel & pipe Steel Buildings

SPILLMAN & SONS RANCH Tommy and Ruth Spillman Registered Line One Herefords

979-589-2333 1-866-959-2333 pioneerboys.com

BULLS FOR SALE Ranch phone- 903-626-5785 Tommy Spillman (cell) 979-331-8660

Green Meadows

RANCH

BULLS • Heifers Breeding Bulls

Theiss Sausage Company

Madisonville, TX

936-349-1955

Normangee, TX 936-396-9300

www.theisssausageco.com

Cleere Earthworks L.L.C. Texas a&M Class of ‘02

Grandson of unbridled and Secretariat dark Bay/White Points Retired due to mild injury

936-294-9428

lIVEstocK WaNtED

horsEs-cattlE ANGUS BULLS: 3 year old bulls. Solid Rock Ranch, Matt Jones, Franklin, TX. 979-777-7571 www.solidrockranch.com CATTLE: 14 head, heavy bred some pairs, Angus & two Tiger stripe. 979-822-5235 or 979-2558848 CHAROLAIS A+ BULLS: Reg Top Qualilty, Gentle, Polled, Tested. LBW, Fancy Charolais Heifers. Ranch Bred & Raised.

Reg Black Angus Bulls.

(254)729-8644, (254)747-2701

Horsemen’s Market Day 2018

Saturday Aug. 18th 8am-2pm Brazos County Expo Center Booths $30 ea;/$40 at door Early Bird Special ends Aug. 6th - $30 ea or 4 for $90 Contact: MarketDay@bvdrc.com Cell/text 979-777-9239

Jordan Trailer Sales

San Saba, TX “Authorized Dealer” • A Large Selection of Trailers in Stock • Custom Ordering Avail.

Call (325) 372-5159 www.jordancattle.com

PastUrEs-stalls PASTURE LEASE(S) Needed, Matt Jones, Franklin, Tx 979-777-7571 www.solidrockranch.com

Land Clearing • Ponds • Roads • Pads Dozer • Excavator • Scraper • Dump Truck

979-324-8746 Travis Cleere www.cleereearthworks.com

$800 – $1500

3 year old bulls.

One breeding season guarantee.

serious inquiries only

936.294.9428

AI Sires: Basin Payweight 1682, Connealy Thunder, Connealy Packer 547, C C A Emblazon 702, Koupal Advance 28 and Cole Creek Cedar Ridge 1V.

Matt Jones. Franklin, TX. 979.777.7571 www.solidrockranch.com

Charolais Bulls, Heifers, and Cows Available!

Thank You for Voting Us Best tax service Holladay & Associates, Inc.

tax Preparation • Payroll • Notary • Bookkeeping

Ranch located 2 1/2 miles northwest of Jewett, TX on CR 336

Cattle & Domestic Hog Processing

Registered Angus

Stud

Farmers market

horses RegisteRed tB

Bulk ShavingS Solid Rock Ranch 50 cubic yd. trailer Angus Bulls between 8-9 tons

979.704.6264 • www.holladayassociates.com

1733 Briarcrest Drive, suite 110 • Bryan 9995 County Road 353  Gause, TX 77857

Dr. Roy W Hann Jr.  (979) 255 - 5709 Tyson Hann  (979) 324 - 6659

tyson@hannranches.com

Celebrating 20+ years of Registered Charolais

Bryan Credit Office 3000 Briarcrest Ste 101 979.775.0404 | 877.775.0404 CapitalFarm Credit.com

Agricultural

Insurance Agency, Inc. All Your Agri- Insurance Needs

979.776.2697

Buddy Micklitz Karl (Buddy) Micklitz Jr. Bryan, TX micklitz@verizon.net (C) 979.218.8674 (H) 979.779.0420

Specializing in Commercial Deer Exotics Ranch Fencing, Barns, Project Design, Game Fence, Welding, Stalls, Selective Brush Clearing, Commercial Chain Link, Custom Projects

Saturday Open Houses

Only $19.95!

Space Deadline: Wednesday by 5pm

Call 776-SELL (7355)

News Cull, from Page 20 serves three very economically valuable purposes: • Identifying and culling open heifers early will remove subfertile females from the herd.

Lifetime cow studies from Montana indicated that properly developed heifers that were exposed to fertile bulls, but did not become pregnant were often sub-fertile compared to the heifers that did conceive. In fact, when the heifers that failed to breed in the first breeding season were followed throughout their lifetimes, they averaged a 55 percent yearly calf crop. Despite the fact that reproduction is not a highly heritable trait, it also makes sense to remove this genetic material from the herd so as to not proliferate females that are difficult to get bred.

Culling open heifers early will reduce summer forage and winter costs. If the rancher waits until next spring to find out which heifers do not calve, the pasture use and winter feed expense still will be lost and there will be no calf to help pay the bills eventually. This is money that better can be spent in properly feeding cows that are pregnant and will be producing a salable product the following fall.

Identifying the open heifers shortly after (60 days) the breeding season is over will allow for marketing the heifers while still young enough to go to a feedlot and be fed for the choice beef market. “B” maturity carcasses (those estimated to be 30 months of age or older) are unlikely to be graded Choice and cannot be graded Select. As a result, the heifers that are close to 2 years old will suffer a price discount.

If we wait until next spring to identify which 2 year olds did not get bred, then we will be culling a female that will be marketed at a noticeable discount compared to the price/pound that she would have brought this summer as a much younger animal.

Certainly the percentage of open heifers will vary from ranch to ranch. Do not be concerned, if after a good heifer development program and adequate breeding season, that you find that 10 percent of the heifers still are not bred. Resist the temptation to keep these open heifers and “roll them over” to a fall-calving herd. These are the very heifers that you want to identify early and remove from the herd.

It just makes good economic business sense to identify and cull non-pregnant replacement heifers as soon as possible.

ews n g A t n e rr u c st o em Searching for th ox? b in il a m e r u o y delivered right to st o P k c to s e iv L & nd Sign up for the La er tt le s w e n ic n o tr elec

To sign up, vis it

The Land & Livestock Post



July 2018 — Issue I

landandlives tockpost.com 23

24

July 2018 — Issue I



The Land & Livestock Post