We (practitioners, Extension, beef producers, veterinary colleges…) are constantly making everything we do become obsolete… therefore we better be working on the “next thing”

“When the rate of external change exceeds the rate of internal change, the end of your business is in sight…” Jack Welch CEO General Electric

Beef Production / Management Changes for Contract Production Beef Production / Management Changes for Contract Production Bob L. Larson, DVM, PhD, ACT

If you don’t take change by the hand it will take you by the throat. Sir Winston Churchill

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Must know current economic position: Cost of production Return per unit of production (cow, acre, etc.) Return on investment

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Must know current economic position What will be economic return? Higher ? Lower ? Same ?

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Must know current economic position What will be economic return? Is economic investment required? Buy shares ? Facilities ? Genetics ?

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Must know current economic position What will be economic return? Is economic investment required? Will economic risk be reduced? Set income Income buffers

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Must know current economic position What will be economic return? Is economic investment required? Will economic risk be reduced? Will production risk be reduced?

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Reduce Production Risk Access to experts: Veterinarians Nutritionists Animal Breeders / Geneticists Quarterly (timely) visits Available by phone Available to visit if problem occurs Cost of expert: contractor, producer, shared

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Reduce Production Risk Access to experts (Recipes): Health protocol Rations (cows and calves) Crossbreeding program Alter / adjust “recipe”

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Possible Production Changes Genetics Controlled: Must buy certain bulls / females EPDs, Breeders, Breed Will be supplied bulls

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Possible Production Changes Genetics Controlled Calving Season Controlled Must calve in certain window Bonus for calves born certain months

Beef: Contract Production Considerations Possible Production Changes Genetics Controlled Calving Season Controlled Production Practices Controlled Use of implants Use of creep feed Use of antibiotics, ionophores, anthelmintics Timing and selection of vaccinations

Anabolic Implants History First implant (DES) approved in 1956 Ralgro approved in 1969 Estradiol / progesterone implants approved in 1984 Trenbolone acetate implants approved in 1987 TBA/Estradiol implant approved for stocker cattle in 1996

Anabolic Implants Regulated by FDA Utilize natural or synthetic hormones Estrogen Androgen Progestin Zero withdrawal time

Implant Use in Cattle Increase weight gains by 8 to 18% (15 to 40 lbs.) Greater response in steers vs. heifers

Implant Use in Cattle Benefits of implanting related to base growth rate (i.e. forage quality, Mcal) Better forage quality = more benefit from implants The greater the gain w/o implants, the greater the benefit from implanting Need to gain 0.7 to 1.0 lbs daily to obtain reasonable response No negative effects if poor gain

Implant Use in Stocker Cattle What about effects on future (feedlot) gains and carcass performance? No detrimental effects on feedlot gain Added gain is maintained through the feedlot phase ADG is similar whether cattle were implanted prior to arrival or not

Implant Use in Stocker Cattle What about effects on future (feedlot) gains and carcass performance? No detrimental effects carcass quality No difference in carcass traits compared to those first implanted at feedyard arrival

Implant Use in Feedlot Cattle What about effects on carcass performance? Decrease in quality grade May impact tenderness

Creep Feeding in Cattle Weaning weights become unimportant May wean and start on feed younger

Feed Additives Used in Cattle Ionophores Non-ionophore antibiotics Monenesin (Rumensin ® ) Lasalocid (Bovatec ® ) Bambermycins (Gainpro ® ) Chlortetracycline Oxytetracycline

Ionophores Improved ADG of cattle grazing a variety of grass types Gain improved by 15% (8-45%) Daily gain increased by 0.12 to 0.3 lbs/d Daily cost of ionophore <.5¢

Non-ionophore Antibiotic (ionophore-like) Bambermycins Ruminal effects and animal performance similar to ionophores One trial in grazing cattle - same performance as monensin (  ADG 0.3 lbs)

Non-ionophore Antibiotic (Not ionophore-like) Oxytetracycline Chlortetracycline Label approval for: Improved feed efficiency Increased rate of gain Reduction in liver abscess Control of anaplasmosis (Chlortet)

Non-ionophore Antibiotic (Not ionophore-like) Oxytetracycline Chlortetracycline Efficacy for label claims: Assumed to be similar to that of ionphores (ADG  15%; range 8-45%) LackingLacking

Biosecurity / Vaccination Program For Cattle Protocol for incoming cattle: Isolation BVD testing Vaccination during isolation period Vaccination program of source cattle Related to controlling genetics Vaccination program for herd

Limit vaccines Diseases likely to be a problem Vaccines not likely to cause problems Vaccines that are effective

Vaccine Recommendation Dictated by contractor Depends on who pays for vaccines Contractor: Based on economic return Producer: Maximum decrease in risk for contractor

What Does The Future Hold ??