News Update

March 25, 2015

Precondition For Performance,
Quality, Cash

It’s been talked about for 60 years. It’s better for animals, preferred by most cattle feeders and could provide a 169% return on investment.

“2014 was the biggest ‘no brainer’ year in history to precondition your calves,” says Purdue University veterinarian W. Mark Hilton. “2015 could be even better.”

Crunching the numbers, Hilton first turns to an 11-year analysis of Indiana beef herds that showed weight alone added $50.84 average profit on preconditioned calves.

In 2014, Superior Livestock Auction reported a $12.06 per hundredweight (cwt.) “health price advantage” for weaned and vaccinated calves.

“Even if that calf only gained 1 lb. a day, you earned $62. 20 per head with that health price advantage,” Hilton says. “In life, I worry about stuff I can control...the health advantage, I don’t have any control over. It’s nice and I’ll take it when I can get it.”

But without that auction market bonus, a producer loses money if calves only gain 1 lb. per day during that post-weaning phase.

Adding the weight and the preconditioning bonus together gives the full picture.

Increase that gain to 3lb./day and that’s a $211 profit, or a 169% net return on investment.

“How would you like to go to your banker and hand him a $100 bill and tell him I’m going to come back in 45 days and I want you to give me $269?” Hilton asks. “He’d say you’re nuts.”

Access the complete article online, including Hilton’s “four keys to success.”

— Adapted from an article by Miranda Reiman, Certified Angus Beef.

C designated for permanent ID in 2015

International letters are designated for each year of birth for livestock identification (ID). These designated letters are an easy option to use in conjunction with numbers when permanently identifying animals. For example, C001 and C002 could designate the first two calves born into your herd in the year 2015.

Using the international letter code is optional for Angus breeders.

For complete information about permanent ID (Rule 105) and naming animals (rules 102 and 107), access the online Breeder’s Reference Guide. To access from www.angus.org, click on “Rules and Forms” in the pull-down menu under “About.”

— Adapted from a summary by Shauna Hermel, Angus Productions Inc.

Vermont Dairy Farmer Tells House Agriculture Committee about Biotechnology’s Benefits

The added costs imposed by mandatory labeling for genetically-modified organisms could increase the price of food to consumers while driving smaller farms out of business, according to Vermont dairy farmer Joanna Lidback, who said that the use of GMO crops is important to her farm’s economic sustainability.

“We would want the choice of the best seed regardless of breeding technology; genetic engineering offers the best options,” she said, explaining that their 200 acre farm in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom has a shorter growing season that limits the variety of crops they can grow. If marketplace demands were to force them to use non-GMO feed grains — most of which would be certified organic — the farm’s feed bill would more than double each month, from $5,328 to $12,000.

“I do not see how we could profitably farm in the long term with those increased feed costs,” Lidback said. “I also believe that biotechnology enables us to lessen the environmental impact that growing can have because less fertilizer and pesticides are used to grow an abundant crop.”

Lidback testified on behalf of Agri-Mark Dairy Cooperative, which is a member of both the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the National Milk Producers Federation. Lidback keeps a blog documenting her family’s life on the farm (www.farmlifelove.com).

She told the committee’s members that attempts at mandatory labeling of foods derived from GMO processes are aimed at arbitrarily limiting choices, for farmers and consumers alike. She said that consumers have a right to know “that the meals they serve at the family dining table every night are safe and nutritious. But a very small percentage of the population should not be able to impose their personal, non-science based food preferences on the rest of us — prompting food prices to increase and driving farms like mine out of business.”

Lidback said that mandatory labels on foods with biotech ingredients are not necessary, but that “if consumers are to drive some sort of label requirement, I believe it should be done in a cohesive way at the federal level.” Lidback said that consumers who want information about how their food is sourced can get information from companies using voluntary labeling systems, including the USDA’s Certified Organic program and the use of third-party verification of a “Non-GMO” label.

She said a patchwork quilt of state laws, whereby some states such as Vermont impose labeling requirements that neighboring states do not, would raise questions “about whether or not the product is the same. This serves no one’s interest — not consumers, not farmers, not food producers.”

For more information, please view the full release here.

— Adapted from a release by Justin Darisse, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Statement: Chairman K. Michael Conaway Committee on Agriculture to Examine Mandatory Biotechnology Labeling Laws

“Mankind has used biological technologies for more than 10,000 years to improve crops and livestock, and to make useful food products, such as bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy products. When applied to plant breeding, these technologies have led to the evolution of nearly every food product we consume. These and other advances have enabled us to enjoy the safest, highest quality, most abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber.…

In Washington and across the country, we are hearing a great deal of misinformation about so-called “GMOs” and the use of biotechnology in food and agricultural production. These unfounded attacks are not supported by the facts and mislead both consumers and policymakers. This misinformation could threaten our farmers’ ability to feed an ever-growing population and result in higher food costs for consumers.

Biotechnology is an essential tool for farmers to have in the toolbox if we plan to feed an estimated 10 billion people by the year 2050 in an environmentally sound, sustainable and affordable way. Unfortunately, threats exist to reduce our ability to fully utilize this technology in the form of proposed federal and state laws, as well as some state laws that will soon implemented if we don’t act.

A recent report by the Cornell Business School examined the consumer cost impact of a proposed mandatory label for biotech food products sold in the state of New York. According to the study, implementing a mandatory biotech labelling system in the state would mean new costs for consumers in the checkout aisle. The report finds that a family of four in New York State could pay, on average, an additional $500 in annual food costs if mandatory labeling becomes law.

The state would also incur an estimated $1.6 million in costs from writing and enforcing new regulations and litigating potential lawsuits related to mandatory labeling, which could run as high as $8 million and will also factor into the increased costs consumers see in their annual food bills. What this report does not reflect is the significant cost to food manufacturers associated with segregation and testing that will be passed back to producers; nor does it address liability costs borne by food producers and processors under the activist scheme.”

Read the complete statement online.

— Adapted from a release by the House Committee on Agriculture.

Nebraska Ranch Practicum

The 2015 Nebraska Ranch Practicum gives ranchers cutting edge research in range livestock production from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). Natural resources, livestock management and economic reality are integrated throughout the Practicum.

During the three-season UNL Extension class, participants have the opportunity to expand their knowledge with an overview of ranching practices from new angles. Throughout the program, participants will cover a variety of topics including the effective use of decision support tools to evaluate management and marketing alternatives, plant identification, range conditions and grazing strategies, wildlife management, evaluation of cow body condition scores and beef cattle production systems.

Classroom activities will open and close the Practicum in North Platte with the remainder of the classes conducted at UNL’s Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, a working ranch with education and research facilities, near Whitman. The 12,800 acre ranch provides hands-on experience to ranchers. Practicum dates are June 10 and 11, July 9, September 9 and 10, and November 5, and January 6 and 7, 2016 for the eight-session class. Scheduling of the sessions from June to January is designed to cover the production cycle of both livestock and forage resources.

The 2015 Nebraska Ranch Practicum can count for college or continuing education credit. Participants looking to earn credits should make arrangements during the initial session.

Applications are due May 1, 2015 with a $250 deposit. The registration fee for this eight-session Practicum is $675. No applications will be accepted after May 1. Fees for a spouse are $350. All educational materials, noon meals and breaks are included. Participants are responsible for travel and lodging expenses.

Enrollment is limited to 35, and applicants will be notified of their status no later than May 22. Deposits will be refunded if space is not available. Participants must pay the balance of the registration fee by June 10.

For applications or additional information, contact Brent Plugge at 308-236-1235, e-mail brent.plugge@unl.edu or visit the Practicum website at http://nebraskaranchpracticum.unl.edu/.

— Adapted from a release by Tom Field, University of Nebraska.

— Compiled by Paige Nelson, field editor, Angus Journal.