News Update
Sept. 25, 2008

Stokes Resigns as CEO of NCBA

Terry Stokes, chief executive officer of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), announced today he will resign from his position following the 2009 Cattle Industry Convention, Jan. 31, 2009.

Stokes said representing cattlemen and championing their cause has been the greatest honor and the most fulfilling job of his career, but he explained it also is all-consuming. He said he is looking forward to spending time with his family and exploring new opportunities.

“Terry shared his news with the NCBA officers this morning. I speak for all of them when I say we want Terry to stay. His leadership and commitment to the beef industry are incomparable. Yet, personally, we respect and honor Terry’s decision to make this life change. We only hope he continues to contribute to the industry; his leadership is that valuable,” said Andy Groseta, cattle producer, Cottonwood, Ariz., and president of NCBA.

Stokes joined NCBA 12 years ago, in 1996, as chief financial officer. He was appointed CEO in 2002. During his tenure as CEO, NCBA grew revenues 41%. Membership grew more than 17% in the past three years.

“So much of Terry’s work has been behind the scenes. He is not a ‘look-at-me’ kind of leader. So I’m not sure how many people realize what a difference he has made to NCBA and the beef industry. That said, I respect his personal decision to find the next mountain to climb,” said Gary Voogt, a cattle producer from Marne, Mich., and NCBA president-elect. “NCBA deals with every issue the cattle industry faces, and Terry can speak to every single issue. He is amazingly adept at knowing what’s going on and what needs to be done,” Voogt said.

Stokes led the NCBA team in its response to the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States, a response that has been credited for maintaining consumer confidence in beef. Since that discovery in late 2003, Stokes has dedicated countless hours to working with the U.S. government convincing world leaders to open their borders to U.S. beef.

“Those who have worked with Terry know he is, above all else, a collaborator. He can bring a room of opposing interests and personalities together and find common ground. And that’s because Terry is always focused on doing the right thing,” said Steve Foglesong, cattle producer, Astoria, Ill., and vice president of NCBA. “NCBA has been Terry’s extended family, and we are extremely thankful to his family for sharing him as long as they have. This industry and NCBA are better for it,” Foglesong said.

Stokes also directed the development of a strategic plan for NCBA efforts funded by the beef checkoff, focusing on product innovation, nutrition and safety, what he calls the three pillars of demand. Most recently, Stokes ensured the 2008 Farm Bill included cattlemen’s top priorities, such as minimizing the recordkeeping burden of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on producers and securing increased funding for conservation programs.

“NCBA is a stronger association today because Terry has been at the helm. He leaves it with a clear vision: to create a growing, profitable and sustainable beef industry. We will miss his leadership, commitment and passion both to the industry and NCBA,” Groseta said.

“Working with Terry through January next year, we will ensure a seamless transition,” Groseta concluded. NCBA’s officers will begin work on a search plan for the next CEO of NCBA.

— Release provided by NCBA.

Remember Safety When Harvesting Downed Corn

With windblown corn in various conditions, from leaning stalks to plants on the ground, harvesting may be a challenge this fall. But in the haste to salvage crop losses, the one thing farmers should not forget is safety.

“Safety will be an issue this fall,” said Randall Reeder, an Ohio State University (OSU) Extension agricultural engineer. “Because of downed corn, harvest will drag on longer than usual, the header will plug more often, and operator stress and frustration will be higher. Under these conditions, it is more important than ever to emphasize safety in and around equipment.”

Reeder said that the main issues farmers will be facing in harvesting downed corn include slower operating speeds; more frequent header plugging; more rocks picked up by the header; and more cornstalks going through the combine along with the grain, slowing grain separation and contributing to more grain thrown out the back of the equipment.

“Farmers are also going to get more frustrated seeing whole ears laying in the field,” said Reeder, who also holds an appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). “Add to that a delayed spring planting, which will translate into delays in fall harvest, and farmers will be pushed to harvest as quickly as possible before the days turn shorter and the weather worsens.”

Reeder offers some tips for farmers to ensure they harvest downed corn safely:

• Make sure the combine is in peak operating order. “Downed corn will cause enough problems without the annoyance of routine breakdowns,” Reeder said.
• Look for harvesting aids or equipment that specifically deals with downed corn.
• If a farmer has precision farming equipment, use it. “Auto steering and/or a row sensor can at least relieve the operator of trying to see and follow the row,” Reeder said.
• Make adjustments to the header to accommodate broken stalks or downed plants.
• Take a break when needed, despite the rush to finish and the long hours in the combine. “Drink plenty of liquids and eat healthy,” Reeder said.
• Tape safety reminders at various places, such as the combine cab or dryer area.
• Count to 10 before exiting the cab to deal with a problem.
• “When you have to get out of the combine cab to solve a problem, make sure you turn the combine off first,” Reeder said. “If a second person is helping to unclog the header, still turn the equipment off. The No. 1 rule for preventing injuries is always turn equipment off first, Reeder emphasizes.

“Operating in a safe, deliberate manner may extend harvest by a week or two. That may seem excessive, but compare it to the delay that could result from a major injury,” Reeder said.

According to OSU’s Agricultural Safety and Health Program, the number of farm fatalities spikes in the spring and in the fall, coinciding with planting and harvest. Between 1997 and 2006, there were 60 fatalities in Ohio related to farm machinery and equipment.

For more information on harvesting downed corn, including links to other web sites, log on to OSU’s Agronomic Crops Team web site at http://agcrops.osu.edu.

— Release provided by OSU’s College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Science.

Residual Feed Intake Studies Can Improve Herd Efficiency, Profits

Cattle producers attending Beef Day at the University of Missouri (MU) South Farm learned new words that may help them improve efficiency and add profits from their herds.

Residual feed intake (RFI) is being measured in two barns at the MU Beef Research and Teaching Farm, south of Columbia, Mo., site of the annual field day to show research and Extension programs.

Producers heard results and saw demonstrations of the electronically monitored feedbunks used in the studies. Individual feed boxes, mounted on electronic scales, automatically pick up the electronic ear tag number of a calf as it eats. Time, amount and duration of eating are recorded on a computer, second by second.

In the past, feeding trials were on groups of calves with group averages of gain being measured.

“We are learning things we never knew about how individual calves eat,” Monte Kerley, MU beef nutritionist, told visitors. For one, there is a wide range of feed intake, even within what looks like a uniform set of calves.

From data collected, animal scientists calculate an RFI index. This compares an individual feed efficiency against the group average. In an example Kerley used to explain the process, one bull calf in a group feedlot test ate 5 pounds (lb.) less feed per day than the average for the group.

“The potential impact that individual’s RFI has on profitability is significant,” Kerley said. “In the feedout example, the most efficient calf ate 605 pounds less feed than the average. At $220 per ton for the diet, this amounts to about $66 less feed for the efficient calf.” This was comparing calves in which there was little difference in average daily gain, the usual measure of feed use.

“Efficient bulls are showing they pass their RFI ratings to offspring in similar studies,” Kerley said.

Gene Felton, animal scientist from West Virginia University, told how RFI measures are now a part of the bull test station at the experiment farm where he works.

Felton, a former doctoral student of Kerley’s, applied the RFI techniques he learned at MU to continue the beef research. He explained how calves of the RFI-tested bulls are used in pasture studies.

Offspring from positive-RFI bulls and negative-RFI bulls were compared in grazing trials, followed by feedlot finishing.

“Remember, a negative-RFI bull is more efficient than a positive-RFI bull,” Felton told producers. “The positive RFI animal eats more feed for the same amount of gain and is less efficient.”

In the calf studies, the West Virginia researcher used offspring from the most-efficient bulls and least-efficient bulls on test. The bulls were matched on all traits but RFI. “Except for feed efficiency their differences were close to zero,” Felton said. “They looked a lot alike.”

Their range was a positive 4.27 RFI to a minus 4.16 RFI. The feed-efficiency traits of those selected sires were passed on to the calves.

“The only difference was on feed intake,” Felton said. “Calves from the positive-RFI sires will cost you more money, as they will eat more. There was little difference in average daily gain, but big differences on amount of feed eaten. Think about that.”

The West Virginia calves were shipped to the MU beef farm to be fed out for market. In the feedlot, there appeared to be little difference in performance, except when it came to feed eaten.

“The calves from the negative-RFI bulls cost us less to feed,” Felton said. “The calves from positive sires had feed cost of $302 compared to feed cost of $264 from negative sires.”

The researcher noted that as feed costs have risen, efficiency becomes more valuable.

Producers at the field day heard poster presentations on fixed-time artificial insemination, genetic selection for feed efficiency, use of growth implants, and went on a pasture walk with an MU Extension forage specialist.

— Release provided by University of Missouri Cooperative Media Group.

— compiled by Tosha Powell, assistant editor, Angus Productions Inc.