October 2009 Profit Picture

October 2009 | www.theprofitpicture.com

In this Issue: Surveys Quantify Value of Feeder Calf Traits Order Buyers Set the Market Pace Crossbreeding – Back to the Future

Sale Barn Operators Share Feeder Calf Insights

American Gelbvieh Association Announces Results from SmartCross Research DNA Testing for Sire Selection: A tool for the Commercial Producer?

Sale barn operators say Continental − British cross feeder calves, like the one pictured above, are what bring top dollar in their auctions.

By Mark Parker Nobody sees more feeder calves come and go than sale barn operators. They are constant witnesses to what tops the market and what brings a yawn from ringside bidders.

And while the quality and type of U.S. feeder calves varies greatly, there are consistencies in what inspires an extra bid or two from those buyers. There are seasonal and geographic differences in what they’re looking for but one thing is for sure—they’d like to know more about the cattle they’re risking their dollars on.

“The more information the better,” says

Mark Winter of Winter Livestock Auction which operates markets in Dodge City, Kan.; LaJunta, Colo.; Enid, Okla.; Pratt, Kan.; and Riverton Wyo. “How they’re fed, how they’re bred and what shots they’ve had—those things mean something to buyers and they impact what they’re willing to pay for your cattle.”

Randy Gibson couldn’t agree more. From his Lamoni Livestock in southern Iowa, Gibson says cow-calf operators can enhance the marketability of their production by sharing critical information on genetics and health. Furthermore, Gibson asserts that producers have an opportunity to develop Continued on page 4

American Gelbvieh Association 10900 Dover Street Westminster, CO 80021

PRSRT STD U.S. Postage PAID Columbia MO Permit No. 353

| October 2009

The Profitpicture |

Feeder Calf Marketing ...Continued from page 1

Feeder calves that are healthy, have been through a vaccination program, and exhibit muscle and growth will get the attention of sale barn buyers.

Randy Gibson Lamoni Livestock Auction, Inc., Lamoni, Iowa

| October 2009

long-term desirability for their calves.

“Whether you sell at my auction or any other, that sale barn operator needs to be able to get to know your cattle to do the best possible job of marketing them,” he says. “When I know the genetics of your cattle and how they’ve been handled, I can share that information and buyers will be more comfortable with what they’re bidding on. If you’re using high-quality bulls from top breeders, share that information—it means something.

“If you have quality calves to sell—calves that will stay healthy and perform, and you keep bringing your cattle back year after year, believe me, those order buyers will remember them. They keep track of the cattle that have done well for them and they’ll want to buy them again rather than taking a chance on cattle they don’t know anything about.

In Tennessee, Knoxville Livestock operator Jason Bailey, finds the same thing to be true.

“You’d think they wouldn’t remember them but they do,” he says. “As someone who backgrounds cattle, too, I know I keep track of where the good performing cattle came from. Cowcalf men who continually produce cattle you can count on develop

a reputation and it pays off for them—we see it all the time.”

Of course gaining that good reputation is the culmination of a lot of work and management. As far as the calves themselves go, Bailey says buyers in general are looking for healthy appearing calves that have some frame to indicate performance.

Gibson reports that the calves he sees are, overall, better than ever but there is still plenty of room for quality cow-calf operations to stand out.

“I think we’re back to what I’d call medium frame cattle,” he says, “but they have to have enough frame to grow up to finish at 1250-1300 lbs., 1150-or so for heifers. There are definitely some British breed cattle that have gone too far back and are too small

calves. In the fall, in a big part of our area, buyers are looking for those lighter weight calves to put on wheat pasture. In the spring, going to grass, the heavier calves are preferred so it’s important to know what those markets are and which one can make you the most money.

For some producers, premium-type calves will make them the most money. For others, lower input cattle fit their operation better—it depends on your situation and resources.

“There isn’t a one-size-fits-all program. It depends on your labor, your pasture situation and what’s happening in the market.”

For producers aiming for that sale-topping premium price, Winter says the larger lots of calves that have had a couple rounds

“Whether you sell at my auction or any other, that sale barn operator needs to be able to get to know your cattle to do the best possible job of marketing them,” Randy Gibson says. framed. A good European-British crossbred calf is hard to beat and, yes, buyers like the blacks but they have to be the right type. In my experience, Gelbvieh-Angus cross cattle really fit the bill and I wish I saw more of them. I have a set of Gelbvieh cows with Angus calves and they really look like they’ve got some grow in them.”

Mark Winter points out that there are different preferences in the cattle market and he suggests that cow-calf producers understand which market they’re aiming for.

“It’s pretty hard to stereotype buyers,” he asserts. “We have some who want 6-weight bulls and, on the other hand, we’re seeing more people interested in preconditioned

of shots and have been weaned for 45 days with males castrated are normally going to bring the highest price. He adds that an identified genetic background is another plus.

Gelbvieh influence cattle, the livestock marketers say, have a good reputation around the sale ring.

And supporting quality genetics with management—and sharing that information—can get an extra nod or two out of buyers.

“We have one producer in particular who brings us his Gelbvieh-Angus cross calves every year,” Jason Bailey concludes. “The calves always show some growth and stretch and the buyers really like them.”

The Profitpicture |

Contents Page Features Sale barn operators share feeder calf insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

By Mark Parker

303/465-2333 Main Phone 303/465-2339 fax

Using DNA Markers in Feedlot Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

By Bill Kolath Surveys Quantify Value of Feeder Calf Traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

By Mark Parker

Director of Administration Dianne Coffman (ex. 479)

Crossbreeding – Back to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

By D. A. Daley

diannec@gelbvieh.org

Order Buyers Set the Market Pace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

By Mark Parker Gelbvieh Influence Calves a Bumper Crop for Missouri Producer . . . . 48

By Mark Parker

Director of Communications

27

DNA Testing for Sire Selection: A tool for the Commercial Producer? . 53

Boost Cattle Profitability, Kick Parasites Off the Payroll This Fall . . . . . 16 AGA Announces Initial GPA Qualifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Director of Member Services Dana Stewart (ex. 488) danas@gelbvieh.org

U.S. Cattle Herd Continues to Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

By Tim Petry Beef Cattle Health and Husbandry Experts Team up to Promote Cattle Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Production Manager/Graphic Artist Katie Danneman (ex. 486) katied@gelbvieh.org

Exposing Nine Vaccine Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

28

Feedyard, Carcass Merit Data Prove Gelbvieh and Balancer Hit Mark . 38

Customer Services Coleen Abplanalp (ex. 482) coleena@gelbvieh.org

Gelbvieh Feeder Calves Top Video Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Departments

Dolores Gravley (ex. 481) doloresg@gelbvieh.org

President’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Jr. Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Field Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Research Roundup SmartCross Research Results: Part 1 – Across-Breed EPDs . . . . . . . . . 28

Patti Showman (ex. 478) pattis@gelbvieh.org

SmartCross Research Results: Part 2 – Creating Value in Today’s Feeder Cattle Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Places to Be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Ad Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 AGA New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

jennifers@gelbvieh.org Director of Breed Improvement Susan Willmon (ex. 484) susanw@gelbvieh.org

News

Nebraska Scientists Focus on Diet’s Impact on E. coli Colonization, Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Jennifer Scharpe (ex. 485)

Teresa Wessels (ex. 477) teresaw@gelbvieh.org

48

Mailing address: 10900 Dover St.,

Dear Reader:

We hope you enjoy this second edition of The Profit Picture. This twice a year publication focuses on issues important to the commercial cow-calf producer and offers relevant information affecting your bottom line.

The American Gelbvieh Association publishes this newspaper in February and October each year.

If you wish to be removed from the mailing list for this publication, there are two ways you can reach us. By mail:

| October 2009

please cut off the label on the front and mail it to: American Gelbvieh Association, attn: Profit Picture, 10900 Dover Street, Westminster, CO 80021; or by email: please type in the label information exactly as it appears on the front and send it to info@gelbvieh.org. We would not want to put something in your mailbox that you do not wish to receive.

We hope you enjoy The Profit Picture and would like to know how you like this newspaper.

Jennifer Scharpe, Editor

Westminster, CO 80021 General E-mail: info@gelbvieh.org Registration & Electronic Data Transfer: registration@gelbvieh.org Website: www.gelbvieh.org

The Profitpicture |

President’s Message Change Offers New Opportunities for Gelbvieh

By Vaughn Thorstenson Change, what President Obama campaigned on and many have joked it is all we’ll have left at the end of his administration. But that is not the subject of this column.

I am excited about the change presented to us in the Gelbvieh breed. Change can sometimes be difficult and painful, but is usually good. One change comes from the resignation of Dr. Wayne Vanderwert as the Executive Director of the American Gelbvieh Association. This gives us a unique opportunity to reevaluate the way we currently operate as a breed association and make change.

The AGA Board of Directors has established a committee to interview staff, to evaluate our strengths, and determine the best way to move forward as a breed association. We are hoping to have a plan and begin the search process for a new Executive Director by the time you read this column. We are hoping to put more of a marketing focus on the position and find someone with strengths in those areas.

We are also excited about change

in the Gelbvieh breed. The breed has made great strides to become a breed of cattle commercial cow-calf producers can rely on because of the change the Gelbvieh breeders have initiated in their own breeding programs. We have encouraged a well rounded mating system approach that incorporates the use of high marbling sires. Many of you have done that and the new SmartCross data from Colorado State University (funded by the two dollar herd assessment) shows just how profitable our breed is in a crossbreeding scenario.

Gelbvieh and Balancer sired steers added approximately $50 to the bottom line and that is just on the carcass value. I encourage you to read for yourself the results of the SmartCross research on pages 40, 41 and 43 of this issue. There is also the added value of the Gelbvieh sired heifers and the extra performance from the crossbred steer. It’s exciting to see the success of our Gelbvieh sired calves compared to some of the top Angus genetics. In our current economic slump, there is no better time to crossbreed with the most profitable continental breed.

New research and technology in the beef industry offers another opportunity for change. The AGA Board of Directors is committed to coordinating RFI (residual feed intake) testing this fall and winter.

The results of this RFI testing will provide more data on feed efficiency with the goal of working towards a new EPD or EPD index reflecting feed efficiency.

It is the board’s belief that there is tremendous opportunity to improve efficiency in our cattle and the AGA is on the forefront to helping our breeders achieve new efficiencies in their cowherds and the Gelbvieh breed as a whole. I would encourage anyone interested in RFI testing to contact the AGA office for a list of test sites that are available.

We also hope to complete the change of the computer conversion for a registry database. This conversion process is something the association has been working on for some time, however we are getting close and by the time you read this the conversion will be underway. This change may be particularly difficult for some, but I can assure you, you will still be

able to use the old paper forms to submit your information. Once the new system is in place, I think we will all find it to be a great asset and a time saver, and just one more way that the association is working for our breeders.

Change is not always easy, but often necessary. As we move towards the most profitable Continental breed in the industry, it is essential to have the support of all our breeders during this time of change. If you have any insight or comments, please don’t hesitate to call or email me or one of the other board members. You can reach me at VWThor@sbtc.net.

There is a lot to be excited about in the Gelbvieh breed and even more opportunities to provide our commercial customers with bulls and females that will be profitable and productive.

Vaughn Thortsenson is the American Gelbvieh Association President. He owns and operates Thorstenson Gelbvieh & Angus near Selby, S.D. He can be reached at vwthor@sbtc.net.

American Gelbvieh Association Area Coordinators — Commercial Marketing

Don Danell Western Region dond@gelbvieh.org Office: (406) 538-5622 Cell: (406) 366-6953

| October 2009

“For the past couple of weeks I have been working to fill an order for 500 half-blood black Gelbvieh heifer calves for a producer in Idaho. An order like this is encouraging in that the demand for Gelbvieh genetics is high. “

— Don Danell

Steve Peddicord Eastern Region stevep@gelbvieh.org Office: (606) 387-8579 Cell: (606) 688-4492

“A lot of my time has been spent on the Maternal Edge Commercial Female Sale to be held November 7 in Tennessee. The response of producers wanting to purchase Gelbvieh-influenced females from this sale has been greater than the two previous years.”

— Steve Peddicord

The Profitpicture |

10 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 11

12 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 13

Using DNA Markers in Feedlot Management

Bill Kolath, Cargill Meat Solutions Feedlot management strategies are often focused on improving production efficiency and/or managing carcass endpoint. These strategies may be as simple as an implant program or as complex as a multi-technology sorting program. A number of technologies are available to provide data to make sorting decisions and are as simple as chute weights, breed type, hide color or visual appraisal or as complex as ultrasound based measures of body composition, external body measurements, or

genetic information. However, any technology used needs to be responsive to shifting population trends and changes in management set points.

Unlike a seed stock or commercial cow/calf producer our feedlot population is diverse and is subject to seasonal and geographic trends. In addition, our population comes from many different backgrounds (wheat pasture, grow yards, and ranches across the country). In order to account for these varied environmental and genetic backgrounds our approach to marker assisted management has been to combine information from live animal evaluation with genetic information to make management decisions.

Cargill Cattle Feeders, while being focused on efficiency and cost of gain, has an even greater focus on endpoint management

due to our relationship with Excel. Due to this intensive focus on carcass endpoint, we have developed a management system based on an animal’s condition at reimplant and genetic information obtained from DNA marker panels for economically important traits.

This allows us to account for both environmental effects and the genetic potential of the animal. At the feedlot level it is very difficult to manage individuals but managing groups of similar individuals is feasible. By grouping individuals we create pens of cattle that have a specific endpoint target. This grouping allows growth promoting technologies to be applied in order to improve production efficiency while still meeting our specific endpoint targets. The goal is to produce a high quality product for our customer while maximizing production efficiency.

Focus on endpoint quality The management of cattle in the feedlot is often focused on improving production efficiency and/or targeting a particular endpoint. Production efficiency is universally important, however, the degree to which an operation focuses on endpoint is often determined by their relationship with a packer. Cargill Cattle Feeders works closely with Excel to produce high quality cattle for use in Excel’s branded beef programs making endpoint management a highly focused component of our operation.

Cargill Cattle Feeders is also unique from many other feeding operations in that all animals in our feed yards are tagged with an electronic identification tag upon arrival. Electronic identification tags are key in allowing technologies to be tested and utilized, improvements to our production system to be made and progress to be tracked.

14 | October 2009

In addition, our relationship with Excel allows for carcass data collection on all animals harvested, further strengthening our ability to track, benchmark, and improve production practices. This ability to make data based decisions is one of the greatest strengths of our business.

Marker assisted management Single trait genetic markers have been available to seed stock producers for a number of years and the ability to make management decisions based on that information, while complex, has been simpler than using that information in a feedlot setting.

Typically seed stock producers are working with a relatively similar population which was managed under a single management system. Frequently, management decisions are simply to retain or cull an animal or to provide information to a prospective buyer. However, compared to seed stock producers and other segments of the beef industry, marker assisted management in the feedlot posses a number of challenges.

The population in the feedlot is in a constant state of flux and the environmental impact differs over time. In a large scale feeding operation, cattle are sourced from across the country and are comingled in differing proportions depending on the season. Also, cattle are obtained from different production systems (i.e. ranch origins, pasture growing systems, wheat pasture, grow yards and sale barns) which may or may not impact the ability of the animal to reach its genetic potential.

In addition, we have to manage individuals in a group environment. Historically, feeding operations have managed pens of cattle and therefore, all of the

Table 1. Reimplant and Carcass Characteristics of the four sort groups. production systems are setup to manage groups (i.e. – lots) and not individuals. Management decisions are often more complex in the feedlot, because we have to manage every individual and do not have the ability to send poor performing or genetically inferior animals to the sale barn.

Some of those management decisions include an endpoint decision for the animal (i.e. – high yield vs. high quality), and what technologies are we going to use to get there. For Cargill Cattle Feeders this decision may include to implant or not to implant an animal, the potency of the implant (if implanted) and the type of beta-agonist that is fed. Marker assisted management allows for an individualized approach within a group managed system.

Due to the diversity of the population that we feed, it is difficult to obtain any genetic information prior to arrival at the feed yard. Our data collection therefore, begins upon arrival at the feed yard. At arrival an animal is processed (vaccinated, dewormed, tagged (EID and visual), etc.). Following these standard practices we take a nasal swab to collect DNA. In the past we collected blood via a tail bleed which slowed down processing considerably, however, nasal swabs allow for a safe and efficient way to collect DNA. The DNA is transferred to a bar-coded FTA card and the barcode is scanned linking the unique sample number with the EID of the animal. The animal is returned to its home pen and the DNA is then sent out to be processed.

Managing groups based on markers The marker assisted management decisions are then made at reimplant. At reimplant a measure of body composition

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Reimplant Weight 1109 1071 987 Level of Fatness +++ ++ Avg. Marbling Score 2.9 1.48 -1.59 Molecular Genetic Value Carcass Hot Carcass Weight 831 883 908 Rib Eye Area 13.2 14.1 14.6 Back Fat 0.47 0.45 0.43 Marbling Score 398 407 418 Dressing Percent 63.0 63.9 64.8 Yield Grade 3.0 2.9 2.8

% Choice

40.0

42.7

45.7

Group 4

1096 +++ 23.0

863 13.2 0.53 486 63.8 3.3

77.4

Data is based on 88,090 head.

is obtained to account for environment factors which impact the ability of the animal to reach its genetic potential. That information, along with genetic information, is used to determine how we will manage that animal.

A number of management decisions are made using the genetic information and body composition of each animal.

First, we need to determine how much longer we are going to feed this animal. Second, we decide if we are going to give any growth promoting technologies to the animal and if we are, what products we are going to use.

Based on the answers to these questions, the animals will be sorted into one of four groups, the goal being to allow the animal the ability to reach its genetic potential while being managed within a group setting.

Four groups allow for efficient management within a group production environment by preventing groups with too few animals, while still allowing us to come close to maximizing the genetic potential of each animal. The reimplant and carcass characteristics of each of the four groups are shown in table 1.

Group 1 is characterized by cattle that perform well early in the feeding period and therefore, are heavier and fatter than their pen mates. The management focus of this group is to prevent them from becoming too fat. Technologies are used to promote lean meat yield.

Group 2 is characterized by average performing cattle. This group is of moderate weight and fatness at reimplant, and tends to have carcasses of average weight, grade and yield.

Group 3 is characterized by small or immature cattle. They are smaller and leaner at reimplant and require longer to reach a mature weight. However, they tend to produce large carcasses which grade and yield.

Group 4 is characterized by cattle that are genetically superior in their ability to marble and produce high quality carcasses.

This group also contains cattle that have above average marbling characteristics but with an implant a large percentage will produce a high select carcass. Therefore, a significant proportion of this group will not

receive an implant. This group has a large number of carcasses that qualify for premium programs, thereby offsetting any reduction in carcass weight loss due to the removal of an implant.

The net result of this grouping is to produce a consistent product that readily fits into Excel’s branded program.

Our goal with marker assisted management is to optimize the capability of an animal and do so in a manner in which we add value to our customer. While managing cattle in this manner adds complexity to a feeding operation, it is far outweighed by the consistency and quality of the product delivered to the plant.

We envision that in the future this technology will encompass a greater number of economically important traits, while continuing to become more cost effective.

Marker assisted management will allow for feeding operations to improve production efficiency and the consistency and quality of the product they produce.

Bill Kolath of Cargill Meat Solutions presented this paper at the 2009 Beef Improvement Federation Annual Research Symposium.

The Profitpicture | 15

News Boost Cattle Profitability, Kick Parasites Off the Payroll This Fall Cattle-Fax survey shows profitable cow/calf producers don’t cut corners on animal health Herd health costs account for a relatively small percentage of a cow/calf producer’s expenditures, but it can have a big impact on boosting productivity and securing profits.1 This is an important insight that most profitable cow/calf producers already know, according to Cattle-Fax’s annual cow/calf producer survey.

“Year in and year out, in good markets and in bad, our cow/calf producer survey shows that highreturn producers do not skimp on genetics, pasture or herd health,” says Kevin Good, Cattle-Fax senior market analyst.

16 | October 2009

Of all those practices, Iowa State University data shows that parasite control easily tops the list of most economically rewarding cow/calf pharmaceutical practices. Parasite control comes in at almost six times more important to a cow/calf producer’s breakeven cost than growth-promoting implants, which was the second-most important practice.2 The same research shows that not controlling parasites in the cow herd can negatively impact a producer’s breakeven selling price by 34 percent2 — equating to a value of $201 per head.2 “Parasites negatively affect cattle performance, and therefore profits, from a number of different angles,” says Dr. Frank Hurtig, director, Merial Veterinary Services.

“Parasites can cause reduced weight gain, conception rates,

immune system response and milk production3 — negatives that can all build on each other and result in significant losses.”

He adds that parasites build up on pastures and in cattle throughout the summer grazing months,4 making fall cattle work — such as preconditioning, weaning or pregnancy checking — ideally timed opportunities to clear both cows and calves of profit-robbing parasites in preparation for winter, Dr. Hurtig says.

Lice are usually the top-ofmind pest leading up to the winter months. Dr. Hurtig says this is due in part to the fact that the damage from lice is easily seen, but it is important to remember that lice can cause more than a little hair loss. Studies have shown that feeder calves infected with moderate to heavy lice populations can have a decreased average daily gain of as much as 0.21 pound.5 Dr. Hurtig says it’s also important to treat for internal parasites, such as liver flukes and Ostertagia this time of year.6,7 Research has shown that through improved growth and production, heifers treated for both nematodes and liver flukes in the fall earned $153 more per head.8 In addition, in 8- to 9-month-old calves, research has found that subclinical infections of liver flukes caused an 8 percent reduction in weight gain over six months. Higher levels of infection reduced weight gain by 29 percent.9 “Controlling both internal and external parasites at fall preconditioning or weaning sets up calves for more efficient weight gain and better overall health as they transition to the feeder or heifer development stage,” Dr. Hurtig says. “Left unchecked, parasite infections will cause reduced weight gains, inefficient feed conversion and increased incidence of disease3 — all of which will quickly chip away at profits.”

Controlling internal and external parasites also can give cows a much-needed boost as forage quality declines and they are struggling nutritionally.10 “This fall off in forage quality makes it important that cattle get the most benefit possible out of the feed that is available. Parasite loads make that even more challenging,” Dr. Hurtig says. “Parasites decrease appetite, have a negative effect on nutrient utilization and hamper immune response.11 Clearing cows of parasites before winter means that expensive supplemental feed is going to benefit your herd, not feed parasites.”

When choosing a parasite control product, Dr. Hurtig notes that it’s important to choose a product that will control both internal and external parasites.

It’s equally critical, he adds, to use products that are backed by a trusted manufacturer.

Dr. Hurtig advises all producers to consider what Cattle-Fax says high-return producers already know and practice: Sound herd health, which includes parasite control, pays big dividends — even in hard times.

For more information, producers should contact their veterinarian or local Merial territory manager, visit www.IVOMEC.com or call 1-888MERIAL-1. Merial is a world-leading, innovation-driven animal health company, providing a comprehensive range of products to enhance the health, well-being and performance of a wide range of animals. Merial employs approximately 5,400 people and operates in more than 150 countries worldwide. Its 2008 sales were over $2.6 billion. Merial Limited is a joint venture between Merck & Co., Inc. and sanofiaventis. For more information, please see www.merial.com.

News

Five Tips For Effective Fall Parasite Control To achieve the most out of their parasite control program, producers need to choose a product they can trust and apply it correctly, says Dr. Frank Hurtig, director, Merial Veterinary Services. He offers the following tips for producers wanting to get the most out of their parasite control investment: 1. Make sure the product is effective against target parasites in the area and will meet the producer’s parasite control goals.

Down market effects in beef cow-calf herds. 1998 United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Available at: http:// ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/32794/1/info02.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2009.

1

Lawrence JD, Ibarburu MA. Economic analysis of pharmaceutical technologies in a bioeconomy era. 2009 Iowa State University.

2

Bagley C, Healey MC, Hansen D. Internal parasites in cattle. Beef Cattle Handbook.

3

Stromberg BE. The role of parasites epidemiology in the management of grazing cattle. International Journal of Parasitology 1999;29:33-39.

4

Campbell JB. Lice control on cattle. NebGuide. Published by University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1992, revised June 2006.

5

Randle RF. Common internal parasites of cattle. University of Missouri Extension.

Available at http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G2130.

Accessed June 2, 2009.

6

 Carefully read product labels to determine parasites controlled and the duration of the product against target parasites.

7

 Not all parasite control products are effective against liver flukes or provide control of inhibited stages of the brown stomach worm.

8

2. Weigh cattle to determine accurate dosing and achieve more efficient treatment.  Using too much or too little product can result in wasted parasite control investment or less-than-ideal control.

Irsik MB, Courtney C, Richey E. Liver fluke control in beef cattle. University of Florida IFAS Extension. VM120.

Loyacano AF, et al. Effect of subclinical infections of internal parasites on the production of beef heifers. LSU Ag Center Research and Extension.

Kaplan RM. Fasciola hepatica: A review of the economic impact in cattle and considerations for control. Veterinary Therapeutics 2001(2).

9

Forage and Livestock Production Unit 2006 Annual Report. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Available at http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects. htm?ACCN_NO=406552&showpars=true&fy=2006. Accessed June 2, 2009.

10

Bobb SB. Eaten alive. The Cattleman 2000:41.

11

3. Time parasite control for when it’s most effective, not when it’s most convenient.  Working with a local veterinarian can help producers determine the best time to control parasites in their area.

4. Use parasite control products based on the region and life cycle of the target parasites.  Due to the persistent effect of endectocides, treatments can be applied in northern climates between two to three weeks before or after the first hard frost for the best fall and winter control.  Where liver flukes are a concern, treatment should occur in early fall before cattle are turned out for winter grazing.

5. Use a branded product that is backed by a product satisfaction guarantee, such as IVOMEC Brand Products.

IVOMEC Plus (ivermectin/clorsulon): Do not treat cattle within 49 days of slaughter. Do not use in dairy cattle of breeding age or in veal calves. IVOMEC (ivermectin) Pour-On: Do not treat cattle within 48 days of slaughter. Do not use in dairy cattle of breeding age or in veal calves. IVOMEC 1% Injection for Cattle and Swine: Do not treat cattle within 35 days of slaughter. Do not use in dairy cattle of breeding age or in veal calves. Do not treat swine within 18 days of slaughter. IVOMEC EPRINEX® (eprinomectin) Pour-On for Beef and Dairy: No meat or milk withdrawal is required when used according to label. All IVOMEC Brand Products: Do not use in other animal species not on the label as severe adverse reactions, including fatalities in dogs, may result. ®EPRINEX and IVOMEC are registered trademarks of Merial. ©2009 Merial Limited. Duluth, GA. All rights reserved.

RUMIEGN937 (07/09)

The Profitpicture | 17

News AGA Announces Initial GPA Qualifiers In April 2009 the American Gelbvieh Association announced the Gelbvieh Performance Advantage (GPA) program. The core of this program is to provide a tool for AGA members to document and promote the performance aspects of their program and the Gelbvieh breed. To attain GPA status, the AGA member must record performance data, use sires that meet or exceed established performance criteria, and implement technologies such as DNA Testing and AI in their programs. Specific details can be found at http://www. gelbvieh.org/gelbvieh_world/gpa_program.pdf.

The GPA program was announced in April with the idea that AGA members could look at their yearly data collection program as well as sire selection and DNA testing for the prior year and consider how to add additional data collection or other practices to allow them to complete a Qualification Form in early Spring 2010 for the 2009 management year. As our members reviewed the program, there were some that felt their existing routines would qualify them and desired to complete the process based on their 2008 management and breeding practices.

Congratulations to the AGA members, listed on the right, that have attained GPA Status for the 2008 management year. These members are the pioneers and early adopters of this program. We are looking forward to 2010 when these members will be joined by others who have incorporated the GPA program into their 2009 performance program. Look for the GPA logo to indicate that a program offers the Gelbvieh Performance Advantage.

Silver Level 4H Farms Jay Heetland Lincoln, MO

Bronze Level

Guenther Family Cattle Corey Guenther Wyoming, IA

Prairie Hills Gelbvieh Galen and Klint Sickler Gladstone, ND

South Texas Gelbvieh Sam Castleberry Castroville, TX

Montana

Breeders

“Expect A Lot Of Bull!”

Don, Omie, Chase & Teale Rose Danell Lewistown, MT 59457 (406) 538-5622 danell@dishmail.net Look for our conignment to the Greater Montana Select Female Sale at the NILE, in Billings, MT on October 16

18 | October 2009

“Gelbvieh since 1973” Kathleen Rankin 406-937-4815 1285 Nine Mile Rd. • Oilmont, MT 59466

krankin@northerntel.net www.kickinghorseranch.com Check out our Great Montana Gelbvieh Select Female consignments− see our ad on page 13

Jim & Genny Priest 142 Spur Road • Brockway, MT 59214 406-485-2775 haglundranch@live.com www.haglundranch.com Annual Bull Sale Dec. 3, 2009 – see our ad on page 49

News

U.S. Cattle Herd Continues to Decline

By Tim Petry U.S. cattle numbers declined for the third straight year, according to the semiannual cattle inventory report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) late this summer.

NASS pegged the cattle herd at 101.8 million head, which is almost 1.5 percent or 1.5 million head of cattle fewer than last year. The decline was expected because of drought conditions that have occurred in several cattleproducing areas during the last several years. The higher feed, fuel and fertilizer costs that beef cattle producers experienced last year also added to herd reductions.

The prices for all market classes of cattle declined sharply in the second half of 2008, which also reduced profitability in the cattle sector.

Beef cow numbers declined by 450,000 head (32,650 million to 32,200 million). That is a decline of about 1 million head from five years ago and 2 million head from 10 years ago. Pasture and range conditions have improved in several areas, with exceptions in the southern Plains. Feed, fuel and fertilizer costs have declined from last year, so the beef cow slaughter declined about 6 percent.

However, heifers kept for beef cow replacement were down more than 2 percent from last year, so very little beef cow herd rebuilding is likely in the next year. The number of heifers for replacement retained this fall and next spring will depend on pasture and range conditions, plus producers’ expectations of future industry profitability.

Dairy cow numbers fell from 9.35 million head last year to 9.2 million. The dairy industry has suffered sharply lower prices and very negative margins this year, which has led to higher dairy cow slaughter.

The number of heifers for dairy cow replacements was reported by NASS to be the same as last year. Given the poor profitability in the industry, that number may be surprising to some. However, the increased use of sexed semen has led to more dairy heifers being born, and profitability in the dairy industry was good the first part of 2008.

The estimate of the 2009 calf crop, which includes both beef and dairy calves, was 35,600 million head, which is down about 1.4 percent from last year.

The number of feeder cattle and calves outside of feedlots was down about 200,000 head and the number of cattle on feed was down 600,000. Therefore, steer and heifer slaughter likely will be down in 2009 and 2010.

Typically, reduced slaughter would be supportive to prices.

However, both the domestic and export market demand for beef are struggling because of the worldwide economic woes.

Fed-steer prices are more than $11 per hundredweight less than last year, with the choice beef cutout value down $17.

When beef demand will return to pre-economic crisis levels is anyone’s guess. When that does happen, the lower beef supplies will be supportive to cattle prices.

Tim Petry is a Livestock Marketing Economist with North Dakota State University Extension Service. He can be reached at tim. petry@ndsu.edu.

Range Ready Bulls • 16-24 mo. age • Forage tested • Calving ease • Semen tested • Guaranteed

Combining the best of Simmental, Angus and Gelbvieh to maximize heterosis.

Top genetics • Hybrid vigor • Longevity Quality bred heifers & cows More than 50 years of functional seedstock using the latest proven technologies to bring you more value.

Thank you for your business!

John Rotert / Bob Harriman, Montrose, Mo. (O) 660-693-4844 or 660-492-2504 (C) www.rotertharriman.com The Profitpicture | 19

Surveys Quantify Value of Feeder Calf Traits

By Mark Parker

Karl Harborth Kansas State University Extension Livestock Specialist

Whether you call them discount or premiums, there’s a dollar sign hanging on just about every decision a cow-calf operator makes.

A wide variety of characteristics impact the prices paid for feeder calves and sale barn surveys conducted by Cooperative Extension animal scientists across the country quantify how certain genetic traits and management practices affect price.

“You can break it down into what you can do right now and what you can manage for in the future,” explains Kansas State University Extension Livestock Specialist Karl Harborth. “What you can do immediately is to make sure you’re offering polled or dehorned calves, castrated males, and calves that aren’t too fat and aren’t too full. In the longer-term, we can focus on genetics to ensure that those calves have the type and growth the market wants.”

Harborth and colleagues collected data on thousands of feeder calves sold at livestock markets in Missouri and Kansas.

Similar studies have been conducted in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota and other

states and while the individual dollar values for specific traits may vary, the trends are very consistent.

Sex and weight are obviously the big factors but lot size, uniformity, condition, fill, frame, castration of bulls and the presence of horns all add to—or take away from—what buyers are willing to give.

In a study conducted by North Dakota State University, for instance, lot size was shown to be a significant buyer consideration.

Lots of calves numbering more than 21 head brought $6.29/cwt. more than lots consisting of five or fewer in fall sales and the larger groups had a $4.99/cwt. advantage in the spring.

Kansas State University survey numbers reveal a somewhat lesser impact but the same trend as the price advantage of larger lots rises steadily as calf numbers increase from one head up to about 100 head.

“There’s nothing really surprising about that,” Harborth observes. “When a buyer is after a certain type of calf and he can fill that order in one shot from a single source, he’s willing to pay more. That obviously puts smaller producers at a disadvantage but it emphasizes the importance of a controlled breeding season. If you

have a small herd and calve over three months or more, you’re going to be forced to sell very small lots and you’re probably going to take a hit on those cattle.

“The other thing producers can consider is pooling their cattle with neighbors who have a similar production system—that way you get the price advantage of larger lot size.”

Uniformity within those lots is another consideration as indicated by a $3.17 discount for uneven groups in the Oklahoma sale barn study.

Castration of bulls looms large in all of the surveys. Kansas State numbers indicate a $6/cwt. average dock with the discount rising as weight increases. A University of Arkansas Extension survey found a very similar impact at approximately $6.25.

The presence of horns was another big factor as, on average, dehorned or polled calves enjoyed a $2.18/cwt. advantage over their horned counterparts. Oklahoma numbers indicate a dock of about $3.23/cwt. and estimates from the Southeastern U.S. range from $1.50 to $4/cwt.

According to a National Animal Health Monitoring System report, the percentage of

Minnesota, Wisconsin & South Dakota Breeders

Leonhardt Cattle Co. Arlyn & Jacky, Leonhardt Kelly & Catherine

Registered Gelbvieh & Balancer Cattle Steve & Betty Arp Family N551 Ramsey Rd. Arlington, WI 53911 Phone: 608-846-5186 Our Balancer junior herdsire, ARPS Cincha

Selling – Nov. 15, 2009 Bulls consigned at Green Springs Bull Test – Nevada, MO Feed efficiency & performance tested

20 | October 2009

21444-444 Ave. • Lake Preston, SD 57249 (H): 605-482-8315 • (C): 605-860-1674 (C): 605-530-2586 leonhardt@alliancecom.net th

Annual Triple Play Bull Sale Thursday, March 18, 2010 Females for sale Private Treaty

Swenson Gelbvieh Dean & Mary Swenson 17513 Hwy. 10 Little Falls, MN 56345 320-632-5848 SWEN@CLEARWIRE.NET

Polled Gelbvieh − black or red.

Watch for our consignments at the Minnesota State Gelbvieh Sale on March 7, 2010 & North Dakota Golden Rule Sale January 25.

calves marketed with horns has dropped from 8.4 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in 2007. Those numbers vary widely, however.

Approximately 22.8 percent of Texas and Oklahoma calves had horns in 2007, for example.

Color and perceived breed makeup can be an elusive factor.

While most studies found a price advantage to black-hided cattle, likely due to their eligibility for branded programs and a perceived indication of grading, those cattle still had to be the right type. What was strongly revealed, to no one’s surprise, was a severe dock for Longhorn and dairy feeder calves.

Calves with a high percentage of Brahman influence also took a hit in most surveys but to a far lesser extent than dairy and Longhorn calves. In the Arkansas study, discounts for breed types at the bottom of the price spectrum were far greater than the premiums for those at the top. Longhorn feeders, for instance, sold for roughly $32/cwt. less than the top English-European crosses and dairy influence calves took a $12 hit compared to black baldies in the Kansas survey.

Although preferences may vary with the season and geographic area, buyers generally prefer medium-frame, moderately to heavily muscled cattle. According to Oklahoma Quality Beef Network numbers, extremely large frame cattle and extremely small frame cattle received discounts in the $3-$3.50/cwt. range compared to medium-frame calves. Extremely heavily muscled calves were also discounted.

As for fill and condition, staying in the middle appears to be a pretty good place to be, according to Karl Harborth: “Regarding fill, if you work either direction from average you’ll see a discount. On condition, very thin cattle get docked and very fat cattle get docked so the middle of the road looks like a pretty good idea. Buyers want cattle that they can put the gain on themselves but they don’t want them in such poor condition that performance might

be compromised.”

Finally, health is a tough item to measure but it’s obviously critically important to buyers. In the Kansas survey, non-healthy lots of calves (down ears, snotty noses) brought $6.31/cwt. less than apparently

healthy lots and they were off by $7.82 in the Oklahoma sale barn survey. The Arkansas study found even more pronounced discounts for specific ailments such as $33.47/ cwt. for lameness, $13.82/cwt. for bad eyes, and $12.66/cwt. for dead

hair. Preconditioning had a variable but positive impact, depending on type of program and whether the cattle were part of a “special” sale.

Arkansas research, however, found a $4.15/cwt. for preconditioned calves.

The Profitpicture | 21

22 | October 2009

News Beef Cattle Health and Husbandry Experts Team up to Promote Cattle Well-Being Leaders from academia and the beef industry are announcing the formation of an independent advisory group to focus on beef cattle health and well-being. The North American Food Animal Well-being Commission for Beef (NAFAWC-Beef)—which includes world-renowned experts in animal well-being—will advocate for increased research funding for animal well-being, facilitate the communication of research results in a more timely manner, advance best management practices in cattle health and welfare, and serve as an unbiased, scienceand production- based group to address concerns about animal well-being. Dan Thomson, Jones professor of production medicine and epidemiology at Kansas State University, and Joseph Stookey, professor of applied ethology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, will serve as commission co-chairs.

“Animal well-being issues extend beyond the agricultural community,” said Thomson.

“People across the country are looking for more information on animal care and handling, and we’re eager to share our story with them. This new partnership brings an impressive wealth of experience and expertise to the table to help bolster ongoing research and education in the area of cattle care.”

NAFAWC-Beef will help direct research efforts, field studies and assessment tools for the North American beef industry in relation to beef cattle well-being in order to provide science-based recommendations for cattle management practices.

“This as a very unique

opportunity for all of us to serve the various segments of the beef industry, society and ultimately the animals, in a responsible, scientific and unified manner,” said Stookey.

“This initiative has a tremendous amount of potential, and I’m excited to help lay the foundation for this important work.”

The commission’s public outreach efforts will focus on a number of groups across all levels of the beef chain, including: farming and ranching organizations, consumer groups, beef harvesting companies, veterinary groups, food retail and restaurant groups, and animal welfare groups.

“The commission represents a bi-lateral initiative to support and maintain a high standard of beef cattle welfare in North America,” said Dr. Janice Swanson, professor and director of animal welfare, Michigan State University. “The diversity of expertise enhances the commission’s effectiveness to address issues in a comprehensive manner.”

“The commission will provide a wonderful opportunity to improve the welfare of beef cattle,” said Dr. Temple Grandin, animal science professor at Colorado State University and NAFAWC-Beef member.

Several esteemed international advisory experts—including Stella Maris Huertas, DMTV, MSc. of Uruguay and Donald M. Broom, professor of animal welfare, University of Cambridge, U.K—will provide the commission with additional perspective and enhance cooperation on animal welfare issues at the global level. Other international partners are expected to be added in the coming months.

Ad hoc members of the

The 21 inaugural members were selected for their expertise in animal care and handling.

Members are as follows: • Dr. Barry Dunn - Texas A & M University • Dr. Bob Smith – Oklahoma State University • Dr. Carolyn Stull - University of California at Davis • Dr. Dan Thomson – Kansas State University • Dr. Dave Sjeklocha – Academy of Veterinary Consultants, Chair of Beef Cattle Health and Well-Being • Dr. Dee Griffin – University of Nebraska • Dr. Frank Mitloehner – University of California at Davis • Dr. Gatz Riddell - AABP, Executive Director • Dr. Guy Loneragan – West Texas A&M University • Dr. Hans Coetzee – Kansas State University • Dr. Jan Shearer – Iowa State University • Dr. Janice Swanson – Michigan State University • Marie Belew Wheatly - American Humane Association • Dr. Ron Gill – Texas A&M University • Dr. Temple Grandin – Colorado State University • Dr. Tom Noffsinger – Beef Cattle Handling Expert - Benkelman, NE • Dr. Joseph Stookey – University of Saskatchewan, Western Veterinary College • Dr. Jeff Rushen – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada • Susan Church – Alberta Farm Animal Council • Dr. Karen Schwartzkopfh-Gesnswein – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada • Jennifer Woods – Livestock Handling Expert – Blackie, AB Canada

commission include: Dr. Elizabeth Parker, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (U.S.); Dr. Jim Sartwelle, American Farm Bureau Federation (U.S.); Dr. Tom Field, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (U.S.); Ryder Lee, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (Canada); Bryan Walton, National Cattle Feeders Association (Canada); Dr. Mike Siemens, Cargill Animal Protein; and Dr Juan Ramon Gonzalez, Confederación Nacional De

Organizaciones Ganaderas (Mexico).

“Animal well-being is the foundation for the performance, health and profitability of cattle raised for beef, and as an industry, we take great pride in our responsibility to properly care for animals,” said Thomson. “We’re constantly looking for new and innovative ways to build upon existing science to ensure healthy animals and safe, quality products to feed the world’s population.”

The Profitpicture | 23

News

Exposing Nine Vaccine Myths With so many cattle vaccines available—nearly 125 different vaccines are currently on the market—there is a considerable amount of information, and misinformation, out there. To help clear up some misconceptions, Vic Cortese, DVM, PhD, DABVP, Pfizer Animal Health, busts nine common vaccine myths.

Myth No. 1: If a vaccine is licensed by the USDA, it will work all the time in all cattle.

False. The fact that a vaccine is licensed and available doesn’t mean it always works.

There are many reasons why a vaccine might not work, including: • It was used on the wrong age of animal.

• The wrong disease outcome was measured.

• It was used on the wrong species.

• The disease was overwhelming.

• Animals were already sick.

Myth No. 2: “Annual Vaccination” means a year of immunity.

False. We don’t really know the duration of immunity. The USDA may not require duration of immunity studies. If a product successfully demonstrates efficacy at 14 to 35 days after the last vaccination they are automatically given annual revaccination labels. This does not necessarily mean the animal may be protected for 12 months.

Myth No. 3: The higher the antibody titer (level) after vaccination, the better the protection.

False. Titers may be a poor indicator of level of protection. There are many different antibodies involved in protection and nonprotective antibodies can also be measured.

Myth No. 4: Vaccines are not effective in young calves because of blocking by maternal antibodies.

False. The role of maternal antibody interference is not clearly defined. Depending upon the disease, the type of vaccine, the pre-existing antibody levels and the route of administration, some vaccines may be blocked by maternal antibodies, but others are not.

Generally, viral vaccines are not inhibited by maternal antibodies. Two exceptions are bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) and parvovirus. And as a general rule, bacterins may be blocked by 24 | October 2009

maternal antibodies. A noteworthy exception is Lepto hardjo-bovis.

Many vaccines for calves are not inhibited by maternal antibodies, so ask your vaccine supplier to see efficacy studies done in calves with maternal antibodies if it is a concern.

Myth No. 5: Rotation of vaccines gives more complete protection.

False. The descriptions surrounding vaccine rotation, such as “optimal antigenic diversity,” “rotation means the broadest protection,” “avoid vaccine inbreeding” and “antigenic diversity is the key,” make it sound necessary.

The fact is, there are no challenge studies to support the idea of vaccine rotation. It also disregards differences in vaccines and is solely focused on BVD vaccines. There is an impracticality of vaccine rotation because many animals are in different stages of vaccination at any given time.

Myth No. 6: Inactivated vaccines are safer than modified-live vaccines.

False. The truth is, killed vaccines may cause more adverse reactions in animals because they contain more antigen mass, consist of more biologic components and rely on adjuvants.

Myth No 7: BVDV congenital infection protection is more important than persistent infection protection.

False. Persistently Infected (PI) animals are what we must prevent to control BVD. The true definition of congenital infection is exposure of the fetus in a non-immune pregnant cow during any stage of pregnancy. But it is often used to define exposure during the third trimester. This causes calves to be born with self-made BVD antibodies. The impact of later-term exposure on the health of newborn calves is not clear.

Myth No. 8: The timing of scours vaccines in the cow is not important.

False. The timing of the dam’s scours vaccination is critical to get maximum protection for the calf, and is crucial to good colostrum management.

The best time to vaccinate for scours is three to four weeks prior to calving. This timing will help ensure the maximum number of colostral antibodies are transferred to the calf through the colostrum, because peak immunity levels occur at this time.

Myth No. 9: Intranasal vaccines provide superior protection in cattle.

False. Intranasals may provide similar protective capabilities as systemic vaccination.

Intranasal vaccination may be used for calves: • Whose immune systems have already been compromised.

• That are heavily stressed.

• That are in the face of disease outbreaks.

As a result, safety of their use is critical because it usually comes at a time when disease outbreaks are anticipated in young animals that are already heavily stressed.

Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), the world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company, is a world leader in discovering and developing innovative animal vaccines and prescription medicines. Pfizer Animal Health is dedicated to improving the safety, quality and productivity of the world’s food supply by enhancing the health of livestock and poultry, and in helping companion animals live longer and healthier lives.

For additional information on Pfizer Animal Health’s portfolio of animal products, visit www.PfizerAH.com.

The Profitpicture | 25

Junior Voice How to…Use the AGJA to Help You be Leading Edge in Today’s Job Market.

Janelle Hayek-AGJA Director Since December of 2007 the United States Economy has lost a total of 6.9 million jobs, according to the Global Crisis News. Alone in August 2009, 216,000 U.S. jobs were lost and the unemployment rate increased to 9.7 percent. So what would be a better time than now to become involved with the American Gelbvieh Junior Association

(AGJA)? The organization allows juniors opportunities to obtain the necessary skills for their future careers. There is no better time than now to be involved with the AGJA. The AGJA gives youth a head start in speaking, working, observing, leadership, and communication skills. All of these skills are necessary to have while seeking a job in any career.

Someday everyone must sell a product, their practices, or their business to consumers. The day

Colorado & Wyoming Breeders

Jim Roelle 38148 CR 49 #7 Peetz, CO 80747 (H): 970-334-2221 • (C): 970-520-1224 jr.plateau@hotmail.com Featuring Black, Polled Gelbvieh & Balancer® genetics with balanced trait selection.

Next Bull Sale February 25, 2010.

High Plains Livestock, Brush, CO.

Miles & Tiffany Rives P.O. Box 392 • Buffalo, WY 82834 307-684-7858 mtrctco@vcn.com We will be selling Gelbvieh, Balancer and Angus bulls in our annual silent auction bull sale in mid-March.

26 | October 2009

a person walks into their first job interview, the person may experience a lot of stress and anxiety. However with experiences through the AGJA, the first job interview will no longer be that person’s most stressful day. The AGJA offers several opportunities to create youth that stand out from all others. Being involved in the AGJA allows juniors to gain several skills through state organizations, and at shows throughout the year.

The Gelbvieh junior shows are more than just exhibiting cattle.

Several contests and activities are planned throughout the week, allowing juniors to learn a lot of life skills while having fun.

I still remember the first time I ran for the board of directors, helped host a national show, competed in the sales talk, judging, impromptu speaking, showmanship, quiz bowl and advertising contests. Each individual contest and role helped me to build confidence in several different aspects. It has helped me with jobs I have had, and it will help me with a future career. Each individual contest and role the AGJA offers helps with a future career in some way or another.

The judging contest allows for juniors to observe a class and defend the class with reasons on their placing. In several jobs or even on the farm you are faced with a scenario and you are pressured to do research and pick between various choices that will benefit your company or farm the best.

No matter which decision you pick you have to be able to defend why you picked the way you did. The judging contest allows juniors to practice for any real life situation they could be thrown in to.

The sales talk helps with any

sales or marketing job. Sales talk experience is necessary for a future career, or when one tries to market themselves to employers in the business of their dreams.

Showmanship is a contest that takes preparation. It takes hard work and dedication to get a calf ready to be taken to a show.

With hard work one obtains several of the skills necessary for showmanship. Those who have the hard working skills it takes will make a good impression upon being hired.

Juniors can also run for junior or senior ambassador, or even a board of director position. All of these are big roles and can benefit juniors, and the Gelbvieh breed. Through the process of working in an executive position on the national board, one gains a lot of confidence, and has to reach outside of their comfort box. Although being a committed member to the national board is a lot of work and challenging, it is a great experience. It is a great way to become more involved with the Gelbvieh breed, build leadership skills, and work on communication skills.

Do you want to have the skills to help you be the leading edge in today’s society? The American Junior Gelbvieh Association has been the foundation to the skills I have, and has helped me excel in the job market. So take the time and become involved with the AGJA and better your speaking, working, observing, leadership, and communication skills. Not only can juniors compete and obtain necessary life skills, but they can meet lifelong friends and great adults who are willing to help in various ways. So don’t waste your time, get involved with the American Gelbvieh Junior Association today!

Field Day North Carolina Gelbvieh Association Field Day at C-Cross Cattle Company, Biscoe, NC C-Cross Cattle Company was the site of the 2009 North Carolina Gelbvieh Association (NCGA) Field day. Hosted by Duane and Wendy Strider, the day began with a presentation

by Bayer Representative Carlos Putnam on the various options for fly control. C-Cross is in the midst of trying several different means of fly control and will be evaluating the various treatments in terms of cow condition and pounds weaned through the next few seasons.

Dr. Brent Scarlett, DVM then discussed the process to implement an Artificial Insemination program into a cowherd. Equipment and resources as well as benefits of a tighter calving season were highlighted in his presentation.

Susan Willmon, AGA’s Director of Breed Improvement, provided the group with an update on genetic defects and how to build a testing plan within a breeder’s cowherd.

The field day included a back to the basics discussion on evaluating bulls for physical traits using a pen of C-Cross bulls. Feet and leg soundness, structural correctness and calving ease related to shoulder conformation were traits reviewed by Randy Wood, Ag Area Agent for Scotland and Hoke Counties.

As the attendees were gathering for lunch, Mick Ainsworth, President of the NCGA, gave the group of an update of NCGA activities and plans for upcoming sales. A delicious lunch was followed by a pasture tour.

The final stop on the pasture tour was a visit to C-Cross’s commodity shed were corn filings, distiller’s grains, soy hulls and other ration components were stored. Judicious use of these in development rations for bulls and females has helped C-Cross stretch forage resources through the past few drought years.

Duane Strider, C-Cross owner

Austin Teeter and Bobby Myrick share some cattle wisdom.

C-Cross Cattle donor female quality is apparent.

The Profitpicture | 27

Research Roundup

American Gelbvieh Association Announces Results of SmartCross Research SmartCross Research Results: Part 1 – Across–Breed EPDs

28 | October 2009

Research Roundup Comparing bulls across breeds has always been a challenge. The USDA Meat Animal Research Center at Clay Center, Neb. (MARC) has produced an Across-Breed EPD adjustment table for many years. This table serves as a tool to allow cattle producers to compare bulls using an adjustment factor to move different breed’s EPDs to a common scale.

The table uses an Angus base; but with this table animals of any breed can be adjusted across any breed’s EPD scale, possibly one that a producer has used in the past for sire selection. To that end Gelbvieh breeders for many years thought that the adjustments to an Angus base specifically for yearling weight were unjustly penalizing Gelbvieh animals, based on an adjustment factor of -22 pounds for yearling weight. This would mean a Gelbvieh bull with an 87 YW EPD would be equal in yearling performance to an Angus bull with a 65 YW EPD. To test this across breed adjustment the American Gelbvieh Association members funded a special research project called the SmartCross breeding project. One goal of this research project was to breed Angus, Gelbvieh and Balancer bulls with similar yearling EPDs based on the Across-Breed adjustment to a group of commercial cows and then evaluate their progeny for growth and carcass characteristics.

To begin this project the AGA partnered with Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) to utilize the commercial cowherd that was located on the Maxwell Ranch north of Fort Collins. This cowherd has been operated

by CSURF since it’s donation in the early 1970s.

Since the beginning this cowherd was bred by Angus and Hereford bulls, with replacement females retained from each year’s calf crop.

Looking to add some cow AI into the breeding program, this research project gave the Maxwell Ranch’s management the opportunity to evaluate the use of a timed AI program into their overall management scheme.

Initial breeding took place in May 2006 and all calves resulting from this breeding program were sent to the feedlot after weaning and carcass data collected. Table 1 shows the EPD profile from the sire groups chosen for the 2006 calf crop.

The second year of the project we again used Angus, Balancer and Gelbvieh sires but reduced the total numbers of bulls from six to four in an attempt to get more calves from the individual sire groups for carcass evaluation purposes.

Table 1. – Average EPDs from 2006 sires in the SmartCross breeding project Breed

EPD Description

BW

WW

YW

Angus

2006 – Adjusted from Angus EPDs

-1.8

25.8

86.6

Angus

2006 – Using Gelbvieh Generated EPDs

-1.2

24

70

Balancer

2006 – Gelbvieh EPDs

0.2

34

72.5

Gelbvieh

2006 – Gelbvieh EPDs

-0.06

37

74

Table 2 – Average EPDs from 2007 sires in the SmartCross breeding project Sire Breed

EPD Description

BW

WW

YW

Angus

2007 – Adjusted from Angus EPDs

-6.0

21

82

Angus

2007 – Using Gelbvieh generated EPDs

-6.6

15

77

Balancer

2007 – Gelbvieh EPDs

1.4

38

85

Gelbvieh

2007 – Gelbvieh EPDs

-1.5

43

80

These calves were weaned, backgrounded at the ranch for 45 days, placed in the feedlot with carcass data collected on each animal. The profile of the sire EPDs are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 breeding season.

In each of the tables above we have listed two EPD profiles for the Angus sires. The first profile uses the Angus Association EPD adjusted by the MARC Across-Breed Adjustment factor. Below that is listed an EPD for the Angus animals that were generated by the Gelbvieh multi-breed cattle evaluation that includes over 15,000 Angus animals that have been used in the production of Balancer cattle.

Lessons learned for a successful commercial AI program One of the first things we learned is that a successful AI program is as much art and practice as science. There are numerous studies that have looked at the increased value of AI calves in a commercial herd because of the access to potentially superior genetics within the AI sire population. Equal to those studies are the “humorous” and “horror” stories about initiating a mass breeding program in any operation.

Getting cows that normally go through the working facilities once a year, through three times in about a 14 day period, required some labor and planning. A successful timed AI breeding is equal parts having the cows in good body condition, functional (not necessarily fancy) working facilities, and an AI technician with a good arm and stamina.

While the first year we stuck to a standard

timed breeding protocol, the second year we added heat detection patches and a round of breeding of cows that came into heat prior to the timed AI session. This resulted in about 25 percent of the cows standing and being bred 24 hours prior to the timed breeding and an increase in conception rate of about 15 percent.

In order to insure the integrity of the data collected, all probable AI calves as well as calves born ten days past the expected calving date based on the AI service date were DNA tested for sire identification. Through the DNA sire identification we found natural calves that based on the birth date looked like AI calves and AI calves that were born late enough to look like they were sired by the pasture bull. These results lead to the conclusion that timed AI protocols with bulls turned out soon after makes proper sire identification much more difficult. One conclusion from this study is that producers looking to correctly identify calves born to AI sires may need to do more DNA parentage verification to insure pedigree accuracy.

Lessons learned in EPD across breed comparisons While we did not choose these sires based on low birth weight EPDs, we did try to make sure that the bulls had below breed average BW EPDs as well as favorable calving ease EPDs to minimize any calving issues. This strategy would be consistent with recommendations Gelbvieh breeders would provide bull buyers Continued on page 30 The Profitpicture | 29

Research Roundup SmartCross...continued from page 29

when breeding to a British based, moderately sized, mature cow herd.

All of the calves from all of the AI bulls were born unassisted. The birth weight averages are presented in Table 3. An interesting tidbit was the first year the same Angus bull sired the heaviest birth weight calf, a steer at 106 pounds and the lightest calf, a heifer at 67 pounds. In the past the staff at Maxwell Ranch had not routinely collected birth weights on the entire calf crop. Having this insight into the range of birth weights their cows could handle would prove valuable for selecting herdsires in the future.

Weaning weights taken on the calves and averaged across both years show about a 15 pound difference between the sire groups (Table 4).

Comparing this with the estimated EPDs it looks as if the Across–Breed adjustment factor in this instance is painting a good picture of the performance of those calves compared to Gelbvieh and Balancer EPDs. As these calves were in the feedlot during the time period a traditional yearling weight measurement was taken we decided to look at the difference in hot carcass weight as an indicator of differences in growth. If we use the assumption that on average these three sire groups had similar growth potential (raised under the same management conditions), we would have expected that the Angus sired group should more closely match the average carcass weights of the other two sire groups. While research has shown a positive, yet moderate correlation between yearling weight and finish weight, this analysis is not perfect but indicates that possibly the initial premise that the Across-Breed adjustment factor at that time were possibly overestimating an Angus sires potential when moving to a Gelbvieh base.

Across-Breed adjustment factors today Each year MARC produces a new set of adjustment factors. The most recent set, presented at the 2009 Beef Improvement Federation meeting, takes advantage of a new round of calf data from current Gelbvieh AI sires used at Clay Center and incorporates a new set of more currently used sires from all breeds. One result of this analysis is that the Gelbvieh adjustment

Table 3. Average birth weights of calves in the SmartCross breeding program.

2007 Born Calves

2008 Born Calves

Average Birth Weights

Average Birth Weights

Angus Sired

Steers 82.8

Heifers 75.7

Steers 79.2

Heifers 71.9

Balancer Sired

84.0

81.9

83.6

80.3

Gelbvieh Sired

89.5

80.3

89.3

71.2

Table 4. Averages for Weaning Weights and Carcass Weights Angus Sired

Average Adjusted Weaning Weights 514.6

Balancer Sired

516.3

781.3

Gelbvieh Sired

530.6

783.5

Average Carcass Weights 767.5

factor has moved from a 22.6 in 2006, to 21.2 in 2007, and is currently at 12.6 for 2009. Based on the data the American Gelbvieh Association has seen from proven Angus sires within our database this seems to be moving the adjustment in the correct direction.

In the example used above, the new yearling weight Across-Breed adjustment would mean that the Angus bull with a 65 YW would be comparable in performance, on average to a Gelbvieh or Balancer sire with an 77-78 YW EPD; not a Gelbvieh bull with an 87 YW EPD. This would then also be more consistent with the data produced from the SmartCross study as the Angus EPDs adjusted with the 2006 or 2007 MARC adjustments tended to over predict the performance of the Angus bulls used in the breeding program.

Oklahoma & Texas

Breeders

LeGRAND Randy & Pam Gallaway 15182 N. Midwest Blvd.

Mulhall, OK 73063 (C): 405-742-0774 rgallaway@itlnet.net www.GallawayGelbvieh.com Watch for our GALG Kevlar 18R3 calves coming in the spring of 2010

30 | October 2009

Ed LeGrand 809 S. Redlands Rd. Stillwater, OK 74074 405-747-6950 alane@c21global.com

Homozygous Black, Homozygous Polled Breeding Stock Available

Bulls & Heifers Private Treaty

Noel Senogles Gonzales, Texas 281-635-3416 www.TXCATTLE.com All Red, all Balancers.ÂŽ

News Nebraska Scientists Focus on Diet’s Impact on E. coli Colonization, Growth By focusing on how nutrition of ruminants affects colonization and growth of E. coli O157:H7, University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers hope to find a diet that limits the potentially deadly bacteria in feedlot cattle.

“The next step is to positively use nutrition because it’s logical that what you feed an animal affects its microbiology,” said Terry Klopfenstein, UNL animal scientist.

The Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources team expects the study to complement UNL’s earlier, nationally recognized E. coli research.

The team includes IANR Veterinary Scientists David Smith and Rod Moxley and Animal Scientists Galen Erickson and Klopfenstein.

UNL expanded its E. coli research program with support from Nebraska’s Legislature afer the massive recall of E. coli-contaminated ground

beef processed at Hudson Foods in Columbus in 1997.

Early research helped confirm that O157:H7 is common and widespread in feedlot cattle. Since E. coli is everywhere, eliminating it isn’t realistic. Limiting it at key times, such as before slaughter, is the goal, Smith said.

By studying what goes on in cattle’s digestive system, researchers will be able to study how what cattle are fed affects microorganisms in their gut. A goal is to soon add a rumen (gut) microbiologist to the team to study this.

Other UNL E. coli research tested several potential control methods for use in feedlots, including feeding a commercially available Lactobacillus acidophilus feed additive. UNL also worked closely with Canadian researchers on a vaccine. Feeding

the Lactobacillus acidophilus feed additive reduced fecal shedding of E. coli by about 35 percent, while the vaccination reduced shedding by about 65 percent. The Canadian company Bioniche has obtained approval to market the vaccine in Canada. The vaccination still is awaiting approval for commercial use in the United States.

Moxley said learning more about the gut will complement this earlier research and offer one more added protection for reducing E. coli in feedlot cattle.

“It’s like wearing your seat belt, not texting while driving and obeying the speed limit,” Moxley said. “Studying the gut will be an added step in making food safer.”

Knowing when and where E. coli is being shed in manure also is key, Smith said.

Klopfenstein said E. coli is found at the end of the large intestine, attached to the intestinal wall.

The team also continues to study how feeding ethanol byproducts affects fecal shedding of E. coli. Right now researchers cannot conclude that it increases or decreases fecal shedding.

“Distillers grains are 90 percent digested and absorbed by the time they get to the large intestine,” Klopfenstein said.

So, it’s not the digested grains, but the fractions that are left, the 10 percent that did not digest, that gets to the large intestine. Researchers are looking at how that would affect E. coli that are attached there.

“It could be those nutrients or it could be some sort of nutrient that is lacking in a competing organism,” he said.

The Profitpicture | 31

32 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 33

34 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 35

36 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 37

News Feedyard, Carcass Merit Data Prove Gelbvieh and Balancer Hit Mark

38 | October 2009

Results of feeder cattle harvested through Gelbvieh Profit Partners (GPP) prove that Gelbviehinfluenced and Balancer sired feeder cattle have hit the mark for balanced performance both in the feedyard and on the rail. During 2009, GPP harvested approximately 1,100 Gelbvieh and Balancer cross feeder cattle and collected data on both feedyard performance and carcass merit.

“Several pens of Gelbvieh Profit Partners feeder cattle harvested this year exceeded industry average in Quality Grade with at least 72 percent of the cattle in those pens grading Choice or better,” said Slim Cook, Chief Operating Officer for Gelbvieh Profit Partners.

The GPP feeder cattle also hit the mark for Yield Grade. A pen of 122 weaned heifers from Washington, fed at Beef Northwest in Quincy, Wash., went to the rail with almost all Yield Grade 1s, 2s, and 3s. Thirty-four percent received Yield Grade 1 or 2 premiums. Even more noticeable is only 8 percent were discounted for Yield Grade 4 or 5 carcasses.

“This is significant as the industry has experienced numerous times this summer when up to 2025 percent of the packing plants harvest has been Yield Grade 4 or 5,” commented Cook.

Setting the pace in feedyard performance were 74 weaned steers from Colorado, fed at Rock River Feeders in Rock Valley, Iowa. These steers gained 3.57 pounds per day, had a feed conversion of 6.05 and fed for 61.45 cents per pound of gain, including interest.

Another pen that hit the mark was a set of 138 backgrounded steers from Kansas, fed at Hays Feeders of Hays, Kan. These steers had an average daily gain of 3.28 pounds per day and an average dressing percentage of 64.13. With 72 percent grading Choice and 65 percent Yield Grade 1s and 2s, these steers rewarded the cattle feeder with a premium of $5.14 per cwt on a live weight basis.

News There is no dispute that the industry seeks cattle that can grade with a high percentage of Choice carcasses. As the economy recovers from the recession, the demand for Choice beef can only increase.

However, Cook points out, the industry needs to provide these Choice cattle without the waste and inefficiencies associated with Yield Grade 4 or 5 carcasses.

that can grade Choice,” said Cook.

These genetics will provide the cattle feeder the opportunity to benefit from the added performance in the feedyard, and still have the opportunity to

collect the premiums from Choice grading cattle, without being substantially docked for the Yield Grade 4 or 5’s. Certainly an ideal combination in a volatile, margin based industry.

“The Gelbvieh cross or Balancer sired feeder animal has illustrated that it can have enhanced performance, feed efficiency and growth in the feedyard, yet still provide a high cutability carcass that can grade Choice,” said Cook.

“The Gelbvieh cross or Balancer sired feeder animal has illustrated that it can have enhanced performance, feed efficiency and growth in the feedyard, yet still provide a high cutability carcass

The Profitpicture | 39

Research Roundup SmartCross Part 2:

Creating Value in Today’s Feeder Cattle Market August and September are busy calf marketing months. On any given day tens if not hundreds of thousands of calves can be marketed between sale barns and video auctions. Watching those sales live on the internet, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the average producer to differentiate why one group tops the market over another. In years past it could be as simple as a like color hided group verses a mixed group or a group promoted with a pre-conditioning, Vac-45 type program. Source and Age verification and natural programs, while once done by a few producers are more commonplace throughout the sector. Less and less we are seeing discounts placed on color and more premiums placed on quality and performance. In many cases though, that information is in the hands of the order buyer not in the hands of the producer attempting to get top dollar for his or her product. So as today’s U.S. beef industry becomes more and more information driven how can a commercial cow-calf producer quantify and market the added value that is present in this year’s calf crop?

In the SmartCross Part 1 article on pages 28, 29 and 31, the results of a recent research project completed by the American Gelbvieh Association were presented. Through collecting 40 | October 2009

carcass data on each of the animals in the project, one of the byproducts of this research was the ability to look at the value created by the genetics used on this commercial cow herd. Many producers that market their calves at weaning have routinely rated having a live calf on the ground as their number one priority in sire selection. The challenge with this thinking is that downstream in the beef chain the value of that calf is predicated more on how the animal performs in the feedlot and measures on the rail. So for a cowcalf producer, promoting the value of his product to those downstream partners may be the key to having those market topping lots in the future.

The question becomes can we still select sires that will minimize calving issues such that a cow gives birth to a thriving calf, breeds back easily the next breeding cycle and can also produce calves that have the genetics for growth and carcass traits to satisfy each of those downstream partners, the feeder and the packer. We believe the answer is yes and in part includes using Gelbvieh genetics to insure performance and profitability.

Gelbvieh carcass value adds profit In good or tough economic times, a Choice Yield Grade 2 carcass is an industry standard and a worthwhile production goal. An 800-pound Choice Yield Grade 2 carcass in today’s market is worth $70.00 more than a 750-pound carcass with the same grade profile.

“I think that so many cattlemen

have become focused on the grid premium per head that they’ve lost track of how many dollars they’ve left on the table because of light carcass weights,” said Stuart Jarvis, past AGA Board President and breeder from Phillipsburg, Kansas.

Finding the genetics that can meet the target of Yield Grade, total pounds and an acceptable Quality Grade may be the ticket to value added marketing in the years to come. In order to do this the bull buyer has to consider birth weight and calving ease but in balance with these other traits in order to add this value to their program.

One straightforward means of accomplishing this is using the American Gelbvieh Association’s carcass value EPD (CV EPD).

The AGA uses the CV EPD to calculate carcass parameters on a level that reflects true dollar value of carcasses as cattle are priced in real world grid marketing. The CV EPD is an index of four single trait carcass EPDs: carcass weight, marbling, days to finish and rib eye area.

Carcass weight a critical component What sets Gelbvieh apart from other breeds is the inclusion of the carcass weight trait when calculating the CV EPD. Weight drives value. Gelbvieh cattle, selected for carcass value, will increase grid premium potential in terms of carcass weight, Quality Grade, Yield Grade and reduce “out” penalties.

Data from the SmartCross research project showed Gelbvieh influenced cattle resulted in

significantly more dollars in both a high and low Choice/Select spread marketing scenario over Angus sired cattle. When based on Quality and Yield premium/ discounts and carcass weight in both scenarios, Gelbvieh-sired cattle added $53.17/head in a low spread and $36.67/head in a high spread. (See Figure 1)

A switch to marketing genetics not coat color The proponents of straight breeding Angus like to emphasize quality grid premiums as their breed strength and justification of their breeding program. But that mentality may have run its course.

Feeder calves, with Continental breed influence and the potential to hit the mark on Quality and Yield Grades, are in demand at feeder calf markets across the country.

“We’ve seen a shift in the type of feeder calves in demand in our sale barn,” says Jerry Grund, Kansas breeder and current AGA Board members on the feeder calf trade in Oakley, Kansas. “The cattle that exhibit a bit more stretch and muscle are favored over the calves that appear to be straight bred Angus. In the past that wasn’t the case.”

If information is the key to marketing success at weaning, how does the average producer unlock the door? Unfortunately the nature of our business has created a Hatfield and McCoy relationship between the cow-calf producer and the feeder. Though in the end both would benefit, currently information typically doesn’t flow back far enough in the chain to really provide the impact

Research Roundup

where it needs to, the guy buying the genetics to use for next year’s product. Talk to any producer that has retained ownership on a group of steers through the feedlot or participated in a steer test with carcass data provided and they will tell you it was an eye opening experience. Most, once they had data in hand will step back and reevaluate what is working and not working in their program and make adjustment from a sire selection perspective accordingly.

What steps can the producer take to compete for top dollars in these types of markets? If you don’t have access to that data it is in your best interest to work towards obtaining it. Here are several ways a commercial cow-calf producer can obtain this data: • If you have consistently worked with a feedlot year in and year out, find out what it would take to get some group data back on your calves. Do you need to retain a minimal interest in a pen of steers or is there some other cooperative means of obtaining some performance and harvest data on the calves through the feedlot? It may be

as simple as offering to pay for the cost of collecting the carcass data on an individual basis, typically less than $10 per head.

in the past has been predominately British with emphasis on calving ease. This operation wants to retain females with a target of a 1300 – 1400 pound mature cow.

If we use the rule of thumb that a steer will reach a finish weight that equals mature weight of his momma (1400 pounds) with roughly a 62.5 dressing percentage, this would translate to an 875 pound hot carcass weight, assuming proper management to reach genetic potential. In considering the carcass data in this scenario, the challenges are lower carcass weights, smaller rib eye sizes on average in the 9 to 10 inch ranch, and Yield Grade profiles with a higher percentage of 4s and 5s.

With an eye on increasing profit by adding pounds with this group, the goal would be to select a sire(s) with the genetics to adjust this group’s YG profiles to a higher percentage of 1s and

2s by moving the average carcass weight closer 800- 850 pounds and rib eye size to 12-13” and keep the percentage Choice around 75 percent or greater to optimize some of the grid premiums. One way to achieve this goal is to use to select a group of sires with the calving ease and birth weights that have worked in the past and add a consideration for carcass value.

A desirable sire CV EPD would have a value above $8.00 to as high as $20. In addition, select a sire with a carcass weight EPD in the range of 5 – 20; remembering that a higher carcass weight sire is going to produce carcass weights in the high 800 pounds. Rib eye EPDs in the breed average range .05 to .10 will pull the rib eye profile closer to a 13” ribeye. Finally as we increase growth and rib eye size it becomes more difficult to keep those Continued on page 43

• Participate in a state sponsored carcass merit test program.

Many states provide this as a function of their land grant extension outreach.

• Work with a seedstock producer that has carcass data on his genetics.

The ultimate goal would be to find a benchmark for your program and the data to make changes to hit the desired target for your market.

Using the Gelbvieh carcass value EPD in sire selection Now that you are armed with data regarding your program or the sires you have used in the past it is time to put the Gelbvieh carcass value EPD to work to tweak your program to meet your goals. Let us look at a couple of possible scenarios and some sire suggestions for each (see Table 1, page 43).

In Scenario 1 the sire genetics The Profitpicture | 41

News

Gelbvieh Feeder Calves Top Video Market

Bryon Powles A set of Angus-Gelbvieh cross feeder steers topped the market at the Superior Livestock Video Royale XVII Sale held July 27-31 in Winnemucca, Nev. Broadcast live from the Winnemucca Convention Center, the video auction had producers from 27 states consign over 238,000 head of calves, feeder cattle and breeding stock, according to Superior Livestock Auction.

Powles Gelbvieh Ranch, Bingham, Neb., consigned a set of 100 weaned steer calves at a base weight of 490 pounds that sold for $124.00, topping the market of that sale. The April born feeder steers

42 | October 2009

were sold with a one percent shrink for delivery in early November.

A second set of 184 Powles Ranch Angus-Gelbvieh weaned steers weighing 530 pounds sold for $115.00, which was just shy of the $116.50 market high for that region and weight range.

The Powles Gelbvieh Ranch breeding program fully utilizes the benefits of the Angus-Gelbvieh cross in their commercial herd.

The cowherd consists of Angus and Angus-Gelbvieh cross cows that are bred to a combination of Balancer™ and Angus bulls, said Bryon Powles.

“We maintain a cross of Angus and Gelbvieh by breeding to Balancer and Angus bulls and taking advantage of hybrid vigor,” commented Powles. “With straight Angus, you lose the hybrid vigor. By using this genetic combination of herd sires, we add growth to the calves.”

Besides having the right combination of genetics, the Powles have been able to get a premium for their calves by selling steers that are guaranteed to be weaned at least 30 days at time of delivery.

“We’ve been selling weaned calves for the past three or four years and have noticed a price premium for a little bit of extra effort,” said Powles.

Dustin Rippe, CattleFax analyst, attributes the market success of Powles feeder calves to several factors.

“This is a prime example of what the combination of good genetics

and flexibility of a video auction.

According to Bryon, the video auction offers several benefits including eliminating any sale barn stress on the calves, the opportunity to sell early when the market is high, and the comfort of watching the sale from home. In addition the Powles like the fact that with a video auction they have been able to develop a relationship with buyers.

“We maintain a cross of Angus and Gelbvieh by breeding to Balancer and Angus bulls and taking advantage of hybrid vigor,” commented Powles. “With straight Angus, you lose the hybrid vigor. ” and a tremendous reputation can have on market price,” said Rippe.

“Powles calves are meeting what the industry is looking for; the right genetics from a Continental-British breed cross can produce premiums.

Plus, they sold at the top of the seasonal market.”

Consigning to Superior Livestock Auction for the past 10 years, the Powles Ranch enjoys the convenience

“With the video auction, you deal directly with the buyers. When the sale is over, you know where your calves are going,” said Powles.

For anyone considering using a video auction market, Bryon recommends it. He suggests that if you are comfortable predicting the weight of the calves to try it one year and see what a difference it can make.

Research Roundup

Continued from page 41

Table 1. Scenarios of harvest data and desirable sire EPDs to meet breeding program goals.

Cow herd breed profile Scenario 1British bred Scenario 2Continental/ British cross

Average Carcass Weight 725

875

Percent Yield Grade 1s & 2s 20%

80%

carcasses with the choice profile.

So while a good portion of the Quality Grade genetics can come from the cow side of the equation we would want to choose a sire with breed average marbling EPDs of -.04 or above.

Scenario 2 presents a slightly different profile as the herd is probably closer to a 5/8

Percent Yield Grade 3 30%

20%

Percent Yield Grade 4s & 5s 50%

0%

– 3/8 Continental–British mix as crossbreeding has been in place for several years. The challenge in this group is keeping the Quality Grade in that High Select/Low Choice range and not increasing carcass weights to an amount that causes a higher percentage of out penalties or rib eyes sizes to reach the 16+ inch range which is less acceptable

Quality Grade

Desirable EPD Profile for Sire Selection

85% Choice

CV: $8-$20 CW: 5-20 REA: .05-.10

35% Choice

CV: $6 CW: 5-15 MB: 0+

on the retail side.

The breeding solution for Scenario 2 is to select a sire with a slightly lower CV EPD, around $6.00 and a carcass weight EPD range of 5 to 15. The desirable rib eye EPD for this sire would be at breed average of .05 to .10. To correct the Quality Grade profile of this group, a higher selection

emphasis should be placed on marbling by choosing a sire with a marbling EPD of 0 or better.

We have all heard the old adage that there is as much variation within a breed as there is between breeds. The same is true of Gelbvieh genetics. With a defined set of breeding goals or carcass targets in mind, the AGA member producing Gelbvieh and Balancer bulls for use in the commercial sector of the industry can find you a bull to put your program on the path to meeting these goals. Once on that path these producers can help you adjust your program as your genetics change in your foundation cow herd. Take a second look at Gelbvieh genetics.

Add pounds. Add profit. Add Gelbvieh.

The Profitpicture | 43

Crossbreeding – Back to the Future Dave Daley D. A. Daley California State University, Chico The following is a compilation of papers presented by Dr. Daley at the 2006 and 2009 Beef Industry Federation Conventions outlining the benefits of heterosis in today’s beef industry. Dr. Daley serves as Associate Dean for the College of Agriculture at California State University, Chico, where he also directs the beef program.

Three years ago I was invited to address BIF regarding heterosis and how we have either ignored or forgotten the value of systematic crossbreeding to

improve profitability in beef cattle production systems. In the interim period since that presentation, I am even more convinced that this incredible genetic resource has been under utilized and devalued.

At a time when all of our input costs have increased dramatically and the value of cow efficiency is paramount, we continue to find arguments against using crossbreeding primarily centered on the concepts of consistency and marketability. Clearly, there are specific instances in the commercial cattle sector where heterosis has been used effectively. I would argue, however, that the potential is far from realized. In fact, in the past few years, we seem to have drifted away from crossbreeding to more traditional straightbred programs that intend to focus on phenotypic consistency and end product, but

not necessarily on profitability.

Heterosis (hybrid vigor) is the amount (percent) by which the crossbred average exceeds the average of the two (or more) parental purebreds for a measured trait. From an economic perspective, the most important gains are made in lowly heritable traits that are often difficult to measure. Traits like calf livability, survival to weaning, conception rate, age at puberty and many others, all benefit from heterosis.

The individual change in one trait is small, but the cumulative effect on total productivity and lifetime productivity is tremendous, ranging well over 20% (Taylor, 1994).

In this paper, I do not believe it is necessary to revisit the scientific evidence regarding hybrid vigor, but more importantly to address the failure of our industry to

effectively utilize the powerful tool that nature has provided. For some reason, poultry and pork have seemed to figure out how to take advantage of genetic diversity and produce a consistent product. The beef industry has not done so on a widespread basis.

After participating in this industry at many levels (educator, cow-calf and stocker producer, purebred breeder), I thought it appropriate to summarize ten reasons that we have failed to capitalize on this important genetic attribute (see page 53).

As I review this list, I am convinced that the primary drawback (among all of the others), is #3…the focus on measuring outputs rather than inputs. With a few notable exceptions, all of the individual animal traits we measure reflect “bigger, faster, more.”

Ten Reasons Crossbreeding has been Ignored or Forgotten 1) A cultural bias that clearly reflects “purebreds are better!” if for no other reason than they have a registration paper. Society, at many levels, rewards purity. Is your dog registered? Does your quarter horse gelding have papers? How far can you trace your ancestry?

Please don’t misunderstand---there is certainly value associated with that record, particularly our ability to track performance and predict genetic potential of purebreds. But being purebred should not be a presumption of superiority.

2) Our predilection for single trait selection focusing on “bigger is better.” This industry seems to choose a trait of importance and then put an inordinate amount of pressure on that trait, ignoring genetic antagonisms. If a 90 pound yearling EPD is good, 100 must be better! It is intuitive! We have already done frame, growth (weight of all kinds), milk, and carcass traits (both ribeye and marbling). I sometimes have to ask myself, “so what is the trait of the year this time?” It is akin to the “flavor of the month” at the local ice cream shop. And because often have chosen relatively highly heritable traits, we have not needed to crossbreed to achieve those goals. The subtle, and cumulative improvement that heterosis provides does not lend itself to maximums.

3) We have decided that measuring outputs is more meaningful than measuring inputs, as well as easier to do. It is certainly easier to measure calf performance on an individual basis, rather than all

44 | October 2009

costs associated with that production. “I can weigh them at weaning quicker than I can determine differences in treatment costs over time.”

4) Uniform phenotypes for qualitative traits (color) have a distinct and real marketing advantage that is difficult to ignore. That does not mean you cannot have uniformity of color within a crossbreeding program, but the widespread and indiscriminate planning (or lack thereof) of many crossbreeding programs certainly gave us some interesting marketing challenges. Generally, it is easier to produce a uniform color in straightbred programs.

5) Heterosis is very difficult to visualize and even more difficult to measure. Because heterosis is expressed as a small net positive in many traits we do not know it when we see it. Slight changes in morbidity, age at puberty, conception rate and significant changes in longevity are not easily observed. However, we all know when calves gain faster in the feedlot.

6) The presentation of complicated crossbreeding systems as a “normal practice” to diverse cattle operations, especially the countless small beef herds in the United States. Many of the systems that we teach as part of standard animal breeding or beef production courses have very limited application in the real world.

Most beef herds are too small to implement the “standard systems”.

Ten Reasons continued 7) Our penchant for telling people how to modify their environment in order to “get heavier calves, higher percent calf crop and more total pounds”, rather than how to increase net return. How many new supplementation programs can you develop in order to get your heifers bred or wean bigger calves? In fact, we can recommend programs for non-cycling females…..you just have to pay for it and then pass those genetics to the next generation! Heterosis provides some improvement in traits at relatively little cost. However, we have obscured the opportunity for producers to focus on those traits, because they are so busy masking differences with artificial environments.

8) Historically, there has been active resistance to crossbreeding from some traditional marketing outlets, some purebred producers and (in some cases) breed associations. I would like to commend many of the associations who, quite recently, have taken the risk of suggesting where their animals fit most effectively in crossbreeding programs.

And certainly, the glamour traits of yearling weight, ribeye area, and marbling---have accelerated at a rapid pace. You can make very rapid genetic progress in these highly heritable traits by direct selection within a breed.

Therefore, many people fail to see the value of crossbreeding. The value in crossbreeding is often underestimated because it has a small positive effect on many different traits that are lowly heritable and difficult to measure.

Frequently, maternal heterosis (the value of the crossbred cow) is about decreasing inputs as much as it is about increasing output.

For example, longevity, livability and disease resistance are traits that impact the input side of the equation as much as the output.

Our industry has been on a mission to improve product quality and quantity, focusing on carcass traits.

We finally were paying attention to our consumers---a good thing!

Unfortunately, that effort has been on a per animal basis rather than per unit of input. Do we ever ask ourselves how our long term selection programs affect the profitability of commercial producers?

Although direct heterosis (heterosis of the calf) is important, we must remember that the true value is maternal hybrid vigor—the incredible value of the crossbred cow. If the data in year three is consistent, it appears there will be

an economic advantage in vertically coordinated beef production systems from direct heterosis of the F1. However, the most important economic return will be when the crossbred cow enters the production system. In particular, the potential increase in lifetime productivity and longevity are key to maximum sustained profit per unit of input.

In academia, it seems that we tend to want to make the simple complex. The commercial beef business is faced with a very difficult challenge to maintain long term profitability and viability.

There are countless battles (unrelated to cattle breeding) in order to survive and be profitable in the long term. We need to keep cattle breeding simple. We have wonderful within breed selection tools (EPD’s). We have the ability to capitalize on breed differences and capture both heterosis and breed complementarily through crossbreeding. Designing simple, long term breeding programs to capture direct and maternal heterosis, while capitalizing on maternal and terminal lines, is a significant step in attempting to maximize sustained profit.

References

Cundiff, L V (1970).

Experimental results on crossbreeding cattle for beef production. J. Anim. Sci 30:694.

Gregory, K E, Swiger, L A, Koch,

9) Inappropriate use of breed diversity. Nothing undermines crossbreeding more quickly than the unplanned “Heinz 57” or “Breed of the Month Club” approach. For those who were willing to experiment in crossbreeding, there was often very poor planning of the combination of breeds and the selection within those breeds.

10) Our industry and University systems have focused on individual trait measurement for over fifty years. We have done a very poor job of incorporating real world economics into our models. We have EPD’s for a plethora of traits….and we are adding more!

Economic indices are starting to catch up, but we are still behind.

Has anyone thought about measuring return per acre or return on investment? We have had a disconnect between agricultural economists and animal science that has not been well bridged. We tend to think lineally rather than laterally, which has reduced the application of innovative crossbreeding.

R M, Sumption, L J. Rowden, W W and Ingalls, J J E (1965). Heterosis in preweaning traits of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci 24:21.

Gregory, K E, Koch, R M, Laster, DB, Cundiff, L V and Smith, G M (1978d), Heterosis and breed maternal and transmitted effects in beef cattle 3: Growth traits in steers.

J. Anim. Sci 47:1054.

Ritchie, H.D., B.D. Banks, D.D. Buskirk, J.D. Cowley and D.R. Hawkins. 1999. Crossbreeding systems for beef cattle. Michigan State Univ. Extension Bulletin E2701.

Taylor, R E, Field T G. Beef Production and Management Decisions. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. 1994.

Complete Dispersal

Cedric Raine Gelbvieh

Red Polled Fullbloods & Purebreds Offering 140 Head

H 65 H 30 H 30 H 5 H 10

Cows (Purebred & Fullblood) Bred Heifers Registered Spring ‘09 Heifer Calves Select Spring ‘09 Bull Calves Fall Born Bulls & Heifers

Plus the Herd Bulls

Friday, November 6, 2009 • 1:00 pm at the Sioux Falls Regional Livestock, Worthing, SD

with special consignments from Crooks Red Angus & Gelbvieh (Sue Crooks – Cedric’s Daughter)

After 30 years of breeding Quality Red Gelbvieh with a predominantly “Closed Herd” – it is time to put the entire herd up for auction

www.mettlersales.com for catalog

Cedric Raine 20223 481st Ave., White, SD 57276 (605) 832-3961 (Sue Crooks)

28884 480th Ave., Canton, SD

(605) 987-2114 jmettler@valyousat.net

The Profitpicture | 45

Order Buyers Set the Market Pace

By Mark Parker

Frank Brazle

“Calves have to have some bone and body to perform.

The premium is still there for growthy black cattle but the key word there is ‘growthy.’

They must have some bone and body to bring a top price,” says Frank Brazle.

46 | October 2009

A gate swings wide and through it pours a set of calves that take a lap or two around the ring. With their weight flashing on the wall, the auctioneer begins his chant.

And in a matter of mere seconds, the order buyer has a decision to make: Are these the kind of calves the client wants? Are they healthy? Will

they grow well on grass, perform in the feedlot and grade on the rail?

Will they make money?

Frank Brazle knows the job well. He’s purchased cattle for backgrounders, for feedlots and for his own grazing operation. As a former Kansas State University animal scientist, he has also studied the issues from a researcher’s point of view and he’ll readily tell you that there is a long list of reckonings to be made. One particular issue,

however, is square one.

“The first concern most people have sitting around the sale ring is health—health, health, health,” asserts the Chanute, Kan., cattleman and order buyer. “If I’m worried about the health of your cattle you’re in trouble because I’m not going to give as much for them.”

Brazle acknowledges that many feeder calf buyers have excellent receiving programs and they’re pretty darn good at straightening up a set of health-compromised calves. Still, he points out, those calves are an investment and buyers operating on tight margins have to allow for lost performance in the sick pen and the potential for death loss.

And that means they’re going to pencil in those grim outcomes on the front-end—on what they’re willing to give for a set of calves.

“Anybody who’s handled very many stressed cattle understands they can blow up in your face so if a buyer has some assurance that health issues will be minimal, he’s willing to pay a little more.”

With health assessed, Brazle looks for indicators of performance.

“If you’ve followed enough of these calves from weaning, on to grass and finally to the feedlot, you get a pretty good idea of what type of calves will do well,” he says. “Calves have to have some bone and body to perform. The premium is still there for growthy black cattle but the key word there is ‘growthy.’ They must have some bone and body to bring a top price. We’re seeing some black cattle that are too short and there’s not enough to them. If I was a cow-calf man, I’d probably be trying to produce black crossbred calves to get the market benefit of black cattle as well as the heterosis effect. Gelbvieh would be a good choice for that

cross, especially if you could offer the numbers to give buyers the chance to put together a load of that kind of cattle.”

Slim Cook, operations manager for Gelbvieh Profit Partners which buys feeder calves all over the country and places them on feed, has ushered plenty of Gelbvieh influence cattle through the feedlot phase. “I really like the Gelbvieh influence on English-type cows,” he says. “It’s going to enhance the cutability of the calves with not as many yield grade 4s and 5s and still exceed the industry averages for Choice.

Gelbvieh and Balancer programs have exceeded our expectations for performance and it’s really driven home the point that there is just no substitute for good genetics—it’s proven time and time again.”

While quality is always at a premium, Brazle acknowledges that he gets “all kinds of orders” as backgrounders and feeders search for cattle that will work in their specific programs. The optimum weight desired by those buyers, he points out, depends to a large degree on the time of year. Having calves weaned, however, always adds to their desirability.

“There’s going to be more of a tendency toward lighter cattle in the fall,” he says, “when people are looking for 4-weights for wheat pasture. For going to grass cattle in the spring, the market will normally be looking for something a little heavier. The advantage to offering weaned calves, though, is always there. Knowing that a set of calves has been weaned has a significant value.”

Noting that buyers have different preferences, Brazle discusses the impact lot size has in the sale ring: “I’ll buy a lot of calves three and four at a time but, unless the guy I’m buying for is nearby, I still have to get a load. Some feedlots, though, don’t want put-together cattle so that takes you out of the market for those small lots. The reason people prefer larger lots isn’t just for convenience sake. It’s because they can put together a set of similar type cattle, with the same

background. They can be handled all the same and you probably will have a lot better idea of what to expect out of them.”

Taking as much of the guesswork out of the equation as

possible is something Brazle feels cow-calf operators could benefit from when the gavel falls.

“The more you know that’s accurate, the better off you are as a buyer,” he concludes.

“More information makes the performance of a set of calves more predictable and that’s what you’re doing when you bid on them— you’re predicting how those cattle will perform.”

The Profitpicture | 47

Gelbvieh Influence Calves a Bumper Crop for Missouri Producer

Jack McGinnis

By Mark Parker When Jack McGinnis puts in a corn crop on his central Missouri farm, he starts with quality seed genetics and strives to make sure all the ingredients are in place for optimum production.

When it comes to cattle, the La Monte, Mo., producer’s strategy isn’t really much different.

“You’ve got to have the kind of cattle that can really take advantage of your grass and your other forage resources,” he says, “and then you have to provide them with a quality diet. Good cattle and good forage work handin-hand.”

With plenty of acres of row crops to tend to, McGinnis isn’t very interested in highmaintenance cattle. Calving 48 | October 2009

ease is absolutely essential and hardy cows that stay healthy and productive are highly valued.

That’s the kind of cow herd he’s been developing for more than a couple of decades.

In 1984, McGinnis bought his first Gelbvieh bull. Since that time, he’s developed the herd into the kind of cows that work best for him. All of them are at least halfblood Gelbvieh and quite a few fullbloods graze his pastures.

His ideal terminal calf is ¾ Gelbvieh, ¼ Angus, black and polled. The “black” part, he’ll tell you, is simply a nod to the feeder calf marketplace. If he were retaining ownership, he adds, a good red calf would be just fine with him.

To keep it all in line, McGinnis utilizes Balancer bulls, which can be ¼ to ¾ Gelbvieh and ¼ to ¾ Angus or Red Angus.

“Balancers simplify my crossbreeding program,” he explains. “The system allows me to stay pretty much where I want to be because I can tweak the percentage of the Balancer bulls if need be.”

The bulls are also selected for low birth weight balanced against above average weaning weight and carcass traits. “I could probably have higher weaning weights,” he acknowledges. “Back when I was

pulling a lot of calves I’d have some pretty big ones by fall—the problem is that some of them didn’t survive to get to that point. Give a me a healthy live calf any day.”

It’s the cows that are the heart and soul of the operation.

McGinnis has had ample time to admire the productivity of his Gelbvieh influence cows because some of them have been around for a very long time.

“I really appreciate the longevity in these cows,” he asserts. “If I don’t have to replace as many each year

Left and Above: Central Missouri cattleman Jack McGinnis relies on Gelbvieh influence to keep his cow herd productive and to deliver the kind of calves feeders want.

Jack McGinnis has been relying on Gelbvieh and Balancer bulls since 1984 and credits them with helping him develop a productive cow herd that can take advantage of his forage management to deliver the kind of calves the market wants.

Solid genetics, forage management and a preconditioning program help La Monte, Mo., producer Jack McGinnis make the most of his calf crop.

that means I have more calves to sell. We’ve got several cows that are 14 years old and still productive— they really hang in there. We don’t cull based on age alone. We’ll cull a broken mouth cow but if an older cow preg-checks and she’s breeding back on time and she’s giving me a good calf, she stays.”

To take full advantage of superior genetics, McGinnis preconditions the calf crop, participating in Missouri’s ShowMe Select White Tag program that establishes a protocol for identifying prescribed health and handling procedures.

“The calves always sell up toward the top of the market and a lot of the heifers sell as replacements,” he says. “There are some other guys around here that bring in Gelbvieh-cross calves and I think that also helps attract buyers.”

At Windsor Livestock Auction in Windsor, Mo., owner Rodney Drenon sees a real advantage to the preconditioning program and adds that Gelbvieh influence calves command bidding respect.

“Health is a very big selling point now,” he explains. “Weaned calves that have had two rounds of vaccinations can command an $8-12 advantage over non-weaned, nonvaccinated calves of similar quality.

“Good Gelbvieh-cross calves also sell very well,” Drenon adds.

“We have customers looking for that kind of genetics and when you have heifers of the quality that Jack produces, it’s going to add more value because some cow-calf men are going to take them home as replacements. That can add up to a $5-10 premium over heifers going to the feedlot.”

Fescue is the base forage but McGinnis has been creative in extending the grazing season in terms of both quality and quantity. Lespedeza and ladino are interseeded on a portion of the fescue acres and three fields provide rotational grazing with a succession of haygrazer, Red River crabgrass, turnips and wheat. The haygrazer, McGinnis explains, comes on first and, as it is grazed down, the crabgrass becomes productive.

In late summer, he no-tills wheat

into the stand and then over-seeds with purple top turnip seed. The system helps keep hay feeding to a minimum, he adds, as well as keeping the nutritional plane high.

To ensure that the cow herd is in top shape for calving and rebreeding, McGinnis feeds corn silage for 30 to 45 days prior to calving.

“I don’t want my cows to be overly fat but I believe in keeping them in good condition,” he explains. “I think they stay healthier and it keeps my conception rates up.”

Keeping the cattle in the very best position to make full use of their genetic makeup is the overriding theme for McGinnis. Just

like the tall corn and lush soybean fields that patchwork the farm, the Gelbvieh influence calves are managed to reach their full potential.

And when Jack McGinnis loads them up and takes them to town, he’s hauling in another bumper crop.

The Profitpicture | 49

Places to Be October 2009 Oct. 3 Jumping Cow Gelbvieh Spirit of the West Sale,

Ramah, CO Oct. 3 Pick of the Fall...You’ll Like ‘em All Bull & Commercial

Female Sale, Marshall, TX Oct. 8 4-H Farms Open House and Field Day, hosted by Jay and

Sadie Heetland, Lincoln, MS Oct. 9 Pan American Gelbvieh Show, Dallas, TX, www.bigtex.com Oct. 10 Ozarks Pride Production Sale, Stella, MO Oct. 10 Edisto Forage Bull Test Sale, Blackville, SC Oct. 10 Flying H Genetics “Grown on Grass” & “Show Me

Mamas” Missouri Fall Sale, Joplin, MO Oct. 11 Judd Ranch Cow Power Sale, Pomona, KS Oct. 13 Johnson Cattle Company Partners Select Bull Sale,

Happy, TX Oct. 16 NILE Gelbvieh Sale, Billings, MT Oct. 17 Fall Classic Gelbvieh Sale, (KY & TN), Knoxville Livestock

Center, Knoxville, TN Oct. 17 Seedstock Plus Bull & Female Sale, Joplin Regional

Stockyards, Carthage, MO Oct. 19 J Bar M Gelbvieh & Hartland Farm Ozark Pride

Production Sale Oct. 20-22 Sunbelt Ag Expo, Moultrie, GA (www.sunbeltexpo.com) Oct. 21-24 National FFA Convention, Indianapolis, IN (www.ffa.org) Oct. 28 American Royal Gelbvieh Ring of Gold Show

November 2009 Nov. 6

Nov. 7

Nov. 7

Nov. 7 Nov. 14

Cedric Raine Gelbvieh Complete Dispersal, Sioux Falls Regional Livestock, Worthing, SD HAGA Fall Female Sale & Show-Me Futurity, Springfield, MO 3rd Annual Maternal Edge Commercial Female Sale, Cross Plains, TN Professional Beef Genetics Open House Bull Sale, Montrose, MO C-Cross Cattle Company Fall Bull & Female Sale, Biscoe, NC

Blackhawk Cattle

Fall Consignments: October 17

November 21

Seedstock Plus Fall Bull & Female Sale,

Gelbvieh Breeders of Iowa Sale,

Carthage, MO

Skyler Martin 1200 S. Blackhawk Road Oregon, IL 61061-9762 815•732•7583

50 | October 2009

Colfax, IA

Member

Nov. 16

Nov. 21 Nov. 28

Nov. 28

Greater Montana Select Female Sale (Held at the NILE), Billings, MT Gelbvieh Breeders of Iowa Female Sale, Colfax, IA Kansas/Nebraska Gelbvieh Association’s “Pick of the Herds” Sale, Salina, KS Poker City Ranch Mature Cow Dispersal Sale (in conjunction with KS / NE Sale), Salina, KS

December 2009 Dec. 3, Dec. 5 Dec. 12

Haglund Annual Bull Sale, Brockway, MT Maternal Building Block Sale II, Brush, CO Eagle Pass Ranch Replacement Female Sale, Highmore, SD

January 2010 Jan. 9

Jan. 9 Jan. 10 Jan. 10 Jan. 11

American Gelbvieh Association (AGA) Convention and Annual Meeting, Denver, CO Breeder’s Choice Bull Futurity AGA Gelbvieh and Balancer Pen Bull Shows, NWSS, Denver, CO NWSS Gelbvieh and Balancer Junior Heifer Show, Denver, CO National Gelbvieh and Balancer Show, Denver, CO

February 2010 Feb. 26

“Pot of Gold” Gelbvieh, Angus and Balancer Bull Sale, Olathe, CO

Editor’s Note: If you have sale or event information for this listing,, please email the information to jennifers@gelbvieh.org. This includes tours, expos, field days and other Gelbvieh events. Places to Be at www.gelbvieh.org contains additional contact information for each event.

Ad Index 3 G Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Green Hills Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . 35

NS Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 36

Schroeder Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Adkins Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

H & H Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Oswald Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Seedstock Plus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Arp Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Haglund Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 49

Paulsen Cattle Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Bar Arrow Cattle Company . 17, 33

Hart Farm Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . 33

Seuferer Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Performance Feeds LLC . . . . . . . 16

Bar IV Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Hartland Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Springhaven Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Bar T Bar Ranch, Inc.. . . . . . . . 7, 32

Pine Ridge Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Heart of America Gelbvieh Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Plateau Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Swanson Cattle Company. . . 34, 41

Beastrom Gelbvieh Ranch. . . . . . 35 Blackhawk Cattle Company. . . . 50 Boehler Gelbvieh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Bow K Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Brandywine Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Cattlemen’s Connection. . . . . . . .37 C-Cross Cattle Company . . . 10, 35

Hickory Hill Farms . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Hill Top Haven Farm. . . . . . . . . . 36 Hojer Gelbvieh Ranch. . . . . . . . . 35 H-Squared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 39 J & D Kerstiens, LLC. . . . . . . . . . 32 J & K Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Poker City Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Pope Farms Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . 34 Post Rock Cattle Company. . . . . . 9 Pritchard Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Professional Beef Genetics . . . . . 43 Ridge Top Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Swenson Gelbvieh . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Taubenheim Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . 34 The 88 Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Thorstenson Gelbvieh. . . . . . 36, 54 TNT Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Treble W Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Cedar Top Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

J Bar M Gelbvieh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Rippe Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Triple K Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Cedric Raine Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . 45

Judd Ranch, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ritchey Livestock ID. . . . . . . . . . 19

VanWinkle Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chimney Butte Ranch. . . . . . . . . 35

Jumping Cow Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . 55

RJar Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

White Brothers Gelbvieh . . . . . . 33

Circle M Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Kalina Gelbvieh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Rocky Top Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Wilkinson Gelbvieh Ranch. . 27, 32

Circle S Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Kicking Horse Ranch. . . . . . . 13, 18

Rogers Valley Farm Gelbvieh. . . 34

CJ&L Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 35

Kitley Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Rotert/Harriman . . . . . . . . . . 19, 33

Williams Land & Cattle Auction Co.. . . . . . . . . . 37

Clinch Mountain Gelbvieh. . . . . 36

Kleinschmidt Farms Gelbvieh . . 34

Schafer Farms, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Country Boy Farms. . . . . . . . . . . 35

Knoll Crest Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Cranview Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Lambert, Doak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Craven Register. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Lemke Cattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Cunningham, Ronn. . . . . . . . . . . 37

Leonhardt Cattle Co.. . . . . . . 20, 36

CUP Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Linquist Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Danell Diamond Six Ranch. . 18, 34

Little Bull Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

DDM Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Little Windy Hill Farms. . . . . . . . 36

Diamond L Farms . . . . . . . . . 30, 42

Lone Oak Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

DMD Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Longleaf Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

doLally Cattle Company. . . . . . . 33

M&P Gelbvieh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Double Bar H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Maple Hill Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Dromgoole’s Heaven . . . . . . . . . . 36

Markes Family Farms. . . . . . . 35, 51

Eagle Pass Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Martin Cattle Company. . . . . . . .32

Elk Creek Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Maternal Edge Female Sale. . . . . 22

Fall Gelbvieh Classic . . . . . . . . . . 38 Flying H Genetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

McCabe Cattle Co./Two Step Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Gallaway Gelbvieh. . . . . . . . . 30, 35

Merial Igenity Beef. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Gelbvieh Breeders of Iowa. . . . . .21

Mettler Sale Management. . . . . . 37

Gelbvieh Bull Barn. . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Middle Creek Farms . . . . . . . 13, 34

Gelbvieh Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Miller, Jason L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Gelbvieh Profit Partners . . . . . . . 12

MMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Goettlich Gelbvieh Ranch. . . . . . 34

MTR Cattle Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Golden Buckle Gelbvieh. . . . . . . 35

NN Bar Ranch, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Profitpicture | 51

New Members The following individuals and operations joined the American Gelbvieh Association and American Junior Gelbvieh Association during the month of August.

New Adult Members Tennesse Bratton Farms Heritage FFA Hampton Cattle Company

Iowa

Kansas

Heritage Gelbvieh

D bar L Land and Livestock

Missouri

New Junior Members

Sunset Ridge Farm

Tennessee Will Waters

Colorado Clay Patton

California Molly Mirassou The cost for an adult membership with the American Gelbvieh Association is $75 per year. Included in those dues is a complimentary yearly subscription to the Gelbvieh World and The Profit Picture.

Membership dues for the American Gelbvieh Junior Association are $20 annually. The American Gelbvieh Association provides members up to 21 years of age the opportunity to participate in the American Gelbvieh Junior Association (AGJA). AGJA members enjoy the same benefits as AGA members in addition to participate in AGJA-sponsored regional and national shows. AGJA provides leadership opportunities with competitive and practical contests along with opportunities for scholarships.

To learn more about the American Gelbvieh Association, American Gelbvieh Junior Association or the Gelbvieh breed, request an inquiry packet by calling 303-465-2333 or by emailing a request to info@gelbvieh.org.

Find a Bull Sale Near You – Go to page 50 for a complete event listing.

52 | October 2009

DNA Testing for Sire Selection:

A Tool for the Commercial Producer?

DNA testing for favorable marbling and tenderness genes was introduced to the U.S. back in 2002. While initially greeted with skepticism, the use of DNA data is on the increase in the U.S. seedstock sector. As mentioned on pages 14 and 15, Cargill Meat Solutions has had success using DNA as a management tool in the cattle feeding industry as well. So for a commercial producer that has evaluated this year’s weaned calf crop and is looking at making some adjustments in terms of sire selection in 2010, where should DNA rank on the list of priorities for that next bull or AI sire purchase?

Ultrasound, EPDs, Ratios and DNA results. The promise of these new genetic evaluation models will include DNA data into an animal’s EPDs thus boiling all of this data down to a single number.

For example a sale catalog will present a rib eye area EPD that contains DNA and Ultrasound measurements as well as pedigree information which will be much easier to digest than these three separate data points. Overall the result will be EPDs with higher accuracies on younger animals as well as EPDs on expensive to measure traits such as tenderness and feed efficiency.

DNA is here to stay.

Programs will use DNA assisted EPDs to define program specifications.

Since the early introduction of DNA testing for a single trait in 2002, today’s DNA tests produce a vast array of test results for endproduct carcass traits, such as rib eye area and yield grade as well as cow herd oriented traits such as stayability and heifer pregnancy.

Seedstock and commercial producers alike are using these tools today with the promise of more markers and more accuracy in the future. For many seedstock producers, bulls or programs that do not have DNA data included in a sale offering get shuffled to the bottom of the pile.

Using DNA will become easier.

Over the past few years the genetic evaluation researchers that brought us EPDs in the 80s have been working through the tasks of adding this molecular genetic information to our EPDs of the future. This has not been a trivial task, but we are on the verge of seeing new marker assisted EPDs become a reality. As such we will see a simplification of bull sale catalogs that, over the last few years have added a daunting amount of data for the bull buyer to consider:

We read about Cargill’s use of DNA to better manage animals for specific outcomes. Doesn’t the next logical step include a feedyard or packer developing a program that will use DNA based genetic profiles/EPDs to source cattle, hopefully with an associated premium, to minimize the variability within the loads of cattle targeted to a specific feeding and endpoint program. We already see this to a degree with the bonus paid by Laura’s Lean Beef for cattle out of sires with the Myostatin F94L gene. More of these programs will likely follow. Will you have the genetic profile to participate in these programs and reap these premiums?

actively engaged in DNA testing.

Working with what feedlot/carcass performance data you have on the cowherd, establish some baselines for traits of interest such as improved tenderness, increased rib eye size or yield grade and work towards buying bulls each year with better DNA scores or EPD values. This will provide the foundation within your herd such that when these types of programs become commonplace you can document a history of genetic improvement via sire selection with DNA data over the last few years. As costs for DNA testing becomes more affordable or premiums for programs increase, it may make sense to include testing of replacement females as well.

Over time this will provide a DNA profile on the cowherd as a whole and allow for more complementary breeding decisions and faster progress in the herd.

If we look back at the adoption of Ultrasound technology in the 90’s we can see similar adoption trends within the U.S. beef industry for DNA. As manufacturers of a desirable consumer product we are continually asked to make that product meet differing consumer demands and industry preferences.

DNA is a tool that with its continued evolution promises to help cow-calf producers meet those demands and expectations.

As such it may be time to move our understanding and use of DNA technology out of the dusty corner in the equipment shed and reposition it in the top drawer of the tool box where it can be used as an integral part of our herd improvement programs.

DNA can be a tool in the commercial herd.

From an economic perspective it may not make sense for the average commercial cow-calf producer to implement a widespread DNA testing program within their own cow herd. One means of fitting into specific programs is to purchase bulls from seedstock producers who are

The Profitpicture | 53

54 | October 2009

The Profitpicture | 55

56 | October 2009