DOCSLIB.ORG

Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States, 2017, Report 1.” USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States, 2017, Report 1.” USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS United States Department of Agriculture Beef 2017 Animal and Beef Cow-calf Management Practices in the Plant Health Inspection United States, 2017 Service Veterinary Services National Animal Health Monitoring System May 2020 Report 1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits Mention of companies or commercial products does discrimination in all its programs and activities on the not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part available data and to provide specific information. of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all USDA–APHIS–VS−CEAH–NAHMS programs.) Persons with disabilities who require NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 alternative means for communication of program 2150 Centre Avenue information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 970.494.7000 (voice and TDD). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/nahms #782.0420 To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Cover photograph courtesy of Dr. David Dargatz Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgements This report was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). We would like to thank the NASS enumerators who contacted beef producers and collected the data for this study. Their hard work and dedication were invaluable. We would also like to thank the personnel at the USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health for their efforts in generating and distributing this report. Additional biological sampling and testing for the Beef 2017 study were afforded by the generous contributions of collaborators: • USDA–APHIS, National Veterinary Services Laboratories • USDA–ARS, Russell Research Center • Kansas State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory • Virginia Tech University • Dairy One Forage Testing Laboratory • IDEXX Laboratories All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary efforts made the Beef 2017 study possible. Dr. Bruce Wagner Director Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health USDA APHIS VS / i Suggested bibliographic citation for this report: USDA. 2020. Beef 2017, “Beef Cow-calf Management Practices in the United States, 2017, report 1.” USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS. Fort Collins, CO. #.782.0520 Contacts for further information: Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Chuck Fossler, (866) 907-8190 Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Zehr (866) 907-8190 For questions about this report or additional copies, please contact: USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 2150 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 [email protected] ii / Beef 2017 Items of Note The Beef 2017 study was conducted in 24 of the Nation’s major cow-calf States (see map p 2) and provides valuable information to study participants, stakeholders, and the beef industry as a whole. Data collected for the study represented 78.9 percent of U.S. cow-calf operations and 86.6 percent of U.S. beef cows. Unless otherwise noted, estimates in this report refer to calendar year 2017. Where noted, estimates may refer to the previous 12 months from when the questionnaire was administered, which occurred in October and November of 2017. Operations were placed in three size categories: small (1 to 49 cows), medium (50 to 199 cows), and large (200 or more cows). On the majority of small (89.0 percent) and medium (66.6 percent) operations, the cow-calf operation was a supplemental source of income. On the majority of large operations (71.9 percent), the cow-calf operation was a primary source of income. The majority of beef calves (55.6 percent) were born in February, March, or April, with 12.3 percent of calves born in February, 22.4 percent born in March, and 20.9 percent born in April. Only 7.8 percent of calves born or expected to be born in 2017 had horns, indicating the widespread use of polled breeds. For horned calves that were dehorned, the average age at dehorning was 107.0 days. Among commercial cow-calf operations, a higher percentage of large operations (90.9 percent) castrated calves before sale compared with medium (80.5 percent) and small (55.1 percent) operations. Overall, 62.0 percent of operations castrated calves before sale. Overall, 42.5 percent of operations provided calf buyers with information about their calf health program (e.g., vaccinations administered, feed-bunk introduction, castration, etc.). By herd size, 35.2 percent of small, 59.9 percent of medium, and 78.8 percent of large operations provided calf buyers with information about their calf health program. Overall, 77.3 percent of operations raised commercial cattle (cattle primarily marketed for consumption); 5.9 percent of operations raised seedstock cattle only (cattle primarily marketed for breeding purposes); and 16.9 percent of operations raised a combination of commercial and seedstock cattle. Of heifers bred for calving in 2017, 76.8 percent were bred only by bulls, and 15.1 percent were bred by a combination of artificial insemination and bull breeding. Of cows bred for calving in 2017, 92.9 percent were bred only by bulls, and 5.5 percent were bred by a combination of artificial insemination and bull breeding. USDA APHIS VS / iii For the purposes of this report, a defined breeding season is one in which producers remove the bull(s) from cows and/or heifers for at least 30 days. The majority of operations (58.7 percent) did not have a defined breeding season. Overall, 58.3 percent of beef cows were on operations with one or more defined breeding seasons, and 41.6 percent of beef cows were on operations with no defined breeding season. Most operations monitored heifers and cows regularly during calving (93.2 and 89.0 percent, respectively). The majority of heifers (90.6 percent) and cows (96.2 percent) required no assistance at calving. Overall, 8.1 percent of operations had treated any cattle with pneumatic darts in the previous 12 months, and 1.1 percent of cattle were treated with pneumatic darts. The percentage of operations that used pneumatic darts increased as herd size increased, with 4.3 percent of small, 15.8 percent of medium, and 32.8 percent of large operations using this practice. Most producers (83.9 percent) were very likely to get information from a private veterinarian in the event of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (or an outbreak of another foreign animal disease) in the United States. In addition, most producers (93.8 percent) would contact a private veterinarian if they had an animal on their operation they suspected of having foot-and-mouth disease (or another foreign animal disease). By knowing who producers will turn to for information during an emergency, responders are able to target the dissemination routes of information critical to the emergency response effort. About one-third of operations (32.9 percent) had brought new cattle onto the operation during the previous 12 months. Beef bulls intended for breeding were the cattle class brought onto the highest percentage of operations (18.8 percent). The percentage of operations that brought a new bull onto the operation increased as herd size increased, with 14.5 percent of small, 28.8 percent of medium, and 42.8 percent of large operations bringing on new beef bulls intended for breeding during the previous 12 months. iv / Beef 2017 Individual-animal identifications (IDs) are important for disease traceback purposes. For example, if an animal is not properly identified before arriving at slaughter and turns out to be positive for an important disease such as tuberculosis, it can be difficult or impossible to identify where that animal originated, which might allow the disease to persist in the herd of origin. There are many types of individual-animal ID described later in this report. Overall, 62.9 percent of operations used plastic ear tags such as bangle tags on at least some cows. About one-fourth of operations used brucellosis vaccination ear tags (Bang’s tags) or hot-iron brands on at least some cows (26.1 and 26.6 percent, respectively). The percentages of operations that used brucellosis vaccination ear tags, hot-iron brands, and ear notches on at least some cows all increased as herd size increased. Higher percentages of medium and large operations than small operations used other plastic ear tags (e.g., bangle tags), freeze brands, or any method of ID on at least some cows. USDA APHIS VS / v Table of Contents Introduction 1 Terms Used in This Report 3 Section I: Population Estimates 8 A. Income Provided by Cow-calf Operation 8 B. Calf Crop 10 1. Calves born 10 2. Monthly calving distribution 12 3. Dehorning 20 4. Castration 27 5. Weaning 31 6. Marketing calves 36 C. Breeding and Calving Practices 42 1. Breeding herd description 42 2. Breeding practices 44 3. Calving percentage 52 4. Calving management 55 5. Breeding seasons 65 6. Bull management 74 D. Health Management 87 1. Veterinary consultation 87 2. Injections and implants 90 3. Pneumatic dart usage 93 4. Producer familiarity with disease 112 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beef Showmanship Parts of a Steer
    Beef Showmanship Parts of a Steer Wholesale Cuts of a Market Steer Common Cattle Breeds Angus (English) Maine Anjou Charolaise Short Horn Hereford (English) Simmental Showmanship Terms/Questions Bull: an intact adult male Steer: a male castrated prior to development of secondary sexual characteristics Stag: a male castrated after development of secondary sexual characteristics Cow: a female that has given birth Heifer: a young female that has not yet given birth Calf: a young bovine animal Polled: a beef animal that naturally lacks horns 1. What is the feed conversion ratio for cattle? a. 7 lbs. feed/1 lb. gain 2. About what % of water will a calf drink of its body weight in cold weather? a. 8% …and in hot weather? a. 19% 2. What is the average daily weight gain of a market steer? a. 2.0 – 4 lbs./day 3. What is the approximate percent crude protein that growing cattle should be fed? a. 12 – 16% 4. What is the most common concentrate in beef rations? a. Corn 5. What are three examples of feed ingredients used as a protein source in a ration? a. Cottonseed meal, soybean meal, distillers grain brewers grain, corn gluten meal 6. Name two forage products used in a beef cattle ration: a. Alfalfa, hay, ground alfalfa, leaf meal, ground grass 7. What is the normal temperature of a cow? a. 101.0°F 8. The gestation period for a cow is…? a. 285 days (9 months, 7 days) 9. How many stomachs does a steer have? Name them. a. 4: Rumen, Omasum, Abomasum, and Reticulum 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded 17 July 2016
    THE AUSTRALIAN WATER BUFFALO MANUAL Barry Lemcke Department of Primary Industry and Resources Northern Territory Government FOREWORD The Australian Water Buffalo Manual is a technical manual for the buffalo farming industry in Australia. Its author, Barry Lemcke, is a Northern Australian livestock scientist with over 42 years of experience, including a career focus on buffalo management research. The Manual reflects the extent of Barry’s knowledge and experience gained over his long career and is written in a style that makes the information accessible for all readers. It includes findings from research undertaken at Beatrice Hill Farm, Australia’s only buffalo research and development facility as well as from Barry’s travels related to the buffalo industry in numerous countries. The success of the dual purpose NT Riverine Buffalo derived from Beatrice Hill Farm, which now have progeny Australia-wide, can be largely attributed to Barry’s knowledge, dedication and persistence. John Harvey Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED AACo Australian Agricultural Company ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences AI Artificial Insemination AMIEU Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union BEF Bovine Ephemeral Fever BHF Beatrice Hill Farm (Northern Territory Government Buffalo Research Facility) BTEC National Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (Australia) cv Cultivar DM Dry Matter EEC European Economic Community ESCAS Exporter Supply
    [Show full text]
  • Communicating with the Calf
    12 Communicating with the calf This chapter describes how to interpret the wellbeing of a calf from its behaviour and appearance. The main points in this chapter • Calves give many signals that indicate that they are in good (or poor) health and quick observations by the rearer can help treat any disease conditions early. • It is important for rearers to form bonds with their calves so the calves will cooperate more fully, particularly following treatment for diseases. • It is important for rearers to develop their own ‘dictionary of calf language’. • Rearers should learn to closely observe and interpret changes in both calf appearance and in their normal behaviour, which might be symptomatic of stress. • Calf scours comes in many forms and colours, all of which can be used to help diagnose a cause. • It is important to understand how calves react to people so that rearers’ management practices can be changed accordingly. • Farm owners and managers should communicate with their calf rearers. • Developing a set of standard operating procedures, and writing them down, can help maintain consistency in managing and training new staff in the desired skills of calf rearing. • Contract calf rearers can provide the right motivation and skills to rear calves better than staff on the home farm. Success or failure in raising calves depends to a great extent on the rearers’ attitude to the calves and their ability to react promptly to the calves’ numerous signals (Figure 12.1). Interpreting these signals is a skill that can be easily learnt. Recent developments in calf rearing are directed towards reducing the average time spent with each calf.
    [Show full text]
  • The Water Buffalo: Domestic Anima of the Future
    The Water Buffalo: Domestic Anima © CopyrightAmerican Association o fBovine Practitioners; open access distribution. of the Future W. Ross Cockrill, D.V.M., F.R.C.V.S., Consultant, Animal Production, Protection & Health, Food and Agriculture Organization Rome, Italy Summary to produce the cattalo, or beefalo, a heavy meat- The water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is a type animal for which widely publicized claims neglected bovine animal with a notable and so far have been made. The water buffalo has never been unexploited potential, especially for meat and shown to produce offspring either fertile or sterile milk production. World buffalo stocks, which at when mated with cattle, although under suitable present total 150 million in some 40 countries, are conditions a bull will serve female buffaloes, while increasing steadily. a male buffalo will mount cows. It is important that national stocks should be There are about 150 million water buffaloes in the upgraded by selective breeding allied to improved world compared to a cattle population of around 1,- management and nutrition but, from the stand­ 165 million. This is a significant figure, especially point of increased production and the full realiza­ when it is considered that the majority of buffaloes tion of potential, it is equally important that are productive in terms of milk, work and meat, or crossbreeding should be carried out extensively any two of these outputs, whereas a high proportion of especially in association with schemes to increase the world’s cattle is economically useless. and improve buffalo meat production. In the majority of buffalo-owning countries, and in Meat from buffaloes which are reared and fed all those in which buffaloes make an important con­ for early slaughter is of excellent quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossbreeding: Considerations and Alternatives in an Evolving Market Nevil C
    ANGUS MEANS BUSINESS. Crossbreeding: Considerations and Alternatives in an Evolving Market Nevil C. Speer, PhD, MBA Western Kentucky University American Angus Association • Page 1 The marginal benefit “ of heterosis isn’t sufficient if it’s associated with the added marginal cost of purchasing genetics that might represent the risk of requiring more time and labor.” hese are good times and challenging No longer are we an industry that times for America’s cattle business. simply crossbreeds cattle to maximize T Record-high prices for cattle. pounds and receive a price based on Unprecedented demand for high-quality market averages. beef. Expanding opportunities to add value Instead, we have set higher standards. to our product both here and abroad. We have become a value-based industry, At the same time, we are faced with concerned with the composition — not uncertainty. There’s drought across much the maximization — of those pounds. of the country. Input costs for feed and Today, the Angus breed is uniquely fuel are higher than ever before. Labor positioned to address many of our costs continue to rise. The high price of industry’s challenges — and to help land makes it next to impossible for many individual producers capitalize on the to expand, let alone enable newcomers to opportunities of a value-added marketplace. enter the business. Cattlemen can leverage the Angus In the following pages, these challenges database — the most extensive and and opportunities are explored by animal comprehensive of its kind — to select for scientist Dr. Nevil Speer of Western calving ease (to reduce labor costs, death Kentucky University.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Hippopotamus
    Husbandry Guidelines for the Common Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius Mammalia: Hippopotamidae Author: Rebecca Jones Date of Preparation: 2008 Western Sydney Institute of TAFE, Richmond Course Name and Number: Certificate III Captive Animals - 1068 Lecturer: Graeme Phipps 1 DISCLAIMER 2 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS WARNING This animal is classified as DANGEROUS and is capable of inflicting a potentially fatal injury. Caution should be taken when working with the Hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius. Keepers are not to work in the enclosure with these animals and are to carry a working two-way radio at all times. There should be two padlocked gates between keepers and these animals when working in their enclosures. There should be appropriate signage on the outside of exhibits and nightyards identifying them as dangerous animals. Hazards to keepers when working with Hippopotamuses fall into several categories; physical, chemical, biological, manual handling, psychological and radiation. These hazards as well as preventative measures are outlined in Table 1.0. Table 1.0 – Hazards Associated with Working with Hippopotamuses and Preventative Measures to Avoid Injury. Hazard category Type of Hazard Preventative Measures Physical Large canine tusks – injury Keepers are not to work in through bite. Large size the enclosure with these and speed – injury through animals and are to maintain crush or trampling. two padlocked gates between them and the animal when working in enclosures. Thorough staff training. Chemical Exposure to chemicals used Use PPE (Personal in cleaning – Wonderclean, Protective Equipment) Bleach. Medicines for when handling chemicals treatment and diet and have Material Safety supplements. Data Sheet (MSDS) in proximity. Ensure medicines and supplements are labeled correctly and read instructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Budget, Bison Cow-Calf
    Enterprise Budget: Thomas Foulke BISON Steven J. Torok Cow-Calf Tex Taylor Short Grass Prairie, Eastern Wyoming Edward Bradley B-1092 January 2001 Authors: Thomas Foulke, Information Specialist, University of Wyoming College of Agriculture De- partment of Agricultural and Applied Economics, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071 Steven J. Torok, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071 David Taylor, Professor, University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Department of Ag- ricultural and Applied Economics, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071 Ed Bradley, Professor, University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Department of Agri- cultural and Applied Economics, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071 Editor: Hattie Penny, College of Agriculture, Office of Communications and Technology Graphic Designer: Tana Stith, College of Agriculture, Office of Communications and Technology Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Glen Whipple, Director, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071. Persons seeking admission, employment, or access to programs of the University of Wyoming shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, political belief, veteran status, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact their local UW CES Office. To file a complaint, write the UW Employment Practices/Affirmative Action Office, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3434, Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3434.
    [Show full text]
  • Beef Cow-Calf Management Guide, EM 8827
    Archival Copy. For current information, see the OSU Extension Catalog:https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu EM 8827 • Reprinted April 2004 $3.00 Beef Cow-Calf Management Guide J.R. Jaeger, G.J. Pirelli, and D.W. Weber This management calendar provides guidelines for health, nutrition, and reproductive management procedures for the cow-calf producer. It begins with a brief discussion of production goals and general factors related to reproduction, nutrition, and health. It then presents specific recommenda- tions, organized into a yearly production cycle consisting of four periods: • Lactation, breeding, and pregnancy • Midgestation and weaning • Precalving • Calving The recommended management activities would occur at the same time in the production cycle regardless of whether you utilize spring or fall calving. Many practices are suggested in this publica- tion; we encourage you to use the ones that best fit your operation. Additional management practices might be required in certain locations. Contact • Strive for a 90 to 95 percent calf crop. Percent- university Extension professionals or a local age calf crop is based on the number of calves veterinarian for more information. weaned compared to the number of cows exposed to artificial insemination or bulls during Suggested production goals the breeding season ({calves weaned ÷ cows • Make every effort to maintain cows and replace- exposed} x 100 = % calf crop). ment heifers at the proper body condition score • The calving interval for each cow should be no for each stage of the yearly production cycle. greater than 365 days. Doing so will make it easier to attain the • In the first 21 days of the calving season, try to remaining production goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Raising Calves for Slaughter
    DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH & EXTENSION Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Arkansas System FSA3143 Raising Calves for Slaughter Shane Gadberry Rural landowners are often in farm tours to see where the beef Associate Professor interested in raising livestock to was produced. Buyers of locally grown slaughter for either personal beef are in part making their buying consumption or local marketing. decision based on their perception of Brian See Advantages to raising your own beef how calves should be reared. If calves Marion County Extension include having control over calf don’t have access to summer shade or quality and choice of how the calf is winter shelter, someone will eventually Agent - Agriculture finished out. Calves can be grown-out make it a point to ask. on grass only, grass plus grain or John Jennings mostly grain. There are disadvantages Water. One farm-raised beef marketer noted that questions about Professor to consider when fattening your own beef, including the need to purchase a water source and cleanliness were the calf, extra labor for feeding, sufficient most common questions received on Paul Beck land set aside for forage-finishing, their farm tour with clients. Earthen Professor purchasing expensive feedstuffs for ponds are a good source of water for grain-finishing or purchasing freezers pasture-finished beef, but buyers may to store the beef after slaughter. not like the idea of calves idling in Jason Apple Calves can also get sick and may ponds. Creating limited-access Professor require veterinary attention. Also, watering points can restrict calves keep in mind that if you are the senti­ from standing idle in ponds and also mental type or if you have children protect pond banks from eroding.
    [Show full text]
  • Twin Calf Production in Water Buffaloes Following Non-Surgical Transfer of in Vitro-Produced-Vitrified Embryos
    Philippine Journal of Science 137 (2): 99-104, December 2008 ISSN 0031 - 7683 Twin Calf Production in Water Buffaloes Following Non-Surgical Transfer of in vitro-produced-vitrified Embryos Danilda Hufana-Duran*1,3,4, Prudencio B. Pedro1,2, Apolinario L. Salazar Jr.1 Hernando V. Venturina1, Peregrino G. Duran1, Yoshiyuki Takahashi3, Yukio Kanai4, and Libertado C. Cruz1 1Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, 3120 Philippines 2Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines 3Laboratory of Theriogenology, Department of Veterinary and Clinical Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 060-0818 Japan 4Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8572 Japan Twinning in buffalo cows is only about 0.01%. Effecting twin pregnancies by transferring more than one embryo of different developmental stages was tested. Cumulus-oocyte complexes collected from slaughterhouse-derived ovaries were matured and fertilized in vitro. Presumptive zygotes were cultured, on Day 6-7, developed blastocysts stage embryos were removed, frozen by vitrification, and stored in liquid nitrogen. After 2 to 5 months, 130 embryos were warmed; 72 were cultured in vitro to test for viability while 58 were non-surgically transferred in two's (n= 20 recipients) or three's (n = 6 recipients) to 26 buffalo cows. No significant difference was observed on post-warming survival rate of the embryos at different developmental stages with 85-88% hatched within 72 h of in vitro culture. Embryo transfer resulted to birth of one twin (3.8%) and five single births (19.2%) presenting 23.1% (6/26) calving rate. This demonstrates the possibility of enhancing twinning in buffaloes by embryo transfer techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Charolais X Hereford Crossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon
    Performance of Hereford and Charolaisx HerefordCrossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon r Station Bulletin 603 June 1966 Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis Contents Page Results of Trials 3 Introduction 4 Methods and Procedures 5 First Generation Cross 6 Birth to weaning 6 Post-weaning and yearling 8 Feedlot performance 9 Carcass characteristics 11 Cooking tests and flavor evaluations 11 \Veight comparisons of females 11 Second Generation Cross 13 Calf production comparisons 13 Post-weaning and yearling performance 14 AUTHORS: Joe D. Wallace is Assistant Professor of Animal Sci- ence, R. J. Raleigh is Associate Professor of Animal Nutrition, and W. H. Kennick is Assistant Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University. The authors wish to thank Lois A. Sather, Depart- ment of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, for her assistance in conducting cooking and flavor tests. '2 Performance of Hereford and Charolais x Hereford Crossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon JOE D. WALLACE, R. J. RALEIGH, and W. H. KENNICK Results of Trials When Hereford cows were mated to Crossbred carcass roasts required a Charolais bull: lesscooking time, had smaller Crossbred calves were 8 pounds cooking losses, and were essen- heavier at birth, 48 pounds heav- tially equal in flavor qualities to ier at weaning, gained .2 pound roasts from Hereford carcasses. more per day during suckling pe- Crossbred females averaged about riod, but graded slightly lower at 100 pounds heavier than Here- weaning than straightbred Here- fords from1 year through 31 ford calves. years of age. Crossbreds gained .3 pound more per day on a \Tjnter growing ra- tion as weaners and .36 pound When first-cross Charolais x Here- more per day on summer range asford heifers were bred to Hereford yearlings than Herefords.
    [Show full text]
  • Beef Cattle Production
    Beef Cattle Production Introduction odern domestic cattle evolved from a single early ancestor, the aurochs, and Mremains of domesticated cattle dating to 6,500 B.C. have been found in Turkey and other sites in the Near East. Domestication of cattle followed sheep, goats, pigs, and dogs. Early cattle were multi-purpose, providing meat, milk, and labor to their owners. Currently in the U.S., cattle are selected more for the single purpose of meat production, or in some cases, production of milk as well. The Beef Cattle Industry is not a single entity. In contrast to other intensive animal agriculture systems, very little vertical integration exists in the beef cattle industry. As a result, each phase of production is operated by different Bruce Hoar, UC Davis WIFSS individuals. Throughout the country, beef cattle are raised under a tremendous variety of different management inputs, environmental settings, and production intensities. Beef Cattle Production • Page 22 Cattle Terminology A variety of terms are commonly used in the beef industry. Having a functional knowledge of these terms is important when communicating with beef cattle producers. Backgrounder Operation (also referred to Cattle Grazing in Backgrounder Operation as a ‘stocker’ or ‘grower’operation) A type of beef cattle rearing operation in which weaned younger/lighter weight steer calves and weaned heifer calves that are not being kept as future breeding cows are raised to about 12 to 16 months of age while grazing on inexpensive feed sources such as grass or other forages. Animals develop lean muscle mass and increased body frame/size prior to entering a feedlot while on these operations.
    [Show full text]