LMD March 2013

Riding Herd

“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”

by LEE PITTS

– James Russell Lowell

Show Business

MARCH 15, 2013 • www.aaalivestock.com

Volume 55 • No. 3

Going, Going, Gone?

R

by Lee Pitts

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

ecently I received one of those mass e-mailed missives that fill up our electronic mailboxes on a regular basis. For some reason, I read this one. It was probably because the subject matter was about something I’m really interested in: my future. The article was all about things that will disappear in our lifetime.

I wasn’t surprised to learn that books, compact disks, land-line telephones, personal checks and privacy will go the way of the dinosaur because those things are already well on their way to extinction. I was surprised, however, to read that television will be gone during our lifetimes. On second thought, based on what’s available to watch on TV now days, I say, “Good riddance.”

It also came as no great surprise to learn that people 40 years from now won’t be as concerned with personal possessions. In a more crowded world, people will own far less. The younger generation doesn’t seem to be interested at all in their mother’s Roseville pottery and their “book shelves” will exist only in “the cloud.”

All of this speculation about the future got me to thinking about the cattle business. What cowboy-kinda-things, I wonder, will disappear during our lifetime? Or, even more fundamen-

“Don’t worry about biting off more than you can chew.

Your mouth is probably a lot bigger than you think.”

tally important, will ranchers exist 40 years from now, or will they too be put out to pasture because beef will no longer be on America’s menu?

There are some overly-educated people who say that will, indeed, be the case. We have already halved our consumption of beef from its high and Malin Falkenmark and his colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute say the other half will disappear as well. They say

there will barely be enough water for everyone on earth if humans derive just 5 percent of their calories from animal-based foods by mid-century, instead of the 20 percent of calories that they currently get from meat, eggs and dairy.

These scientists contend that it takes too much water to grow a steak but this is the same old greenie horror story: “The human population would have to switch to an almost entirely veg-

etarian diet by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global food and water shortages,” they say. “There will not be enough water available to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends.”

The Stockholm eggheads repeat the same old myth that cattle consume a shocking 17 times more grain calories than they produce as meat calories. All that lost grain (which humans could have eaten) requires water.

“Producing food requires more water than any other human activity — and meat production is very water-intensive,” said Josh Weinberg, the communications officer of the Water Institute.

The Doctor’s prediction sounds like another doom and gloom prophesy that was being circulated as I began my career in animal agriculture 40 years ago. Old timers might remember the name Paul Ehrlich; he

continued on page two

Environmentalists Are Forced To Walk A Fine Line

By Troy Marshall in My View From The Country, beefmagazine.com/

T

he environmental movement has always enjoyed the “good guy” label. As the myth goes, these are the people concerned about the long term, more concerned about others than themselves, and free of the evils generally associated with capitalism and greed. They are the crusaders who are willing to stand up and fight against business interests and the all-powerful.

Of course, the environmental movement also has morphed into a multi-billion dollar industry.

Some of its leaders, Al Gore, for instance, have made hundreds of millions of dollars talking the talk without walking the walk. Unsurprisingly, even business tycoons and fat-cat politicians have tapped into the various benefits that the environmental movement can offer.

Heroic underdogs sometimes become huge industries themselves. Environmentalism has become one of the most powerful lobbying interest groups in the country, chalking up major victory after victory the past two decades.

The labor movement had a similar evolution, but its evolution took much longer than the environmental movement’s. Labor’s power became so great that they could steamroll opponents,

but went too far in the process. Salaries, benefits and pensions are hamstringing many states and municipalities today, and public polls and union membership rolls indicate that big labor’s support is on the wane.

The environmental movement is headed in the same direction, as a sluggish economy and growing restrictions and costs frustrate the population’s patience. Expensive light bulbs that don’t provide much light, billions of tax dollars squandered or wasted in alternative technologies, $4 gas at the pump, etc., are trying the patience of Americans.

Just as organized labor’s footprint has shrunk, and support among the population has fallen, a backlash is beginning against the encroaching hand of environmentalism. Just as the general consumer still supports laborers, the support isn’t as strong for the labor movement. To a lesser degree, we’re starting to see a similar sentiment expressed toward the environmental movement.

Obviously, people want clean water, air and soil, but they want freedom from the nanny state as well.

Yes, the environmental movement’s credibility is weakening. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction, also known as fracking, is a prime continued on page twelve

H

ave you ever noticed that the overflow crowds for every night’s performance of the Wrangler National Finals Rodeo always seem to especially enjoy the team roping event, but if you go to a jackpot or regional roping there are usually more people in the arena than in the stands? And we’re talking about a sport in which the contestants are every bit as good as the football players who play on Sundays. Team roping is lots more fun to watch than baseball or poker, and which looks more thrilling to you, swooping in and catching a steer’s hind feet with a rope while mounted on a fast horse, or sweeping the ice with a broom? Yet millions watch poker on TV and curling during the Olympics, while maybe 20 people are sitting in the stands during your typical roping.

One of the more popular sports in America is NASCAR in which cars go round and round real fast until they are stopped because of a wreck. Heck, you can see that on any freeway in this country. Yet the NASCAR drivers are big celebrities with their own tour buses and Lear jets while team ropers are in pawn shops gathering up gas money. The difference is marketing. We should have learned by now from cage fighting and pro wrestling that when it comes to sports in America, it’s all about the show.

Ropers deserve an audience as much as bass fishermen and soccer players but there’s so much competition for people’s time that you really have to liven things up if you expect to be able to gouge them for tickets and a cable bill. I have some ideas.

Vaqueros and cowboys in the old days roped other animals besides cattle and I think it might spice up team ropings, and introduce an element of surprise, if occasionally a bobcat, wolf or grizzly bear came charging out of the chute instead of a calf. We’ve all seen the boost PBR gave bull riding and, taking a page from their book, team ropers should have to put up with distractions like continued on page four

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Going, Going, Gone? is the Stanford University biologist and author of the best-selling book The Population Bomb.

When I read the report by the Stockholm scientists I retrieved my copy of Ehrlich’s book from the book shelf and noticed that the green color on the cover had faded to brown. So too have Ehrlich’s predictions, as you can tell by reading the first words of The Population Bomb: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Ehrlich predicted severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation. In another book six years later Ehrlich was even more morose and estimated that the death toll would be a billion or more by the mid-1980s. Fast forward to 1985 when all of this nightmare was supposed to be happening and Ehrlich then predicted the world would enter a genuine era of scarcity.

Of course, none of Ehrlich’s doom-and-gloom predictions ever came true as the death toll from famines steadily declined over the 25-year period.

It was a Population Bomb that fizzled. It didn’t go off.

Doesn’t it all sound exactly like today’s predictions about global warming?

Ehrlich failed to enter into his calculations the intelligence of people and their ability to develop new technologies.

Though world population has grown by more than 50 percent since 1968, food production has grown at an even faster clip due to technological advances. People adapt; just think how portable panels, EPD’s, 4 wheelers and gooseneck trailers have changed our lives. Yes, we in the cattle business will adapt. We are, after all, survivors. But that does not mean there aren’t big changes ahead.

As I pondered the future I came up with my own list of things that I think will disappear from the cattle business. I’m not limiting it to the changes that will occur during our lifetimes because, let’s face it, your average rancher today is nearing 60 years old and most of us can only hope for another 20 years, or so, on this spinning orb we call home. So, for the sake of this discussion let’s expand the time horizon and ponder the prospects 40 to 50 years from now.

Will there be a sixth or seventh generation in your family wearing cowboy boots and feeding hay from the back of a truck? Or will there even be a cattle business for your great-grandkids to grow up in?

Here is my list of things that will disappear in our business by mid-century.

continued from page 1

Livestock Publications: Going back to the original e-mail I received that prompted this story . . . the first thing the story said would go the way of the milk man is the U.S. Mail.

How ironic that the post office’s obituary was delivered by e-mail, one of the big reasons for its demise! Our government is trying to keep the nearly-dead patient alive by cutting services and jacking up postage rates, which makes it very hard to pencil in a profit for newspapers and magazines. One expert says that checks drawn on bank accounts will be gone by 2018 and will be replaced by on-line wallets, electronic transfers and automatic deposits. What’s left for the post office to do if you take away bills and magazines? Junk mail will hardly carry the mail.

Newspapers are already disappearing at a rapid rate; that’s why the rush is on to transfer all subscribers to on-line versions of publications. But so far people are showing an unwillingness to pay up for the privilege of reading on-line versions of magazines and newspapers. That will change, the experts predict, when there are no more printed publications and e-readers will have no choice but to pay up.

Thirty years ago when I was pondering the prospect of investing my hard earned money in a livestock paper I went to the college library of my alma mater and asked the librarian for a list of all the newspapers and magazines she had related to the poultry industry. I did this because at the time I saw the cattle industry going the way of the poultry pluckers, dominated by a few large firms. I wasn’t surprised when the librarian came back with a six page newsletter, which was the only poultry publication in the library of a major American university. There were, on the other hand, dozens of cattle publications. Here’s my point: when you add together rising postage, the Internet, higher costs for paper and print, and increasing concentration in the beef business, the only beef publication you’ll get 40 years from now will be an online flier from the Checkoff begging for more money. Enjoy the future kids. The Golden Age of the beef business is over and I’m just glad I won’t be around to see what comes next.

Cow Jobs: There is a shortage right now of large-animal veterinarians and it’s only going to get worse as our vet schools fill up with smart female students who know it’s a lot easier, and more profitable, worming cats and setting dog’s legs than risking their life on a daily basis preg checking and delivering calves at two in the morning. In the future these tasks will be performed by talentcontinued on page three

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Going, Going, Gone? ed cowboys, or vet techs.

Other occupations we may lose over the next 50 years include brand inspectors, field men, livestock judges, livestock humor columnists, show cattle fitters, and auction market auctioneers. In a world where ranchers will become contract producers, or tied to a niche market, competitive bidding and auction markets will go out of business.

I certainly hope I’m wrong. The good news is there will still be a need for good cowboys, but you might want to get a passport and add to your resume the ability to speak Spanish, Portuguese or the strange Aussie dialect.

Public Lands Ranchers: We are about to witness the greatest transfer of wealth in American history. In the not too distant future wealthy folks like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and thousands of other tech tycoons will be leaving their vast fortunes to charitable causes. Many have signed a pledge to do so, and others, like Ted Turner, have purchased wide swaths of land with the eventual goal of turning it all back to its natural state. Whatever that was. Needless to say, in the past many of these people and their charitable interests have not been cattlemen-friendly. Couple that with the growing power of environmental groups and the heavy hand of the federal government and the public lands rancher doesn’t stand a chance.

And even when ranchers do win, like the heroic Hage family, they lose. We’ll see many more people like Boone Picken’s fourth wife and her Nevada preserve for wild horses. (I understand Boone and Madeleine are getting divorced so she may have far less money to spend on inbred cayuses.)

One of the take-home messages from the folks from the far west who attended this year’s NCBA convention in Tampa, Florida, was that it seems the NCBA is becoming further and further removed from western public lands ranchers. According to NCBA’s own web page, the NCBA President is Scott George, a dairy farmer from Cody, Wyoming; President elect is Bob McCan of Victoria, Texas; the NCBA Vice President is from Hopkinsville, Kentucky and its Vice President is from Pilger, Nebraska. Please note the lack of a voice for far-western public lands ranchers.

I’m frequently surprised to talk to midwestern ranchers who see western public lands ranchers as competition instead of compatriots. They’re under the wrong impression that public lands ranchers are getting a deal on grazing fees and are being subsidized by the feds. This is bad news because the NCBA is seen as the cattlemen’s voice in Washington, DC and when the issue of public lands ranching comes up in Washington, DC, the far west does not have as strong a voice

continued from page 2

as it needs to combat the urban crazies who want to drive them from their homes. If the wolves don’t nail the public lands ranchers, rich urbanites, their heirs, and liberal politicians will.

rediscover the important role cattle play in ecosystems. It will come as a revelation that cattle can help prevent savage wild fires and are good for the land.

Ranchers will get paid to graze their animals on public lands they once paid for the privilege.

The Traditional Branding:

Feedlots:

One hopes that ranchers will still get together to work calves and help each each other 50 years from now, but the jobs of the ground crew will change.

With increasing pressure from animal rightists, and a population of urban know-it-alls, this prediction is a no-brainer. Hot iron branding will end, to be replaced by technological advances that we are not even aware of at the moment. Hides will be more valuable and no one will get accidentally branded at your roundup. Animal rightists will raise such a stink about castration by knife without anesthesia that we will be forced to find an alternative to that, as well.

When the public lands rancher, hot iron branding and castration are gone the animal rightists will find others to pick on instead of cowboys, and the greenies will

While I disagree most vehemently with the Stockholm scientists that beef will disappear from our diets, I can envision a world where we feed less grain to cattle.

In fact, I think the exodus has already begun as this quote from a recent Associated Press story would seem to indicate: “Years of drought are reshaping the U.S. beef industry with feedlots and a major meatpacking plant closing because there are too few cattle left in the United States to support them. Some feedlots in the nation’s major cattle-producing states have already been dismantled, and others are sitting empty. Operators say they don’t expect a recovery anytime soon, with high feed prices, much of the country still in drought, and a long time needed to rebuild herds. The dwindling number of animals also is hurting meat-

Page 3 packers, with their much larger workforces. For consumers, the impact will be felt in grocery and restaurant bills as a smaller meat supply means higher prices.”

This trend will only gain speed in the future as grain prices will not return to their historically low prices that made cattle feeding a viable and profitable business. And we might add, made grain-fed beef the tastiest in all the world. I don’t see grain prices remaining high because of corn being used for fuel, that madness will end someday, like many other green energy boondoggles. But the scientists do have a point in that the grain will be needed to feed people, not steers. That will then free up beef cattle to do the job they are uniquely qualified for in a hun-

gry world: to convert grass into the best source of tasty protein on earth. In that they are unequaled.

Through genetics, byproduct feeding, and technology, grassfed beef will get tastier and prove to be a sustainable business. Green in every sense of the word. We’ll eat more hamburger and less steak and ranchers will take home more of the profits.

So, if you have a ranch that’s deeded, “hang and rattle”, as old bronc busters say. Persevere, knowing that your land and cows will prove to be a great investment, and be comforted knowing that your kids who want to come back to the ranch do, indeed, have a future. Which is more than some of us humor columnists can say.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 4

March 15, 2013

Bucking Broncs vs. Ranch Cowboys and Cowgirls The WRCA Championship Ranch Bronc Riding Raises Money for a Good Cause

T

he inaugural Working the top 10 bronc riders from the Ranch Cowboys Associa- first round. The women have just tion Championship Ranch one go-round.

Bronc Riding, held on General admission tickets Memorial Day weekend 2012, are $25 and can be purchased was a huge success – attracting through Panhandle Tickets at more than 3,200 fans and rais- 806/378-3096. Admission also ing crucial money for the Work- includes entertainment via a ing Ranch Cowboys post-event conFoundation’s cricert and dance.

2013 WRCA sis and scholarship Ages 12 and unfunds. And now, Championship Ranch der are admitted strap your hat down, free.

Bronc Riding it’s almost time for For those will be May 25 at the needing the second annual to stay Range Riders Bud overnight, event. our Light Arena in The 2013 WRCA host hotel, the Championship Ambassador HoAmarillo, Texas Ranch Bronc Riding tel, is offering will be May 25 at the rates of $89. Call Range Riders Bud Light Arena 806/358-6161 for reservations. in Amarillo, Texas. Expect imThe Championship Ranch proved accommodations and the Bronc Riding is the second sigsame gumption we saw last year nature event of WRCA. The origwith 40 cowboys competing for inal fundraiser for the WRCF is $15,000 and 10 cowgirls riding the World Championship Ranch for $10,000. The men will com- Rodeo, an Amarillo tradition pete in two go-rounds, with the that draws in tens of thousands second round consisting only of of fans to watch the country’s

Ky Fuston, Bell Ranch, NM / photo courtesy Dakota Rose Photography top ranch teams battle it out in events that mirror real ranch work, such as team branding and wild-cow milking.

Ranch bronc riding is also included in the World Championship Ranch Rodeo, but organizers decided in 2012 that it deserved its own standalone event. It was a good call. Despite blustery winds that whipped the arena dirt into a sandstorm, the packed house stayed that way, with no one wanting to miss any of the action. J.D. Brock and Jessica Mosher came out on top.

To learn more about this year’s event – or about the WRCF that makes it all worthwhile – go to www.wrca.org or call 806/3749722.

Opening Ceremonies / photo courtesy Dakota Rose Photography

Riding Herd music, fireworks and perhaps a pack of misbehaving cow dogs turned loose when it’s their turn to rope.

One of the big draws of football or NASCAR is the possibility that someone will get maimed or killed. The occasional lost digit just isn’t enough to satisfy a bloodthirsty public.

So, to introduce an element of danger, just think if we could combine team roping with other rodeo events so that the team ropers would have to rope a calf while riding a bucking bull or bronc! A precedence has already been set for combining events like this. Every year in early September in conjunction with the rodeo in Durango, Colorado, there is a Biker Bull Riding and Bikini Contest. These

continued from page one

people clearly understand marketing. They know what it takes to draw a crowd and although Jim Shoulders, Gene Rambo and Casey Tibbs would be twirling in their graves, we can’t do business the way it always been done and expect to be on Facebook. What if we instituted a rule that teams of ropers must consist of one male and one female, preferably a model, Playboy Bunny or hot movie actress, and that she must be clad only in a pair of chinks. Now there’s something every guy would pay to see!

Granted, I do have an ulterior motive. Team ropers ride GREAT horses and one of the side effects of the success of the USTRC is that good ranch horses cost a lot more now than

they used to because aspiring team ropers are bidding them up. Suppose team ropers had to draw like bulldoggers and bronc riders as to which horse in the bucking string they‘d have to rope from in each performance.

This would introduce even more suspense and ease the burden of team ropers having to haul their horses from one roping to the next. They could just fly in on their jets like tennis players do and you and I wouldn’t have to pay so much for a good ranch horse.

If we institute all of these changes I foresee a day when team ropers will be just like all other pro athletes, with their faces in the tabloids, their marriages in tatters and their bodies in jail, court or rehab.

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Page 5

Messenger’s credibility sways trust

By Dr. Candace Croney

R

ecently, a study from Purdue University evaluating consumer perceptions of the welfare implications of swine production practices and sources of information people use to form those perspectives has garnered quite a bit of attention.

Among the key findings to date are that respondents were most concerned about housing pigs in crates or stalls and keeping them indoors. The top three areas of concern relative to the welfare of pigs at different stages or segments of production were processing, on-farm practices and transport.

A large majority (75 percent) did not think that they had seen stories about pig welfare in the media, and more than half could not identify a source of animal welfare information. Of those who did, most relied on The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In an effort to gauge consumer perceptions of livestock production, Purdue University’s Department of Agricultural Economics and Depart­ment of Animal Sciences conducted a consumer survey last summer. The survey of 798 participants from a

nationally representative sample collected information regarding livestock product purchasing characteristics, perceptions of pig welfare and sources of animal welfare information.

The latter finding has become a focal point of frustration and concern for many involved in livestock production. Some have

...more than half could not identify a source of animal welfare information. suggested that the data show clear avenues for animal agriculture to exploit in regard to using social media and other sources to better reach consumers.

As one of the co-investigators on the study, it is important to note that the study is ongoing and that the data have not yet been published. Therefore, the results should be taken cautiously.

But, assuming that the data are correct, their interpretation thus far has been superficial. Collectively, they potentially provide some insight into the emerging consumer/producer dichotomy.

First, it is a glaring red flag

Ranchers develop planning methodology to best respond to drought

L

ike a general mapping out his strategy before going into battle, a rancher must be prepared to respond effectively to drought, one of the biggest threats to Great Plains ranchers. With the input of ranchers and advisers, a drought-planning methodology has been created to encourage more ranchers to develop advance plans.

Drought-planning concepts are examined in the current issue of the journal Rangelands. Noting that “a strategic objective of every ranch should be to strive for drought resilience,” the National Drought Mitigation Center interviewed and brought together ranchers and advisers to develop this planning methodology.

The many aspects of a drought plan include how a ranch operation will maintain natural resources, production, financial health, customer relations, and lifestyle.

However, drought planning is essentially part of a larger vision for a ranch. This vision might include the importance of native grass, livestock,

wildlife, and people in its overall goals.

In planning for a future drought, it is necessary to conduct an inventory of resources, understand the risks and even the benefits of drought, and know how to monitor and measure drought. Critical dates for decision-making should be identified in advance. It is also important to note that there is no onesize-fits-all plan, and multiple management strategies may be useful.

Strategies for before, during, and after drought should be in place. Some ranchers described using grazing management systems to foster desirable plant species as a way to improve pasture health beforehand.

When drought occurs, these ranchers know their pastures will be in the best condition to tolerate it. Others mentioned ensuring there was a “cushion” in their forage supply.

During a drought, ranchers need guidelines for when continued on page fourteen

that people who do not think they have seen media stories on pig welfare identified on-farm production and housing as major issues in regard to pig well-being.

Given all of the possible concerns a lay person might have about factors that potentially harm the well-being of an animal raised for meat, it is inconceivable that these would be the respondents’ primary concerns in the absence of media stories and public discussions occurring in venues to which they are exposed.

What this suggests is that messages, articles, stories and discussions about the welfare of pigs and other animals have become so ubiquitous that consumers who responded could no longer identify a media point source from which they got their information.

Here is the issue that should raise concern for animal agriculture. Apparently, everyone but agriculture is reaching consumers – and in ways that are so frequent, so non-invasive and so easily accessible that they do not perceive themselves as being targeted for education on pig welfare or related issues.

The idea that agriculture should respond with more obvi-

ous attempts to reach such consumers using the same methods and sources they are currently avoiding is, therefore, faulty.

As the respondents reported, they are not using scientific, government or animal industry sources for information on animal care and welfare, so trying to draw them in via “agvocacy” sites or agricultural social media is likely to be seen as more of the same and is probably not going to work.

The question of focus, therefore, should be less on why consumers persist in relying on animal activist groups for information on animal welfare and more on why they are not utilizing agricultural sources.

Is it that consumers do not know such sources exist or that they cannot easily access them, or could it be that they just do not like or trust them?

It would not be surprising if lack of trust were a major factor.

Like it or not, animal agriculture operates from a credibility deficit when it comes to animal well-being, and having experts

on the topic does not (fully) offset it.

Who is the average person likely to trust regarding who has animals’ best interests at heart: those in the business of raising animals to kill them, or those perceived as being in the business of saving them?

Operating from the premise, then, that consumers just need more information and better or more engaging ways to get it is too simplistic of an explanation for what is currently happening.

As the old adage goes, it’s not just what you know but who you know. In other words, who is providing the information on animal welfare and what that person or entity is perceived as representing may be even more important than what they are conveying and how they are doing so.

Dr. Candace Croney is an associate professor of animal behavior and well-being in the department of animal sciences at Purdue University. In her next article, Croney will look at the role of cultural cognition on science transmission, discussing the failure to communicate science and its implications for animal agriculture, along with other factors affecting consumer trust and behavior.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 6

March 15, 2013

Low-input Heifer Development

By Manny Encinias, Extension Beef Cattle Specialist, New Mexico State University

H

istorically, developing replacement heifers has been one of the most expensive segments of a cow-calf operation. Though exact figures vary from ranch to ranch, managers have long recognized that it may require several productive years of weaning a live calf to pay for the development costs incurred during the first twoyears of life. A significant portion of the cost associated with developing heifers is attributed to the nutritional program primarily since numerous studies have long tied reproductive success in the beef female to nutritional status.

Traditional nutrition programs for heifers were developed on the basis of a positive association between critical body weights and pregnancy rates. The birth of these concepts originated as the industry was transitioning from breeding virgin heifers to calve as three-year olds to a more intensive system of calving heifers as two-year olds. Conceiv-

ably managers have focused on achieving or exceeding recommended critical body weights to maximize reproductive success in younger females. Nutrient density of the diet required to grow heifers to the traditional critical body weights is dependent upon harvested energy and protein feedstuffs, which have become more costly. Thus the economics of growing heifers as replacement females with these recommendations is not a sustainable practice for cow-calf operations in the Southwest.

Since the foundation nutritional guidelines were developed for replacement heifers both the reproductive efficiency of the U.S. cowherd and supporting feed and applied reproductive technologies have evolved. As a result, numerous researchers have challenged the traditional guidelines in an effort to define more cost-effective approves to develop heifers. The results of these studies are timely as the cost of fuel and feed has skyrocketed over the last year attributing to an increased cost of production across the ranch.

Growing ranch-raised heifers

versus buying bred heifers has always been a highly debatable question. On either side of the equation most managers have identified the cost-centers of developing heifers and have come to realize most expenses, to a degree, are necessities. In today’s economy, the best case scenario one can hope for is to accurately identify cost-centers to do one of three things: 1) trim expenses where possible, 2) obtain more response from each dollar spent, and/or 3) make system changes.

This paper will focus on evaluating the most current recommendations to more cost-effectively develop heifers in the production environments of the arid Southwest.

While every producer is in high gear to become a low-cost producer both logic and practicality should not be thrown out the window. It is important to keep in perspective that there are still multiple consequences of mismanaging replacement heifers during defined critical periods in the development phase that can affect lifetime production efficiency (i.e. calf health, lactation, pregnancy rates, etc.).

Baxter BLACK O N T H E E D G E O F C O M M O N S E N S E www.baxterblack.com

I

An Interesting Season

t’s been an interesting season for those of us in agriculture.

Several shifts in the world’s social gyroscope have come to light that will affect the public’s perception of our farming world.

For years the ANTI’s have lead the battle to disparage the safety and health benefits of eating and raising meat, but “facts” are rearing their ugly head.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control has released a ten-year study which revealed that more than half of the cases of food poisoning were related to produce (fruit and vegetables). The majority of the remaining sources were attributed to poultry.

Fewer than 7 percent of the total was traced to beef consumption (e. coli in hamburger meat).

They attributed this small number to significant safety improvements in beef handling. It is also worth noting that most of the contamination, be it meat or produce is related to food handling after it’s left the farm.

In a related issue, the irradiation of meat and produce is

gaining traction. The slow acceptance of this life-saving procedure, which kills the microbial pathogens from the field to the kill floor, is the public’s erroneous perception that you can get “X-Rays” from the food you eat.

It is one of those puzzling wives tales like your feeder calves contracting IBR from IBR vaccination, or smoking stunts your growth, or Notre Dame really is a better team than Alabama, even though they lost. In the end you need to be able to trust your friendly local scientist!

Speaking of which, we had a big splash! A vociferous British Luddite (anti-technology) animal rights, eco-looney proclaimed to the world that his blindfolded opposition to the use of genetically modified foods was wrong! Maybe Prince Charles will take notes! What caused this stark turn-around was his realization that without modern agriculture methods, the growing population of the world will be ravaged by an inconceivable famine. I admit, I

felt relief that at least one of the “pied pipers” allowed common sense to be a factor in his decision.

Which takes me to the abandoned horse travesty. I hear more and more states are considering a horse meat plant. Yet we are still piddling as “Rome burns.”

The problem continues unabated. Horse rescue missions, wild horse feedlots and pastures are swamped and the price of hay is exorbitant. I don’t know how much longer those who caused this tragedy can keep up their protest. Forgiveness for “unintended consequences” can only go so far.

And, to top it off, U.S. carbon emissions have plunged to a twenty-year low! What surprised the EPA czars was the drop was not the result of direct government regulations and interference. It was caused by free market forces, specifically the infusion and production of cheaper natural gas instead of coal!

How ‘bout that? Mark one up for us.

Trimming Feed Costs Post-weaning Growth. The most productive mature females in a cowherd are typically those who bred early in the breeding season as yearlings. As previously mentioned, early research clearly identified the relationship among heifer body weight, puberty, and yearling pregnancy rates. Thus significant pressure has always been placed on the post-weaning gain of heifer calves developed as replacement females.

In an effort to curb feed costs, numerous researchers have evaluated altering both rate and timing of post-weaning gain. Convincingly and consistent across studies, it is clear that delaying a significant portion of heifer gain until 45 days prior to start of the breeding season results in a compensatory growth, reduced feed costs, and no negative affects on yearling pregnancy rates.

The aforementioned relationship was the basis for the commonly accepted recommendation to grow heifers to achieve 60 to 65 percent of the mature body weight by the start of the breeding season. When these guidelines were developed numerous data sets supported significant improvements in puberty rates prior to the breeding season when heifers were grown to this critical weight. These specific guidelines have been challenged by numerous researchers since the turn of the 21st century because newer research does not support as strong of a relationship between body weight and puberty in today’s replacement heifer. In short, for the last 30 years, as the industry has shifted to calving two-year olds there has been increased selection pressure for age when puberty occurs compared to when the traditional guidelines were developed.

Today, the most comprehensive data suggests age rather than weight at the beginning of the breeding season is requisite for a successful pregnancy in yearling heifers. In support of this concept, multiple studies have been

carried out to grow crossbred heifers below 60 percent (and as low as 50 percent) of their mature body weight and measure reproductive performance. In these studies, there have been no negative impacts reported on yearling pregnancy rates or subsequent rebreeding performance as two- and three year-olds.

Altering rate and time of post-weaning gain as well as growing heifers to lighter than traditional critical body weights are two cost-effective means of trimming feed costs during the post-weaning period for heifers.

Combined these recommendations fit growing heifers on native rangelands in the Southwest.

The key to reproductive success in nutrition programs that delay post-weaning gain is to keep heifers on an increased plane of nutrition through the breeding season as higher incidences of embryonic mortality attributed to nutrient restriction are observed in the first trimester. The only drawback of growing heifers to lighter body weights as yearlings is that younger and lighter heifers may require additional service days to conceive. Furthermore, it is important to re-emphasize that the studies pertaining to growing heifers to lighter critical body weights were conducted with crossbred heifers. These recommendations have not been reported for purebred heifers in the literature, but it can be assumed from older literature that critical body weight (percent of mature body weight) to achieve similar results may vary within and among breeds.

Pregnancy. While not as commonly discussed or evaluated are the impacts of altered rate gains during pregnancy. In the Southwest, it is very common for cattle to experience varying degrees of energy restriction during and after the breeding season due to abnormal patterns in precipitation which coincide with the critical growth cycle of predominant continued on page seven

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Heifer Development continued from page six

grass species on native rangelands. Depending on the timing of energy restriction during pregnancy, it is commonly accepted that pregnancy rates may be negatively affected. Recognizing the negative implications of energy restriction on pregnancy rates many producers opt to substitute energy during these periods to avoid losses in body condition and embryonic mortality. However, energy and protein substitution in the diet to sustain body condition during these periods can be costly.

After the first-trimester of pregnancy, data suggests bred heifers can undergo periods of severe energy restriction through the third trimester without experiencing pre-mature loss of the developing fetus. However, to avoid complications at calving and reduce subsequent calf, lactation, and rebreeding performance a timely period to recoup body condition loss prior to calving is necessary.

Minimizing unnecessary energy substitution to bred heifers grazing native rangelands in the Southwest is an additional option to reduce costs associated with developing heifers. Further research is required, however, to understand the implications of energy restriction on post-weaning performance of calves born from energy restricted females.

Justified Management Practices An essential component of low-cost heifer development program is to spend wisely. More

often than not, and increasingly over the last year, producers have at least considered cutting out critical elements in their whole herd management scheme. The relative cost-to-benefit of vaccination programs, parasite control, and trace mineral supplementation has been questioned by many producers. However, it is strongly recommended that before these types of practices are removed from your program that consultation with your veterinarian and area livestock specialist be scheduled to objectively review the role and potential benefits of these practices in a heifer development program.

Vaccination Programs. Today, more than ever, it is critical to incorporate an aggressive herd health protocol. Judicious use of vaccines to protect against economically significant respiratory and reproductive diseases is warranted. An effective vaccination protocol for replacement heifers includes strategically timed vaccinations pre-weaning, post-weaning, and four to six weeks prior to the start of the breeding season.

Furthermore, the use of quality modified-live vaccines is strongly recommended.

Parasite Control. A review of multiple studies suggests timely use of parasite control product to control internal and external parasites has consistently been worth the initial investment relative to the added performance and the role in improving immune status. Selecting appropriate and quality products is paramount to observe a desirable response.

Trace Mineral Supplementation. In recent years many pro-

ducers have been faced with a significant increase in the price of most commercial trace mineral supplementation packages. As a result, trace mineral supplementation programs were altered or eliminated on many operations.

While clinical symptoms of trace mineral deficiencies only present themselves in severe situations, deficiencies that elicit subclinical symptoms are more common in beef cattle operations but often go unnoticed. In the short-term quantifying the impacts of not having a trace mineral program may prove difficult. It is important to recognize, however, that deficiencies of trace minerals are common in the diets of grazing beef cattle across many production environments in the Southwest and the significance of adequate copper, zinc, and selenium status has been demonstrated to affect growth performance, immune status, and key reproductive events in the developing heifer.

System Changes Current data suggests the most cost-effective environment to grow replacement heifers is on pasture. The nutritive value of common grass species found on much of the native rangelands in the Southwest results in the need to provide protein supplementation (assuming adequate grass supplies exist) throughout a majority of the calendar year to meet the defined nutrient requirements of developing heifers. This constraint contributes to a high cost of purchasing and delivering supplemental feed to grazing cattle, which is common-

Page 7 ly the single largest operating expense incurred on beef cattle operations in the Southwest.

Therefore, a thorough evaluation of low-cost heifer development strategies cannot be completed without discussing options to reduce supplementation costs by changing the time of the breeding season and subsequent calving season.

Unlike other grass species found in other parts of the U.S., there is a window of opportunity with many common warm-season grasses in the Southwest in which the nutritive value during the summer growing season can adequately meet or exceed nutrient requirements for growth in developing heifers, which in turn may positively impact reproductive performance. Data suggests supplementation needs can be greatly reduced by commencing periods of high nutrient demand by a female during the active growing season of these grasses.

While supplementation costs may be reduced by more closely matching heifer nutrient requirements with nutritional quality of available native forage, it is important to thoroughly evaluate the overall changes to the operations relative to the calving season and the effects of marketing calves.

Conclusion In review of the most current research it is clear that traditional nutritional guidelines to develop replacement heifers no longer apply to the type of crossbred heifer that is found across varying production environments in the U.S. A current recommen-

dation to grow heifers to lighter weights prior to the breeding season is one of many practical solutions to decrease costs of growing replacements. Understanding the critical periods in heifer development and the benefits of management practices such as vaccination programs, parasite control, and trace mineral supplementation that equate to performance that increases longevity as a mature cow should be thoroughly evaluated prior to determining where savings can be realized in a heifer development program.

Literature Sources: Creighton, K.W. 2004.

Heifer development systems for March-born heifers and improving pregnancy rates in June-calving cows. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept.

Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Encinias, A.M. 2002. Compensatory growth models for gestating beef heifers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. Animal and Range Sciences, North Dakota State University.

Encinias, M. 2008. Strategic ranch management to minimize cost. Proc. 2008 Southwest Beef Symposium. Roswell, NM Funston, R., J. Martin, and A. Roberts. 2007.

Heifer development – then and now. Proc. The Range Beef Cow Symposium. Ft. Collins, CO. Martin, J.L., K.W. Creighton, J.A. Musgrave, T. J. Klopfenstein, R.T. Clark, D.C. Adams, and R.N. Funston. 2007. Effect of pre-breeding body weight or progestin exposure before breeding on beef heifer performance through the second breeding season. J. Anim. Sci. 86:451-459.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements for beef cattle. 7th Ed. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Patterson, T., R. Clark, R. Salverson, W. Fahsholtz, and T. Line. 2005. Heifer development: revisiting target weights and management approaches. Proc. The Range Beef Cow Symposium XIX. Rapid City, SD. Patterson, D.J., R.C. Perry, G.H. Kirakofe, R.A. Bellows, R.B. Staigmiller, and L.R. Corah. 1992.

Management considerations in heifer development and puberty. J. Anim. Sci. 70:40184035.

Pieper, R.D., A.B. Nelson, G.S. Smith, E.E. Parker, E.J.A. Boggino, and C.F. Hatch. 1978.

Chemical composition and digestibility of important range grass species in south-central New Mexico. New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 662.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 8

March 15, 2013

Oregon Studies Show Cow Temperament Affects Reproduction

By Heather Smith Thomas

F

lighty or aggressive cattle are more difficult to handle and also have other disadvantages. Studies during the past decade have shown that “wild” cattle don’t grow or gain as well in the feedlot, and have higher incidence of “dark cutters”. More recent research is showing that temperament also affects reproduction rates. Cows with bad dispositions have lower conception/ calving rates.

Studies in Florida a few years ago showed that Brahman-cross cattle with excitable temperaments had lower pregnancy rates than their calmer herdmates.

This study was expanded recently at Oregon State University, to look at the affect of temperament on reproductive performance in Angus-Hereford cross cows.

Dr. Reinaldo Cooke and Dr. David Bohnert were two of the researchers involved in this study.

“The work on these projects here at Oregon State started when we hired Dr. Reinaldo Cooke to be our Beef Extension Specialist,” says Bohnert. “He came from Florida where he got his PhD, and he has been very active in research. One of the first projects he did in Florida was looking at temperament. Most of that work was looking at Bos indicus influenced cattle – predominantly Brahman crosses.” In the Northwest, however, there aren’t very many of these breeds, maybe just a few Brangus, Beefmaster or Santa Gertrudis cattle.

“In general we have mostly Brit-

ish breeds, and a few continental breeds used mainly as terminal sires. After seeing the results with Bos indicus cattle, we decided to try some studies on Bos taurus cattle. At the experiment station here at Burns we have about 300 Angus-Hereford black-baldy cows. Our other station at Union has about 250 Angus. We have two different situations. Here, we use some AI for breeding but we also use a lot of bulls. The cattle at Union are all bred AI, with just a clean-up bull. This gave us two different production environments to look at this,” says Bohnert.

“With AI, the cows are all being handled, and stress could be a large factor. So we did a temperament study looking at the effects on reproduction in these two different breeding environments. What we saw was that it didn’t really matter whether it was a bull breeding situation or AI; we still saw an advantage (in higher pregnancy rates) with the cows that had moderate to calm temperament. Those that were more aggressive or flighty didn’t get pregnant as readily, even under natural conditions,” he says.

“We think that hormones are partially involved in this difference. This includes cortisol, a stress hormone. Some of the data has shown elevated cortisol in the animals that have poor temperament (more aggressive or flighty and excitable). These are the high-headed, tail-in-the-air cattle that tend to run and jump over fences. They have higher cortisol levels and we are confident that

this is partially what’s involved when we are looking at the different reproductive hormone cascades and everything else.”

The reason cattle are flighty is because they are afraid, and this is a stress. Looking at this from a reproductive standpoint in dealing with replacement heifers, the researchers wondered if the flighty ones could be acclimated to handling at a young age and improve their reproductive performance.

“One of our studies looked at whether we could alter this. There had been some earlier work in Florida where they had looked at this with Bos indicus cows, to see if they could influence the behavior of the cows. They were not able to change the cows’ behavior by trying to get them used to being handled,” says Bohnert. These cattle were already set in their ways, with behavioral patterns already established.

They also looked at heifers, and found an advantage with them – working with them at a younger age to get them accustomed to people. “We did that same study here with our Bos taurus cattle.

We found that the heifers we acclimated to human handling reached puberty earlier than the ones that were not handled,” he says.

“We made random selections so that there were calm and flighty animals in each group.

One group was brought into the corrals regularly and we ran them through a squeeze chute without doing anything to them, just to get them used to the process.

At the end of the study, the cat-

Affects of Temperament on Percentage of Calves Weaned

“T

he recently published study showed that the cattle with aggressive temperament have reduced pregnancy rate and reduced calving rates. When we looked at the weight of calves weaned per cow in the herd, the aggressive cows had reduced amount of weight in terms of calves born,” says Bohnert. This means they had fewer calves born than the herd average, and therefore less weaning weight in their total calves produced, compared to the calm and moderate temperament cows.

“This was in our study cattle,

tle that had been brought in and were used to human handling had lower cortisol levels, reached puberty earlier, and had higher preg rates,” he says.

Most of the cattle that are wild and flighty or overly aggressive are that way because they are scared (fight or flight response to the threat of human presence).

“The main reasons cattle don’t like humans is because they’ve either had a bad experience and are afraid to have humans get close to them again, or it’s a novel experience and they are scared. We know, from the genetic studies that have been done, that temperament is actually a very heritable trait.” Ranchers will attest to this, especially if they’ve kept daughters (or sons) from cows or bulls with bad temperament.

“We know that not only the stress of environment is affecting these cattle, but there is also a genetic aspect. In the data so far, it seems that the window for potentially changing or influencing cattle temperament is early in life, and not later,” says Bohnert.

It’s much easier to “gentle” them as calves or weanlings than when they are mature and already set in their ways or have learned all the bad habits. Cattle experiencing humans for the first time as yearlings or older present a tougher challenge.

The Oregon study showed that early handling, particularly lowstress handling – so the animals don’t have a bad experience with it – really works. “The question then, is can a producer afford to do this, bringing the heifers in multiple times just for training purposes without actually working them.” Usually the time and labor constraints make this difficult; the heifers’ first experience going through the chute is to be vaccinated, tagged, branded or some other painful procedure.

This sets the stage for heifers, especially the wilder ones, to be reluctant to enter the corral or chute, and to be more difficult to handle in the future.

“In our research setting we showed that you can work with heifers (using practice runs

not in cattle that have to calve out in big pastures or on the range. We bring them in like most typical operations. They spend the spring and summer out, and we bring them in closer to home to calve,” he says.

On a big ranch where the cattle may not be gathered but once a year, perhaps an aggressive cow might protect her calf from predators better than some calm cows, but even if the aggressive cow was able to fend off predators better, there might be indirect losses because the aggressive temperament cows had lower pregnancy rates. through the chute without doing anything to them) and influence their future reactions. But from a practical standpoint there are not many producers who are going to do this. So what we recommend is that when a person goes out to check on the heifers or feed them, don’t just dump the hay and leave.

Maybe get out and walk around for a few minutes and let them get used to human interaction,” he says.

It pays to get them accustomed to seeing people on foot. This can be as simple as walking back along the group of heifers after feeding them. The flighty, scared ones may take a few sessions before they settle down. They may need a little more “space” at first, but will eventually become more at ease with seeing someone up close – without running off. All too often when cattle see humans, or are rounded up and put into the corral, something bad happens. They need a few non-confrontational and painless interactions.

“One question often asked is how to determine or measure temperament,” says Bohnert. In studies looking at various factors affected by temperament, or to determine temperament and give each animal a score, methods have ranged from visual evaluations to computerized assessments measuring exit speed from a squeeze chute.

“From a research perspective we do a lot of things that many producers may not want to go to the time and expense to do, but there are some simpler ways a person can evaluate cattle temperament. You can give them a chute score – how they act when restrained – or watch how they act in an alley when you are sorting them,” says Bohnert.

“We use infra-red timers that tell us their exact speed when they leave the chute. But from the producer’s perspective you can score them as to whether they walk out of the chute, trot out, or run – and fly around the corner to get out of there as fast as they can. A person continued on page nine

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Page 9

Bradley 3 Ranch Leads Spring Bull Sale Averages

A

packed sale barn of bidders showed their appreciation for the Bradley 3 Ranch program by making the 2013 sale the best in the ranch’s history. The time tested, Bradley 3 Ranch program offered bulls with calving ease, muscle and efficiency on February 16.

Buyers bid on 211 Angus, Charolais, Angus/Charolais cross bulls to average $5,750. The 197 Angus bulls averaged $5,756, and Charolais bulls averaged $5,771.

Cattle sold into ten states.

This year’s high selling Angus bull was Lot 61, B3R Pioneer Wave Y409. Two thirds interest and possession sold for $35,000

Oregon Studies continued from page eight

can utilize some measure of temperament in their own operation,” he says.

The Oregon studies found an advantage in cattle performance, with calm cattle. “The ones that are more aggressive or flighty don’t do as well in a growing lot as the ones with moderate and mild temperament. We weren’t sure, however, how temperament would affect reproduction. In all honesty I didn’t know if this could be measured. But it has really turned out to show the benefits of working with these animals at a young age, with low stress handling.” Cattle can be trained to be more manageable and less wild, and this does affect reproduction rates favorably.

The other option, knowing that temperament affects reproduction, is to cull the wild ones. “Why keep that high-headed, crazy heifer. She’s not only less likely to breed quickly, but she’s a bad influence on all the others. She may have a calf every year, but what is she costing you in indirect ways that you may not know about or be unable to measure?” And if you keep her daughters and they are just as wild as she is, you are simply perpetuating a management problem.

These recent studies help lend credence to anecdotal impressions and rancher’s experiences/

to ABS Global of Deforest, WI. The SAV Pioneer son posted a 16.9 ribeye area and topped the Angus EPD charts with top one percent ribeye, marbling, $W, $G and $B while maintaining a positive $EN. No other Angus bull has been found thus far with this combination of traits.

Long time, repeat customer Lynn Cowden purchased the second high selling bull, Lot 20, B3R Retail Power Y184, for $12,000. This stout, big bodied bull weaned at 71 percent of his dam’s body weight and continued with impressive performance for yearling and ultrasound. Sired by Connealy Power One, the Y184 knowledge. When a cow herd is rigidly selected and culled for disposition traits along with other characteristics, not only are the cattle easier to manage, but they are also more fertile.

For instance, Tom Lassiter worked with Beefmasters (composite cattle utilizing several breeds – including Brahman) that are well known not only for their high fertility but also for their mellow, calm disposition. “I did my undergraduate and masters work at Angelo State in west Texas. Tom interacted often with one of the professors there, and one of his criteria in genetic selection with Beefmasters was temperament. He didn’t keep any cow that he couldn’t walk up to and touch. Yet he didn’t want a cow that was so super-calm that she didn’t care about her calf. They still had to be good mothers,” says Bohnert.

There is a big difference between a gentle, user-friendly cow that respects people and one that is just so mellow and sluggish that she doesn’t defend or take care of her calf. There are many “good mamas” that are smart and trainable and very manageable. A cow doesn’t have to be wild and aggressive/unmanageable to be a good mother. In fact, some of the flighty wild/aggressive cows are poor mothers because they are too easily upset and may charge over the top of their calf to attack a person, or may run off and abandon the calf if they become

too upset.

“One of Tom’s criteria for keeping a cow was that she had to bring home a calf every year. If she didn’t, he didn’t care what happened to it – whether a coyote, wolf or mountain lion killed it – if she didn’t bring a calf home, that cow was culled,” says Bohnert. There have been some progressive producers who have been selecting and culling on fertility, mothering ability and temperament for a long time, but just haven’t had the data to prove that temperament was an important part of the equation.

“Now with the work in Florida and what we’ve been doing here, and a few other groups working with temperament, we’ve shown that those moderate-temperament cattle are what we should select for,” he says. They consistently are the best performers.

“We’ve also worked with a group in Texas doing research on some of these issues. There’s also been some research done in Missouri on cattle temperament and feedlot performance,” says Bohnert.

bull was another great example of how Bradley 3 Ranch genetics can be used as a purposeful outcross.

Lot 72 sold for $11,000 to Chris Scharbauer. B3R Palo Duro Y407 gained many fans because of his complete phenotypic and numeric package. This bull gained 2.86 pounds per day on grass test and 5.05 pounds per day on the program’s feed test. The soundness and completeness of this bull is a compliment to the discipline of the Bradley program.

The footnote for Lot 127, the fourth high selling bull, read, “Fifty+ years of disciplined selec-

tion and culling gets you a Bradley 3 Ranch bull that can do it all . . . performance and design.”

The Back to Basics son sold for $10,500. The 26 Back to Basic sons averaged $6,277.

Lot 100, another Back to Basics son sold for $10,250 to Kirk Duff to be the fifth high selling Angus bull.

The high selling Charolais bull at $15,000 sold to Simplot Land & Cattle, Silver Spur Ranch and Bovine Elite. This big performing son of Three Trees Wind 0383, ranks in the top 1 percent Charolais EPDs for weaning and yearling and top 15 percent for ribeye and scrotal.

Effects of Temperament on Weaning Weight and Feedlot Performance

O

ne of the Oregon studies looked at the affects of temperament on carcass traits in range-originated feeder calves. “We looked at weaned calf values and at carcass value on these calves when we retained ownership. At weaning we looked at the calves and got temperament scores on them, then got data on the aggressive versus calm calves.

The aggressive temperament calves weighed an average of 409.2 pounds. The moderate temperament calves weighed 422.4 pounds and the calm calves weighed 435.6 pounds.

If we plugged in a value for those calves, the aggressive group averaged about $630 per head. The moderate temperament calves were worth

$656 and the calm calves were worth $657,” he says.

“When we retained ownership on those calves and took them all the way to slaughter, the aggressive temperament calves brought $1,102 apiece.

The moderate group was worth $1,152 per head, and the calm group brought $1,119,” he says.

“These aren’t huge differences, but if you are looking at 500 or 1,000 head, a bunch of calm to moderate temperament calves would make a noticeable difference in profit margin. They not only have increased weight at weaning, but they retained that difference and were able to keep going through retained ownership,” he explains. This study was published in 2012 in the Jour-

Livestock Market Digest

Page 10

March 15, 2013

America’s Red State Growth Corridors Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland charge ahead as economies on both coasts sing the blues.

By JOEL KOTKIN

I

n the wake of the 2012 presidential election, some political commentators have written political obituaries of the “red” or conservative-leaning states, envisioning a brave new world dominated by fashionably blue bastions in the Northeast or California. But political fortunes are notoriously fickle, while economic trends tend to be more enduring.

These trends point to a U.S. economic future dominated by four growth corridors that are generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more

conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.

Overall, these corridors account for 45 percent of the nation’s land mass and 30 percent of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7 percent and 8 percent — nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average.

Historically, these regions were little more than resource colonies or low-wage labor sites for richer, more technically advanced areas. By promoting policies that encourage enterprise and spark economic growth, they’re catching up.

Such policies have been pursued not only by Republicans but also by Democrats who don’t share their national party’s notion that business should serve as a cash cow to fund ever more expensive social-welfare, cultural or environmental programs. While California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have either enacted or pursued higher income taxes, many corridor states have no income taxes or are planning, like Kansas and Louisiana, to lower or even eliminate them.

The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine’s 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom. The states of the old Confederacy boast 10 of the top 12 places for locating new plants, according to a recent 2012 study by Site Selection magazine.

Energy, manufacturing and agriculture are playing a major role in the corridor states’ revival. The resurgence of fossil fuel – based energy, notably shale oil and natural gas, is especially important. Over the past decade, Texas alone has added 180,000 mostly high-paying energy-related jobs, Oklahoma another 40,000, and the Intermountain West well over 30,000. Energy-rich California, despite the nation’s third-highest unemployment rate, has created a mere 20,000 such jobs. In New York, meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is still delaying a decision on hydraulic fracturing.

Cheap U.S. natural gas has

some envisioning the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge as an “American Ruhr.” Much of this growth, notes Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute, will be financed by German and other European firms that are reeling from electricity costs now three times higher than in places like Louisiana.

Korean and Japanese firms are already swarming into South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. What the Boston Consulting Group calls a “reallocation of global manufacturing” is shifting production away from expensive East Asia and Europe and toward these lower-cost locales.

The arrival of auto, steel and petrochemical plants – and, increasingly, the aerospace industry – reflects a critical shift for the Southeast, which historically depended on lower-wage industries such as textiles and furniture.

Since 2000, the Intermountain West’s population has grown by 20 percent, the Third Coast’s by 14 percent, the long-depopulating Great Plains by over 14 percent, and the Southeast by 13 percent. Population in the rest of the U.S. has grown barely 7 percent. Last year, the largest net recipients of domestic migrants were Texas and Florida, which between them gained 150,000. The biggest losers?

New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

As a result, the corridors are home to most of America’s fastest-growing big cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and Denver. Critically for the economic and political future, the growth corridor seems particularly appealing to young families with children.

Cities such as Raleigh, Charlotte, Austin, Dallas and Houston enjoy among the country’s

fastest growth rates in the under-15 population. That demographic is on the wane in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco. Immigrants, too, flock to once-unfamiliar places like Nashville, Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Houston and Dallas already have more new immigrants per capita than Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle and Chicago.

Coastal-city boosters suggest that what they lose in numbers they make up for in “quality” migration. “The Feet are moving south and west while the Brains are moving toward coastal cities,” Derek Thompson wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic.

Yet over the past decade, the number of people with bachelor’s degrees grew by a remarkable 50 percent in Austin and Charlotte and by over 30 percent in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta – a far greater percentage growth rate than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Raleigh, Austin, Denver and Salt Lake City have all become high-tech hubs. Charlotte is now the country’s second-largest financial center. Houston isn’t only the world’s energy capital but also boasts the world’s largest medical center and, along with Dallas, has become a major corporate and global transportation hub.

The corridors’ growing success is a testament to the resiliency and adaptability of the American economy. It also challenges the established coastal states and cities to reconsider their current high-tax, high-regulation climates if they would like to join the growth party.

Mr. Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and a City Journal contributing editor. This op-ed is adapted from a report released by the Manhattan Institute on Tuesday, “America’s Growth Corridors: The Key to National Revival.”

Educating tomorrow’s leaders in ranch management, today

N

ew Mexico State University’s Cooperative Extension Service anticipates repeating the success of New Mexico Youth Ranch Management Camp by hosting the third annual event June 9th14th, 2013 at the Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico.

“The camp has been a great success across the board,” said Manny Encinias, NMSU Extension beef cattle specialist and camp committee member.

“The event is designed to be a unique educational experience

and last year’s camp definitely exceeded our expectations.”

The camp, designed for 15 to 19-year-old New Mexico youth, is an effort to reverse the aging trend in ranching. Nationally, the average age in the ranching community continues to increase as more young people are opting to leave the ranch for careers outside production agriculture. As a result, the fabric of rural economies, as well as ranching tradition and cultures, are in jeopardy. In a rural state like New Mexico, the situation has significant implications.

Last year’s 32 camp attendees represented ranching families from 19 New Mexico counties.

With positive outcomes from last year’s camp and the strong support of the program by the state’s beef industry leaders, the planning committee hopes to have more youth from across the state apply for this year’s camp and fill the 30 available slots.

“The ranch camp is a tremendous opportunity for high school youth and is the first continued on page fourteen

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

2013 ANCW President is 2nd Generation Cattle Woman Leader

B

arbara Jackson, Tucson, Arizona has been elected the 62nd President of the American National CattleWomen, Inc. (ANCW) during the organization’s 2013 Annual Meeting in Tampa, Florida.

ANCW is a voice for women who support and promote the beef industry.

Jackson grew up in the beef industry and is following in the footsteps of her mother, Pat Stevenson, who was American National Cowbelle (the predecessor of ANCW) President in 1970.

Her roots as a cattlewoman run deep. Her family has owned and operated Red Rock Feeding Company, a 30,000 head feedyard, in southern Arizona since 1964, and today she is part-owner of the operation. Over the years she’s served as President of the Arizona State Cowbelles, as Region VI ANCW Director, ANCW Vice President, and ANCW President-Elect. She has also served as a member of the National Beef Speakers Bureau and as a committee member on the National Beef Cookoff® and Animal Wellbeing committees.

Jill Ginn, Past ANCW President said “Barbara has helped blaze the trail for women with a passion for the US Beef Industry.

She is a professional role model, advisor and mentor doing all

Barbara Jackson 2013 ANCW President she can to support this industry with her passion, experience and knowledge. Following in her parent’s footsteps, Barbara is a legacy not only for ANCW but for the Beef Industry as well.”

Jackson has a Bachelor of Animal Science with a minor in Agriculture Economics from Washington State University.

Her career has always connected with agriculture. She started her career with Syntex, a pharmaceutical company and then she worked as a consultant. Her career with Syntex took her from Sales Representative to National Accounts Coordinator to Director of Public Relations and

Advertising. It was during those career-building years that she met her husband, Tim Jackson.

Together they founded Animal Health Express in 1989. The Tucson-based online business sells animal health supplies, tack, livestock equipment and pet supplies.

ANCW’s 2013 Executive Committee members are: President, Barbara Jackson, Ariz.; President-Elect, Patti Buck, Colo.; Vice President, Melanie Fowle, Etna, Calif; Recording Secretary, Gretchen Groseta, Ariz.; Past President Tammi Didlot, Okla., Region I Director Ann Nogan, Pa.; Region II Director, Michelle Boyles, N.C.; Region III Director Penny Zimmerman, Minn.; Region IV Director, Desta Crawford, Texas; Region V Director, Peggy Biaggi, Ore.; Region VI Director, Suzanne Menges, Ariz.; Region VII Director, Judy Reece, N.D.; and Parliamentarian, Linda Brake, Ariz.

Since 1952, the American National CattleWomen, Inc., a non-profit volunteer organization, has used its grassroots volunteer energy to engage and educate consumers about beef and the beef industry. For more information, seewww.ancw.org or request information atancw@ ancw.org.

Page 11

Jauer Dependable Genetics 36th Annual Angus Bred Female & Bull Sale Results Jauer Dependable Genetics had a very successful sale on January 26th. We were again blessed with some very nice weather on sale day and the days leading up to the sale.

Buyers came from 15 states to purchase our low input, low maintenance cattle.

Sale Results: u174 head, avg. $3,089; gross $537,400 u 57 spring bred cows, avg. $3,546 u 13 fall cows w/calves, avg. $3,131 u 60 commercial heifers, avg.$1,863 u 44 bulls, avg. $4,155 Volume Buyers: u 14 purebred cows, Rod Rhode, Nebraska u 29 commercial heifers, Arlin Van Hof, Minnesota

u 12 bulls, Robert Ellsworth, South Dakota High sellers: u Spring bred cow, lot 3, Jauer New Edition 6181 9042, $10,250 sold to Wildcat Creek Ranch in Kansas u Fall cow w/hfr. calf, lot 43, Jauer 332 Emblazon 8148 6161, $4,300 sold to Brent Katz in Nebraska u Commercial heifer, lot 78, $2,500 sold to Judson Thorson in Minnesota u Two-year-old bull, lot 156, Jauer Missing Link 9060 1005, $14,000 sold to John Ferguson in Ohio u Herd bull, lot 216, Jauer 779 Neville 7114 9266, $4,500 sold to Jon Marshall in Texas Cattle sold into 15 states – IA, KS, KY, MN, MO, NC, NE, NM, OH, OK, SD, TX, VA, WI, & WY.

Susie Magnuson of Colorado Awarded Outstanding Cattle Woman of the Year

S

usie Magnuson was named the 2012 Outstanding CattleWoman of the Year by the American National CattleWomen, Inc. (ANCW) at the Cattle Industry Annual Convention in Tampa, Fla. The CattleWoman of the Year Award is sponsored

by Purina Animal Nutrition, LLC. For 25+ years Magnuson has been involved in the beef community, as a rancher and farmer, as a promoter of beef and as a leader in CattleWomen organizations. She started her CattleWoman involvement in the late 1980s with her local Weld County CattleWomen group. Over the years she has served on many local, state and national CattleWomen committees, served in multiple officer positions and she’s served as a mentor. Her achievements include: 1994-1995 Colorado CattleWomen President, 2004 ANCW President, National Beef Speakers Bureau member and 2012 ANCW Parliamentarian.

Youth education and beef promotion are two areas in which Magnuson has contributed countless volunteer hours.

She has given numerous presentations to students, helped serve dinners for fundraisers, coordinated beef promotion booths, and helped with as many beef focused activities as she could. Magnuson’s fellow CattleWomen describe Susie as someone who is always willing to help and who values her community.

Magnuson graduated in 1970 from Arickaree High School, a small school in eastern Colorado near the town of Cope. She attended Grace Bible College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Upon graduating from college, she returned for a two-year mission in the Congo. After her mission, she returned to Colorado and where she met Ted Magnuson.

Ted and Susie were married in 1982 by Susie’s father and they lived on the family farm west of Eaton, where she still resides today.

In addition to being an out-

standing CattleWoman and wife, Magnuson is a mother to two sons who now work on the family farm with her.

In 2011 Susie was diagnosed with breast cancer, but fought it with all her faith and might and is now in remission.

Today Magnuson continues to support agriculture by serving as a board member on the Weld County Livestock Association and she attends local, state and national CattleWomen functions. She is also involved in her county chapter of the American Cancer Society, helps with the local MOPS (Mothers of Pre-Schoolers) and is a vast supporter of the local FFA chapter just to name a few.

Since 1952, the American National CattleWomen, Inc., a non-profit volunteer organization, has used its grassroots volunteer energy to engage and educate consumers about beef and the beef industry. For more information, see www. ancw.org or request information at ancw@ancw.org.

Place your Real Estate ad in the 2013 FME (Including the DIGEST 25) 5 0 5 / 2 4 3 - 9 5 1 5

•

✴ Special Real Estate section ✴ Full-color, high-gloss magazine with internet visibility ✴ Appears on the internet for 12 full months after publication ✴ www.aaalivestock is the top-ranking website in the Yahoo and MSN search engines

w w w . a a a l i v e s t o c k . c o m

Livestock Market Digest

Page 12

2013 Women in Agriculture Leadership Conference

Heroes on the Horizon

L

ooking to the horizon, the 9th biennial Women in Agriculture Leadership Conference (WALC) is head to Las Cruces, New Mexico to forge partnerships and develop innovative ideas to propel agriculture forward.

Slated for May 1 through 3 at the Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces, this year’s program will link each topic with one aspect of being a hero. Giving, Inspiring, Resourceful, Authentic, Talented, Courageous, Skilled, Hopeful, Example, Connected, Generous, Effective, Reflective and Determined are all characteristics of a hero to be covered.

The conference will provide participants with awareness, enthusiasm, leadership, education, and networking opportunities. The conference will feature a presentation from the highly successful Horses For Heroes – New Mexico Inc. Cowboy Up, a program to train combat veterans to become cowboys.

The WALC has always reached a diverse group of women of all ages from across New Mexico and beyond. In 2013 WALC has developed a track for young high school and college aged women who also share a love of agriculture and want to improve themselves to make the industry better. The first goal for this new outreach is to help young women learn about the different opportunities available to them in the field of agriculture. Allowing the participants to learn about the various agricultural industries through-

Environmentalists continued from page one

example. It offers cheap, clean energy, has a stellar safety record, offers economic opportunity, and provides the U.S. energy self-reliance. But environmental groups have labeled the technology as evil. It’s been an unexpected and tricky roadblock toward their goal of ending the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. Nonetheless, fracking technology has led to a boom in domestic oil and gas production.

A Closer Look: Scratching My Head Over “Frack-Free” Beef States like California have been using the technology for years, with no evidence of the environmental degradation that’s been predicted. And, with record unemployment and what continues to be the most prolonged dismal

out the state and hopefully create valuable contacts for the participants. The second goal is to provide industry leaders the chance to possibly recruit future employees and promote their own work. Last, it will encourage young women to recognize their strengths and natural leadership abilities. It will give young women an outlet to meet and bond with peers that share similar and goals and hopefully create a support system for them to use their leadership skills. It will create a safe place for them to share their love of agriculture and learn how that love could become a career.

The WALC also honors “Diamonds in the Rough” award winners at each event.

Nominations for this award are open until April 1.

Rooms for the 2013 WALC have been blocked at a rate of $99 plus tax until April 3, 2013. After this date, rates go up. Attendees are responsible for making their own reservations. To reserve rooms, please call the Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces at 1-866-3830443 and reference the Women in Agriculture Leadership Conference.

Registration applications and Diamond award nominations are available on the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau and New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association websites as well as the Women in Agriculture Leadership Conference Facebook page. Sponsorships for the event is also available and appreciated.

economic performance of modern times, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to argue for policies that will reduce jobs or lower standards of living.

But to sustain itself, the big business that environmentalism has become must continue to generate billions of dollars. To do that, it must manufacture a steady stream of crises. The old standby tactics of simply hammering independent businesses and economic growth aren’t as effective anymore.

Thus, they must find a way to repackage their message and temper the effects of their agenda on consumers. If they continue to be seen as detrimental to the economy or, worse yet, advocating for certain industries over others to line their own pockets, the people’s perception of them will continue to decline.

Obviously a more balanced ap-

March 15, 2013

USDA’s Vilsack says inspector layoffs mean meat shortages

• No way to avoid meat inspector furloughs, Vilsack says • USDA may stagger layoffs to minimize impact on industry • No clarity on timing of overall USDA furloughs

A

mericans should expect to experience spotty shortages of meat due to furloughs of food inspectors caused by federal budget cuts, but the government will stagger the layoffs to minimize the impact, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said recently.

Automatic budget cuts are scheduled to take effect unless a deal can be reached in Congress.

During an interview with Reuters TV, Vilsack said furloughs of meat inspectors, and the cascading impact on the meat industry, were unavoidable although shortages were unlikely to occur imme-

diately.

“At some point, you’re going to have shortages,” said Vilsack.

“The reality is there are going to be disruptions.”

The White House says USDA’s meat safety agency would have to furlough its 8,400 inspectors for the equivalent of 15 days to compile the savings required under the automatic cuts. But those days off could be structured in various ways.

Vilsack says USDA would try to minimize the impact on consumers and the meat industry. It will depend, he said, on “how many days we have to furlough and how we stagger those days.”

It was the first time Vilsack mentioned staggering the furloughs, although officials have said the furloughs might occur on non-consecutive days.

A mass layoff of inspectors

would shut down nearly 6,300 meat packing and processing plants because companies cannot ship meat that lacks the USDA inspection seal. The White House estimates the industry would lose $10 billion in production with a two-week shutdown.

Meat processors say the government is required by law to provide meat inspection and USDA should find other ways to save money and keep inspectors on the job.

Vilsack did not specify how furloughs at other USDA agencies might be structured. For example, the Agricultural Marketing Service generates prices used as benchmarks for livestock futures at CME Group Inc. USDA personnel also perform key roles in inspecting exports of U.S. grains and cotton.

Source: Rueters

The Jobs Crisis Is About Much More than Unemployment

P

resident Obama has positioned himself as champion of the middle class. Repeatedly, he has appealed to the middle class as a means of justifying tax increases, rolling back the sequester, or expanding government programs. But how have middle class workers fared since the start of the recession in 2007, ask Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar, and Daniel Hanson, an economics researcher, at the American Enterprise Institute.

A typical measure of middle class labor market health is the unemployment rate, which currently stands at 7.8 percent.

But even for those who are fortunate enough to have jobs, the labor market has exacted a toll on their standards of living.

Since 2007, the real median income of American families

has dropped by over $5,000 per family, while the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average employed person spends 8.3 hours per day working, up from 7.6 hours per day in 2007.

In other words, American employees are working more and earning less.

Meanwhile, median household wealth has dropped. According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, American families have experienced a significant drop in net worth since the start of the crisis.

For workers at either end of the income distribution, the movements have been even more extreme.

Workers in the lowest quintile are far more likely to be working longer hours than their middle quintile counterparts, though wages have held constant.

proach when it comes to public policy makes sense. But just like the political parties, it’s the base that generates the billions of dollars in inflows. The trick lies in finding the balance between the mainstream public, which they need to clamor for (or stay out of the way of) their policies, and keeping the activists happy.

Another Viewpoint: Perhaps The Industry Needs New Allies From an industry standpoint, not even the powerful oil and gas industries have been able to hold their own against the power of the environmental lobby. Industries like the cattle industry, of course, have been literally run over, with no recourse. Whether it’s endangered species, the Environmental Protection Agency or public land use, the environmental movement seemingly racks up victory after victory.

Agriculture must come together to provide a united front. This presents a whole lot of issues for cattlemen’s groups, which historically have never fought for issues not directly relevant to their cause.

But we have to accept that it’s not specific issues, but the extreme views of the movement that must be countered. Just like private property rights, they must be defended, whether they involve a rancher or not.

It will mean some unlikely alliances and strange bedfellows from time to time, but one has to recognize the amazing power of the environmental movement and how it was magnified with global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change. They will continue to dictate the direction of public discourse until an opposing force can equal their impact and create balance.

For workers in the highest quintile, income has fallen most drastically, but hours worked have remained approximately the same.

The trade-off between work and hours across income classes demonstrates that despite drifting downward, the unemployment rate obscures the real pain in the American workforce. Despite the recovery beginning in June 2009, Americans in general still feel the malaise of sluggish growth and stagnant wages.

A major reason for the persistence of falling wages and rising hours since the Great Recession is the tremendous uncertainty attached to investment decisions.

Source: Aparna Mathur and Daniel Hanson, “The Jobs Crisis Is About Much More than Unemployment,” Real Clear Markets, February 27, 2013.

Advertise to Cattleman in the

Livestock Market Digest

FOR SALE

100 3-6 YO Angus Cross Pairs - $1600 Each 100 3-6 YO Angus Cross Bred 1-3 Months - $1300 HD Call Joe Rudnick 661/325-2900 Bakersfield, CA

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Page 13

Cattle graze amid Beale’s spy planes

By Ben van der Meer A-D Reporter www.appeal-democrat.com

Beale’s grazing program: • About 1,900 cattle are grazing on base at the moment, between three leaseholders.

• Grazing season is usually between November and the end of May, all on nonirrigated pasture.

• Typically, cattle are Angus and Hereford breeds and are bred for beef.

• Cattle occupy about 12,000 acres of Beale’s 23,000 acres.

• Beale receives about $250,000 in leasing fees, most of which goes to program costs such as fence repair.

A

s sleek jets, unmanned drones and famous spy planes roar overhead, one group of Beale Air Force residents couldn’t care less. They’re much more likely to get excited by sunshine, a spot

of green grass and cool water to quench their thirst.

Thousands of cattle this time of year dot more than half the base’s 23,000 acres, helping Beale maintain its grassland environment and giving the ranchers who participate in the base’s grazing program a well-fed, sassy specimen when they’re finished.

Chuck Carroll, who runs the program in his role as Beale’s natural resources manager, said cattle feeding on the grass on base property goes back to before the base was established.

Since World War II, though, it’s been part of an annual program ranchers across Northern California compete to join. At the moment, Carroll said, ranches in Chico, Gridley and Elk Grove have their cattle on base for a seven-month stint usually starting in November and ending in May. “There’s a real demand for land, and beef prices are up,” he

McDonald’s to cut chicken dish, salad from menu; still weighing burger decision

By Dani Friedland meatingplace.com

M

cDonald’s will cut Chicken Selects and its apple walnut salad from the menu, a McDonald’s spokeswoman confirmed to Meatingplace.

Director of U.S. Communications Danya Proud said the company is “currently reviewing

options” as to the future of the Angus Third Pounder.

Princeton, Ky.-based franchisee McEnaney Enterprises tweeted that the chain was discontinuing Chicken Selects and all Angus burgers; a version posted to Facebook was subsequently removed. The Kentucky New Era reports that stores will continue selling the discontinued items until they run out.

Humane Group Unveils Smart Phone App for Cruelty Tipsters

By Pat Raia / thehorse.com

M

obile phone owners have a new way to report animal cruelty crimes thanks to a new smart phone application unveiled on Feb. 20 by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF).

The California-based ALDF advances animals’ interests through the legal system.

Organization spokeswoman Lisa Franzetta said that the ALDF Crime Tips application allows anyone who see or suspects animal cruelty or neglect to submit audio, video, picture, and GPS information of any incident straight to the nearest law enforcement authorities.

ALDF worked with LiveSafe, a Washington D.C.-based mobile safety and incident reporting firm, to develop the application, Franzetta said.

“This discreet . . . way to help animals lets concerned citizens take action on the spot with the confidence that their tips will get to authorities who can help animals,” said ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells.

Some rescuers’ opinions about

the application are mixed.

Roy Gross, director of the Suffolk County, N.Y., Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said that the phone application allows callers to report animal cruelty as soon as they see it.

“If they’re driving by and they see something, they can call us immediately,” Gross said. “If they wait until they get home, they probably won’t make the call or they’ll completely forget about it.”

Meanwhile, Morgan Silver, executive director Horse Protection Association of Florida, said that while the application will help lead law enforcement to sites where abuse is in progress, it bypasses caller contact with rescue operators.

“We have received calls reporting dead horses and it turns out that the horses were just sleeping, or when sometimes ribs show on a saggy bellied horse (whose) condition is good,” Silver said. “In these situations, the line of communications is very important (because) we are able to educate callers about what they are seeing.”

said, adding 16 ranches submitted bids to join the program last year for a five-year cycle.

For Beale, the benefit comes in not only what ranches pay for grazing fees, but in reducing fire danger, helping vernal pool management and reducing invasive plant species such as star thistle, Carroll said.

“In order to have grassland, you have to have sustainable grazing,” he said. “This provides a service to the local economy, and we’re using public land productively.”

Seeing animals peacefully graze on a military base also has a morale boost, Carroll said, based on the dozens of positive comments he has received.

But though they’re definitely noticed, the cattle don’t respond much in kind. As a U2 spy plane took off on a recent afternoon with a roar overhead, a few dozen Angus cattle took no more interest than in gawkers at road-

side or a hawk soaring a few feet overhead.

“When they’re first getting there, their ears perk up when something’s flying,” said rancher Chris Donati of Chico. “But they get used to it pretty quick.”

Feeding time?

Nope, just archaeologists As it helps the base, the grazing program at Beale Air Force Base isn’t a bad deal for the cattle, either.

Chico cattle rancher Chris Donati, who has a few hundred head of beef cattle on the base, said his past results have been positive.

“It’s pretty good ground,” said Donati, adding the Beale stint helps him bill his cattle as organic, grass-fed beef. “They are the happy cows of California.”

Not only cows, though.

Base natural resources manager Chuck Carroll said for prescribed grazing, the base has also brought in sheep and goats, spe-

cifically to help cut fire breaks.

Strong, well-maintained fences keep the cattle from wandering where they shouldn’t, but that doesn’t mean they don’t occasionally cause unintended trouble.

Some years back, archaeologists at the base parked their car in one of the pastures, then left it for several hours while they researched artifacts some distance away.

In the meantime, Carroll said, cattle, thinking it was a vehicle coming to drop off food for them, surrounded the car and robustly wiped their noses on it.

The cattle had lost interest and wandered off when the archaeologist returned to find their slightly sticky, damp car, with no ready explanation for why, Carroll said.

A base official who had grown up around agriculture was the one who eventually figured out what happened, he said.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 14

March 15, 2013

1031 Tax Deferred Exchanges for Farms and Ranches (and Income and Commercial Real Estate)

By John Knipe Ranch and Farm Broker

R

eal estate that qualifies for 1031 tax deferred treatment, that is to say real estate that is held for the productive use in a trade or business or for investment, qualifies for deferring capital gains. Some types of property like stocks, bonds and other types do not qualify. Property in a 1031 tax deferred exchange, is exchanged rather than bought and sold.

Exchanged properties must be of “like kind”. In other words, it must be in the same character and nature but are not required to be same quality. Property being exchanged through a 1031 in the United States must be exchanged for other property in the United States. Real property in the United States that is held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment may be exchanged for other real property in the United States that is held for a productive use in a trade or business or for investment. If a qualifying property is exchanged for other qualifying property, but cash is also used to equalize the transaction, the cash is not treated as “likekind” and is taxed at normal capital gains rate. Cash in such

circumstances is referred to as “boot.”

Certain types of property may defer the recognition of capital losses or capital gains due at time of sale, under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. This allows owners to defer capital gains taxes otherwise due.

If the seller assumes a greater liability than the buyer, the realized loss cannot offset any realized gain of receiving boot such as cash or other person property that would also be considered boot. However, if liabilities assumed by the buyer exceed those of the seller, the realized gain of the seller will not only be realized, bus also recognized. A taxpayer must identify the property for exchange before closing, identify the replacement property within 45 days of closing, and must acquire the replacement property within 180 days. There are exceptions and factors than may limit these time frames and give you less time to perform so check with a qualified tax professional as to you specific situation. To facilitate the transaction, a “qualified intermediary” must be used to complete the transaction.

The property you are selling (the relinquished property) and

the property you are acquiring (the replacement property) do not have to be simultaneous transactions. When transactions are not simultaneous, this is sometimes called a Starker Tax Deferred Exchange. The taxpayer must follow the guidelines of the Internal Revenue Service. One such guideline is

A taxpayer must identify the property for exchange before closing, identify the replacement property within 45 days of closing, and must acquire the replacement property within 180 days. the requirement that a qualified intermediary must be used for a non-simultaneous exchange.

The proceeds of the sale must be used to buy other like-kind, qualifying investment or business property. Within 45 days the replacement property must be identified and the sale of the old or relinquished property and the acquisition of the replace-

Ranch Camp continued from page ten

of its kind across states I have been involved with,” said Dennis Braden, general manager of Swenson Land and Cattle Co. in Stamford, Texas, and a camp volunteer and presenter.

“What the kids learned at the ranch camp has a direct impact on the quality of beef produced for future generations,” said Dina Reitzel, executive director of the New Mexico Beef Council.

The Council was one of many industry organizations and companies including the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association and the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau that helped sponsor the inaugural camp. The

Ranchers Develop continued from page five

To place your ad here, contact Randy Summers randy@aaalivestock.com

to make decisions about stocking rates, alternate forage, and changes to burn schedules. After a drought, strategies for recovery are needed that take into consideration the severity of the drought, market trends, and financial issues. These factors affect decisions such as when

ment property must be completed with 180 days of the sale of the older, relinquished property.

The replacement property must be of equal or greater value.

All proceeds of the relinquished property must be used to acquire the replacement property.

If the seller received proceeds or has control of the proceeds of the sale of the property that is being sold or relinquished, the exchange will be disqualified to the extent of the amount of the proceeds that are received by the seller. Qualified intermediaries usually are assigned interest and deals are structured in this manner before they close. Putting a qualified intermediary in place prior to closing is done to help insure the seller does not receive or have access to funds after the closing of the property being sold and before the property being purchased is purchased.

When the relinquished property closes. the proceeds are sent by the title company to the qualified intermediary. The qualified intermediary holds the funds until its time for the transaction of the replacement property to close. The qualified intermediary after closing the replacement property delivers the property to the buyer so the taxpayer does not have constructive receipt of the funds from the property they relinquished.

Debt on a 1031 Exchange must be equal or greater on the replacement property in comparison to the property being

relinquished in order to avoid “debt reduction boot.” Debt reduction occurs with a debt on the replacement property is less than the debt on the relinquished property. This is also called trading down and may result in “debt reduction boot.”

Make sure you get competent tax advice with doing an exchange so you know all the rules and regulations and benefits and consequences of such a transaction, specific to your circumstances, situation and property.

The 1031 Exchange allows an owner of a qualifying property to simply exchange the property he has for another 1031 eligible property that is of likekind. Neither gain nor loss are recognized in such an exchange.

Gain or loss is locked up in the replacement property so there is no loss or gain for income tax purposes.

Farmers and ranchers often consider the benefits of a 1031 exchange when they are ready to sell their land. A structured sale is another alternative for such owners when selling. Rather than a 10 exchange, some owners may choose to sell on a contract and pay tax over several years as payments are received for payment of the property being sold on a contract. You are strongly encouraged to contact and develop a relationship with an experienced farm and ranch broker who can assist you in structuring such a sale or acquisition.

30 youth selected to attend this year’s camp will receive training in all aspects of ranch management.

The camp is “packed with information,” according to 2011 camp attendee Katrina Benson, whose family ranches in northern New Mexico. “We fabricated our own beef carcass, got to feel inside of a live cow’s stomach,” said Benson, “I now know how to give shots correctly to cattle, how to monitor rangeland, manage wildlife and their habitats, and lastly, how to market beef.”

“Participants will leave this experience with a greater appreciation for not only new skills and practices, but also the economics of each practice as it relates to cash flow for a ranch in the Southwest,” Encinias said.

Throughout the week, partici-

pants will work in teams and ultimately present a ranch management plan before a review panel as they compete for prizes and scholarships.

According to Benson, who was on last year’s champion ranch management plan team, the camp structure and volunteers brought out “self-discovery, helping each of us find and tell ‘our ranching story’ to discover who we are as ranchers. I learned more in my week of ranch camp than in any other summer program I’ve attended!”

Applications are due May 1st and this year’s camp is open to youth from outside New Mexico. A panel of industry leaders will review the applications and select participants by May 5th.

Successful applicants must submit a $300 camp fee by June 1st.

and how much to restock. Advisers recommend cost analysis exercises to help ranchers determine the short- and long-term tradeoffs.

The insights and information gleaned from this experience went into creating the website “Managing Drought Risk on the Ranch.” It offers practical planning tools and information about drought, its impacts, and management options. The site,

available at http://drought.unl. edu/ranchplan/Overview.aspx, is maintained by the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Full text of “A Drought-Planning Methodology for Ranchers in the Great Plains,” Rangelands, Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2013, is available at: http://srmjournals.org/toc/rala/35/1.

Source: Rangelands

Livestock Market Digest

March 15, 2013

Page 15

Standing Out in the Crowd

by Callie Gnatkowski Gibson

C

harolais are hard to miss. The big, light colored cattle easily catch your eye in fields and pastures, and they also stand out in all segments of the beef industry. Cow-calf and commercial producers like the muscular calves that top the scales in the fall, feeders appreciate the breed’s hardiness and quick growth, and carcass quality and cutability make money on the slaughter end of the business.

Charolais were developed in central France, and are one of that country’s oldest cattle breeds. They were imported into the United States from Mexico in 1934, and continue to grow in popularity today.

Over the years, several breed associations, focused on different aspects of the breed, were established. Eventually, all merged into a single organization, the American International Charolais Association (AICA).

From Texas . . .

For Texas Charolais producer Trey Wood, results make the difference.

“When you look at the entire Charolais

Cow-calf and commercial producers like the muscular calves that top the scales in the fall, feeders appreciate the breed’s hardiness and quick growth, and carcass quality and cutability make money on the slaughter end of the business package, I think our cattle will outperform any other breed.”

The Woods – Trey, his father Clark, and their family – raise purebred Charolais and Angus cattle on C Bar Ranch, southeast of Lubbock, Texas, near Slaton. Trey is the third generation on the ranch that has been in the family since his grandfather bought it in 1950, and says the fourth generation is working his way up.

The family got their start with the breed in 1970, when Clark bought his first Charolais bulls to use on their crossbred cattle. “They loved the outcome,” Trey said.

“My granddad was a died-in-the-wool Hereford man. My dad said that he just couldn’t stand to look at those yellow and white calves out in the pasture, but every time one went across the scale, he got a

big grin on his face.”

Clark then bought some purebred Charolais cows, and the Woods started selling bulls in the early 1970s. They maintained two separate herds, commercial and purebred, for many years, then in the mid-80s moved to a straight Charolais operation.

Today, the Woods market both bulls and females private treaty from the ranch, Trey noted. Although the market for heifers is not as big, they do sell some as replacements and people are always welcome to come out and take a look. “Selling bulls this way gives us time to get to know our customers, and knowing the people you sell to helps you understand their needs.”

The cost of putting on a sale is another factor, he said. “We have held sales in the past, and between the costs of labor, ad-

vertising and putting on the sale, it gets expensive. It’s cheaper for us to sell private treaty, and we’re able to pass some of that savings on to the customer. To me, it just makes sense.”

After the bull calves are weaned, they’re grown out on wheat pasture, he explained.

“It’s great feed, and when we sell them, our bulls still know how to get out and use the pasture. They won’t fall through the floor when our customers get them home.”

The breed is known for its hybrid vigor and muscling, as well as the identifiability of calves with Charolais genetics. In addition, adaptability is one of the breed’s best qualities, according to Trey. “Their doability in different country is phenomenal. They don’t have trouble with transition. We’ve sold bulls to both the East coast and to Mexico, and brought Charolais cattle home from Montana, and haven’t seen that “fall apart” that sometimes happens.”

The Woods run their Charolais and Angus cattle together, and he says he has definitely noticed a difference between the two breeds. “The Charolais use the

Real EstateGuide The Livestock Market Digest

To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515 or at randy@aaalivestock.com

continued on page sixteen

Livestock Market Digest

Page 16

Standing Out

continued from page fifteen

country better, you see them up on the hillsides and up on rocky canyons.”

The breed has a history of disposition problems, but Trey said he works hard to make sure he raises gentle cattle. He also works to raise easy-calving cattle, and strives for birthweights of 85-95 pounds. “Our cattle have a good disposition – we work on it all the time. I can’t speak for everyone, you can have disposition problems in any breed, but we work hard on it. If anything starts acting crazy, we get rid of it. Wild cattle cost you money across the board, and it’s just not worth it to have them around.”

The Woods run their cattle like any commercial producer, feeding cake when it’s needed.

Their home ranch country includes a little bit of everything, he noted. “We have rolling hills, sandy country and rocky canyon country. We see the cattle use the country really well.”

The Woods have also had success running Charolais cattle in the rocky Texas hill country, he pointed out. “That country is not as forgiving as our home country, but the cattle are doing very well.

Even in this drought, as bad as it’s been, the cows are in good shape and are breeding back.”

The cattle market can be a tricky thing, with something like color having a big influence on prices. “There still seems to be a little stigma against white cattle in the market,” he noted. “Many times, a pure white calf won’t sell as well as a black or grey, even when the white calf is of comparable quality or better.”

Despite that, Trey believes that properly managed, Charolais will net you more money and a better bottom line. “Charolais is a very good breed, and I think that people can make money on them.

It costs the same amount to run sorry cattle as it does to run the good ones – you have the same time and input invested – so you might as well run good ones for the maximum output. It’s kind of like driving from here to Dallas in a Mercedes versus a Yugo – you’ll get there either way, but why not get there quicker and in style?”

To Kansas: Myron Runft, of Myron Runft Charolais / Runft Charolais Ranch, raises purebred Charolais cattle in Republic County of north central Kansas, near the Nebraska state line.

Myron grew up in the Charolais business. His father bought their first bulls – three quarters Charolais and one quarter Brahman – in 1956 to use on a group of second-calf Hereford heifers that came out of west Texas as well as the native herd, and the family has stayed with the breed ever since. They kept upgrading, incorporating some of Myron’s 4-H projects along the away, and eventually built their purebred

herd.

The identifiability of Charolais and Charolais-cross calves is one important strength of the breed, he said. “Because of the color, you know what you’re buying. A lot of black cattle range from almost pure exotic to English, and there’s no real way to know just by looking at them.

In addition, he likes the breed’s adaptability, which he attributes in part to their ability to sweat – a trait shared only with the Brahman breed – and the number of hairs per square inch of hide.

“Charolais were developed in France, and range from Central America to Canada. We’ve been raising them here for almost 60 years, and they’re pretty tough cattle. They don’t suffer from the heat as bad as the animals that have to expel heat through their lungs.”

He also cites the breed’s docility, carcass cutability, and the consistency you get with Charolais calves. The breed has also made great strides in fertility and calving ease.

Today, his primary focus is on raising seedstock for the commercial cattleman. “Once in a while I’ll sell something to a purebred producer, but my bread and butter is commercial cattlemen.”

He markets most females private treaty, and sends some through the auction as heifers.

“A Charolais cow makes a nice mama, and you get little smokies and buckskins. I have a good demand for the heifers, a lot of commercial cattleman are using them to back cross on continental breeds.”

Myron markets his spring-born bulls – those born between February and April – at a sale held at the local sale barn the fourth Monday in March. The outliers, bulls born in the summer and fall, he sells private treaty. Over the years, he has helped several area producers get into the Charolais business, and he collaborates with those producers on the spring bull sale. “We put our bulls together to make a bigger offering at the sale. It gives our customers more options and different bloodlines to choose from.”

Typically, females aren’t included in the sale, but this year may be a little different, he explained. “Last year, I saved a lot of females with the intention of restocking some of the country that has been drouthed out.

Those females are bred, and the drought hasn’t let up, so I have more available this year.”

Farming is prevalent in north central Kansas, so big cow herds are not common, he noted. Typically, people run cattle on the ground they can’t get a tractor on, which provides another source of income for the family.

Myron runs his cattle on pasture in the summer, and the herd winters on crop residue.

Bull calves are fed out on a fairly high roughage ration, and he does not creep feed the calves.

“One of the comments I’ve had on our bulls is that they hold to-

gether well when customers get them home and put them out with their herds.”

Myron uses tools like ultrasound to make sure he has the most accurate information, both to improve his breeding program and for customers’ benefit.

“We do ultrasounding and semen checking so that we know

March 15, 2013 what we’re raising and what we’re selling,” he said. “We give all of the data to our customers, so they can decide whether they want a little more growth, extra cutability, or just a nice white bull.”

Artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer also play an important role. “Every cow gets

AIed once, then we use a cleanup bull. I do a limited amount of embryo transfer work – I like to think that my cows are good enough to raise quality. I only use it when I find an exceptional animal. It’s expensive, and you don’t always get a lot of appreciation of that extra expense from the guy with the checkbook.”