October 2022 Hereford World Magazine

Science and Strategy

A Missouri cattleman focuses on making his cow herd efficient and sustainable.

by Macey Mueller

Mainstream conversations about beef industry sustainability are frequently focused on environmental or animal welfare issues — which are certainly valid — but any rancher will tell you that managing a sustainable operation also includes making it economically viable.

Financial security is often a result of implementing strategies promoting efficiency, identifying conservation practices that maximize resources and leveraging data to make selection and management decisions — all actions that can simultaneously impact environmental and livestock stewardship efforts.

“Whether it’s grazing cover crops that also benefit their farming operations or using high-level data to make sound management decisions, most producers are implementing valuable sustainability tools that can positively impact the environment and our bottom lines,” said Mike John, partner and general manager at John Ranch Inc.

Forage first

In addition to soybeans, wheat and alfalfa, John’s family-owned, diversified farming and ranching operation near Huntsville, Mo., utilizes the region’s suitable environmental conditions to run a forage-based cow herd on tall fescue.

“To me, Missouri wouldn’t be the number two or three cow state if it weren’t for fescue,” he said. “It does have to be managed properly to avoid some of the toxicity issues, but if you’re fortunate to have enough acres and enough rainfall to stockpile it in the fall, it’s a very valuable feedstuff and saves an awful lot of hay feeding.”

Not only is fescue ideal for cow-calf production, but research has also shown the large amount of biomass it produces as a perennial grass makes it an ideal crop for capturing and holding carbon dioxide.

“Carbon sequestration is an important aspect of reducing the beef industry’s overall environmental impact,” John said. “One of our biggest responsibilities is managing our grass to not only ensure a continued healthy source of nutrients for our cattle but also to allow the plant to effectively use photosynthesis to secure carbon.”

For the past several years, the Johns have also started planting cover crops to improve soil compatibility and water retention for their farming operation and utilize the resulting forage for their cattle.

“The cover crop component of our farm has changed a lot of things and made cattle operations in fescue country, in my opinion, continued on page 20...

The

Photo by Makayla Reynolds

HEREFORD BULLS SELL

A new polled star with the very best in fast growth and high carcass! His sons will make your feeder cattle worth more! 20 sons sell. High altitude approved.

The Efficient Churchill Bull

With today’s high feed prices, efficiency on the ranch and in the feedyard is very important. Churchill bulls give you that fast early growth while keeping frame moderate and making efficient cows that are fertile with extremely good udder quality. The feeders and order buyers throughout the country know this so your calves out of Churchill bulls will have more demand!

The low BW sire and high WW sire in the Churchill calf crop! This bull is a lot like Sensation – the kind that makes you more profit! 15 sons sell.

and udder

66 Fake This

Investor fascination wanes for plant-based meat alternatives.

— by Wes Ishmael

70 Diving Deeper into Genomic Relationships

Breeder status for fall 2022.

Locked and Loaded

Cattle prices poised for significant — by Wes Ishmael

Cattle producers have cost-effective options to

Dwindling numbers and bullish outlook push — by Wes Ishmael

Managing Calf Scours

Make the most out of prevention and early — by Heather Smith Thomas

94 State Tours Recap

A summary of Iowa and Missouri Hereford tours, hosted by Hereford breeders.

uild back from the drought with more heterosis.

Connection

Consistency Pays

Buyers want less variation.

CHB Bites

USA the CHB Way Contest Our new fall promotion is here.

What’s New?

Association News and Events

Hereford-influenced feeder calf sales, the Fed Steer Shootout and more.

Contacts

Playbook

From the Field

of Events

Index

The voice of the American Hereford Association

|

American Hereford Association

Address: 11500 N. Ambassador Dr., Ste. 410 Kansas City, MO 64153 816-842-3757 • Fax 816-243-1314 hworld@hereford.org • Hereford.org

AHA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President

Bruce Everhart, Waldron, Ind.

Vice president

Bill Goehring, Libertyville, Iowa

Directors

Term expires 2022

Craig Beran, Claflin, Kan.

Andrew Matheny, Mays Lick, Ky.

Term expires 2023

Whitey Hunt, Madison, Ga.

Becky King-Spindle, Moriarty, N.M.

Term expires 2024

Wyatt Agar, Thermopolis, Wyo.

Jerome Ollerich, Winner, S.D.

Bob Schaffer, Spotsylvania, Va.

Term expires 2025

Chad Breeding, Miami, Texas

Lou Ellen Harr, Jeromesville, Ohio

Travis McConnaughy, Wasola, Mo.

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Executive vice president

Jack Ward, jward@hereford.org

Chief operating officer and director of breed improvement

Shane Bedwell, sbedwell@hereford.org

Chief financial officer

Leslie Mathews, lmathews@hereford.org

Director of records department

Stacy Sanders, ssanders@hereford.org

Director of commercial programs

Trey Befort, tbefort@herefordbeef.org

Director of youth activities and foundation

Amy Cowan, acowan@hereford.org

National shows coordinator and youth activities assistant

Bailey Clanton, bclanton@hereford.org

Associate director of youth marketing and education

Chloé Fowler, cfowler@hereford.org

Education and information services

coordinator and records supervisor

Laura Loschke, lloschke@hereford.org

Director of communications and digital content

Taylor Belle Matheny, tmatheny@hereford.org

Audio-visual specialist

Kelsey Vejraska, kvejraska@hereford.org

Office assistant and event coordinator

Emily Wood, ewood@hereford.org

| Certified Hereford Beef Staff

President and chief executive officer

Amari Seiferman, aseiferman@herefordbeef.org

Brand manager

Ty Ragsdale, tragsdale@herefordbeef.org

Marketing manager

Brenyn Burkholder, bburkholder@herefordbeef.org

| Commercial Programs

Director of commercial programs

Trey Befort, tbefort@herefordbeef.org

Commercial marketing partner - Western Region

Jake Drost, jdrost@hereford.org

| Hereford World Staff

Director of field management and seedstock marketing

Joe Rickabaugh, jrick@hereford.org

Production manager

Caryn Vaught, cvaught@hereford.org

Executive editor

Wes Ishmael, wishmael@hereford.org

Managing editor

Sydnee Shive, sshive@hereford.org

Assistant editor

Katie Maupin Miller, kcommunicates@gmail.com

Advertising coordinator

Alison Marx, amarx@hereford.org

Creative services coordinator

Bailey Lewis, blewis@hereford.org

Editorial designer/assistant

Cindy Himmelberg, chimmelberg@hereford.org

Graphic designers

Sharon Blank and Teri Wolfgang

Contributing writers

Jamie Courter, Brent Meyer, Macey Mueller, J. R. Tait, Heather Smith Thomas

| Field Staff

Western Region – Colt Cunningham Ariz., Calif., Idaho, Nev., Ore., Utah and Wash. 918-978-8779, ccunningham@hereford.org

Mountain Region – Kevin Murnin Colo., Mont., N.D., Wyo., and western Canada P.O. Box 105, Worden, MT 59088 406-853-4638, kmurnin@hereford.org

North Central Region

– Alex Acheson Kan., Minn., Neb., S.D., and central Canada 1610 Jack Nicklaus Dr., Elk Point, SD 57025 785-366-1185, aacheson@hereford.org

Upper Midwest Region – Noah Benedict Ill., Ind., Ky., Md., Mich., Ohio, Pa., W.Va. and Wis.

605 CR 2300 N., Dewey, IL 61840 217-372-8009, noahb@hereford.org

Southwest Region – Colton Pratz Ark., La., N.M., Okla. and Texas 9900 S. Chiles Rd., El Reno, OK 73036 405-385-1054, cpratz@hereford.org

Eastern Region – Tommy Coley Ala., Fla., Ga., Miss., N.C., S.C., Tenn. and Va. 1284 Stage Coach Rd., Sewanee, TN 37375 815-988-7051, tcoley@hereford.org

Central Region – Joe Rickabaugh Iowa, Mo. and eastern Canada 11500 N. Ambassador Dr., Ste. 410, Kansas City, MO 64153 785-633-3188, jrick@hereford.org

Northeast Region – Contact the AHA Conn., Del., D.C., Maine, Mass., N.H., N.J., N.Y., R.I., Vt. and eastern Canadian provinces

The publisher reserves the right to decline any advertising for any reason at any time without liability, even though previously acknowledged or accepted.

Working

by Shane Bedwell

Some data is more useful than others.

As a kid, shortly after weaning and getting the calves settled into their new home, I started thinking about who would make the keeper pen. Jack Smith, an old cow hand who helped us when we were busy, always said, “It’s simple. Cull off the big ones and little ones. What’s left is your keepers.”

Essentially, he was saying the middle cut was more moderate and less extreme than the big end but higher performing than the little end.

I think these sentiments still fit today, especially when you are right on track when it comes to balance between performance, fertility and end-product merit. When we are talking about the mama cow, we need to keep balance in mind, especially when you are already right in that sweet spot. Why try to move the needle? There are too many examples of breeders inadvertently upending the balance by placing more selection pressure on one of these trait areas at the expense of others.

But what if you are not in that sweet spot? What if your percentage of open cows and heifers is increasing? What if your pounds of calf weaned per cow exposed are dropping?

You need to crossbreed. Research and data validate the advantages of both direct and maternal heterosis. Those advantages ring even truer today with high input prices. You can magnify them further by exploiting breed complementarity.

Beyond heterosis, think about the selection criteria you use when considering bull prospects. So much data is available today — so much of it printed in sale catalogs — that the task of sifting through it can seem daunting. Should you look at the raw values, the adjusted values, the ratios or the expected progeny differences (EPDs)? All are meaningful data points, but EPDs account for them all.

For instance, an actual or adjusted weaning weight value enables comparison within the herd but not across the breed. Because of the vast differences between environments and management practices across the U.S., I think it is fair to say we cannot compare the raw or adjusted values across herds.

Suppose you’re using actual or adjusted weaning weights to compare two bull prospects. One weaned at 600

pounds in Kansas, the other one weaned at 550 pounds in Georgia. There’s no way to know which is genetically superior for weaning growth. The difference in weight could stem from a host of reasons, everything from health to nutrition to management. And you have no idea which one is more likely to increase the weaning performance in your herd.

The same goes for using ratios to compare the two bulls. Ratios simply present actual or adjusted weights/measures as a percentage for in-herd comparison. A ratio is calculated by dividing an animal’s weight/measurement by the average herd weight/measurement and then

The sole purpose of an EPD is to enable comparison between animals and ranking of animals for specific traits — determine which one is going to pass on more or less performance for a particular trait.

— Shane Bedwell, AHA

multiplying by 100. So, a calf with a 650-pound weaning weight in a herd with an average weaning weight of 600 pounds would have a ratio of 108. ((650/600) * 100)). Again, environmental and management differences mean ratios only can be used for comparison within herd. The same calf with a weaning weight ratio of 108 could have a higher or lower ratio in the next herd. All you know is that the bull with a weaning weight ratio of 108 outperformed his contemporaries in the same environment, though you don’t know the size of the contemporary group. You’re still no closer to knowing which bull can help move your herd forward.

On the other hand, this same bull’s initial Weaning Weight EPD (WW EPD) includes generations of weaning performance from both sides of the pedigree. Next, the bull’s own adjusted weaning weight is incorporated.

You might wonder why the weaning weight can be used for breed-wide comparison since it’s from a single herd. It’s because EPDs account for environment/management through contemporary groups.

Unlike ratios, contemporary groups utilized to calculate EPDs account for the size of the contemporary group, as well as management and environmental differences.

That is the big advantage of an EPD. It ranks animals based on their in-herd performance, compared to those in other herds by the same sire. Instead of comparing the weights, the EPD considers contemporary group deviations and consistency of sire performance across herds, while holding environment constant.

Regardless of his own weaning weight, if a sire’s progeny are outperforming other sire groups in 10 different herds, then his EPD will likely indicate that advantage. Bottom line, the EPD is the only tool that allows comparison across herds and factors in multiple years of performance through the pedigree. As more data (phenotypes) are submitted for more calves by the sire, the EPD accuracy increases.

Genomic-enhanced EPDs (GE-EPDs) go beyond conventional EPDs by also

Reviewing the breed database of 287 AHA National Sire Testing Program of random mated test sires, 11 of the top 15 for end product added value bear the EFBEEF brand and 10 of the top 20 for total value. Nor a single EFBeef sire shows up in the bottom 1/3 of the breed for end product value and not a one below breed average for the added value of quality grade. Get your herd in a dominant genetic position by utilizing multigenerational time proven production genetics from EFBeef.

Forced Opportunity Market Gleanings

by Wes Ishmael

Build back from the drought with more heterosis.

It’s never how you hard you get hit, it’s always how you respond.

There’s truth, even a bit of inspiration in such a maxim, but it typically takes some surviving afterward. Drought comes to mind.

Through August, beef cow slaughter was running about 14% higher year over year, due in part to high costs and economics, but likely stemming mostly from too many days with too little feed and no chance to make any. Culling was significantly more in some parts of the country.

David Anderson, Extension livestock economist with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service looked at federally inspected beef and dairy cow slaughter for region 6, which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas and New Mexico. He compared cow slaughter in the region this year to levels during the last major drought (2011-12) in Texas and parts of other states.

“Cow packing plants in region 6 have processed 668,000 beef cows this year, up 31% (or 157,000 head) from last year. They have processed 217,000 dairy cows this year, just slightly below last year,” Anderson explains, in the early-September issue of In the Cattle Markets from the Livestock Marketing Information Center.

“The states in region 6 reported 8.4 million beef cows on Jan. 1, 2022. Those states had 8.8 million beef cows on Jan. 1, 2011. While cows may come into the region for slaughter, it’s likely that a larger proportion of the herd has been culled this year than in the last major drought,” according to Anderson. So far this year, he says 8,000 more beef cows in region 6 have been slaughtered than in 2011; 164,900 head more than in 2012.

That is a mouthful, given the widespread, market-moving dry spell a decade ago.

The beef cow inventory at the beginning of the year was 2.3% less year over year at 30.12 million head, the smallest sine 2015 (see Locked and Loaded, Page 38). Beef heifers held for replacement of 5.61 million head Jan. 1 were 3.3% less.

Mashing lemons

True to form, cattle producers who endured and built back from the last major drought did more than add stock. They came back with a younger herd capable of producing lots more carcass quality.

The trend toward increasing percentages of carcasses grading Choice — especially those grading in the upper two thirds of Choice or Prime — is impressive nationwide. Strides in the Southern Plains were that and then some, in part because there was more ground to make up on average.

Producers found opportunity in the challenge.

It’s hard to argue against improved carcass merit being a primary contributor to much of the current robust domestic and international demand for U.S. beef. It’s also hard to argue against the fact that, for some at least, the quest for carcass merit has come at the cost of positive trends in things like reproductive efficiency, feed efficiency and longevity that matter even more to an operation’s bottom line.

Historic chances

Producers will find opportunity on the other side of the current drought. What will be telling is the genetics chosen to rearm. Both economics and dogeared science suggest embracing more heterosis — building cows engineered to do more with less — should be considered.

Research from the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (US-MARC) indicates that heterosis yields 25% more lifetime cow productivity and 38% more cow longevity. All told, crossbred females are estimated to be 30% more productive over their lifetimes, due to increased fertility, calf survivability, increased weaning weights and cow longevity. Specific gains revolve around the genetic diversity between the parents involved.

In their seminal work at US-MARC, researchers Larry Cundiff and Keith Gregory explained heterosis can be used to increase the weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding by 20%. Crossbred cows remain in the herd 1.3 years longer and have a 30% greater lifetime production than straightbred cows.

Consider a three-year crossbreeding research study conducted by the American Hereford Association, in partnership with Lacey Livestock, Harris Ranch Feeding Co. and Harris Ranch Beef Co. in California.

• Pregnancy rates for Hereford-sired females (black baldies) averaged 7% higher than Angus-sired peers.

• Feed conversion (as fed and dry matter) was consistently and significantly superior for Herefordsired calves compared to the predominantly straightbred Angus.

• Cost of gain was consistently and significantly superior for Herefordsired calves compared to the predominantly straightbred Angus.

• Overall net return for the Herefordsired calves was approximately $30 per head in a vertically coordinated beef marketing system. That does not include the maternal advantages of the baldy female.

Some already enjoy the benefits of heterosis but a lot more could.

Using EPDs for Comparison

You can see the 17 traits and three profit indices published by the AHA in Table 1 (on Page 8). It includes four percentile bands that show the average EPD for more that 270,000 animals born in the 2020 and 2021 calf crop years.

The most common question I receive is along the lines of: “What does a 54-pound weaning weight EPD equate to?”

EPDs are not intended to equate to actual weights/measures because of the dilemma discussed earlier when it comes to environmental and management differences. The sole purpose of an EPD is to enable comparison between animals and ranking of animals for specific traits — determine which one is going to pass on more or less performance for a particular trait.

Look at the WW EPD in Table 1. WW EPD is 63 pounds for the 15% band and 54 pounds for the 50% band. The difference is 9 pounds. On average, bulls with a WW EPD in the 15% band should sire calves that weigh 9 pounds more at weaning than those sired by bulls with a WW EPD in the 50% band — breed average.

The four specific percentile bands represent standard deviations from breed average. So, 50% is the breed average and should be the baseline for comparison. The 15% band represents 1 standard deviation to increase and the 85% band represents 1 standard deviation to decrease. If that seems confusing, remember what my good friend Jack Smith said: “Cull the big and little end and keep what’s left in the middle.”

Essentially from the 15% to the 85% band represents the middle end or, in statistical terms, 68.6% of the population. Consequently, of the 270,000 animals born from 20202021 in the AHA database, more than 185,000 fall in this range. This distribution is what we would expect, given any population. However, the spread in the values does vary some for specific traits, and that has to do with how much variation exists from the mean or 50% band.

If you want to make genetic progress in an area where you are deficient, I recommend selecting genetics that are one standard deviation above the mean (15% band). If you want to apply more pressure to a trait, then select genetics that are two standard deviations above the mean (2% band). The animals that fall in these respective bands are the ones in the Hereford population that can move your herd forward at a greater pace. While doing this, it’s important to keep the other traits in a bull’s EPD profile closer to the 50% band and for sure out of the bottom 85%.

How I miss the days of working cattle with Jack Smith; I’m sure glad for his wisdom. Good cowboy wisdom combined with the best tools available are tough to beat. Best wishes finding your next Hereford bull.

Wes Ishmael is the executive editor of Hereford World. He can be reached at wishmael@hereford.org.

Consistency Pays

by Trey Befort

Understanding what defines value in a buyer’s eyes on sale day is an essential part of marketing feeder cattle and maximizing profit potential. This includes a variety of factors such as condition, vaccination protocol and products used, genetics and more.

One critical value component — consistency — is sometimes misunderstood. It is easy to point fingers and make excuses about why buyers or auction markets sort cattle a certain way or apply premiums and discounts. At the end of the day, buyers strive to procure a consistent group of cattle that will reach their end point and target goals with minimal variation in feedyard performance and carcass quality. Buyers generally pay even more if they can buy entire loads fitting the description.

With this in mind, it’s easier to understand the value of reducing variation within groups of cattle and entire herds. Offering groups consistent for size, weight, condition and all of the rest with the fewest number of outliers as possible enhances value and often competition among buyers. It also increases the probability for repeat buyers and competition on future calf crops.

Benchmarking variation

The Hereford Feedout Program provides producers a convenient, cost-effective way to take a snapshot of how their genetics perform in the feedlot and on the rail.

“Some of the points that I am emphasizing in my breeding program were verified in this feedout,” says Tom Heidt of K7 Herefords, Lockridge, Iowa, who participated in the most recent Hereford Feedout. “It is probably the best and most reliable way of acquiring actual carcass data and performance on your calves. If

you want to learn something about your calves and their carcass and performance, send them to the feedout program. You will learn it.”

Participating in the program can be a real eye-opener, good or bad.

There is a top end and bottom end of cattle in every group, no matter how positive or negative the group averages are for metrics like average daily gain, hot carcass weight, ribeye area and marbling score. Typically, though, cattle with the most profit potential have much less variation between top and bottom. That’s

why buyers place value on consistency, as well as perceived absolute performance potential, when assembling groups of cattle. This reality also emphasizes the value of knowledge gained through programs like this.

Participants can see how their individual cattle perform and how much variation exists between them. They can also see how their cattle perform compared to others enrolled in the program and the variation that exists between groups.

Without actual data, it is impossible to know if you are producing cattle on the low end or high end of feedlot performance and carcass quality. The knowledge and information gained enables data-based decisions to improve quality and reduce variation and inconsistencies within the herd.

If you are interested in improving your knowledge of your herd, it is not too late to participate in the 2023 Hereford Feedout Program. See the general information for the programs below. You are always welcome to reach out with any questions you might have.

Trey Befort is the director of commercial programs for the American Hereford Association. He can be reached at tbefort@herefordbeef.org.

CHB Bites

USA the CHB Way Contest

How to Enter:

1.Purchase the CHB cut for the respective challenge from a licensed retail store.

2.Prepare a meal using the CHB challenge cut.

a picture of your CHB creation and upload it on Instagram, Facebook or the web entry page.

What’s New? Annual Meeting Notice

Association News and Events

“What’s New?” is a column designed to keep you in the know about Hereford happenings. You can sign up for Hereford Headlines, an electronic newsletter distributed the first Friday of each month by the American Hereford Association (AHA) highlighting Hereford news and events. You can also receive the Bald Faced Bottom Line, a commercially-focused electronic newsletter sent the third Friday of each month. To subscribe to these free newsletters, send an email to outreach@hereford.org. Archived issues are posted at Hereford.org.

Hereford Feedout Program

2022 American Hereford Association Annual Meeting

The 2022 American Hereford Association (AHA) Annual Membership Meeting and Conference — “Built on Tradition. Engineered to Sustain.” — will be Oct. 21-23, 2022, at the Loews Kansas City Convention Center in Kansas City, Mo. Please RSVP online to assist us in planning the event.

You will find detailed information about the event in the Annual Meeting Guide AHA members receive with the October issue of

Enrollment deadline approaching The Hereford Feedout Program is a retained ownership program that allows you to cost-effectively feed some of your cattle and collect valuable data. The program aims to maximize profit potential, improve carcass expected progeny difference (EPD) accuracy and expand market avenues. Other program benefits include access to the U.S. Premium Beef® grid and marketing into the Certified Hereford Beef® brand.

To participate in the feedout program, entries must be submitted by Nov. 1, 2022. Delivery to HRC Feed Yards, Scott City, Kan., is Dec. 10-14, 2022. To learn more, visit Hereford. org/genetics/breed-improvement/ feedout-program/. You can also contact Trey Befort, AHA director of commercial programs, at 816-842-3757 or Lee Mayo, HRC Feed Yards general manager, at 620-872-5328.

Sale Season

Stay up to date

Fall sale season is picking up where the spring season ended — strong! You can keep track of the action and see recent sale results by visiting the “Sale Results” page under the “Marketing” tab on the AHA website. To view current Herefords On Demand (HOD) production catalogs, click on “Production Catalogs” located under the “Marketing” tab. Let HOD help you find your next herd bull or foundation female with its ability to provide weekly updated live EPDs and a search function within and across online catalogs.

Youth

Enter today

sale listings

Boost your marketing efforts by participating in upcoming Herefordinfluenced feeder calf sales, open to operations of all sizes. Consigning Hereford and Hereford-influenced calves to a special Hereford sale is an effective way to put cattle in front of buyers interested in Hereford genetics and may provide a price premium. Contact these organizers for specific requirements and deadlines. For commercial female listings, visit Hereford.org/commercial/ marketplace/female-listings

Tennessee Hereford Marketing Program

Feeder Calf Sale

Date: Nov. 2, 2022

Location: Tennessee Livestock Producers – Columbia, Tenn.

Contact: Richard Brown 931-239-9785

Nov. 4, 2022 - Monroe, Wis.

Nov. 4, 2022 - Eau Claire, Wis.

Contact: Perry Wolff  715-966-4850

Montana Hereford Association Hereford Influenced Feeder Calf Sale

Date: Nov. 9, 2022

Location: Headwaters Livestock Auction – Three Forks, Mont.

Contact: Denise Loyning 406-425-2252

Stockland Livestock - Davenport, Wash.

Date: Nov. 14, 2022

Location: Stockland LivestockDavenport, Wash.

Contact: Kale McGuinness  509-703-3981

Burwell Livestock - Burwell, Neb.

Date: Nov. 18, 2022

Location: Burwell LivestockBurwell, Neb.

Contact: Trevor Toelle 308-214-1543

Date: Dec. 1, 2022

Location: Bluegrass Stockyards South – Stanford, Ky.

Contact: Adam Gordon 859-583-9372

Premium Whiteface Feeder Calf Sale hosted by MN Hereford Breeders

Date: Dec. 1, 2022

Location: Pipestone Livestock Auction Market – Pipestone, Minn.

Contact: Kent Heins – 612-280-4260

Pipestone Livestock Auction Market – 507-825-3306

Greater Midwest Certified Hereford Feeder Calf Sale

Date: Jan. 5, 2023

Location: Carthage Livestock Auction – Carthage, Ill.

Contact: Brent Lowderman 309-221-9621

Entries are now being accepted for the 2023 National Junior Hereford Association (NJHA) Fed Steer Shootout contest. Enrollment deadline is Nov. 1, 2022. Steers must be delivered Dec. 10-14, 2022, to HRC Feed Yards, Scott City, Kan. Throughout the contest, participants will receive various data reports for their steers on feed and will be given the opportunity to participate in several educational activities. Awards will be given in both pen of three and individual divisions for purebred and commercial categories. Participants completing the Performance Portfolio portion of the contest will also be given the chance to compete for additional awards. Visit Hereford.org/Youth/ NJHA-Fed-Steer-Shootout for more information or call Trey Befort at 816-842-3757.

HYFA Scholarships

Plan to apply for the 2023 Hereford Youth Foundation of America (HYFA) spring scholarship program. The deadline is April 1, 2023.

The HYFA scholarship program is designed to provide recognition for outstanding members of the NJHA. In 2023, HYFA will award more than $200,000 of academic scholarships to Hereford youth.

Visit HerefordYouthFoundation. submittable.com/submit, to apply today.

Association News

Free genotypes for heifer tract scores

You can receive free genotypes by providing heifer reproductive tract scores for the ongoing fertility research project at the University of Missouri. Jared Decker, Wurdak Chair in Animal Genetics and his colleagues are researching how reproductive tract scores can predict pregnancy rate success. They developed a scoring rubric that evaluates the size and tone of the uterine horns as well as the size and development of the ovarian follicles.

This multi-breed research project is open to heifers only. Tract scoring must be conducted 30 to 45 days ahead of breeding. Decker’s goal is to include at least 2,500 Hereford heifer reproductive tract scores and genotypes in the project.

You can find more details in a description provided at the inception of the two-year project here: Blog. SteakGenomics.org/2020/02/ HeiferRecruitment.html. If you have additional questions, please contact Decker at deckerje@missouri.edu

Staff Announcements

Nelson Joins AHA Records Department

Talina Nelson joined the AHA in August as a customer service representative in the records department. Nelson assists members with cattle registrations, transfers and general membership service.

“We are excited to welcome Talina to the records team and know that she will be a great asset to all of our members. Her enthusiasm for Hereford history and the agricultural industry will serve her well in this role,” says Stacy Sanders, director of the AHA records department.

Nelson’s agricultural background includes her family experiences as well as studying agricultural business and psychology at Northwest Missouri State University.

“Growing up, I watched my grandparents raise cattle, and they taught me the importance of herd history. I couldn’t be more excited to be able to help breeders document their own herds while helping maintain the Hereford breed’s herd book,” Nelson explains.

Like her grandparents, Nelson is also proud to serve as an advocate for the beef industry, bridging the knowledge gap between producers and consumers. She cultivated her

passion for agricultural advocacy in her previous role with William Coy’s Farm to Table Restaurant.

Member Services

Order tags and TSUs early

As seasonal testing volume increases, please consider placing TSU and DNA orders sooner rather than later so you can have results available when you need them. TSU and blood card order forms are available at Hereford.org/ genetics/dna-testing/. DNA requests can be made online through MyHerd or by calling or emailing the AHA Customer Service Department.

ShopHereford

Check out some feature items

ShopHereford serves as your one-stop shop for everything related to promoting Hereford cattle. Be sure to visit ShopHereford.com for new apparel, home décor or other Hereford-branded items. With each purchase you are proudly representing Hereford and supporting the AHA, Certified Hereford Beef®, NJHA and the Hereford Youth Foundation of America. Thanks for your ongoing support!

Have ideas or suggestions about merchandise to include on ShopHereford? Email us at Shop@hereford.org.

Hereford Garnet Hoodie

AHA Tailgater Trunk Cooler

Come home to Hereford Mug

Kevin Murnin

406-853-4638

kmurnin@hereford.org

Upper Midwest Region

Noah Benedict

North Central Region

Minn.,

Alex

aacheson@hereford.org

Eastern

Region

a little more tenable,” John said. “Using these crops as additional forage provides an option that is very valuable not only for the cattle, but for the soil in our fields.

“We’ve been able to extend our grazing season and also produce some really high value hay.”

Fertility at the forefront

In addition to maximizing their land use, John and longtime friend and ranch foreman Matt Reynolds have worked together over the years to produce an efficient and productive cowherd that thrives on the operation’s available forages. Reynolds and his family’s operation, Reynolds Herefords, a multigenerational Hereford seedstock enterprise in Huntsville, have supplied John Ranch Inc. with clean-up sires for several years.

Replacement heifer selection is especially important to John, who prefers heifers that are born in the first 21 to 30 days to keep his calving window tight.

“The geneticists will tell you that fertility is not that heritable, but I still believe that all the things that create fertility are,” he said. “If you’re selecting those heifers out of the cows that obviously conceived in that first cycle, then you can’t get much closer to selecting for fertility.

“There is not a single trait in a cowherd that can increase profitability more than fertility.”

A few years ago, John and Reynolds took a very scientific approach to produce a set of ideal black baldy females with strong maternal traits. The idea stemmed from a 2016 conversation John had with geneticist Mark Allan, who was with Trans Ova at the time, about an 18-year-old cow that had recently come up open.

The set of baldy females is now on their third calf, and John said he could not ask for a better scenario.

“These cows have been superstars from the beginning,” he said. “They were early maturing, with nearly a 100% conception rate two years in a row and have been really good mamas.

“They are moderate-framed cows and keep good flesh, which is important in our part of the country.”

Healthy and efficient

In an effort to best match forage resources with the nutrient requirements of those moderateframed cows, John Ranch Inc. starts calving in August and is done by the end of September.

“Fall calving allows us to take advantage of the grass at its best in September and October and hopefully even in November and December if we get enough rain,” John said. “The grass doesn’t have near the moisture content that it does in the spring so it’s a lot stronger and very nutritious, and that’s when those cows really need a lot of nutrients.”

Hay tests are used to determine necessary supplementation in the winter, whether it’s dry feed, wet feed or cubes, and then calves are weaned early enough in the spring to give cows a chance to get off the supplement and firm back up before summer.

John has devoted much of his professional career to building and directing MFA Health Track, a value-added VAC 45 preconditioning verification program, and he has strong opinions about the importance of overall herd health and its impact on longevity and sustainability.

“I really believe that a solid whole herd vaccination program is critical,” he said. “If you’re talking about building a healthy calf, you’ve got to start with a healthy mom who can offer valuable antibodies in her colostrum.”

As part of the MFA Health Track protocol, John’s calves get two complete rounds of shots, including a modified-live viral, a clostridial and a Pasteurella vaccination, and calves are castrated and dehorned if necessary.

“I think animal health programs are a vital piece to the sustainability puzzle,” he said. “Healthy animals have higher production efficiencies and less impact on the environment.”

Steered by science

As evidenced by the baldy heifer project, John is also passionate about using research and technology to direct and validate production practices and marketing opportunities. He has retained ownership of his calves since the early 1990s and recently worked with Tom Brink, founder and owner of Top Dollar Angus and CEO of the Red Angus Association of America, to test the accuracy of growth EPDs. Utilizing the set of baldy heifers, John used a bull with high EPD growth traits and one with low growth values to produce a calf crop. DNA testing was used to determine each calf’s sire and the cattle were fed, harvested and evaluated, with results indicating the EPDs were accurate.

In his role with MFA, John is currently working with a blockchain developer to create a centralized platform that digitizes data and tracks animal health and performance through the supply chain and essentially helps producers promote various sustainability practices associated with their operation.

“I’ll never forget her number — it was 8026 — and in my numbering system that meant the first number was a year, so I thought she must be a 2008 model,” he said. “But I got to thinking that can’t be because we’ve used the Beef Improvement Federation letter code since 2004, so that meant she was a 1998 model.

“The only way she could have still been in our herd was to have a calf on time and at least in the middle of the calving index every year — and she had given us 16 — so I started talking to Mark about how to recreate her.”

The plan involved identifying a herd of medium-framed Angus cows with specific reproductive efficiency criteria, including tremendous conception rates and a tight calving window. Hereford sires were vetted for strong maternal traits like longevity, soundness, udder quality and even pigmentation around the eyes.

After collecting oocytes from the Angus herd, sexed Hereford semen was used to create the embryos.

“We transferred 116 embryos to my cows, and we got 54 heifer calves,” he said. “Fifty percent is a pretty average success rate, so that’s just almost right on the money.”

“Consumers are more interested than ever in knowing how their food is raised and what possible implications those production practices have on the environment,” he said. “By using a technology like blockchain to share our story, we are able to better communicate our efforts and successes.”

With a long history of industry leadership, including serving as president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in 2006, John said the sustainability conversation has certainly evolved over the past 15 to 20 years.

“There’s no doubt the cattle industry is paying a lot more attention to sustainability today, and ranchers have a great sustainability story to tell,” he said. “I think we need to rely on science to tell us the best way to continue to provide a highquality, nutrient-dense source of protein for the world, and I think cattle are one of the few species that can do that and do it very sustainably.”

Editor's note: This is the final installment in a series of four articles that highlight the conversations, the practices and the outcomes related to ensuring a long-term food supply and a positive environmental impact.

and

Fertility was at the forefront of Mike John's decision to create an ideal set of Hereford-sired black baldy females.

There’s no doubt the cattle industry is paying a lot more attention to sustainability today, and ranchers have a great sustainability story to tell.

— Mike John

MORE POUNDS. MORE CALVES. MORE PROFIT. WHOA.

Herefords are known as the efficiency experts for a reason. Herefords boost pregnancy rates by 7% and add $30 per head in feedyard profitability in a crossbreeding system. And Hereford genetics bring unrivaled hybrid vigor, longevity and disposition.

Come home to Hereford

.

Texas

Buffalo Livestock Mkt., Inc.

He sells!

HEREFORD

Aaron Gann, Mt. Pleasant, TX

Flat Broke Ranch, Heath, TX

G3 Herefords, Elgin, TX

Kurt Mathias, Mt. Pleasant, TX

Lank Land & Cattle. Millsap, TX

Nolan Herefords, Gilmer, TX

O H Triangle, Mertzon, TX

Prairie Rose Cattle Co., Waxahachie, TX & Sherman, IL

Ricketson Herefords, Dalhart, TX

Rocker b Ranch, Barnhart, TX

Rosson Herefords, Milford, TX

Spearhead Ranch, Copperas Cove, TX

Texas A&M Commerce, Commerce, TX

Whitaker Farms-Flying 5 Herefords, Hart, TX

Hereford Association

817/821-3544

Jack Chastain 817/831-3161

817/831-3162

Airport Freeway, Ft. Worth, TX 76117

deCordova

Buffalo Livestock

254-424-1736

Maybe the New Sixty-Five

by R

significant financial investment,” says Justin Waggoner, Kansas State University beef systems specialist at Garden City, Kan. “Producers should consider that the sale of several calves is required to generate sufficient calf revenue to recover the costs associated with purchasing, developing and maintaining heifers.”

calves to recover the initial investment and maintenance costs of a replacement female, according to Waggoner, in a 2021 Beef Tips newsletter article, Heifer Development Program Considerations.

develop and manage replacement heifers in a manner that is sensitive to development costs, reproductive success and longevity in the herd,” Waggoner says. “Heifer development programs are developed around two factors: 1) the desired or target weight that heifers will be developed to prior to breeding; 2) the strategy of weight gain used to grow the heifers to the target weight.”

Heifer development programs are developed around two factors: 1) the desired or target weight that heifers will be developed to prior to breeding; 2) the strategy of weight gain used to grow the heifers to the target weight.

Waggoner explains reproductive development and puberty in heifers is a function of both age and body weight, as expressed relative to the expected mature weight of the heifer. He adds the latter is the primary puberty gauge in production settings.

— Justin Waggoner, Kansas State University beef systems specialist at Garden City, Kan.

“This concept was based on the theory that physiological maturity — the point at which consumed energy is directed away from lean tissue deposition toward body reserves — and reproductive maturity occur at about the same point in the animal’s physiological growth curve,” Waggoner explains. “Historically, it was recommended that heifers be managed to achieve 60-65% of their mature bodyweight prior to their first breeding season. More recently, research has demonstrated that developing heifers to achieve lower target weights (approximately 55% of their mature bodyweight) prior to breeding may reduce heifer development costs without significantly impacting heifer pregnancy rates, calving rates or retention.”

Likewise, John Hall writes, “Achieving a target weight of 65% of mature weight by the beginning of the breeding season

Waggoner emphasizes choosing a target development weight for heifers warrants careful consideration.

“Developing heifers to a lower target weight may reduce development costs, but it may also result in a greater proportion of heifers that are not cycling prior to the breeding season,” Waggoner explains. “Operations that select a lower development target should consider that a greater number of heifers may need to be developed to achieve the desired number of replacement females for the operation. Conversely, an operation that develops heifers to greater target weights prior to breeding will likely have higher development costs, but a larger proportion of heifers will likely be cycling prior to the breeding season.”

“Another way of thinking about it is that there’s little room for error when developing heifers to a target weight of 55%. Developing them to heavier target weights is more forgiving,” Hall explained.

“Producers should consider the number of replacement females required and the number of potential replacement heifers available for development when selecting a target development weight

Research suggests benefits to breeding some heifers at lighter weights.

for replacement heifers,” Waggoner says. “If only a few heifers are required as replacements (i.e. smaller herd) or the number of potential replacements females is limited, selecting a higher development target weight may be advantageous.”

In sum, Hall says, “Consideration must be given to heifer biological type, breeding (purebred vs. crossbred), development costs and marketing options before selecting or recommending a target weight goal.”

How much gain and when After deciding the target weight, Waggoner says the next consideration should be the strategy for achieving the desired weight gain prior to breeding.

In the studies Hall cites, there was no impact of the pattern of gain on heifer pregnancy rates. The studies included heifers achieving a target weight via: rapid gain followed by slow gain; steady gain; slow gain followed by rapid gain.

“Therefore, managers can design feeding programs to maximize gain during times of abundant forage, low-cost feed supplies or favorable environmental conditions,” Hall says.

Waggoner notes growing heifers at a relatively constant rate of gain, post-weaning, is a common approach.

“Replacement females do not typically need to gain more than 200-400 lbs. of weight post-weaning to achieve the target weight, thus only moderate amounts of energy/supplemental feed are required using this strategy,” Waggoner explains. “Heifers may also be developed by growing them more rapidly post-weaning and then at slower yet increasing rate closer to the breeding season. The advantage of developing heifers using this strategy is that a greater proportion of heifers will likely attain puberty and begin cycling earlier due to the greater plane of nutrition. However, the disadvantage of this strategy is that heifers are grown to larger weights early in the development period. Thus, producers are maintaining a larger animal, with greater nutrient requirements during the development period.”

The other strategy, as Hall mentioned, is growing heifers slowly after weaning and then more rapidly closer to breeding season.

“The primary advantage of this strategy is that a smaller animal, with lower maintenance requirements is fed during the development program, which lowers feed inputs/costs. Producers developing heifers in extensive forage-based systems often use this strategy,” Waggoner explains. “The risk associated with this development strategy is that heifers may not achieve puberty and begin cycling prior to the breeding season if they are unable to gain rapidly enough to achieve the target weight prior to the breeding season.”

“Research has shown that with a good nutritional plan, it is reasonable to expect replacement heifers to reach

Fall 2022 Platinum TPR Breeders

Fifteen Hereford breeders achieved Platinum Total Performance Records (TPR™) Breeder status for fall 2022.

The Platinum TPR program was established in 2018 to recognize breeders who participate in the Association’s Whole Herd Total Performance Records (TPR™) program that was implemented in 2001 to create a more accurate database and increase the value of Hereford genetics. The Platinum TPR Breeder is the highest level of achievement when it comes to complete calf crop reporting. Breeders must meet all of

the requirements of Gold TPR Breeder status plus genotype 85% of their calves with a weaning weight submitted.

The Platinum TPR Breeder awards are designated two times a year and are awarded each calving season. The selection of Platinum TPR breeders takes place during the process of loading each new run of expected progeny differences (EPDs) in January (spring) and July (fall). The criteria for Platinum TPR breeders will be evaluated two years prior to the award year. The following fall 2022 TPR awards reflect the fall 2020 calf crop.

Arkansas

Triple S Ranch, Grannis

Georgia

Roy Barnes, Marietta Gary Hedrick, Marietta Colton Pollard, Carrollton

Idaho

Colyer Herefords, Bruneau

Missouri Greyson Grooms, Springfield

Montana Holden Herefords, Valier

Become a Platinum TPR Breeder

North Carolina

W & A Hereford Farm LLC, Providence Oklahoma JM Birdwell, Fletcher Express Ranches, Yukon Headquarters Ranch, Carney Loewen Herefords, Waukomis

Breeders must fulfill the following specification in order to qualify for Platinum TPR status:

• Herd inventory must be submitted prior to the date inventory surcharge goes into effect.

• Complete reporting of calving ease and reproductive status for each dam on inventory.

• Complete reporting of birth weights for each live calf recorded in the calf crop.

• Complete reporting of weaning weights for each live calf recorded in the calf crop.

• Complete reporting of yearling weights for each live calf recorded in the calf crop.

• Complete reporting of scrotal measurements for each bull calf in the calf crop with a recorded yearling weight.

Texas

Flying S Herefords, Dallas

Virginia Deer Track Farm, Spotsylvania Knoll Crest Farm, Red House

• 85% of calves with a weaning weight submitted must be genotyped.

• Ultrasound data reported on 25% or more of the calf crop.

Montana

Virginia Oklahoma Texas

The following Hereford breeders earned Platinum TPR status this fall:

Missouri Arkansas

Georgia

North Carolina

Idaho

Thirty-one Hereford breeders achieved Gold Total Performance Records (TPR™) Breeder status for fall 2022.

Established in 2005, the program pays tribute to breeders who go the extra mile to collect data at all levels of production and report the data

Alabama

Dry Creek Farm, Pell City

Sul-Tay Polled Herefords, Elrod

California

Gino Pedretti, El Nido Snedden Herefords, Maricopa Sonoma Mountain Herefords, Santa Rosa

Georgia

JW McCallum, Ambrose

Iowa

K7 Herefords, Lockridge

Kansas

Frank Hug & Sons, Scranton

Kevin Jensen, Courtland Brannan & Reinhardt, Otis

Fall 2022 Gold TPR Breeders

in a timely manner. The Gold TPR Breeder recognition is presented to progressive Hereford breeders who have measured traits and promptly submitted performance data at all levels of production.

Missouri

Journagan Ranch/MO State Univ., Mountain Grove

Maplewood Acres Farm, Sedalia College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout

Montana

Ehlke Herefords, Townsend

North Carolina

Double J Farm LLC, Trap Hill Bryson Westbrook, Shelby

Ohio

Rex Bradford, Saint Marys

J & L Cattle Services, Jeromesville Rippling Rock Hereford Farm, Blanchester

Oklahoma

Buford Ranches, Cleveland Mendel Hereford Ranch, Covington Elizabeth Pribil, Hennessey

Become a Gold TPR Breeder

Breeders must fulfill the following specification in order to qualify for Gold TPR status:

• Submit herd inventory before the date inventory surcharge goes into effect.

• Complete reporting of calving ease and reproductive status for each dam on inventory.

• Complete reporting of birth weights for all live calves recorded in the calf crop.

• Complete reporting of weaning weights for all live calves recorded in the calf crop.

Oregon

Greg Thomas, Bonanza

South Dakota

Bar JZ Polled Herefords, Holabird

Tennessee

Jim Coley, Lafayette Crouch Polled Hereford Farm, McMinnville Stan East, Carthage

Texas

Double Diamond Ranch, McDade Doyle Hereford Ranch, Wolfe City

Montana JP Family Limited Partnership, San Angelo Still River Ranch, Van Alstyne

• Complete reporting of yearling weights for all live calves recorded in the calf crop.

• Complete reporting of scrotal measurements for each bull calf with a recorded yearling weight.

• Ultrasound data reported on 25% or more of the calf crop

California

Iowa

Tennessee

Kansas Oklahoma

Missouri

Alabama Georgia

Ohio

North Carolina

Dakota

The following Hereford breeders earned Gold TPR status this fall:

Locked and Loaded

Cattle prices poised for significant increase.

by Wes Ishmael

Calf and feeder cattle markets appear to have finally turned the long-awaited corner toward a multi-year run of higher prices.

Through August, calf prices were seasonally stronger than usual as cattle numbers thinned and futures prices pointed higher.

“The price of lightweight calves coming to market are not following their normal seasonal pattern at this time, as prices have been inching higher,” explained Andrew P. Griffith, agricultural economist at the University of Tennessee, in his late-August market comments. “The price of these cattle may come under a little pressure when the glut of spring calves hit the market from late September through November, but prices are not expected to decline as much as the seasonal tendency would project.”

As for feeder-weight cattle, the CME Feeder Cattle Index increased from $174.40 Aug. 1 to $182.36 at the end of the month, when it was $24 higher year over year.

During the same period, December Corn futures increased 60 cents per bushel.

Even as Corn futures rallied yet again at the end of August, Feeder Cattle futures ranged from $183.87 (Sep) at the front of

Records on the Horizon

The recent Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural Markets from the Food and Agricultural Policy Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri offers added perspective regarding potential cattle numbers and prices over the next five years (see Figs. 1-3).

FAPRI pegs the beef cow inventory at 29.3 million Jan. 1 of next year, which would be 800,000 fewer (-2.7%) year over year. FAPRI projects the inventory at 28.7 million head in 2024 and then 28.5 million head the next two years before rising to 28.7 million in 2027.

Forecast cattle prices increase during most of the next five years — all higher than this year.

FAPRI forecasts the weighted average five-area direct fed steer price this year at $142.35 per cwt. For 2023 through 2027, projected prices are, respectively, $150.98, $156.53, $158.87, $159.39 and $157.81.

FAPRI estimates this year’s average price for feeder steers (600-650 pounds, Oklahoma City) to be $180.54. For 2023 through 2027, projected prices are, respectively, $197.54, $211.62, $219.03, $220.45 and $218.22. Updated projections are based on information available in mid‐August 2022 this year.

Among other update highlights:

Drought conditions in important cow‐calf areas are causing producers to send animals to slaughter early, lifting beef production in the short term but leading to fewer cows and higher prices in the years to come.

• Sharply higher feed and other input costs help keep projected total U.S. meat production nearly flat in 2022 and 2023. The last time meat production failed to grow in consecutive years was 2003 and 2004. Strong U.S. consumer demand for meat offsets a decline in exports.

• Tight global supplies result in record prices for wheat and cotton and near‐record prices for corn and soybeans. For the 2022/23 marketing year, wheat prices are projected to exceed $9 per bushel; corn, $6 per bushel; and soybeans, $14 per bushel.

• Prices for fertilizer, fuel and many other farm inputs have also risen sharply in 2022. For example, variable corn production expenses have increased by an estimated $164 per acre in 2022. Projected input costs moderate in the years ahead but remain well above the 2021 level.

• If better growing conditions result in trendline crop yields in 2023 and later years, crop prices could decline from current levels. In 2023/24, projected average corn prices drop to $5.22 per bushel, wheat falls to $7.11 per bushel and soybean prices decline to $12.36 per bushel.

• The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food is projected to increase 9.0% in 2022. Food‐at‐home prices increase 10.6%, well above the increase in prices of food away‐from‐home for the first time since 2011.

• The increase in the food CPI moderates to 2.3% in 2023, as commodity prices and food marketing costs decline. This still outpaces the 1.7% average annual increase from 2010‐2019.

the board to $199.50 at the back (Aug) with each contract higher than the preceding one. That’s just a hint of the anticipated price trajectory over the next few years (see Records on the Horizon).

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) increased projected feeder steer prices (750-800 pounds, Oklahoma City) in August’s Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook. That was based on recent price strength and anticipated firm feedlot demand in second half of this year.

The feeder steer price was forecast $3 higher in the third quarter at $171 per hundredweight (cwt.) and $2 higher in the fourth quarter at $173 for an annual average of $164.60. Prices were forecast at $169 and $186 in the first and second quarters of next year, respectively, with an annual average of $199.25.

Negotiated cash fed cattle prices provided underlying support, with the five-area direct weighted average steer price mostly $141 to 144 per cwt. in July and August, about $19 more than the same period last year (see Market Tracks, Page 50).

At the end of August, Live Cattle futures ranged from $144.50 in spot Oct to $158.02 in Apr and then from $154.05 in Jun to $162.75 in Feb ‘24.

In the August World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), ERS increased the expected weighted average five-area direct fed steer price for this year 80 cents to $142.10 per cwt., on current price strength. Next year’s projected annual price was $1 higher than the previous month’s estimate at $154. Prices were estimated at $140 in the third quarter and $147 in the fourth quarter. Prices in the first and second quarter next year were projected at $151 and $152, respectively.

Cattle numbers tell the tale

Fed cattle slaughter and beef production were higher through the first half of this year as drought drove more calves to feedlots earlier and more cows to the market.

Estimated year-to-date total cattle slaughter Sept. 2 was 22.7 million head, which was 282,000 head more (+1.3%) than the same time last year. Estimated year-to-date beef production was 18.74 billion pounds, which was 192.1 million pounds more (+1.0%) than a year earlier.

Through August, cattle on feed in feedlots with 1,000 head or more capacity was higher each month year over year, according to USDA’s monthly Cattle on Feed report. Of the eight months, inventory was record large in five months and the second most on record in two months, relative to the data series beginning in 1996.

Now the stage is set for significantly less cattle slaughter and beef production.

When this year started, the calculated number of calves outside feedyards was 676,000 head fewer (-2.6%) than a year earlier at 25.54 million head. Based on July 1 numbers in the semiannual Cattle report, numbers outside feedlots of 35.7 million head were 1 million fewer (-2.7%) year over year.

The beef cow inventory at the beginning of the year was 718,500 head fewer (-2.3%) year over year at 30.12 million head. That was the smallest inventory since 2015 and represented the steepest year-over-year decline since 1996-97, according to David Anderson, Extension livestock economist at Texas A&M University. Beef cow numbers July 1 of 30.35 million head were 2.4% less year over year.

Beef heifers held for replacement of 5.61 million head Jan. 1 were 191,600 head fewer (-3.3%) than the previous year. The 4.15 million beef heifers retained as replacements July 1 were 150,000 fewer (-3.5%) than a year earlier.

“The July 1 inventory of heifers in feedlots was 2.9% more than last year and confirms that heifers continue to be diverted into feeder channels rather than being retained for breeding,” explained Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University, in early-August market comments. With the mid-year beef cow inventory 2.4% less year over year

and the inventory of beef replacement heifers down 3.5%, Peel said the beef industry was poised to see the largest single-year beef cow herd liquidation in more than 35 years.

The August WASDE pegged beef production for this year at 27.99 billion pounds, which was 68 million pounds more than the previous month’s estimate, based on higher expected placements in the second half of this year. Estimated beef production next year of 26.26 billion pounds would be 1.7 billion pounds less (-6.2%) than this year and significantly less than the record and near-record supply the last three years.

Beef demand paves the way

As always, cash cattle prices ride on the back of consumer beef demand. Depending on your leanings, domestic demand remains extraordinarily resilient.

“Retail beef prices spiked following the COVID19 shutdown to levels I anticipated not seeing again for the foreseeable future. But those price levels were seen across much of 2019, and we are close to those levels now. Retail beef margins are very strong,” explained Stephen Koontz, agricultural economist at Colorado State University, in the midAugust issue of In the Cattle Markets from the Livestock Marketing Information Center.

More simply, Koontz explained if beef prices are strong and supplies are reasonably abundant then strength of demand is the only reason beef prices can remain elevated.

“It’s the consumer — both domestic and international — and the downstream market. This strong consumer demand is being revealed in retail prices and strengthening the wholesale and farm level prices,” Koontz said.

The all fresh beef retail value in July this year was $7.34 per pound. It was $7.10 a year earlier, according to USDA data.

Plus, international demand for U.S. beef is off the charts.

U.S. beef exports topped $1 billion in June for the fifth time this year, according to data released by USDA and compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). For the first half of this year, beef exports increased 6% year over year for volume, and 33% for value at $6.19 billion.

Through June, U.S. beef export value averaged $476.98 per head of fed slaughter, up 33% from the first half of 2021.

Dollars

2017

OK

Source:

Figure 2: Grain and Soybean Prices 16

Soybeans

Source:

change

“Performance for U.S. beef exports through the first half of the year was nothing short of remarkable, especially considering the growing economic headwinds in many key markets and continued shipping and logistical challenges,” according to Dan Halstrom, USMEF President and CEO. He explains, “The rebound in the global foodservice sector has provided a tremendous lift in 2022, even though it is still far from a full recovery in many Asian and European destinations. We definitely see opportunities for further growth, although inflationary pressure and the stronger U.S. dollar continue to raise concerns about consumer spending power.”

Weaker economy ahead

Source:

“The global economic outlook for 2022 and 2023 is growing more uncertain due to the continued materialization of downside risks. Previous growth projections are moderated due to ongoing trade disruptions, above-target inflation rates and rising energy prices,” say analysts with the ERS, in the latest quarterly Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade ERS analysts say global real gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to increase by 3.2% this year, down 0.4% from the previous forecast. Global GDP is projected to increase by 2.9% in 2023.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing and continues to impose far-reaching economic disruptions. The disruptions have thus

elevated compared with their pre-pandemic levels. Central banks around the world, including the Federal Reserve, have begun monetary tightening cycles to combat rising inflation rates. The tightening of monetary policy counters inflation but also typically presents short-term barriers to economic growth.”

Against this economic backdrop, U.S. agricultural exports in fiscal year (FY) 2023 are projected at $193.5 billion, down $2.5 billion from the revised forecast for FY 2022.

“This decrease is primarily driven by lower exports of cotton, beef and sorghum that are partially offset by higher exports of soybeans and horticultural products,” say ERS analysts.

Beef exports are forecast down $1.1 billion to $9.8 billion as higher prices fail to offset lower volumes driven by tight U.S. supplies.

More Information

MEGHAN

Layton (405) 464-2455 laytond@yahoo.com

Andee Marston (785)250-4449 laytonauction.com

Dehorning

Beat the Hurt

Cattle producers have cost-effective options to manage cattle pain.

by Heather Smith Thomas

Cattle producers continually improve how they handle, manage and care for cattle but the dearth of FDA-approved products limits their ability to manage cattle pain.

Hans Coetzee, head of the department of anatomy and physiology at the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine, has been working with food animal pain management for 15 years.

“One drug, marketed as Banamine Transdermal, was approved in 2017,” Coetzee says. “Although it is very effective, it is only labeled for pain associated with foot rot in beef cattle and nonlactating dairy cattle. We remain limited in our ability to provide pain management for other painful conditions such as castration and dehorning.”

Drug labels can make it challenging for producers to provide food animals pain management.

“Currently, because there are no specific approvals for managing pain, producers can use a drug in an extra-label manner,” Coetzee says. “This means that they are using a drug that’s not specifically labeled for a certain purpose, but it can be prescribed by their veterinarian.”

Extra-label drug use (ELDU) is governed by the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA). This allows for extra-label use of drugs under direction of a prescription by a veterinarian — specifically in situations where there are no other drugs approved for that purpose and the animal’s health is threatened or the animal is suffering.

Dehorning cattle when they are young and their horn buds are small is typically not an issue, but dehorning when horns are large can be very painful and stressful for the animal.

“If larger animals must be dehorned, we recommend using both a local anesthetic and a longer-acting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that will reduce pain associated with subsequent inflammation,” says Hans Coetzee, head of the department of anatomy and physiology at the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine.

Pain management targeting different parts of the pain pathway is referred to as multimodal analgesia.

“We’ve seen dramatic behavioral changes in animals that have received this multimodal pain management, especially in older calves and those that undergo multiple painful procedures such as dehorning and castration at the same time,” Coetzee says. “If you can help that animal feel better for at least a day or two after the procedure, you can reduce the impact of those procedures on health and welfare of the animal.”

It is more beneficial for the animal to receive a local painkiller along with a longacting drug. This combination minimizes initial pain and helps keep the inflammatory pain under control.

“We are more successful in controlling pain if we can give the analgesic drug before the procedure,” Coetzee says. “However, giving it at the time of the procedure is better than not giving it at all. If you provide pain management a day or two after the onset of pain, the pain management drug will not be as effective as if we gave it at the time of the procedure.”

Just like humans, in order to prevent pain, you have to stay on top of treatment.

“This is the key,” Coetzee says. “When we perform painful management procedures, we have the opportunity to give the drug before the pain actually starts. This is similar to what you would receive when going to the dentist.

“Lidocaine is often used when dehorning, and we can add bicarbonate as a buffer. We add 1 cc (cubic centimeter, which is equal to 1 milliliter) of bicarbonate to 10 cc of lidocaine. To keep the lidocaine stable in the bottle, it is formulated as an acid. Injecting it can actually be painful; it stings. Adding bicarbonate is a trick we learned from human medicine. The dentist generally buffers the lidocaine to prevent that sting when it is injected into a human patient. We believe it’s also beneficial for animals to not have to deal with that initial stinging pain associated with the injection.”

Coetzee explains veterinarians have learned much about pain management in food animals from human medicine.

“We are restricted, however, by cost considerations since economics is part of our production systems. We have to make sure that the interventions we adopt are costeffective so producers can utilize these strategies in their operations,” he says.

“This legislation provides a framework for producers to work with their veterinarians to provide pain management in food animals for conditions where no drug approvals currently exist,” Coetzee says.

Veterinarians can prescribe these drugs, making them responsible for ensuring the animals receiving an extra-labeled drug do not pose a risk to the consumer in terms of drug residue in the meat or milk.

“For ELDU to occur, the veterinarian has to provide the producer with a withdrawal-period recommendation,” Coetzee says.

Use of a drug extra-label depends on a valid veterinarian-clientpatient relationship (VCPR) and an understanding about how the drug is to be used. This includes administration method, dosage and withdrawal period.

“Across our industry, we increasingly recognize the importance of the VCPR to provide the regulatory foundation for the practitioner to work with the producer to provide feed medications under the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) and also to provide medications for extra-label use when considered necessary,” Coetzee explains.

Animals can benefit from pain relief and be marketed without risk of tissue residues.

A potential solution

Meloxicam, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication for human arthritis, was approved in Canada several years ago for use in food animals in that nation. However, the drug has not yet been approved for food animal use in the U.S. ELDU of human generic meloxicam tablets can legally occur in food animals to relieve pain if there are no FDA-approved drugs specifically labeled for this purpose. Extra-label use must not result in tissue or milk residues that would pose risks for humans.

Public concern about farm animal welfare has led to increased awareness of discomfort caused by routine husbandry practices. These concerns also foster more research aimed at understanding pain in livestock and how to best alleviate it.

Meloxicam has been shown to effectively alleviate pain during dehorning and castration and has several advantages compared to other methods of pain management. These advantages include a longer period of pain relief with a single dose, ease of administration and cost effectiveness. A veterinarian can prescribe meloxicam to alleviate pain and stress, and enhance animal wellbeing following dehorning and castration.

Meloxicam has a 27-hour half-life, compared to other pain medications only lasting a few minutes. The cost of the drug is usually less than $1 per calf at branding. The FDA asks your veterinarian to assign a withdrawal time; 21 days is usually considered appropriate. Meloxicam comes in 15-milligram (mg) tablets, which are slightly smaller than an aspirin. Cattle dosage is 45 mgs per 100 pounds.

“Oral meloxicam tablets are a relatively inexpensive way to provide pain relief in cattle, provided this is done under the direction of a veterinarian and in compliance with AMDUCA,” Coetzee says. “A potential challenge for the producer, however, is how to deliver the drug.

“Meloxicam comes in small tablets intended for humans. Most producers prefer either a large oral bolus, an oral liquid suspension, an injection or a topical administration for a drug.”

A challenge pharmaceutical companies face while gaining approval for pain relief drugs in the U.S. is the FDA’s requirement for drug companies to use a validated method of pain assessment in the animal. It’s difficult to find methods that satisfy the FDA’s pain measurement requirement.

“There have been several attempts at developing pain scoring systems in food animals, but one of the challenges with those has been to validate them in a way that they can be used objectively by the drug company or the producer, to confirm that the animal is in pain and that the drug is actually working,” Coetzee says.

One of the tools currently used to measure pain is an assessment of the animal’s gait using a pressure mat.

“Pressure mats detect changes in force, surface area, stride length and pressure on each foot when the animal walks over it,” Coetzee says. “Each footfall can be visualized, and specialized software can

be used to characterize the animal’s gait before and after a painful procedure. Conditions that cause pain, such as lameness and castration, result in changes in the way an animal walks — that can be detected and measured using the pressure mat.”

These measurements can track changes to food animals’ pain.

“The pressure mat can be used as a validated method of pain assessment to determine whether a drug is working or not,” Coetzee says. “This technique was the basis for the approval of Banamine Transdermal because the company was able to show that in cases of foot rot, the animals that received the pain relief drug applied more force on the affected foot — walking more normal.

“Kinematic gait analysis provides an accepted platform for pharmaceutical companies to be able to get drugs approved. The challenge now would be whether the pharmaceutical industry will perceive that this is a segment of the industry that would provide them with a return on their investment.”

Public perception of the cattle industry

One driver for the use of pain medication is negative consumer perceptions of some livestock management practices.

“Pain mitigation may become something consumers expect livestock producers to do, to ensure that the wellbeing of the animal is not threatened,” Coetzee says. “In these situations, pain management may become a cost of doing business. However, this should not be viewed as a threat. Livestock producers already do an outstanding job of taking care of their animals.

“With this goal in mind, I believe that providing pain management can be a win-win for the animal and the producer. When we start administering pain management, the cattle look better after painful procedures. They are typically up eating, and their behavior is similar to what we see before the procedure.”

Coetzee encourages producers to talk with their veterinarians about pain management.

“If producers can try some of these methods and see how the treated animals respond, they could get a sense of whether this is something that might work within their production system,” Coetzee says. “A conversation with their veterinarian could help address some of the concerns the producer may have. I don’t think it’s a case anymore of pain management being too expensive or not worth pursuing, since most livestock producers want to do the best they can for the animals in their care. This is just one component of sustainable management of livestock.”

Editor’s Note: Heather Smith Thomas and her husband, Lynn, have ranched near Salmon, Idaho, for more than four decades. She also writes cattle articles that appear in numerous U.S. and Canadian cattle publications, including Hereford World. She is the author of numerous books, including “The Cattle Health Handbook.”

I believe that providing pain management can be a win-win for the animal and the producer. When we start administering pain management, the cattle look better after painful procedures. They are typically up eating, and their behavior is similar to what we see before the procedure.

— Hans Coetzee, Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine

See catalog online at: htpp://hereford.org/marketing/hereford-sales/production-catalogs/

1

Market Tracks

Dwindling numbers and bullish outlook push calf prices higher.

by Wes Ishmael

Calf prices faded seasonal trends through August — increasing rather than decreasing — as higher year-overyear feedlot placements in recent months suggested fewer cattle available through the fall.

For instance, average steer prices (500-600 pounds) were 17.9% higher year over year Aug. 27, in the South Central region, compared to a year-over-year increase of 14.5% the week ending July 2. Prices for steers at the same weight in the Southeast region increased 15.4% versus 10.9% during the same period.

The CME Feeder Cattle Index was $182.36 Aug. 31, compared to $174.44 a month earlier and $158.35 a year earlier. The index is the seven-day weighted average cash price of steers (Medium and Large #1 and Medium and Large #1-#2) weighing 700-899 pounds sold in a 12-state area. Data comes from price transactions reported by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The CME Feeder Cattle Index serves as a benchmark intended to represent the approximate value of feeder cattle going on feed.

Higher-trending feeder cattle prices could significantly reduce or offset the typical seasonal decline in calf prices this fall, says Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University, in his late-August market comments.

Peel noted 750-pound steers at Oklahoma auctions reached their highest levels for the year in mid-August, while 500-pound steer calves revisited the highs of mid-March.

“Increased lightweight placements, especially since May, likely includes fall calves marketed right off the cow, early-weaned spring calves and summer stockers marketed ahead of schedule,” according to Peel. Pasture and range conditions at the time were the worst for that time of year since 2012.

“It appears that the supply of calves and feeder cattle available this fall will likely be significantly smaller because many cattle have already moved to market,” Peel said.

Beef cow liquidation and fewer cattle numbers outside feedlots point to decreasing calf and feeder cattle availability over the next several years (see Locked and Loaded, Page 38).

Steady and strong

At the same time, negotiated cash fed cattle prices maintained a strong sideways pace through late summer amid more year-to-date cattle slaughter and beef production than last year. Feedlot marketing currentness helped underpin prices as packers continued aggressive production despite wholesale beef prices declining seasonally and due to the slow return of market rationalization following COVID-19 supply chain disruptions.

Consumer beef demand continued to show resiliency in the face of inflation. Domestically, the all fresh beef retail price was 3.4% higher year over year in July. Internationally, through June, U.S. beef exports equated to $476.98 per head of fed slaughter, which was 32.7% more than the same period a year earlier.

AMS National Weekly Feeder & Stocker Cattle Summary, weeks ending 08/27/22

2CME Feeder Cattle Index year over year 08/31-22

3USDA Five-area monthly weighted average direct slaughter cattle (negotiated for July), published 08/05/22

4

National Weekly Boxed Beef Cutout and Boxed Beef Cuts (negotiated), weekly average for 08/23 to 08/27/21 and 08/22 to 08/26/22

5USDA steer byproduct drop value (FOB central U.S.), 09/01/21 and 09/01/22

6National Weekly five area direct slaughter cattle premiums and discounts, weighted average 08/30/21 and 08/29/22

7Meat Price Spreads, Choice beef values and spreads and all fresh beef retail value, USDA ERS; monthly values (July)

8U.S. Meat Export Foundation data Jan. to Aug. 2022

9CME futures 09/01/22 year over year

10 WTI-CME 09/01/22 year over year

11

Estimated weekly meat production under federal inspection, year to date 08/26/22

Regional Feeder Steer Prices1

North Central

Last year $/cwt. This year $/cwt. Change $/cwt.

600-700 lbs. 172.14 204.02 31.88 (+18.5%) 700-800 lbs. 166.38 194.96 28.58 (+17.2%) 800-900 lbs. 160.91 186.88 25.97 (+16.1%)

South Central 500-600 lbs. 168.88 199.03 30.15 (+17.9%) 600-700 lbs. 163.31 188.08 24.77 (+15.2%) 700-800 lbs. 157.68 180.90 23.22 (+14.7%)

Southeast 400-500 lbs. 162.04 186.93 24.89 (+15.4%) 500-600 lbs. 152.60 174.28 21.68 (+14.2%) 600-700 lbs. 144.09 163.72 19.63 (+13.6%)

CME Feeder Cattle Index2 158.35 182.36 24.01 (+15.2%)

Average Five-area Direct3

Live steer (FOB) 122.03 142.16 20.13 (+16.5%)

Dressed steer (Del) 197.62 228.25 30.63 (+15.5%)

Live heifer (FOB) 121.16 139.51 18.35 (+15.1%)

Dressed heifer (Del) 197.48 228.17 30.69 (+15.5%)

Wholesale Beef Prices4

Choice cutout value 347.02 263.29 -83.73 (-24.1%)

Select cutout value 317.42 238.22 -79.20 (-24.9%)

Byproduct value5 15.46 13.80 -1.66 (-10.7%)

Average weekly slaughter premiums and discounts6

Prime over Choice 21.41 26.19 4.78 (+22.3%)

Premium Choice over Choice 6.54 4.26 -2.28 (-34.9%)

Select under Choice -26.15 -24.90 1.25 (+4.8%)

Retail beef prices7

Choice beef Retail Value 7.53 7.62 0.09 (+1.2%)

All fresh beef Retail Value 7.10 7.34 0.24 (+3.4%)

U.S. beef exports8

Value per head Fed slaughter 359.49 476.98 117.49 (+32.7%)

Futures prices9

Feeder Cattle Spot Sep 162.950 183.150 20.200 (+12.4%)

Oct 168.050 184.350 16.300 (+9.7%)

Live Cattle Spot Oct 127.575 142.800 15.225 (+11.9%)

near Dec 133.600 148.575 14.975 (+11.2%)

Corn Spot Sep 5.154 6.582 1.428 (+27.7%)

Crude Oil10 Spot Oct 68.59 86.61 (+26.3%)

Estimated cattle slaughter

Last year million head This year million head Change thousand head

Total cattle slaughter11 21.841 22.10 262,000 (+1.2%)

Estimated beef production

Last year billion lbs. This year billion lbs. Change million lbs.

Total beef production11 18.03 18.21 175.3 (+0.97%)

Managing Calf Scours

Make the most out of prevention and early treatment options.

by Heather Smith Thomas

Neonatal diarrhea in calves, often called scours, is one of the most common and costly diseases in cow-calf operations. While not all forms are preventable, it is important to take steps to reduce the risk.

The major causes of scours are viruses, bacteria and protozoa. These can occur in combination.

Bacterial scours

“The most common bacterium affecting newborn calves is E. coli, though many other bacteria can cause the disease,” says Robert Cope, DVM. “Salmonella, Enterobacter and several other bacteria can be involved, but they are less common and have so many varied serotypes that vaccines may not cover the necessary strains.”

There are also many strains of E. coli, which also affect vaccine efficacy.

“The strain of E. coli with the K99 antigen is most common among calves, but it’s not the only strain,” Cope says. “Since most E. coli vaccines only include the K99 strain, they may or may not protect calves from the specific organism present in their environment. As a result, vaccines may or may not be effective against bacteria on certain farms and ranches, and antibiotic treatment may be necessary.”

Viral scours

Viral scours are common in some herds. Unlike bacteria, viruses do not live in the environment; they are only present in living animals.

“They are constantly present in carrier adults,” Cope says. “The two most common forms of viral diarrhea are caused by rotavirus or coronavirus. These viral diseases vary greatly in severity, with coronavirus infection being more serious.”

Both viruses damage the intestinal lining.

“The intestines are lined with microscopic, fingerlike structures called villi, which greatly increase the surface area of the gut, allowing more absorption of fluid,” Cope says. “Rotavirus causes villi to shrink, reducing the surface area, and fluid moves through

An anomaly: Clostridium perfringens

Some types of bacterial gut infections can produce deadly toxins, causing a calf to die before showing signs of diarrhea. The most common type of enterotoxemia in young calves is caused by Clostridium perfringens, which is found in the GI tract and passed in feces. These bacteria rarely cause gut infections in adult cattle but can cause sudden death in calves. If the bacteria starts multiplying rapidly, toxin production can damage the gut.

If this condition is not treated and reversed immediately, toxins exit the damaged gut wall into the bloodstream, causing the calf to go into shock and die within a few hours. If diarrhea does occur, it may contain blood or tissue.

This is different from most cases of scours. The onset of a clostridial gut infection is sudden. The calf may have a distended belly or acute gut pain — getting up and down, staggering around. In some instances, the calf may be dull and bloated and might not die as quickly.

Enterotoxemia is almost always caused by overgrowth of Clostridium perfringens: spore-forming, anaerobic bacteria commonly found in soil, water and the bovine intestinal tract. Diagnosis is difficult after a calf dies. Clostridial organisms normally living in the gut can multiply rapidly soon after death. For accurate results, samples must be taken immediately following death.

Accurate diagnosis is essential to determining how to prevent and control future incidence of disease. The best prevention against toxic infections caused by Clostridium perfringens is vaccination.

the gut instead of being absorbed, resulting in diarrhea. This diarrhea usually does not last more than a few days, and the calf generally recovers relatively quickly.”

This is not the case with coronavirus.

“Rather than causing the villi to atrophy, this virus causes total loss of the villi; there is almost no remaining ability to absorb water or nutrients. Unlike treatment for rotavirus, oral fluids are often ineffective in treating coronavirus diarrhea, since the calf has little ability to utilize fluids until the intestinal lining can replenish itself, which can take up to a week,” Cope says.

Rotavirus only affects the small intestine, but coronavirus affects both the small and large intestines, with more severe effects. Coronavirus is especially deadly during cold weather because the calf needs more energy to maintain body heat.

“Death may occur from starvation,” Cope says. “The calf can’t absorb sufficient nutrition to meet its needs.”

Diagnosis without laboratory confirmation is presumptive, but Cope explains the viruses are often fairly predictable.

“Although the age of incidence is variable, it is usually consistent within a herd,” Cope says. “Rotavirus most often occurs at 2 or 3 days of age and is usually a fairly mild disease that responds well to fluid and antibiotic therapy.

“Coronavirus is considerably different. Usually occurring at 7 to 10 days of age, affected calves do not respond to fluid therapy and quickly become depressed and near death, with severe signs of weakness and dehydration. While not a consistent sign, diarrhea sometimes is greenish in color. In either case, calf scours affecting calves in a herd at a consistent age is highly indicative of viral infection, whereas bacterial scours can occur at any age.”

There are some viral vaccines for rotavirus and coronavirus. These are effective, but not a panacea. Viruses are spread by carrier cows, and since they carry the virus throughout their lives, this means these viruses do not cause a strong immune response,” Cope says. He explains, “Vaccine cannot produce a strong immunity. Even so, the vaccine is designed to produce a level of antibodies in the colostrum sufficient to protect the calf from the number of viruses that are shed by the cow in her manure.”

If a calf does not get adequate colostrum, becomes chilled and does not absorb the colostral antibodies or if the cow does not produce adequate levels of antibodies in her colostrum, the calf may not be protected.

“Worse, if a calf that is unprotected develops viral scours, it multiplies the virus by millions and sheds them in diarrhea,” Cope says. “When this happens, even the calves with good antibody levels can’t withstand the numbers of viruses shed by the infected calf. A chain reaction of disease can happen.”

Protozoan scours

Cryptosporidium is a protozoan organism affecting calves and humans — spread by protozoa in feces of infected animals. There are no vaccines for protozoal diseases.

“This is not a severe problem as long as the patient has an effective immune system. In humans, the disease can be fatal to cancer patients, people with organ transplants and those with AIDS,” Cope says. “In cattle, cryptosporidiosis can be fatal to calves with impaired immune systems due to BVD infection, selenium deficiency or protein malnutrition. Good herd health is necessary to prevent this disease, as treatment is ineffective in the presence of immune system deficiency.”

Coccidiosis is another intestinal diarrhea caused by protozoa that can damage the gut lining. It affects calves at least 3 to 4 weeks of age, and the most common symptom is bloody diarrhea. There is no vaccine, but these infections can be prevented if young calves are in a clean, manurefree environment.

Treatment

“While antibacterial drugs are completely ineffective against viruses, they can help prevent secondary infections,” Cope says.

It is important to work with your veterinarian to know which antibiotics might be most effective in various situations.

For coccidiosis, drugs like Amprolium and certain sulfa drugs can be used for sick calves. With older calves, like those that are weaned, medication can be added to feed or water to help prevent sickness. When the whole group is treated, diarrhea development can be prevented.

Dehydration is an urgent problem in young calves with diarrhea. Regardless of the cause of scours, dehydration and resultant acid-base imbalance is often what kills the calf. A calf that becomes acidotic may eventually go into shock and die. The dehydration and imbalances need to be reversed before shock is severe and internal organs shut down.

Producers typically combat dehydration with oral fluid and electrolytes, but may use IV fluids if necessary. Getting fluids into the calf is crucial. Generally, if treatment is started early and before the calf is severely dehydrated and going into shock, oral fluids are sufficient, if administered often. Producers need to determine how dehydrated the calf is, to know if they can turn the animal around with oral fluids or IV fluids.

When a calf is about 5% dehydrated, it will be dull and not quite as strong and perky.

Getting a calf to drink oral electrolytes is challenging, so most ranchers will administer fluid via an esophageal feeder or nasogastric tube. You should start reversing the problem before the calf is severely dehydrated. By about 12% dehydration, you could lose the calf. There’s a small window between 5% and 12%, and you must intervene early.

If a calf has scours but doesn’t appear dehydrated, you should still address fluid loss; the calf is losing more fluid than it’s taking in, especially if it feels sickly and doesn’t want to nurse.

Prevention and early action are key to herd health.

Editor’s Note: Heather Smith Thomas and her husband, Lynn, have ranched near Salmon, Idaho, for more than four decades. She also writes cattle articles that appear in numerous U.S. and Canadian cattle publications, including Hereford World. She is the author of numerous books, including “The Cattle Health Handbook.”

Faster, Cleaner, Easier DNA Collection

Eliminate the hassle of taking blood or hair samples. Allflex Tissue Sampling Units (TSUs) quickly capture clean, high-quality DNA. One squeeze and you're ready for genomics in breeding and marketing. Plus, matched sets of Allflex TSUs, EID tags and custom visual tags make it easier to link performance data to genetics to market demand, authenticating your brand of cattle in the supply chain.

www.allflexusa.com

Copyright © 2022 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Handle on

Beware of Nursing Calf BRD

Limit the risk factors that set calves up for failure.

by Brent Meyer, DVM, MS

Generally, few of us expect problems with bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in calves nursing their dams on pasture. But, outbreaks of nursing calf BRD — sometimes called summer pneumonia — can and do occur.

These factors contribute to the risk of pre-weaning BRD in nursing beef calves:

1. Inadequate colostrum intake or failure of passive transfer of immunity

2 Mineral or vitamin deficiency

3 Internal parasites

4. Dam body condition score (BCS)

5. Fetal programming (dam nutrition and environment during gestation)

6 Unvaccinated calves

7. Weather

8 Cattle handling — e.g. gathering for artificial insemination of dams

9. Population density – e.g. crowded calving environments

10 Time spent under the same roof with dams

Factors 1-7 are related to the calf’s ability to resist disease.

Factors 8-10 can be mitigated with management. Any of these factors can be critical for a given calf on a given ranch. Consequently, all should be considered in preventing nursing calf BRD. Here are more details about three key factors.

Colostrum and passive transfer immunity

Failure of passive transfer (FPT) of antibodies from dam to calf via colostrum puts calves at a much higher risk of future harmful health events. For example, Dewell et al. reported that beef calves with FPT were 1.6 times as likely to become ill and 2.7 times as likely to die before weaning, compared to calves with adequate passive transfer.1 Before you say, “This does not apply to my calves,” note that more than a third of calves had FPT in that same study.

Volume, timing and quality determine the amount of antibody gained via colostrum. Regarding volume, calves should consume “all the cow has,” up to four quarts. Regarding timing, efficient absorption of antibodies from colostrum begins to decline immediately after birth. It declines to 50% of baseline by six to 12 hours after birth and to near zero by 24 hours after birth. Regarding quality, 2-year-olds — or first-time calvers — produce lower-quality colostrum than mature cows. Keep colostrum replacer on hand for use if you are uncertain a calf received adequate colostrum from its dam — it’s too late to order it when you need it. Calves need approximately 150 to 200 grams

of immunoglobulin G antibody (IgG). Absorption of IgG from colostrum is somewhat better if the calf nurses from a nipple, but timing is critically important. If a calf will not nurse after patiently offering a bottle, do not hesitate to tube the calf to deliver the colostrum.

Internal parasitism and immune response

Internal parasite infections compromise the immune response to both disease and vaccination. Internal parasites “distract” the immune system. When the “attention” of the immune system is diverted, the animal’s ability to fight a BRD (or any disease) challenge is jeopardized.

Overuse of pour-on parasiticide formulations, due to convenience, has led to parasite resistance to macrocyclic lactone dewormers in some herds. An oral “white” dewormer may be a better choice for calves. Decreasing the parasite burden in calves leads to

no longer believed to be true for all pathogens in all calves all of the time, it is still true for most pathogens most of the time — this is a good topic to discuss with your veterinarian. Therefore, we must bypass maternal antibody interference to effectively immunize young calves. Two methods to do so are vaccinating the dam or utilizing intranasal (IN) vaccination.

It is common to administer scour vaccines to dams prior to calving. This practice increases antibodies directed against scour pathogens in the colostrum, resulting in increased antibodies in calves. The same strategy can be employed against BRD pathogens.

Keep in mind there is a very low but not insignificant risk of pregnancy wastage any time a vaccine is administered to a pregnant cow. So, the risk of nursing calf BRD must be weighed against the risk of fetal loss. Modified-live viral (MLV) vaccines can only be administered to a pregnant cow if she received a dose of modified-live viral vaccine immediately prior to the start of the current gestation. Visit with your veterinarian before vaccinating pregnant animals.

a healthier immune system and increased weaning weights.

Vaccination and antibodies

Before discussing calf vaccination, we must consider the phenomenon of what is termed maternal antibody interference. Briefly, the maternal interference dogma states that during the first three months or so of a calf’s life, antibodies from colostrum bind to and inactivate parenterally administered (subcutaneous or intramuscular) vaccines before they can stimulate an immune response. While the maternal interference dogma is

Intranasal vaccines directed against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), parainfluenza-3 virus (PI 3), Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida are available and can be safely administered to very young calves. A relatively new intranasal vaccine is available that contains all five of those antigens. Intranasal vaccination bypasses maternal antibody interference and is an effective way to prevent disease caused by these pathogens.

In order to reduce nursing calf BRD, limit the risk factors that set calves up for failure, such as FPT and internal parasites. Vaccination can increase the likelihood of success. Work with your veterinarian to identify and address pitfalls and to implement strategies that lead to healthier calves.

Editor’s note: Brent Meyer, DVM, MS, is a technical services veterinarian at Merck Animal Health. Copyright ©2021 Intervet Inc., d/b/a Merck Animal Health, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.

Photo by Bailey Toates

While the maternal interference dogma is no longer believed to be true for all pathogens in all calves all of the time, it is still true for most pathogens most of the time — this is a good topic to discuss with your veterinarian.

Fake This

Investor fascination wanes for plant-based meat alternatives.

by Wes Ishmael

Despite sizzling hype surrounding plant-based alternatives the last few years, investor interest appears to be fizzling.

Up front, various and sometimes conflicting sales data mean deciphering sale trends for the category is always akin to heeling a steer in dense fog. Sooner or later, you aim where it makes the most sense.

In this case, consider that the share price for Beyond Meat® — the publicly traded posterchild for alternative meat protein — was about $25 Aug. 26 this year. It was $121.50 on the same date last year.

According to the company’s financial results for the first quarter of 2022, net revenues increased 1.2% year over year to $109.5 million, and the total volume of products sold increased 12.4%. But, net loss was $100.5 million compared to $27.3 million in the first quarter last year.

consumer interest will continue for alternatives, but the gleam for investors has faded amid increasing competition in the category, alongside the lack of explosive sales growth and underwhelming profit potential.

Choosing with dollars

As for the consumer side of the equation, interest appears to be stagnant.

Consumers who prefer beef over plant-based protein alternatives said they are willing to pay nearly $2 more per meal for a burger when dining at a restaurant, according to a study from Kansas State University (K-State).

But, the same study notes, those who have turned to plant-based protein alternatives are equally passionate about their choice, saying they would be willing to pay $1.48 more per meal.

Those are among the key findings released by K-State agricultural

Schroeder in the study published in January Protein Alternatives on U.S. Beef Demand. co-authored by Jayson Lusk, a distinguished agricultural economics at Purdue University. It was funded by the

“Beef has what we call a good image, and we document it has a good image throughout

for the beef burger, and there’s a strong preference among the alternative diet folks for those newly offered items,” Tonsor says.

But the number of consumers choosing beef over plant-based alternatives is clearly in favor of the beef industry. The report notes that beef is consumed three times more often than plant-based proteins in the U.S.

Among the factors influencing consumer choices are the taste, safety and price of beef, which they find more appealing. “Those are key differentiation points we see in this study and have seen in several studies,” Tonsor says. “Taste and safety, in particular, are key drivers of U.S. beef demand.”

along with Lusk, Schroeder and Tonsor.

The analysis comprised two separate studies. One documents factors affecting beef and plantbased consumption. The other focuses on factors motivating consumers to include beef and/or plant-based proteins in their diets.

“An interesting insight comes from evaluating beef and plantbased consumption together.

Of the 6% of respondents who ate plant-based proteins, 58% also ate beef during the prior day. In other words, 4% of respondents ate both beef and plant-based proteins in the same day,” according to the study.

“This indicates beef and plantbased protein consumption are not necessarily exclusive of each other. More participants ate both proteins than ate plant-based protein only and not beef.”

Around 6% of all respondents consumed plant-based proteins (patties and crumbs specifically) at least once during the previous day, while 53% ate beef at least once.

The fact that some consumers already consume beef and plantbased proteins in the same day could motivate development of blended products, according to the researchers.

In its first-quarter financials, Maple Leaf Foods — Canada’s largest prepared meats and poultry producer — told investors it no longer expects spectacular growth in its alternative meat category, but does anticipate slower, steadier growth.

According to data from the Good Food Institute and data company, SPINS, sales of plantbased meat alternatives in the United States last year totaled $1.4 billion, the same as a year earlier. Plant-based milk dominated at $2.6 billion.

Perhaps the most logical conclusion is that minor

says. “We’ve looked at a litany of questions, such as how does beef compare to plant-based proteins on a lot of dimensions, such as taste, safety, price, nutritional content, protein, iron and even on whether it’s good for farmers, the planet and consumers.”

The nationwide study involved more than 3,000 consumers representing the population of the country. Nearly 70% of respondents identified themselves as regular meat consumers (those who regularly consume meat or food from animals), while the remainder identified with such alternative diets as vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or other.

“There’s a big preference among regular meat consumers today

“The protein market is immensely competitive, both from existing and new products being introduced,” he adds. “At the same time, global protein demand is strong and growing. The U.S. beef industry produces a high quality, tasty, safe, nutritious, healthy and affordable product in an increasingly sustainable way. Capitalizing on what the industry does well while continuously striving to do it better is the best advice we can provide to compete in the evolving global protein market.”

Never mind the fact that the market appears to be more about how alternative meat proteins fit with real meat, rather than one against the other.

Some consumers choose both Choosing to consume beef or plant-based proteins designed to mimic the real thing is not an either/or proposition, according to a more recent study — Benchmarking U.S. Consumption and Perceptions of Beef and Plant-based Proteins. It was conducted by Hannah Taylor of the USDA Economic Research Service (she was with K-State when the study was conducted)

“Blending may be an attractive consideration for the beef industry if these (plant) proteins become much cheaper to produce and consumers perceive them as close alternatives to animalderived meat. Blending products could decrease the price of these hybrid products, increasing the quantity demanded of both traditional beef and plant-based proteins,” according to the study.

“In this way, plant-based proteins could compete with imports of lean beef destined for blending into ground products and thus fulfill a market segment for U.S.produced products.”

Again, depending on the source, the market share for plant-based alternatives to beef appears to be exceptionally small, well under 10% and likely closer to 5%.

“Current consumer preferences do not support projected major demand changes, especially since whole muscle products such as steaks and roasts are currently only available from animal sources,” say researchers.

Editor’s Note: This article was first published in F&R Livestock Resources and is reprinted with permission.

Capitalizing on what the industry does well while continuously striving to do it better is the best advice we can provide to compete in the evolving global protein market.

— Glynn Tonsor Kansas State University

rapidly changing beef industry, the most

that

launch

profits

and

WE WANT HEREFORD BULLS WITH LOTS OF BODY, NO HIGH-FLANKS AND TUBULAR DESIGN.

WE WANT HEREFORD BULLS THAT WILL INCREASE OUR CATTLE’S CARCASS MERIT, NOT BULLS THAT ONLY HAVE MINIMUM CARCASS QUALITY.

WE WANT HEREFORD BULLS WITH A LOT OF RED PIGMENT, ESPECIALLY ON THE EYES AND UDDERS.

WE WANT HEREFORD BULLS THAT ARE NATURALLY THICK, NOT THE KIND THAT CAN “MELT AWAY” WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO WORK.

307-267-6786

Diving Deeper into Genomic Relationships

Genomic tools help identify variation among related animals.

by Jamie Courter, Ph.D., and J. R. Tait, Ph.D.

In the May/June issue of Hereford World, we discussed expected pedigree relationships among animals and how the biology of inheritance introduces deviations from those assumed relationships that can be characterized with genomic tools. In this article, we will use a simplified example to feature how the addition of a genomic profile provides a more precise understanding of the relationship between four full-sibling calves and how that impacts the estimate of genomic-enhanced expected progeny differences (GE-EPD).

Every calf inherits 50% of its DNA from its sire and the other 50% from its dam. This happens 100% of the time. Therefore, the most accurate estimate of a calf’s expected performance, without any additional phenotype or progeny information, is the average of the parents. Using Calving Ease Direct EPD (CED) as an example, Figure 1 highlights the parent average expected performance of four full siblings. If the CED of the sire is +3.5 and the dam is +0.0, then at birth all four full-sib progeny would have a parent average EPD of +1.75. Just like EPDs, the relationship between full-sibling calves is expected to be the parent average, or 50%.

But we know that Mendelian Inheritance creates a shuffle in the DNA that a calf inherits from its parents. In other words, the 50% of DNA that was passed from the sire to calf 1, isn’t the same as the 50% of DNA that was passed to

Calf 2-4, and so on. This difference in the inherited DNA is what creates variation around the expected 50% relationship of full-sibling progeny outlined in the May article. It is also what creates the performance differences we observe among related cattle. To highlight these differences, Table 1 includes an example of how the random inheritance of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) changes the CED EPD calculated for each of four full-sib progeny.

Calculating GE-EPDS

Figure 1: Pedigree expected relationships and expected progeny differences of a Sire, Dam, and four full-sib progeny for Calving Ease Direct

In order to estimate the genetic value of an animal for CED, each SNP within the genetic evaluation is weighted by its predicted effect on the EPD. For this example, you will see that the allelic or ‘allele A’ effect of SNP 1 is -1.0, SNP 2 is -0.5, and SNP 3 is +2.0 (Table 1).

Understanding this relationship between the DNA and the trait of interest, we then need to compare that to how many copies (0, 1, or 2) of allele A each animal has at each SNP. In Table 1, we see that the sire has 0 copies of SNP 1, therefore his value at

that location is (0 x -1.0), or 0.0. Extending that principle to SNP 2 and 3, the sire’s values are (1 x -0.5), or -0.5 for SNP 2, and (2 x 2.0), or +4.0 for SNP 3. Adding those three values together, we learn that the sire’s genomic value for CED is (0.0 –0.5 + 4.0), or +3.5. Following the same math for the dam, we can calculate her genomic value to be +0.0 for CED.

Without any genomic profile information available for the progeny of this mating, the evaluation’s most accurate EPD estimate for the four progeny is the average of the parents, or +1.75. The availability of genomic information provides clarity by replacing the parent average with the exact picture of how many A alleles at each SNP were passed from parent to offspring. In this case, calf 1 inherited the ‘winning’ combination of markers with a genomic value of +3.0, while calf 4 inherited the ‘lesser’ of the good markers and only had a genomic value of +0.5. It is important to recognize that, although the

genetic values among the four calves vary, the average genomic value does equal the parent average of +1.75.

These figures demonstrate the power of pedigree-based genetic evaluations, the reasoning behind parent average EPDs and the value genomic tools bring to the table. Not only do genomics pick up on the relationship deviations introduced by basic biology, but by doing so they provide a more accurate estimate of the true genomic value of an animal.

Adoption of these tools will allow cattle breeders to gain a more precise understanding of genetic variation in their herds, increasing the accuracy of their selection decisions earlier in each animal’s life and accelerating their herd’s genetic progress.

Editor’s Note: Jamie Courter is a bovine technical services manager, and J. R. Tait is the director of genetics product development for NEOGEN Genomics.

Using Cattle Mineral as Your Ounce of Prevention

Mineral bolsters herd health.

by Kent Tjardes, Ph.D.

Providing mineral can be more than just a way of efficiently delivering nutrition to your herd — it can also be a cost-effective health management tool. Your cattle mineral package

Zinc is also beneficial because it aids with skin integrity, which can make it harder for pathogens to breach the skin.

2. Grass tetany —

3. White muscle disease — When selenium or vitamin E is low in a cow’s diet during gestation, young calves can acquire nutritional myodegeneration (NMD), commonly referred to as

4. Urinary calculi — Male cattle can develop kidney stones or urinary calculi when there is an inverted calcium-tophosphorus ratio in the diet. Urinary calculi can happen when feeding higher levels of distillers’ grains or grazing forages that are high in phosphates.

A balanced cattle mineral program helps reduce the risk of urinary calculi by providing the correct calcium-to-phosphorus ratio.

Get extra benefits from additives

Minerals can also be a convenient way to deliver additives that support the health of your herd.

1. Fly control —

Controlling flies means that those flies are less able to bite and stress your cattle. Reducing flies benefits the immune system; cattle don’t devote nutrients to fighting and avoiding flies.

An insect growth regulator (IGR) in mineral can help to limit horn flies by inhibiting the horn fly life cycle in the manure by stopping pupae from developing into biting adult flies.

2. Bloat —

The risk of bloat is common when grazing lush grasses during the early part of the grazing season. Ionophores added to mineral can help relieve bloat.

Mineral intake is also key to increasing ionophore intake and limiting bloat when forage is lush. If the mineral isn’t palatable, cattle won’t consume the needed ionophore.

issues like foot rot. Feeding trace minerals like zinc, iodine, copper and manganese can positively impact hoof health.

Organic iodine, scientifically called ethylenediamine dihydroiodide (EDDI), is a more bioavailable – or readily digestible – form of the mineral.

Feeding iodine at or above the National Research Council (NRC) recommended level helps limit foot rot.

calving for both spring and fall calving herds.

The addition of a mineral higher in magnesium is a simple way to help prevent grass tetany and meet the needs of lactating females grazing cool-season forages. Provide high magnesium mineral two to three weeks before cattle are first exposed to lush grass to achieve consistent intake before the time of highest risk. Continue feeding for 60 days after the first sign of grass growth.

nutrition. If soil selenium levels are low, feeding higher selenium levels is recommended, especially during gestation.

Testing forages for selenium levels and other nutrients, particularly if you are in regions like the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes, is a good idea to get a baseline of your mineral needs.

Mineral matters

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach for addressing the issues that arise with herd management. Visit with your nutritionist or local feed dealer to determine the appropriate mineral formulation to meet your needs.

Editor’s Note: This article was provided by Purina Animal Nutrition. Kent Tjardes, Ph.D., is a Purina field cattle consultant.

Tell Beef’s Sustainability Story

Consumers want to know.

by Wes Ishmael

Justa few years ago, the notion of discussing environmental sustainability, beyond longlived stewardship, would have seemed an odd topic for the annual Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Research Symposium and Convention. For obvious reasons, though, it permeated discussions when some of the nation’s most progressive seedstock and commercial producers, leading geneticists and scientific minds gathered for the 2022 event.

“A large portion of the public has been convinced that the cause of climate change are ruminants,” explained Ruaraidh Petre, executive director of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). “We need to give them the data that shows ruminant agriculture is one of the few ways of providing food that can actually sequester more carbon and be more carbon neutral than any other form of agriculture. The facts are on our side, but we need to get these facts across. We need data; we need transparency.”

While the environmental benefits of ruminant production are universal, Clay Mathis, director of the King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management, pointed out they shine brightest in the United States.

intensity, and it’s a function of being the most efficient production system in the world.

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

while emissions intensity gets at emissions relative to production, reducing the impact per unit of product sold.

“This industry, before there was ever talk about sustainability, was already investing heavily in improvement to performance and efficiency. That’s part of why our emissions density is low,” Mathis said.

But facts matter little if the beef industry fails to effectively convey them to the part of society mentioned at the outset.

Mathis referred to a scattergram describing economic viability in beef production.

“Part of it was cost of production. Part of it was revenue, the price. But the biggest driver of price received was consumer

trust, and consumer trust is a function of social acceptance of what we do,” he explained.

“I don’t think we can get around that. As an industry, I think we have to think boldly forward about how we move the needle at a threshold level to be able to change so that we are getting our story across.”

Telling the story

“Nature-positive production is a term we’re going to continue to hear more in the future. We need to be able to know what that means. Not only do we need to know what it means, we need to be able to articulate it well to all who will listen so we can demonstrate the great things we do in this industry,” Mathis said. “It’s not in our nature to communicate the great things that we do. That’s not who we are as a ranching or agricultural culture, but we’ve got to figure it out.”

He explained all facets of the U.S. beef production system can impact climate and the industry’s sustainability, such as grazing management, animal welfare and genetics.

For instance, Mathis suggested there will likely be more discussion about the genetics associated with methane production and other metrics related to the carbon footprint of cattle.

One recent example is the research project between the American Hereford Association (AHA) and Colorado State

— Decky Spiller Silver Spur LLC

University (CSU) to characterize genetics associated with production efficiency, which plays a key role in environmental and economic sustainability.

“In North America we have a very good relative

Clay Mathis

Ruaraidh Petri

If we’re going to be sustainable, then we have to be active participants in the marketing of our product and the face of the product; the public has to know who we are.

The AHA-CSU project leverages decades of AHA research and data collected by AHA members. It includes individual feed intake records collected through the National Reference Sire Program (NRSP) since 2010. AHA began whole-herd reporting in 2001 to secure complete calf crop information and eliminate reporting bias.

Specifically, AHA-CSU cooperative research will enhance understanding of the genetic differences in seedstock relative to enteric methane production and nitrogen excretion. The research includes identifying selection tools that can help reduce beef’s carbon and environmental footprint.

Methane emission, as a genetic trait in cattle, appears to be moderately heritable with genetic correlations (modest to strong) to economically relevant production traits, such as measures of growth, dry matter intake and various estimates of feed efficiency.

Another example is the Sustainable Beef Network, comprised by GRSB and the network of national roundtables spanning 24 countries, all committed to delivering the message about beefs’ role in a thriving and sustainable food system.

“These groups came together for the success of the beef industry. I think we need to do everything we can as an industry to empower those working for the industry,” Mathis said.

The example consumers care most about is the story individual producers share about what they do, how and why. Producers like those who were part of a BIF panel regarding Strategies for Sustainability at the Ranch. It included representatives of Cattle for AgReserves, Padlock Ranch and Silver Spur LLC. Each entity owns and manages multiple ranches.

In moderating the panel, Mathis shared their individual thoughtfulness in interacting with the public about what they’re doing with their natural resources and how they’re taking care of their animals.

“If we’re going to be sustainable, then we have to be active participants in the marketing of our product and the face of the product; the public has to know who we are,” said Decky Spiller of Silver Spur LLC. “We can’t just, so to speak, stand behind the cattleguard. You’re going to have to be an active participant in this industry.”

See Mathis’ insights at youtube.com/ watch?v=6fxw51e8At0.

See the Strategies for Sustainability at the Ranch Producer Panel at youtube. com/watch?v=My5YP5vjoJU.

Editor’s note: Presentations from these and other BIF speakers are available at BIFSymposium.com

What They’re Talking About

Information here is adapted from proceedings and synopses from the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) 2022 Research Symposium and Convention in Las Cruces, N.M., in June. You can find proceedings and other presentations at BIFSymposium.com.

U.S. Genetics are the Gold Standard “U.S. genetics are a valued-added product because our industry has done more research in the areas of EPDs, genomics and efficiency of producing more food with less animals, and the world looks at the USA as the supermarket of the world,” says Tony Clayton, Clayton Agri-Marketing Inc. president, in the BIF proceedings. “The power of the pedigree is what adds value to the years of work breeders, breed associations and universities have done together to identify breeding values for specific traits and genomics international buyers want to acquire.”

The years producers and breed associations in this country invested in research, performance testing and refining genetic selection tools is one reason the world views U.S. producers as a genetic leader.

Paradoxically, Clayton explains, many of the countries’ leading global population growth lack the background to understand the pedigree information. So, it will take plenty of education about breeding programs, identifying traits most valuable in their unique production systems and relative value.

“I explain to a lot of our clients that buying genetics with high genomics and EPDs is like buying a car. If you want the sunroof, it costs money. If you want the aluminum wheels, they cost money. We have a lot of misinformation out there, and we work with clients to educate them on our genetic systems,” Clayton says.

Currently, Clayton says global export demand is driven by mainly population growth and increasing consumer demand for agricultural products, especially protein, meat and milk. In turn, he explains this demand broadens the opportunity for U.S. genetics.

Genetics include live cattle exports, of course, including feeder cattle. For instance, as China imports more cattle from countries like Australia, Brazil and Chile, Clayton says it will leave a supply gap. He foresees growing demand for U.S. feeder cattle exports.

“The livestock export industry is a billion-dollar industry,” Clayton notes in the BIF proceedings. “Our industry has a financial impact not only for the breeder, but all involved in the export chain such as veterinarians, truckers, testing labs, quarantine facilities, feed suppliers, insurance companies and banks, just to mention a few. The export of animal genetics helps feed a growing population and hopefully helping to keep the peace around the world by feeding hungry people.”

To watch Clayton’s presentation, visit youtu.be/qRKhURAyfoM.

Matching Genes to Environment

Cattle producers may think of it in different terms, but the “Gene X Environment interaction” (G X E) means there are animals that perform better in some environments than others.

Milt Thomas, professor and John E. Rouse chair of beef cattle breeding and genetics at Colorado State University, offered insights on behalf of the Beef Cattle Breeding Group of the Agricultural Experiment Stations of the Western States of the U.S.

Thomas used a historic study to illustrate G X E. USDA Agriculture Research Service and experiment stations in Montana and Florida conducted the study. Hereford herds were maintained at each location, and some cattle at each location were moved to the other location. Cattle from Montana performed best in Montana, and the cattle from Florida performed best in Florida.

It’s what Thomas likens to home-court advantage for a basketball team.

“However, G x E is more than just the E and moving cattle to the other environment,” Thomas explains in the BIF proceedings. “As the ability to do genomic analysis was gained, scientific efforts revealed that there are concentrations of alleles in specific environments. Alleles are alternative forms of genes, and recent research revealed that there are frequencies of alleles unique to environment(s), which is a result of breeders selecting cattle that are most suitable to that environment. Because of this knowledge, it encourages the scientific and breed association community to continue to advance research so that environmental adaptability can be determined early in the life of cattle.

“To most, discussion of G x E is much more about fitting the most appropriate cattle to the resources of a production system. Therefore, the definition of G x E can be much more than about environmental adaptability; it can also be about the various types of production systems that can exist within an environment. Examples of such differences could be a cow-calf production system versus a vertically coordinated system that markets beef based through a direct market.”

In sum, Thomas says it’s important to understand G x E interaction to select cattle that are adapted and fit specific environments and production systems. Besides the impact on production efficiency, he expects increased discussion about how G x E to include understanding its impacts on metrics of environmental sustainability such as cattle’s carbon footprint.

“The ability to detect G x E has increased with genomic approaches and information from spatial databases providing opportunity to study and develop genetic improvement tools for adaptability,” Thomas says.

To watch Clayton’s presentation, visit youtube.com/watch?v=6vhjy396h54.

Tony Clayton

Milt Thomas

LARSON

TOD,

Eric, Rosie, Briana, Rhett and Madison Katzenberger Monroe, WI 608-214-1154

Nick and Lenore Katzenberger Pearl City, IL

Windy

Spring Valley,

Fred, home 715-772-4680

Fred, cell 715-495-0837

Easten, cell 715-495-6233

Jerry, home 715-772-4566

Mark Friedrich

70th Ave. Roberts, WI 54028 715-760-2350

Dave and Joyce Bevan Jason, Jaclyn, Mya and Bianca Bevan 1681 Aust Road Platteville, WI 53818

Dave 608-732-3622

Jackie 608-732-4251

Rick,Jenny,Ryder andRickiStarck

—Cadott,WI— Cell:715.313.3234

E-mail:starckfarm@gmail.com

100%AIsiredherdand wholeherdDNAtested!

Show Ring

Rd.

Ken

Travis

262-763-8846

Jim

E10645

BOETTCHER’S BROOKVIEW ACRES

Butch and Maryellen W16163 U.S. Hwy. 10 Fairchild, WI 54741 715-597-2036

Brandon 715-533-2470

Garritt 715-586-0033

Michael 715-533-3370 Ryan, Tiff and Andrew Timm 507-433-1183

cmboettcher@centurytel.net

www.brookviewacres.com

hjh@whiskeyrunfarms.com www.whiskeyrunfarms.com

Hank and Charlotte Handzel & Family 2791 Sime Rd. Cottage Grove, WI 53527 608-839-5207 Main 608-235-9417 Cell

608-434-2843

Rd.

Harold and Connie Lietzau 7477 Iband Ave. Sparta, WI 54656 608-633-2875

Troy and Michelle Jaydon, Devon and Jocelyn Taylor and Ty Taylor cell 608-487-0015

Steven,

N250 Highview Rd. Ixonia, WI 53036 920-474-7403 262-617-6346 cell cnlfarm@hughes.net

Steve Merry 1840 Co. Rd. CC Hartford, WI 53027

Steven.Merry@aurora.org 414-881-5274

Generations of MERRY

Hereford Breeders –

117 Years

Alternative Cash Flow

Carbon credits may provide new revenue opportunities for farmers and ranchers.

Yes, this column is dedicated to improving your communication around the farm or ranch; yes, I mostly share stories and tips of leadership, succession and developing the next generation. However, leaders need to stay on top of the current issues, so this month I’m taking a break from our usual subject to address something you’ve likely been hearing a lot about — carbon credits. I’d like to attempt to answer some not-so-basic questions with the help of a few experts cited below.

What is a carbon credit?

Carbon credits originate with the concept of reducing an amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent from the atmosphere. When there is a market for this carbon reduction, it can generate carbon credit. The most common measurement for carbon credits is in metric tons. One metric ton equals about 2,205 pounds. The phrase CO2 “or its equivalent” denotes that by also or additionally reducing other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, you may generate a carbon credit.

“At a basic level, if a farmer or rancher can demonstrate a reduction

At a basic level, if a farmer or rancher can demonstrate a reduction in one metric ton of CO2 or its equivalent on his or her operation, they should be able to create and sell a carbon credit.

— Todd Janzen Janzen Ag Law

in one metric ton of CO2 or its equivalent on his or her operation, they should be able to create and sell a carbon credit,” says agricultural attorney Todd Janzen, of Janzen Ag Law, a firm specializing in environmental law for farmers.

So, to reduce the emission, the carbon must be “captured.” One common way to accomplish that is through increasing soil carbon — or keeping carbon in the soil. Many experts also believe that increasing soil carbon — whether with row crops or pastureland — directly benefits the health of the soil, thus yielding advantages to agricultural practices. Most likely, increasing soil carbon, whether out of a desire to improve the soil quality or to potentially earn a

carbon credit (that can be sold through a carbon contract) involves adding, changing or implementing certain farming or grazing practices.

Jenny Pluhar, writing for Progressive Cattle, cites the following ways to increase soil carbon:

• Planting vegetative ground cover

• Minimizing disturbance such as avoiding plowing or continuous grazing

• Increasing plant diversity

• Keeping plants with roots in the soil longer (such as between growing seasons if a row crop operation)

• Adding back regenerative grazing

According to Jason Weller, President of TruTerra, Land O’Lakes’ sustainability business, farmers are uniquely positioned to potentially earn compensation from certain management practices.

“Farmers use regenerative farming practices that improve soil health to boost crop biomass production and minimize soil disturbance. In turn, this helps soils absorb more organic matter and over time transform it into soil carbon. Farmers are compensated for the additional quantity of soil carbon they have sequestered in their fields’ or

| by Sarah Beth Aubrey

Once the landowner begins a new

potentially earning a carbon credit payment. It’s important to note here that measurement varies widely as does verification of that measurement. Today no standard exists, and most carbon credit buyers have their own system.

In the most basic terms, the company offering a carbon credit program will work with the farmer to take soil samples and use lab analysis to measure and quantify the amount of carbon in the soil. Most of these labs are third party. Then, companies use a soil modeling technique (often proprietary) to estimate how much soil carbon is present. A variety of factors are considered — though this could vary — including soil type, the crop rotation used (or not used), tillage methods or no-till, grazing rotation and even available weather data for the location

How is a carbon credit created?

To earn the carbon credit, it all starts on the land with production processes implemented by the farmer or rancher, such as using no-till methods or moving marginal land into native grasses or forest regrowth.

“It’s important to remember that carbon credits can be created by either a reduction in carbon or long-term storage (sequestration) of carbon,” Janzen says.

A key fact to remember is that adding the practice doesn’t generate the credit. The company that wishes to buy a credit will require a measurement and verification process. Carbon credit companies act as intermediaries, connecting the farmer or rancher with the buyer, but usually paying the farmer directly in the form of a contract and selling the subsequent credit to the ultimate buyer. It’s important to note that you don’t exactly hold a credit in the palm of your hand.

“A carbon credit is not a tangible thing, but it is a commodity that can be created, sold, traded or bought,” Janzen explains.

Who buys carbon credits?

Up until now, we’ve been talking about agricultural practices. However, here is where climate-related topics come into play. Carbon credit buyers are typically those in industries that are large emitters of CO2 , and they opt to purchase a carbon credit to offset or reduce their carbon footprint. Emitters, such as technology and energy companies, are common large buyers today, though any company may choose to buy carbon credits.

Some companies do this for philosophical reasons, others to improve the appearance of being considered “green” by shareholders, employees or the public, and some companies enter the carbon market because they are mandated by law to reduce their carbon footprint and the purchase of carbon credits is an acceptable means of meeting these requirements.

There is a lot more to consider if you’re a landowner considering participating in the carbon market, but experts agree that whether you have forest, pastureland or row crops, there are potential income opportunities to consider. Take a look and do your homework.

Sarah Beth Aubrey is an entrepreneur and founder of Aubrey Coaching and Training (ACT). She can be reached at sarah@sarahbethaubrey.com.

Bob

Bob’s

Kim,

Rhyne

Slaytons’

Eudy

Tom, Angie, Tucker, Tanner and Tripp Ostgaard 7602 Pleasant Chapel Rd. Newark, Ohio 937-475-9625

John Ostgaard 4921 Tanner Dr. Dayton, Ohio 937-233-9712

Crum. He was born on Aug. 18, and weighed 7 lbs., 8 oz. and was 20 inches long. Big brother, Cort Howard Crum, is happy to welcome his sibling to the family.

In Passing

Johnny Eli Winston Overland Park, Kan., passed Aug. 13.

Or, for those that knew Johnny’s superstitious side, that would be Aug. 12 + 1!

Johnny was born in Franklin County, North Carolina, Aug. 22, 1928, on a diversified crop and livestock farm to Johnnie Gray Winston and Mary Candace Scarborough Winston. Following his grandfather’s death, the family moved to the Scarborough Homeplace in Mark’s Creek, N.C., (now known as Wendell, N.C.). Johnny graduated from Wendell High School in 1945, then attended Oak Ridge Military Academy. In May 1950, Johnny received his Bachelor of Arts degree from East Carolina Teachers College (now East Carolina University) before entering the U.S. Navy that fall. Stationed in San Diego, Calif., Johnny met his wife of 69 years, Rose. Johnny, Rose and infant son, Andy, returned to North Carolina late in 1954 at which time he entered North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. (Go Pack!), majoring in animal science. Before graduating with honors in 1956, Johnny was active with the Agricultural Club, the agricultural honorary Alpha Zeta fraternity and the Animal Industry Club.

Following graduation, Johnny served as assistant county agent in Northampton County, was secretary

fieldman for the North Carolina Hereford Association, then returned to family farming in 1961. In 1964, he joined the staff of the American Hereford Journal traveling the northeastern United States. In 1967, Johnny accepted a position with the Polled Hereford World representing the northeastern United States. He was promoted to director of field services for the Eastern United States in 1970, which transferred Johnny and his family to Kansas City. Later, he headed up the entire United States field staff of the combined Polled Hereford World and American Polled Hereford Association. After 20+ years of service, Johnny retired in 1992 as the senior vice president of the member service department.

Although retired officially, Johnny continued in a marketing/consultation role for Ace Polled Herefords — Millbrook, N.Y., and Skiatook, Okla.; National Cattle Services, Elgin, Okla.; and numerous herds across the United States and Canada. In 1996, he reduced his involvement in marketing polled Herefords to Star Lake Cattle Ranch — Skiatook, Okla., until 2008 when he decided upon full retirement.

Johnny was preceded in death by his parents; daughter, Sara Kathryn Winston Soderberg; and sisters, Lucy “Sassy” Goode and Mary “Bugg” Pair. He is survived by his wife of 69 years, Rose R. Winston, of the home; son, Andy (Terry) Winston of Lee’s Summit, Mo.; daughter, Mary Gray Winston of Overland Park, Kan.; granddaughters, Chrystal Winston of Kansas City, Carly (Derrick) Winston Prewitt of Raymore, Mo., Mindy Soderberg Pagenkopf of Hayesville, Kan., Sarah Kathryn (Michael) Winston Davis of Lansing, Jessica (Patrick) Sandy of Lee’s Summit; grandsons, Johnny Michael (Sarah) Winston of Overland Park, Andrew Charles Soderberg of Wichita; 12 greatgrandchildren; and one great-great granddaughter.

Thomas Smith, 65, Gatesville, Texas, passed Aug. 19.

Thomas was born on Feb. 12, 1957, in Fairfield, Texas, to the late Robert H. and Loraine Bell Smith. He grew up in Buffalo, Texas, graduating from Buffalo High School in 1975. He attended Navarro Junior College. He married Karen Witt on June 2, 1990. After their marriage they made their home in Gatesville.

He was the ranch manager for Highland Resources in Fulshear, Texas, and Lazy Dollar Ranch in Coryell County, Texas. He was a sales associate for Stanley Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram in Gatesville for many years. He was currently a regional sales representative for Jupe Feeds in Temple, Texas. Thomas and his family have a small ranching operation focused on raising registered Hereford

cattle. He was a member of the First United Methodist Church.

He is preceded in death by his parents and a brother, Robert Allen Smith.

Thomas is survived by his wife of 32 years, Karen Smith; son, Harrison Zane Smith; sisters, Connie (Joe) Rice; Helen Kay (Carol) Hardy; Mary Lou (Trevor) Millican; sisters-in-law, Jeannie Smith; Judy (Clarence) Chopelas; and numerous nieces and nephews; and special family friends, Mark and Jade-Ann Kelley and their children, Kozy and Stone; Torrey and Shelly Boyd and their children, Josie and Cooper.

Dr. Doug Parrett, 71, Champaign, Ill., passed Aug. 26.

A lifelong beef production devotee, Doug was technically retired from the University of Illinois (U of I), but the emeritus professor never stopped showing up for the department of animal sciences, the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES), or the beef industry. Still an active teacher, mentor and friend to many, Parrett passed away unexpectedly.

Parrett came to U of I as a freshman in 1969 and stayed for his master’s and doctoral degrees, during which he taught his first classes as a lecturer and graduate teaching assistant. In 1981, Parrett took a faculty position in the department of animal sciences. He served in many roles, including educator, livestock judging coach, Extension specialist, research collaborator and interim department head.

“Dr. Parrett’s lasting impact is immeasurable. He was a wonderful teacher, colleague, friend and mentor to everyone in the department and beyond. Everywhere I went in Illinois, people would ask about Dr. Parrett and have a story about his positive impact. He will be missed personally and professionally,” says Rodney Johnson, head of the U of I department of animal sciences. “Dr. Parrett was uniquely special in the best possible way.”

Known as a “teaching icon” in the department, Parrett inspired countless undergraduates through his 49-year teaching career, including those in the beef production class he was teaching this semester. Not only did he bring his infectious enthusiasm for the subject matter, he invested countless hours getting to know students’ individual goals and providing personalized guidance. Parrett’s teaching talents won him dozens of national and campus awards, and his dedication to undergraduate education led him to revamp the entire departmental curriculum and create at least five new courses.

Parrett’s appointment as a faculty Extension specialist put him on the front lines of the beef production industry, where he worked with producers to ensure optimal health and productivity of Illinois herds and the success of the

people who care for them. Parrett made it his mission to improve beef quality in Illinois through superior genetics and education, creating hands-on programs and user-friendly guides that empowered cattlemen to make positive changes in their management practices.

As a longtime livestock judging coach, Parrett mentored hundreds of students who went on to become leaders in the animal production industry. A world-renowned judge of purebred and commercial beef cattle, his excellent evaluation skills were recognized by numerous breed associations and animal exhibitions around the globe.

Above all, Parrett was a devoted friend and mentor.

“He always prioritized people and loved to talk – in classes, office hours, farm visits, producer meetings, fairs, conferences, phone calls, emails, texts, etc. It didn’t matter where, how or who the audience was. It could be a firstsemester freshman from the suburbs, a long-time beef cattle producer or a young livestock enthusiast. Dr. Parrett had a special ability to connect with them, make them feel important, and provide meaningful and impactful advice,” says Dan Shike, U of I associate professor in animal sciences and longtime mentee of Parrett’s.

LeRoy Everett Jackson, 81, Mechanicsville, Iowa, passed Aug. 28.

He joined his dancing partner and spouse, Joyce, when he entered eternity on Sunday while under the care of Avalon Hospice at Prairie Hills Assisted Living Center in Tipton, Iowa.

LeRoy, son of Buell and Helen (Lehrman) Jackson, was born on Jan. 7, 1941, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. LeRoy graduated from Mechanicsville High School in 1959 and attended Iowa State University.

On Sept. 9, 1963, LeRoy joined the U.S. Army National Guard, where he served until his honorable discharge on Sept. 8, 1969.

On July 17, 1964, he was united in marriage to Joyce Clark at the St. Paul Lutheran Church in Stanwood, Iowa. As the years passed, they grew their family with three boys and a girl.

LeRoy’s passion was raising Hereford cattle and working on the family farm that originated in 1890. He worked alongside his parents, brothers, children and grandchildren for many years,

LeRoy’s life was one of service to those he loved and his passion for working with cattle. He served in many roles throughout his life; he was most proud of his work as a 4-H leader, county fair judge, Cedar County Cattlemen’s Association member, Iowa Hereford Association member and junior advisor, and Kirkwood Beef Advisory Board. He was recently inducted into the Iowa Hereford Hall of Fame in 2019 because of his impact on the Hereford breed in Iowa.

LeRoy Jackson

Doug Parrett

Thomas Smith

Johnny Winston

Clete James Crum

LeRoy is survived by his children: Brian (Barbara) Jackson of North English, Iowa, Brad (Kelly) Jackson of Tipton, Craig (Kerry) Jackson of Mechanicsville, Iowa, Nicole (Matt) Ehler of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and eight grandchildren: Luke, Nathan and Jacob Jackson; Chase Jackson and Paige Carr; and Kelcee, Sawyer and Spencer Amling.

He is also survived by brothers: Gary (Marilyn) Jackson, Ron (Debbie) Jackson, Arlen Jackson and Loren (Lesa) Jackson, as well as brothers-inlaw and sister-in-law, Chuck Johnson and Jim and Mary Clark; and 13 nieces and nephews.

LeRoy was preceded in death by his spouse Joyce (Clark) Jackson; his parents, Buell and Helen Jackson; sisterin-law, Betty Johnson; and in-laws, Robert and Evelyn Clark.

Hereford Happenings

Hunt inducted into Indiana Hall of Fame Ted Hunt was inducted into the Indiana Livestock Breeders Hall of Fame.

The story of Hunt Brothers Herefords began in the early 1940s in the Battle Ground, Ind., area. Ted graduated from West Lafayette High School in 1956 and continued his education at Purdue University with a degree in animal science. Following college, Ted worked show cattle with Patterson Land Company and Adams Brothers, continuing to build upon his list of experiences.

Ted’s cattle never lacked care even though he had a full-time job as a teacher

and principal. Beginning in the early 1960s, Ted taught elementary grades at Green Hill, then Pine Township, then Elston. He wore many hats at these small schools. In addition to teaching, he served as principal, bus driver, coach, etc. He received both a master’s degree and a Ed.S. degree in education from Purdue University. His next stop was at Klondike Elementary as half-time teacher and half-time principal. It was at Klondike that he met his wife, Julie. Ted and Julie were married in 1968 and have two adult children, Tiffani (Knowles) and Travis. Ted Hunt is a lifelong learner and champion for both teachers and students, and he served in the schools for nearly half a century. He finished his final 35 years serving as principal of Battle Ground Elementary.

Ted has been a member of the American Hereford Association and the Indiana Hereford Association for several decades. Ted estimates they have shown cattle in 17 states, competing in large, well-known shows, including the Indiana State Fair starting in the early ‘40s. They raised and exhibited the grand champion bull at North American International Livestock Exposition. In 1947 Ted’s brother, Bud, showed the reserve grand champion steer at the Indiana State

Fair (75 years ago) and in the coliseum in 1953, Ted showed the grand champion steer at the Indiana State Fair (69 years ago). They have shown cattle in Chicago, the North American and Denver to name a few places. Ted showed in Denver in 1961 and made another appearance in 2011. Ted said he plans to show in Denver every 50 years, and he is already making plans for 2061. As important as the Hunt Brothers breeding operation has been to the Hereford breed, the Hunt Family has supported and encouraged younger 4-Hers through their club work, Hereford Field Days and mentorship. They sold three heifers that were champions at the Indiana State Fair. They also sold a steer that

was Gold Medal Grand Champion Steer at the State Fair. Ted and his wife were very active in the junior programs, serving as advisors for the Indiana Junior Hereford Association for several years.

Ted has been a faithful friend and supporter of the Hereford breed and has used performance data and genomic testing to make Herefords regain national prominence. Not only is Ted respected for his accomplishments in the cattle industry, but his passion for all livestock is evident. It was for these reasons he was inducted into the Indiana Livestock Breeders Hall of Fame.

Presenting the award is Delmar Guard, Lafayette, Ind. Delmar was inducted in the Class of 2000.

Ted Hunt, of Hunt Brothers Herefords, was inducted into the Indiana Livestock Breeders Hall of Fame for his accomplishments in the cattle industry and his unwavering passion for all livestock.

4850 Caldwell Ridge Rd., Knifley, KY 42753

Danny Miller: 270-566-2694

Trent Miller: 270-566-2000 jmsfarm@msn.com www.jmspolledherefords.com

Bobby

606-344-0417

Kevin,

Kyler

606-682-8143

3459 KY Hwy.

Cynthiana, KY

Ben 859-421-7902 Lincoln 859-954-0102

Matthew Murphy 770-778-3367

3432 Red Bud Road NE Calhoun, GA 30701

Keene Murphy 770-355-2192

Jody Standley 919-291-4212

Kim Prestwood 828-320-7317

Austin Farm Lane Clayton, NC 27520

101-103 N. Main St. Saluda, SC 29138

Earl B. Forrest 864-445-2387 864-445-7080 Office 864-445-3707 Fax Brad Forrest 864-445-7633

Then the group was off to Colfax, Iowa, for lunch at the Jasper County fairgrounds. After lunch, the IBHA annual meeting and board elections were held followed by a lively discussion during a Marketing Roundtable.

A judging contest with two classes started the tour at the Ohrt Polled Hereford stop.

Jacob Smith, Smith Black Herefords welcomed a good size crowd to the second stop on the Iowa Hereford breeder tour. He explained the use of Hereford breeding stock to continue their black Hereford program.

Marc Smith, father of Jacob, explained how their operation started and the plans for future growth for their cattle operation.

Mark Ohrt, Ohrt Polled Herefords, Haverhill, Iowa, welcomed the Hereford breeders to the 2022 Iowa Hereford tour.

Amsterdam, Mo., before stopping for lunch at Roth Farms in Windsor, Mo. There, field day participants were able to see cattle from Roth Farms and Chris Heck’s operation and enjoyed an American Hereford Association presentation. That evening the first day or the tour ended in Green Ridge, Mo., with good dinner and good cattle at Reed Farms, with additional cattle displayed by John Shipman. The second day of the tour kicked off at Gregory Hereford Ranch in Houstonia, Mo., and ended with breakfast and a farm tour at Gregory Polled Herefords.

Kevin Gregory led the discussion at the Gregory Polled Hereford operation.

The entire Gregory family, Houstonia, Mo., welcomed the Missouri Hereford Association Field Day for the second day of activities.

A large crowd enjoyed a steak sandwich lunch at Roth Herefords, Windsor, Mo.

Dan Lacy’s Farm in Drexel Mo., welcomed guests for the beginning of the Missouri Field Day.John Ade, Ade Polled Herefords, Amsterdam, Mo., was the second stop on the tour. Visiting with John are Natilie and Macey Reed, Greenfield, Mo. Macey is the reigning Missouri Hereford Queen.

Jim Reed (right), Reed Farms, Greenridge, Mo., provided the evening dinner stop for the Missouri Hereford tour.

Mark Abramovitz and Terry Elwing

and Brianne Bishop

Gary

Schu-Lar

“YOUR BRAND OF HEREFORD” SCHUMANN

367 Hwy. 40, Lecompton, KS 66050 • 785-887-6754

West Wind Herefords

David

785-556-0124

785-562-6685

Umberger Polled Herefords

Greg

HILL FARM

The Platter Family 4214 E State Road-234 Greenfield, IN 46140 Margaret 912-585-7471 Bill 317-997-1760

PAQUETTE HEREFORD RANCH

Andrew Paquette

1725 East 3400 North Rd. St. Anne, IL 60964 815-671-0589 Andrew apaquette15@gmail.com

Prairie Meadow Herefords

11268 Hobbs

62563

217-529-8878

217-725-7095

Robert

Susan Botkin

Walnut Hill

Lexington, KY 40515 859-271-9086 859-533-3790

606-375-3718

Brad, Carla,

Driftwood Lane

KY 42701

270-668-7126 Fax 270-735-9922

6706 US Hwy.

Mays Lick, KY 41055

Andrew,

Belle Matheny

606-584-5361 Austin 606-375-2167

John

KY 40145 270-617-0301

704-906-1571

Joe McGuffee 601-672-0245

Ryan McGuffee 601-668-1000 ryanmcgu@bellsouth.net

Bobby Singleton 615-708-1034

NORTH CAROLINA

J. Brent Creech

14926 Taylor’s Mill Rd. Zebulon, NC 27597 919-801-7561 www.tmfherefords.com tmfherefords@icloud.com

Alan Dufur

Flying

Mike

T ripleTT polled Herefords

Will-Via Polled Herefords

NORTH DAKOTA

Ralph

580-775-3830

W. Hwy.

918-640-7711 918-245-8854

505-220-9909

505-321-8808

OHIO

TENNESSEE

Jim and Kay Coley and Family

140 Morgan Rd., Lafayette, TN 37083 615-804-2221 • coleyherefords@gmail.com www.coleyherefords.com

Box 215, Cross Plains, TN 37049 615-478-4483 billymjackson@aol.com website: jacksonfarmsherefords.com

DUDLEY BROS.

Jonathan

Johnny,

Letory Rd. Wartburg,TN 37887

423-346-7304

John

Tom Dudley 325-642-0748 john@dudleybros.com

Jerry Roberson 615-325-1883

Box 492

TN 37148

Mike Rogan

McKinney Chapel Rd.

TN 37857 423-272-5018 423-754-1213

roganfarm@yahoo.com

Steven Lee 615-799-8085 cell 615-456-6165

Bedford Creek Rd., Franklin, TN 37064 triplelranch@msn.com

sleehereford@gmail.com www.lllranch.com

Woodard Hereford Farms

615-351-2810

Randy Wood,

Rod Curtis 435-770-0509 rod@cachefeeds.com herefords1@hotmail.com

Bill

Marion,

435-783-4455 bjohn@allwest.net

Cattle

JB Herefords

www.jbherefords.com

Jonathan

Castle Dale, UT • 435-650-8466 johansenherefords@gmail.com www.johansenherefords.com

Jake Rees 801-668-8613

Rees 801-949-8960

Roger Rees, DVM 801-913-5747

WV 26847

Sonny 304-257-1557

Michael 304-257-1040

Will 304-668-6600

David 304-257-0263

26385 304-745-3870

304-677-5944

Calendar of Events

“Calendar of Events” is a listing of Hereford sales and events known to our staff. Italicized dates denote shows and events. Non-italicized dates denote sales. To make the calendar concise we have used the following abbreviations: association, assn.; international, int’l; junior, jr.; mountain, mtn.; national, nat’l; northeast, NE; northwest, NW; performance tested, PT; southeast, SE; southwest, SW; and university, Un.

OCTOBER

1 Cattlemen’s Delight Hereford Sale, Black River Falls, Wis.

1 Colyer Herefords 21st Annual Fall Female Sale, Bruneau, Idaho

1 East Texas State Fair Open Show, Tyler

1 Journagan Ranch/Missouri State Un. 31st Annual Hereford Sale, Springfield

1 Mann Cattle Co. Annual Fall Bull Sale, Caldwell, Texas

1 The Breeders Classic Sale, Gettysburg, Pa.

1 Tulsa State Fair Open Hereford Show, Tulsa, Okla.

2 Badger Southern Select Sale, Darlington, Wis.

3 Express Ranches Fall Bull Sale, Yukon, Okla.

4 Copeland & Sons Demand the Brand Hereford Female Sale (Online), Nara Visa, N.M.

5 Fryeburg Fair Open Hereford Show, Fryeburg, Maine

6 Dudley Bros. 61st Annual Bull Sale, Comanche, Texas

7 Carolina Classic Fair Open Hereford Show, Winston-Salem, N.C.

7 Keystone Int’l Livestock Exposition Open Show, Harrisburg, Pa.

8 Definitely Different Sale, Alto, Mich.

8 Fawcett’s Elm Creek Ranch Annual Fall Female Sale (Online), Ree Heights, S.D.

8 Mississippi State Fair, Jackson

8 Perks Ranch Fall Celebration Sale, Rockford, Ill.

8 Snedden Ranch Bull Sale, Maricopa, Calif.

9 Cane Creek Cattle Co. Female Sale (Online), Glenham, S.D.

9 Dry Creek Farm Production Sale, Pell City, Ala.

9 Indiana Hereford Assn. Fall Sale, Lebanon

9 Keystone Int’l. Livestock Exposition Jr. Show, Harrisburg, Pa.

9 Purple Reign Cattle Co. Sale (Online), Toulon, Ill.

10 DeanaJak Farms Traditions of the Cove Sale (Online), New Enterprise, Pa.

10 Indian Mound Ranch Fall Production Sale, Canadian, Texas

11 Bernard Show Cattle Annual Fall Sale (Online), Grand Ridge, Ill.

11 Powell Herefords Annual Production Sale, Fort McKavett, Texas

11 Thompson Herefords Annual Sale (Online), Amity, Mo.

11 Wilhelm Cattle Belles of the Black Hills Sale (Online), Sundance, Wyo.

12 K&B Herefords Complete Dispersal, Onida, S.D.

12 Storey Hereford Ranch Flash & Function Female Sale (Online), Bozeman, Mont.

12 Taylor View Farms Sale (Online), Parkton, Md.

13 Grimmel Girls/Grimmel Schaake Fall Sale (Online), Jarrettsville, Md.

13 PAW Livestock Livin’ the Dream Volume 4 Sale (Online), Pleasantville, Iowa

13 Rader Herefords Fall Female & Frozen Genetics Sale (Online), Mount Vernon, Texas

15 ANL Polled Herefords/Glenlees Polled Herefords & Guests Production Sale, Steelman, Sasketchewan

15 Arkansas State Fair Open Hereford Show, Little Rock

15 Buck Cattle Co. Annual Fall Premier XXVIII Sale, Madill, Okla.

15 Indiana Beef Evaluation Program Bull Test Sale, Bedford

15 Lambert Ranch Butte Bull Sale, Oroville, Calif.

15 Schrammel Cattle Co. and Perry Show Cattle Pure Perfection Fall Edition (Online), Stillwater, Okla.

16 Adcock Cattle and Crum Cattle Co. Family Traditions Sale (Online), Assumption, Ill.

16 Blair-Athol/Haroldson’s & Friends Sale, Arcola, Sasketchewan

16 Brumley Farms Ranch Royalty Elite Female Sale (Online), Orovada, Nev.

16 Express Ranches Hereford Event Annual Production Sale, Yukon, Okla.

16 Reynolds Herefords Annual Production Sale, Huntsville, Mo.

16 Six Mile Creek and Curry Herefords The Exclusive Vol. 3 Female Sale, El Reno, Okla.

17 Delaney Herefords/Atkins Herefords Genetic Opportunity Sale (Online)

17 Maryland Hereford Assn. Celebrate Maryland Sale (Online)

17 White Hawk Ranch Open House for Bulls, Buchanan, Ga.

18 KC Livestock Generations of Chasing Purple Female Sale (Online)

18 North Carolina State Fair Open Show, Raleigh

18 Paquette Hereford Ranch Female Sale (Online), St. Anne, Ill.

19 Northern Int’l. Livestock Expo Hereford Female Sale, Billings, Mont.

20 Jensen Bros. The Chosen Female Sale, Louisburg, Kan.

20 Northern Int’l. Livestock Expo Open Hereford Show, Billings, Mont.

20 South Carolina State Fair Open Show, Columbia

21-23 AHA Annual Membership Meeting, Kansas City, Mo.

21 Groendyke Ranch Annual Commercial Female Sale, Nash, Okla.

21 State Fair of Texas Open Hereford Show, Dallas

21 Three Hills Ranch 2nd Annual Bull & Female Sale, Kirksville, Mo.

21 W4 Ranch Annual Fall Production Sale, Morgan, Texas

21 Wooden Shoe Farms Sale, Blackfoot, Idaho

22 American Royal Jr. Show, Kansas City, Mo.

22 Debter Hereford Farm 50th Annual Production Bull Sale, Horton, Ala.

22 Jamison Ranch 10th Annual Fall Bull & Female Sale, Beggs, Okla.

22 Lacy’s Red Angus & Polled Herefords Annual Bull & Female Sale, Drexel, Mo.

22 Ladies of the Royal Sale, Kansas City, Mo.

22 Mead Farms Bull & Female Sale, Versailles, Mo.

22 Switzerland of Ohio Polled Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting

23 American Royal Nat’l. Open Hereford Show, Kansas City, Mo.

24 Tennessee River Music Sale, Fort Payne, Ala.

25 Ad deadline for December Hereford World

25 Pérez Cattle Co. Fall Bull & Commercial Female Sale, Columbus, Texas

25 Quest for the Best Sale (Online)

26 Hoffman Ranch Elite Heifer Sale (Online), Thedford, Neb.

26 Micheli Hereford Ranch Annual Bull Sale, Fort Bridger, Wyo.

26 Morgan Ranch Cream of the Crop Show Calf Sale, Burwell, Neb.

26 Texas Hereford Fall Classic Annual Bull Sale, Buffalo

28 Virginia Tech’s 28th Annual Hokie Harvest Sale, Blacksburg

29 Appalachian Elite Sale, Gray, Tenn.

29 DaKitch Angus & Hereford Farms and Rangeline Cattle Sale, Ada, Minn.

29 Mohican Farms & Guests Sale, Glenmont, Ohio

29 South Texas Hereford Assn. 85th Annual Fall Bull Sale, Beeville, Texas

30 TK Cattle Co. Ladies of the Sandhills Female Sale (Online), Burwell, Neb.

31 Keller Cattle Co. 5th Annual Heifer and Steer Sale (Online), Saint Paul, Neb.

NOVEMBER

1 KL Lemmon Cattle Co. Brand Builders Sale (Online), Manchester, Md.

1 Landgren Ranch Sale (Online), Bartlett, Neb.

1 NJHA Fed Steer Shootout Contest Entry Deadline

2 Bar M Herefords Sale (Online), Hordville, Neb.

3 Dieball Cattle Fall Extravaganza Sale (Online), Little River, Kan.

4 Nebraska Hereford Assn. Annual Cornhusker Classic Sale, Kearney, Neb.

5 Burns Farms Annual Bull & Commercial Female Sale, Pikeville, Tenn.

5 Combined Excellence Sale, Mason, Ohio

5 JMF Herefords Ladies of Liberty Female Sale, Holloway, Minn.

5 Nebraska Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting, Kearney

6 Barnes Herefords Bull & Commercial Female Sale, Cedartown, Ga.

7 Mohican West Bull Sale, Laurel, Mont.

7 P&R Herefords Annual Production Sale, Trail, Okla.

9 Barber Ranch Annual Fall Bull Sale, San Saba, Texas

10-12 Washington Cattlemen’s Assn. Annual Convention, Wenatchee

11 South Dakota Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting, Brookings

12 Big League Genetics Vol. IV Annual Elite Female Sale, Fort Cobb, Okla.

12 MCM Polled Herefords No Holds Sale (Online), Ayr, Neb.

12 Mid-Atlantic Fall Bonanza Sale, Harrisonburg, Va.

12 North American Int’l Livestock Exposition Jr. Hereford Show, Louisville, Ky.

12 South Dakota Hereford Assn. Excellence Sale, Brookings

13 Banks Polled Herefords Production Sale, Ada, Okla.

14 Hoffman Ranch Fall Bull Sale, Thedford, Neb.

15 B&D Herefords & Angus Fall Production Sale, Claflin, Kan.

15 Harvie Ranching Female and Genetics Sale (Online), Olds, Alberta

15 North American Int’l Livestock Exposition Open Hereford Show, Louisville, Ky.

17 Largent & Sons The Desert Mart Prime Frontier Sale, Kaycee, Wyo.

18 Nebraska Hereford Assn. Hereford Influenced Feeder Calf & Replacement Female Sale, Burwell

19 MG/4M Farms Fall Open House/Private Treaty Bull Sale, Woodville, Miss.

20 Heart of America Hereford Assn. Sale, Shelbyville, Ill.

26 Able Acres Winning Tradition Sale, Wingate, Ind.

27 Grimmel Girls/Grimmel Schaake Fall Sale (Online), Jarrettsville, Md.

28 Ad deadline for January Hereford World

28 Cardinal Creek Cattle Co. Female & Frozen Genetics Sale (Online), Willmar, Minn. 11/30-12/4 Hereford Heritage Show, Abilene, Texas

DECEMBER

1 Minnesota Hereford Assn. Premium White Face Feeder Calf Sale, Pipestone

2 Frederickson Ranch/Pyramid Beef Bull Sale, Spearfish, S.D.

2 Knoll Crest Farm’s Total Performance Bull Sale, Red House, Va.

3 Kentucky Hereford Assn. Autumn Sale, Lexington

3 Pied Piper Farms Annual Bull Sale, Industry, Texas

4 Missouri Hereford Assn. Opportunity Annual Sale, Sedalia

5 Burns Farms Frozen Opportunity Sale, Pikeville, Tenn.

5 Phantom Creek Livestock, Ltd. Complete Dispersal, Swift Current, Saskatchewan

5 Sadler Ranches Inaugural Bull & Female Sale, Perkins, Okla.

7 Annual Big Bend Ranch Female Sale, Keosauqua, Iowa

7 Goehring Herefords Female Sale, Keosauqua, Iowa

8 Hirsche Herefords Annual Production Sale, Lethbridge, Alberta

8 Kentucky Hereford Assn. Fall Feeder Calf Sale, Stanford

8 The Berry’s Annual Bull Sale, Cheyenne, Wyo.

9 Minnesota Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting, Hutchinson

10 Minnesota Hereford Assn. Annual Go-Pher the Purple Sale, Hutchinson

11 Frenzen Angus & Polled Herefords/ GLM Herefords Generations in the Making Sale (Online), Fullerton, Neb.

15 Golden Oak Livestock Production Sale, Olds, Alberta

26 Ad deadline for February Hereford World

JANUARY

1 Registered for Success Bred Female Sale, Clarinda, Iowa

4 Cattlemen’s Congress Junior Hereford Show, Oklahoma City, Okla.

5 Cattlemen’s Congress Heifer & Bull Pen Show, Oklahoma City, Okla.

5 Greater Midwest Hereford-Influenced Feeder Calf Sale, Carthage, Ill.

5 Hereford Eve in OKC Frozen Genetics Sale, Oklahoma City, Okla.

6 Cattlemen’s Congress Bull Show, Oklahoma City, Okla.

6 Hereford Night in OKC National Hereford Sale, Oklahoma City, Okla.

7 Cattlemen’s Congress Open Hereford Show, Oklahoma City, Okla.

12-14 National Western Stock Show, Denver, Colo.

13 National Western Stock Show Herefords in the Yards Sale, Denver, Colo.

16 Van Newkirk Herefords Annual Bull Sale, Oshkosh, Neb.

23 Delaney Herefords/Atkins Herefords Bulls & Breds Annual Sale, Lake Benton, Minn.

24 Churchill Cattle Co. World Class Bull Sale, Manhattan, Mont.

25 Ad deadline for March Hereford World

28 Wisconsin Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting, Mauston

FEBRUARY

1 Black Hills Stock Show & Rodeo Hereford Show & Sale, Rapid City, S.D.

2 Ridder Hereford Ranch Annual Bull & Heifer Sale, Callaway, Neb.

2 Stroh Hereford Ranch Annual Production Sale, Kill Deer, N.D.

3 Baumgarten Cattle Co. Annual Production Sale, Belfield, N.D.

3 Dvorak Herefords Annual Production Sale, Lake Andes, S.D.

4 Buckeye Hereford Assn. Annual Meeting, Plain City, Ohio

4 Hill 70 Ranch Quantock Annual Bull Sale, Lloydminster, Alberta

4 Messner Herefords Production Sale, Slapout, Okla.

4 Upstream Ranch Annual Production Sale, Taylor, Neb.

6 Pelton Polled Herefords Annual Production Sale, Halliday, N.D.

8 Durbin Creek Ranch Annual Bull Sale, Worland, Wyo.

8 Friedt Herefords Annual Production Sale, Dickinson, N.D.

10 CX Ranch Annual Production Sale, Lewiston, Idaho

10 Topp Herefords Annual Bull Sale, Grace City, N.D.

12 Mrnak Hereford Ranch 56th Annual Production Sale, Bowman, N.D.

13 BB Cattle Co. Annual Production Sale, Connell, Wash.

13 Fawcett’s Elm Creek Ranch Annual Production Sale, Ree Heights, S.D.

13 Logterman Herefords & Angus Production Sale, Valentine, Neb.

15 Iowa Beef Expo Select Hereford Sale, Des Moines, Iowa

15 Nebraska Cattlemen’s Classic Hereford Show, Kearney

16 Nebraska Cattlemen’s Classic Hereford Female Sale, Kearney

16 Olson Hereford Ranch Red Power Bull Sale, Argusville, N.D.

17 Hoffman Ranch Spring Bull Sale, Thedford, Neb.

17 Nebraska Cattlemen’s Classic Hereford Bull Sale, Kearney

17 White Hawk Ranch Open House for Bulls, Buchanan, Ga.

20 Five Star Polled Herefords and Haught Bros. A Lasting Legacy Sale, Harrisville, W.Va.

20 Rausch Herefords Annual Production Sale, Hoven, S.D.

21 Bar JZ Ranches Annual Production Sale, Holabird, S.D.

21 Ulrich Herefords Annual Production Sale, Lethbridge, Alberta

23 Northwest Hereford Breeders Bull Sale/OWNI, Hermiston, Ore.

24 Jamison Herefords Spring Bull Sale, Quinter, Kan.

24 Ad deadline for April Hereford World

25 Genetic Source Bull & Female Sale, Nunnelly, Tenn.

25 Illinois Beef Expo Junior Show, Springfield

25 Kreth Herefords & Angus Annual Bull & Female Sale, Mt. Vernon, S.D.

25 Tegtmeier Polled Herefords Annual Sale, Burchard, Neb.

25 TS Ranch Herefords & Quarter Horses Annual Production Sale, Cottonwood Falls, Kan.

27 Colyer Herefords 43rd Annual Production Sale, Bruneau, Idaho

27 Hereford Heritage Annual Bull Sale, Fort Cobb, Okla.

28 Pérez Cattle Co. Spring Bull & Commercial Female Sale, Nara Visa, N.M.

Advertisers’ Index

ALABAMA

Debter Hereford Farm 99, 100

Tennessee River Music 55, 100

CALIFORNIA

Gillibrand Cattle Co , P W 100

Lambert Ranch 100

McDougald Herefords 100

Morrell Ranches 100

Pedretti Ranches 100

Red Bluff Bull & Gelding Sale 77

Sierra Ranches 100

Sonoma Mountain Herefords 100

Wiemer Cattle Co 100

COLORADO

Campbell, James T 100

Clark Anvil Ranch 100

Cline Registered Herefords 100

Coleman Herefords 100

Coyote Ridge Ranch 100

Ernst Herefords 100

Fuchs Herefords, Mike 100

Hanging W Herefords 100

Kubin Hereford Ranch 100

Leroux Land & Cattle 100

Robb & Sons, Tom 100

Sidwell Herefords 100

Strang Herefords 100

GEORGIA

Barnes Herefords 11

CES Herefords & Angus 99

Greenview Farms Inc 4, 100

HME Herefords 99

Mead Cattle Enterprises BC

MTM Polled Herefords 91

Predestined Cattle Co 99

White Hawk Ranch IBC

IDAHO

Colyer Herefords & Angus 100

Daniels Hereford Ranch 100

Eagle Canyon Ranch 100

Elkington Polled Herefords 100

JBB/AL Herefords 100

Shaw Cattle Co 100

Wooden Shoe Farms 100

ILLINOIS

Baker Farms 100

Behrends Farms 93

Benedict Herefords 93

Bixler Herefords 100

Bob-O-Lou Herefords 100

Braun Farms 93

Burns Polled Hereford Farm 92, 100

Crane Herefords 93

Double B Herefords LLC 100

Edenburn Family Farm 93

Ellis Farms 9, 100

Entwistle Herefords 92

Eubank Farms 100

Fancy Creek Farm of the Prairie Cross 92

Fauth Polled Herefords 93

Fleisher Farms 100

Happ Herefords 100

Knott Farm 101

Lorenzen Farms 93

Lowderman Auction Options 92

Lowderman Cattle Co 93

McCaskill Farms 92

Milligan Herefords 101

Moffett Farms 92

Mud Creek Farms 92

Nature’s Acres 92

Newbold Farms Inc 101

Oak Hill Farm 101

Paquette Hereford Ranch 86, 92, 101

Parish Farms 93

Plainview Stock Farms 93

Prairie Cross, The 92

Prairie Meadow Herefords 101

Prairie Rose Cattle Co 92

Purple Reign Cattle Co 63, 101

RGR Cattle Co 93

River Ridge Ranch & Cattle Co 101

Sayre Hereford Farm 101

Shingle Oaks Polled Herefords 101

Stephens and Loehr Herefords 101

Stumpf Land & Cattle 101

Sturdy Hereford Outlet 92

West Wind Herefords 101 Young Cattle Co 92

INDIANA

A&H Herefords 98

Able Acres 98

Clinkenbeard Farms & Sons 98

Coal Creek Land and Cattle LLC 98 Deatsman Farms 98

Elzemeyer Polled Herefords 98

Everhart Farms 98

Ferguson Farms 98

Gerber Land & Cattle 101

Greenwood Family Herefords 98

Greives Herefords 22

Hayhurst Farms 98

JLG Polled Herefords 101

Kesling Polled Herefords 101

Laudeman Family, Gale 101

McFatridge Cattle Co 101

IOWA

Amos Hereford Farm 109

Deppe Bros Cattle Co 109

Goehring Herefords 109

Jackson Hereford Farms 109 K7 Herefords 109

Petersen Herefords 109

Pitt Farms Herefords 109

R&R Cattle Co 109

Sorensen Family, Mike 109 Stream Cattle Co 101

Three Hills Ranch 90 Wiese & Sons 101

KANSAS

B&D Herefords 53 Brannan & Reinhardt Polled Herefords 101

Davis Herefords 101

Douthit Herefords 101

GLM Herefords 30, 101

Grimmel Schaake Cattle Co 101 Herbel Herefords 101

Jamison Herefords 101

Jensen Bros 41, 101

Malone Hereford Farm 97

Mill Creek Ranch 101

MM Ranch Polled Herefords 101

Oleen Cattle Co 101

Sandhill Farms 101 Schu-Lar Herefords LLC 101 Springhill Herefords 101 Umberger Polled Herefords 101 VJS Polled Herefords 101

KENTUCKY

3R Herefords 91

Botkin Polled Herefords 101 Boyd Beef Cattle 101

Chambliss Hereford Farms 101

Clifford Farms 91

Dogwood Farm 91

JMS Polled Herefords 91

Matheny Herefords 99, 101

Tucker Stock Farms 101 Wells Farm 91

MARYLAND

Church View Farm 85

East Side Farm 85, 101

Foggy Bottom Farm 102

Fountain Valley Farm 85

Grimmel Girls Show Cattle 102 SCH Polled Herefords 102

MICHIGAN

Bramschreiber Hereford Farm 110

Breasbois Farms 110

Candy -Jar Herefords 110

Cedar Creek Herefords 110

Cottonwood Springs 110

Grand Meadows Farm 110

Hanson’s Double G Herefords 102

MacNaughton, Ron and Jill 110

McDonald Farm 25, 110

Rottman, Phil and Chris 110

Sugar Sweet Ranch 110

MINNESOTA

Cardinal Creek Cattle Co 84

DaKitch Hereford Farms 102 Delaney Herefords 6, 102

Krogstad Polled Herefords 102

Lawrence Herefords 102 Schafer Herefords 102

Springwater Polled Herefords 102

MISSISSIPPI

Broadlawn Farm Polled Herefords 99

Caldwell Hereford Ranch 102 Leaning Cedar Herefords 102 McGuffee Polled Herefords 102 MG/4M Farms 86 S and W Herefords 102

MISSOURI

AbraKadabra Cattle Co 97

Bellis Family, Jim D 97

Biglieni Farms 102

Blue Ribbon Farms 96

Bonebrake Herefords 96, 102

Bradshaw Ranch 96

Central Missouri Polled Hereford Assn 96

Doss Hereford Farms 97

Duvall Polled Herefords 96

Falling Timber Farm 102

Findley Farms 102

Harding Bros Herefords 102

High Prairie Farm 102 Illg Cattle Co 102

Journagan Ranch/Missouri State University 97, 102

Lacy’s Red Angus & Polled Herefeords 96

Ladies of the Royal Sale 45

McMillen’s Toothacre Ranch 97 Mead Farms 75, 96

Menzies Cattle Co LLC 97, 102

Miller Herefords 96 Reed Farms 97 Reynolds Herefords 81, 96

Shoenberger Polled Herefords 97, 102 Steinbeck Farms 96 Storie Farms 97 WMC Cattle Co 97 WPH Ranch 96

MONTANA

Churchill Cattle Co IFC

Cooper Hereford Ranch 102 Curlew Cattle Co 102 Ehlke Herefords 102

Feddes Herefords 7, 102

Holden Herefords 102

J Bar E Herefords 102

L Bar W Cattle Co 102

McMurry Cattle 102 Mohican West 15, 103

Storey Hereford Ranch 19

Thomas Herefords 102 Wichman Herefords 102

NEBRASKA

7 Mill Iron Ranch 102

Fisher Family, Lowell 102

Frenzen and Family, Galen 102

Henkel Polled Herefords 102

Hoffman Ranch 29, 37, 102

JB Ranch Polled Herefords 102

Moeller & Sons, Albert 102

Monahan Cattle Co 102

Morgan Ranch 90

Nebraska Hereford Assn 58

Ridder Hereford Ranch 103 Schutte & Sons 103 Snowshoe Cattle Co 103

Upstream Ranch 103

Valley Creek Ranch 103 Van Newkirk Herefords 103

NEVADA

6D Land & Cattle 103

Brumley Farms 103

Genoa Livestock 103 Mrnak Hereford Ranch 103

NEW JERSEY

Grass Pond Farm 103

NEW MEXICO

B&H Herefords 103

Copeland & Sons Herefords LLC 103

Cornerstone Ranch 103

King Herefords 103

Pérez Cattle Co 49, 103

West Star Herefords 103

NEW YORK

Glade Haven Herefords 103

Spring Pond Farm 103

Stone House Farm 103

NORTH CAROLINA

Brent Creech Taylor’s Mill Farm 103

Claxton Farm LLC 103

Double J Farm LLC 99

Five J’s Beef & Cattle Co 91

Four B Farm 99

P&J Farms 99

Rhyneland Farms 85

Triplett Polled Herefords 99, 103

W&A Hereford Farm 85

Will-Via Polled Herefords 103

NORTH DAKOTA

Mrnak Hereford Ranch 103

OHIO

Berg Polled Herefords 87

Buckeye Hereford Assn 87

Combined Excellence Sale 73

Hot Iron Enterprises 35

J&L Cattle Services 35, 87

Keets, Brian and Lisa 35

M Love Cattle Co 87

Mohican Polled Hereford Farm 35, 87, 103

Ostgaard Cattle Co 87

Pennell Bros 35

Pugh Central Station Livestock 87

Rippling Rock Hereford Farm 87

Sunny Side Farm 35, 87

Sunnyside Stock Farms 87 Switzerland of Ohio Polled Hereford Assn 87

OKLAHOMA

4B Herefords 61

Banks Polled Herefords 65

Birdwell Ranch 61

Curry Herefords 43

Darnell Hereford Ranch 103

Dennis Ranch 103

Double Seven Ranch LLC 61 Dufur Herefords 103

Express Ranches 71

Flying G Ranch 103 G4G Cattle Co 103

Headquarters Herefords 103

Jamison Ranch 34 Loewen Herefords 61, 103

Messner Herefords 103

Moler, Don 103

P&R Herefords LLC 27, 103

Sadler Ranches 59

Six Mile Creek Hereford Cattle Co 43

T/R Cattle Co 103

OREGON

Bar One Ranch 103

Bird Herefords 103

Harrell Hereford Ranch 103

High Desert Cattle Co 104

Hufford’s Herefords 104

Vollstedt Farms Polled Herefords 104

PENNSYLVANIA

4G Registered Herefords 104

Bar-H Farms 104

Deana Jak Farms Inc 104

Glenview Farms 35

Slaytons’ BearDance 85

Stone Ridge Manor 85

SOUTH CAROLINA

Forrest Polled Herefords 91

Fowken Farm 91 Keese Herefords 104

SOUTH DAKOTA

Atkins Herefords 6

Bar JZ Ranches 104

Bischoff’s Ravine Creek Ranch 104

Blume Herefords 104

Eggers Southview Farms 104

Fawcett’s Elm Creek Ranch 104

Frederickson Ranch 104

Hoffman Herefords 104

JBN Livestock 104

K&B Herefords 104

LaGrand Angus and Hereford Ranch 104

Ollerich Brothers Herefords 104

Rausch Herefords 104

Stenberg Herefords 104

Thorstenson Hereford Ranch 104

TENNESSEE

Appalachian Elite Hereford Sale 31

Burns Farms 3

Candy Meadow Farms 91 Coley Herefords 104

Jackson Farms 104

Mud Creek Farms 104

Parker Bros 91

Roberson’s Polled Herefords 104

Rogan Farms Herefords 99, 104

Triple L Ranch 104

Walker Herefords 5 Woodard Hereford Farms 104

TEXAS

Atlas Farms 104

B&C Cattle Co 104

Bar J Bar Hereford Ranch 104

Barber Ranch 71, 104

Case Ranch Herefords 104 Chastain Cattle Co 104

Dudley Bros 104

Fort Worth Stock Show 17 G3 Ranch 104

GKB Cattle 104

H2 Ranch and Cattle Co 104

Indian Mound Ranch 104

Metch Polled Herefords 104

Noack Hereford Ranch 104

Nolan Herefords 105

Powell, James L 80, 105

Rader Herefords 69

Redbird Ranch 105

Rockin’ W Polled Herefords 105

Rocking Chair Ranch 105

Skrivanek Ranches 105

Still River Ranch 105

Sunny Hill Ranch 105

Texas Hereford Assn 24, 105

W4 Ranch 36

Williams Family Herefords 105 Willis Polled Herefords 105

UTAH

Cache Cattle 105

Circle BJ Polled Hereford Ranch 105

JB Herefords 105

Johansen Herefords 105 Rees Bros 105

VIRGINIA

Deer Track Farm 85

Hereford Hollow Farm 99

Knoll Crest Farm 85

Quail Hollow Herefords 85

Thistle Tree Farm 105

Virginia Hereford Assn 40

WASHINGTON

CX Ranch 105

Diamond M Ranch 105

Ottley Herefords 105

WEST VIRGINIA

Cottage Hill Farm 35, 106

Cottle Brothers Farm 106

Goff & Sons, A 106

Grandview Hereford Farm 106

Grassy Run Farms 106

Haught Farms 85

KC Livestock 89

Knotts Polled Herefords 106

Law & Sons, David 106

Litton Livestock 106

McDonald Polled Herefords 106

Westfall Polled Herefords 105

WISCONSIN

Bacon Branch Beef 82

Boettcher’s Brookview Acres 83

C&L Hereford Ranch 83

H&H Cattle Farm 82

Huth Polled Herefords 82

Larson Hereford Farms 82

Lietzau Hereford Farm 83

Lininger Farms 83

MGM Polled Herefords 83

Narrows Creek Farm 83

Next Generation Genetics 82

Oleson Family Farm 83

Otter Creek Polled Herefords 82

Pierce’s Hereford Haven 83

Plum River Ranch 82

Sandrock Ranch Herefords 105

Spaeth Farms 82

Starck Century Farm 82

Starr Polled Herefords 83

Steiny’s Herefords 83

Whiskey Run Farms 83

Windy Hills Herefords 82

WYOMING

Berry’s, The 105

Largent and Sons 67, 105

McClun’s Lazy JM Ranch 105

Micheli Hereford Ranch 64, 105 NJW Polled Herefords 105

Ochsner-Roth Cattle Co 105 Wilhelm Cattle 105

CANADA

ANL Polled Herefords 47 Blair-Athol Polled Herefords 72 Blairs Ag Cattle Co 47 Brooks Farms 47

Charlton Farms 72 Elmlodge Polled Herefords 105

Glenlees Farm 47 Golden Oak Livestock 52

Haroldsons Polled Herefords 72

Hirsche Herefords 46 Manns Polled Herefords 72

Medonte Highlands Polled Herefords 105 Roselawn Polled Herefords 72

SERVICES

Bessler Inc , James F 105 BioZyme Inc 48 Birdwell, Joel 105

Bock, Aaron 105

Booker, C D 105 Burks, Eddie 105

Carper, Thomas 105 Cattle Max 51

Cattle Visions 28

Circle H Headquarters LLC 105

Conover, Al 105 Drees, Eric 106

Emmons Ultrasounding 106

Gallagher 54

Genex Cooperative 60

Jensen Livestock Agency 106

Johnny Winston Tribute 23

Lathrop Livestock Transportation 106

Layton, Dustin N 106

Lowderman, Cody 106

Lowderman, Monte 106

MCS Auction Inc 106

Merck Animal Health 42, 57

Neogen 76

Sale Day Online 13

Schacher Auction Services 106

Select Sires 68

Sims Plus LLC 106 Stith, Dale 106 Stout, Justin B 106

Sullivan Supply 10

T Bar C Cattle Co Ltd 106 Wendt, Kevin 106

– when hard work and patience pays off

PETERSEN

Congratulations Silas Koenig and