DOCSLIB.ORG

Beef Cattle Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beef Cattle Production MP184 Beef Cattle Production DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE R E S E A R C H & E X T E N S I O N University of Arkansas System University of Arkansas, United States Department of Agriculture, and County Governments Cooperating BLANK - inside front cover ­ Table of Contents Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION . 5 Chapter 9: KEYS TO SUCCESS IN STOCKER PROGRAMS . 56 Chapter 2: SYSTEMS OF BEEF CATTLE Economics of Stocker Enterprises . 56 PRODUCTION . 8 Effects of Health on Performance and Cow­Calf Phase. 8 Profitability . 57 Backgrounding Phase . 9 Types of Stocker/Backgrounding Programs . 58 Finishing/Feedlot Phase . 10 Summary and Conclusions . 60 The Purebred Herd. 10 Chapter 10: HERD HEALTH . 61 Chapter 3: BEEF CATTLE SELECTION . 11 The Beginning Herd. 61 Major Performance Traits . 11 Herd Health Program . 61 Selection Methods . 13 Performance Records . 16 Suggested Herd Health Practices. 61 Treatment of Stocker Calves . 62 Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs). 17 Genetic Testing . 24 Common Diseases . 63 Cattle Vaccinations . 64 Health Calendar and Cattle Vaccinations . 66 Chapter 4: ANIMAL BREEDING. 25 Basis for Genetic Improvement . 25 Chapter 11: WORKING AND FEEDING Mating Systems. 26 Crossbreeding Systems . 27 FACILITIES . 68 Genetics and the Environment . 30 Working Facilities. 68 Feeding Equipment . 72 Chapter 5: BEEF CATTLE NUTRITION . 31 Essential Nutrients . 31 Chapter 12: MARKETING. 73 Water . 31 Marketing Alternatives . 73 Protein . 31 Future Price Outlook . 74 Carbohydrates and Fats. 31 Current Market Information. 75 Minerals for Beef Cattle . 31 Market Value. 75 Vitamins for Beef Cattle. 32 Management Factors Affecting Market Price. 77 Balancing Rations . 33 Marketing Purebred Cattle . 78 Market Regulations . 78 Chapter 6: BEEF CATTLE FEEDING. 36 Feeding the Cow Herd. 36 Chapter 13: FARM MANAGEMENT FACTORS . 79 Special Nutrient Deficiencies . 39 Feeds Produced in Arkansas. 39 Finance . 79 Income Taxes. 79 Chapter 7: FORAGES FOR BEEF CATTLE . 40 Budgeting . 80 Feeder Cattle Budgeting . 80 Matching Pastures With Seasonal Forage Requirements of Cattle . 40 APPENDIX . 84 Planning the Grazing Season . 42 Grazing System Planning Calendar. 46 Pasture and Hay Forage Inventory Sheet . 47 Chapter 8: BEEF CATTLE MANAGEMENT The information given herein is for educational purposes PRACTICES . 48 only. Reference to commercial products or trade names Management of Breeding Animals . 48 is made with the understanding that no discrimination is Artificial Insemination of Beef Cows. 49 intended and no endorsement by the University of Estrous Synchronization in Cattle . 49 Arkansas System Division of Agriculture – Cooperative Embryo Transplantation . 50 Extension Service is implied. Body Condition Scoring . 50 Management at Calving . 51 Managing the Calf Crop . 52 Feed Additives . 54 Editors • Shane Gadberry, PhD Associate Professor ­ Nutrition and Management Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Little Rock • John Jennings, PhD Professor ­ Forages Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Little Rock • Heidi Ward, DVM, PhD Assistant Professor ­ Veterinarian Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Little Rock • Paul Beck, PhD Professor ­ Stocker Cattle Management Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Southwest Research and Extension Center Hope • Bryan Kutz Instructor ­ Cattle Breeding and Selection Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Fayetteville • Tom Troxel, PhD Professor ­ Beef Cattle Department of Animal Science University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Little Rock Chapter 1 Introduction All Cattle and Calves production is a good way to use land not suited for crop production. Arkansas cattle are of the quality and As of January 1, 2015, Arkansas’ inventory of type that have a ready market. cattle and calves was 1.6 million head (Table 1­1). TABLE 1­1. Beef Cattle Numbers in Arkansas The record for herd size in the state was recorded on January 1, 1975, with a total of 2.68 million head. Total Beef Calf Year Cattle production ranks as the fourth highest income­ Inventory1 Cows2 Crop3 producing commodity in Arkansas (Figure 1­1). Cash 4 4 2015 1,640 863 receipts from the marketing of cattle and calves in the 2014 1,650 862 7504 state in 2014 were $766 million. 2013 1,600 851 760 Arkansas is a cow­calf state. Most cattle producers 2012 1,670 909 760 2011 1,720 928 800 are in the business of selling calves from their herd for further growth and finishing in feedlots. A certain 2010 1,910 937 800 portion, about 20 percent, of the calves are kept to 2009 1,800 905 820 replenish the breeding herd, with the remainder 2008 1,810 960 770 shipped to other states for finishing and slaughter. Arkansas’ climate and most of its soil and terrain are 2007 1,750 940 820 suited for the production of grass and other forage 2006 1,710 920 800 necessary for this type of cattle production. Many 2005 1,860 990 850 areas in Arkansas are suited for grazing stocker calves 1All cattle and calves on winter pastures of wheat and other cool­season 2Cows and heifers that have calved 3 grasses. Stocker cattle are put on pasture to increase During previous year 4Thousands head size before placement in feedlots. The stocker calves will eventually go to feedlots in the Plains. Cattle Source: Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service Poultry and Eggs 4 7 Rice 1 5 Soybeans 20 Catle and Calves Coton 5 2 Other Livestock 0 Wheat 1 Hogs 0 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent of Total Receipts Percent of Total Receipts FIGURE 1­1. Cash receipts in Arkansas – 2014 (as a percent of total receipts).Figure 1. Cash Receipts in Arkansas – 2014 (as a percent of total receipts). Source: Source:ArkansasArkansas Agricultural Statistics Service Agricultural Statistics Service 5 Although cattle herds can be found in every requirements. Labor is not intensive on a continual county in the state, the greatest concentration of beef basis for each enterprise. cattle production is in the Ozark Mountains of northwest Arkansas (Figure 1­2). This region accounts Arkansas produces a wide diversity of breeds of for roughly 54 percent of the total beef cow numbers. cattle. These include traditional European breeds: Benton and Washington Counties are the two largest Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn; the Indian breed: counties in terms of all cattle and calves numbers, Brahman; the Exotic: Charolais, Limousin, Simmental, 120,000 and 86,000 head, respectively. The Ouachita etc.; and the U.S. breeds: Brangus, Beefmaster, etc. Mountain region, in west central and southwest There is no perfect breed for the state. Selection of Arkansas, accounts for over 30 percent of the beef cow breed is based on personal preference, environmental numbers (Figure 1­3). These areas provide good conditions, adaptability, longevity, reproductive pasture growth for native and improved grasses, efficiency, milking ability, size, ability to gain weight thanks to the combination of timely rainfall and soil and other traits that fit personal preferences. All of type. Also, these areas produce the hay needed for these breeds, as well as commercial­type cattle, thrive feeding cattle during the winter months when in the hospitable climate of Arkansas. Commercial pastures are dormant. cattle are mixtures of two or more pure breeds. Each breed in the combination is selected for certain traits, Raising cattle lends itself well to other agricultural e.g., a Hereford and Brahman cross is used in the enterprises. Poultry production and beef cattle fit more humid areas of the state. Brahman adapts well well together on the same operation. Poultry produc­ to heat, and Hereford is used to maintain carcass tion, especially broilers, requires small amounts of quality and feed conversion. land for production facilities but requires a method of waste product disposal. Cattle production requires Cattle production continues to be a flourishing land, which can be around and among poultry facili­ enterprise in Arkansas. Improve ments in the ties, and the land benefits from waste products of pr oduction of cattle, pastures and marketing ensure the poultry enterprise as pasture fertilizer. These that this enterprise continues to be a major part of enterprises complement each other in labor Arkansas agriculture. No. of Head FIGURE 1­2. All cattle and calves on Arkansas farms. January 1, 2015 6 FIGURE 1­3. Geological regions of Arkansas. FIGURE 1­4. Mean annual precipitation (inches). FIGURE 1­5. Annual mean temperature (˚F). 7 Chapter 2 Systems of Beef Cattle Production Systems of commercial beef cattle production may factors represent the reproductive efficiency of a herd, be divided into three general categories: (1) the cow­ which is defined as the total number of pounds of calf calf segment which produces weaned feeder calves for weaned divided by the number of cows exposed further grazing and/or feeding, (2) the backgrounding during the breeding season. Table 2­1 illustrates the or stocker phase of production in which body weight influence of calf crop percentage and weaning weight is added to recently weaned calves, resulting in on productivity of any given herd. feedlot­ready yearlings and (3) the finishing phase of production in which cattle are fattened for slaughter. TABLE 2­1. Total Pounds of Calf Produced Per Cow Calf Crop Weaning Weight The cow­calf and backgrounding categories are Percentage 600 500 400 best suited for Arkansas conditions. Both calf and 100 600 500 400 yearling production utilize forages as the primary feed. The climate, soil and terrain in Arkansas are well 95 570 475 380 suited for forage production. Many cattle producers 90 540 450 360 view their cattle enterprise as a way to market forage, 85 510 425 340 their greatest resource. Calf crop percentage varies widely throughout In contrast to feeder calf and stocker production, Arkansas. Overall, calf weaning weights have finishing cattle for slaughter requires large amounts of increased over the last several years; however, feed grains and a relatively dry climate.
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]
  • "First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources"
    Country Report of Australia for the FAO First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1 ASSESSING THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY THE FARM ANIMAL SECTOR IN AUSTRALIA.................................................................................7 1.1 OVERVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND RELATED ANIMAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. ......................................................................................................7 Australian Agriculture - general context .....................................................................................7 Australia's agricultural sector: production systems, diversity and outputs.................................8 Australian livestock production ...................................................................................................9 1.2 ASSESSING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF FARM ANIMAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY..............10 Major agricultural species in Australia.....................................................................................10 Conservation status of important agricultural species in Australia..........................................11 Characterisation and information systems ................................................................................12 1.3 ASSESSING THE STATE OF UTILISATION OF FARM ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES IN AUSTRALIA. ........................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook/LDP-M-244/Oct
    Economic Research Service Situation and Outlook Livestock, Dairy, and LDP-M-244 Oct. 17, 2014 Poultry Outlook Kenneth Mathews [email protected] Steers and Lower Corn Prices Boost Cattle Dressed Weights Beef/Cattle: Despite recent and current positive cattle feeding margins, increases in feeder Contents cattle prices are offsetting declines in corn prices, signaling continuation of positive margins. Beef/Cattle Despite record retail beef prices, meatpackers are caught between high fed cattle prices and cutout Beef/Cattle Trade Pork/Hogs values too low to generate positive packer margins. Poultry Poultry Trade Beef/Cattle Trade: U.S. cattle imports are up 13 percent this year as high U.S. cattle Dairy prices continue to draw animals across the border. U.S. beef imports continue to grow and Contacts and Link were up 46 percent in August from a year earlier. Demand for U.S. beef exports slowed somewhat this summer but remain strong to Hong Kong and Mexico, both showing strong Tables gains from last year. Red Meat and Poultry Dairy Forecast Recent Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Special Articles Web Sites Animal Production and Marketing Issues “Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on U.S. Dairy Trade,” pdf pages 19-25 of Cattle November 2013 Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook report Dairy (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1221780/specialarticleldpm233.pdf) Hogs Poultry and Eggs “Determinants of Japanese Demand for U.S. Pork Products in 2012,” pdf pages 20-25 WASDE -------------- of the May 2013 Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook report Tables will be released (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1106754/ldpm227.pdf) on Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries
    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs
    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Product List Our Product List at a Glance at a Glance
    385352 Product List v8_Layout 1 7/10/13 3:20 PM Page 1 385352 Product List v8_Layout 1 7/10/13 3:20 PM Page 1 OUR PRODUCT LIST OUR PRODUCT LIST AT A GLANCE AT A GLANCE FRESH CUT BEEF Pork Loin Chops BACON FRESH CUT BEEF Pork Loin Chops BACON Beef Tenderloin Thick Cut Pork Loin Chops *Hickory Smoked Bacon Beef Tenderloin Thick Cut Pork Loin Chops *Hickory Smoked Bacon Ribeye Steak Center Cut Pork Loin Chops *Pepper Bacon Ribeye Steak Center Cut Pork Loin Chops *Pepper Bacon Porterhouse Steak Boneless Pork Chops *Beef Bacon Porterhouse Steak Boneless Pork Chops *Beef Bacon Chuckeye Steak Pork Loin Back Ribs *Homestyle Cottage Bacon Chuckeye Steak Pork Loin Back Ribs *Homestyle Cottage Bacon T-Bone Steak Pork Liver *Thick Sliced Bacon T-Bone Steak Pork Liver *Thick Sliced Bacon New York Strip Steak Lard *Apple Cinnamon Bacon New York Strip Steak Lard *Apple Cinnamon Bacon Sirloin Steak Boneless Boston Butts *Raspberry Chipotle Bacon Sirloin Steak Boneless Boston Butts *Raspberry Chipotle Bacon Beef Brisket Fresh Bone-In Ham Roast *Honey Glazed Bacon Beef Brisket Fresh Bone-In Ham Roast *Honey Glazed Bacon Boneless Prime Rib Roast Country-Style Pork Ribs *Maple Bacon Boneless Prime Rib Roast Country-Style Pork Ribs *Maple Bacon Flank Steak *Pulled Pork w/Sauce Flank Steak *Pulled Pork w/Sauce Boneless Beef Roast *Stuffed Pork Chops SMOKED SAUSAGES Boneless Beef Roast *Stuffed Pork Chops SMOKED SAUSAGES Oxtail *Smoked Center Cut Chops **Grand Champion Bratwurst Oxtail *Smoked Center Cut Chops **Grand Champion Bratwurst Soup Bones Smokehouse
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Program Producer Manual
    Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Five Rivers Cattle Feeding All Natural Cattle Producer Manual Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Table of Contents Live Animal Requirements 1. Angus/Red Angus Genetics 2. U.S. Origin 3. Less than 30 Months of Age 4. Certification 5. Ranch Inspections Documentation 1. Producer Confirmation of Understanding 2. Five Rivers Affidavit Production Requirements 1. Non-allowable products Animal Welfare and Handling 1. Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) Beef Cattle Standards Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Live Animal Requirements 1. Angus/Red Angus Genetics Five Rivers requires the cattle to be a minimum of 50% Red- or Black-Angus genetics. No Dairy or Brahman influence. 2. U.S. Origin All cattle must be born and raised in the United States. Producers are required to document cattle origin and/or brand ID on the Five Rivers affidavit. 3. Less than 30 Months of Age The Five Rivers Natural program requires cattle be of “A” maturity (under 30 months of age) at slaughter. 4. Certification All cattle must have been born, raised, finished, and slaughtered in compliance with the Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) Standards for beef cattle. These standards are included in this manual and are available online at www.certifiedhumane.org. 5. Ranch Inspections The Five Rivers Natural program requires that a minimum of 10% of suppliers be inspected annually for compliance. Inspections are conducted by a Five Rivers representative or approved 3rd party. Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Documentation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Name: Livestock and Products Semi-Annual
    Required Report: Required - Public Distribution Date: March 06,2020 Report Number: AR2020-0007 Report Name: Livestock and Products Semi-annual Country: Argentina Post: Buenos Aires Report Category: Livestock and Products Prepared By: Kenneth Joseph Approved By: Melinda Meador Report Highlights: Argentine beef exports in 2020 are projected down at 640,000 tons carcass weight equivalent as lower prices and animal and human health issues generate negative trade dynamics. Lower exports will be reflected in marginal growth expansion of the domestic market in 2020. FAS/USDA has changed the conversion rates for Argentine beef exports. THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Conversion Rates: Due to continuing efforts to improve data reliability, the “New Post” trade forecasts reflect new conversion rates. Historical data revisions (from 2005 onward) will be published on April 9th in the Production, Supply and Demand (PSD) database (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline). Beef and Veal Conversion Factors Code Description Conversion Rate* 020110 Bovine carcasses and half carcasses, fresh or chilled 1.0 020120 Bovine cuts bone in, fresh or chilled 1.0 020130 Bovine cuts boneless, fresh or chilled 1.36 020210 Bovine carcasses and half carcasses, frozen 1.0 020220 Bovine cuts bone in, frozen 1.0 020230 Bovine cuts boneless, frozen 1.36 021020 Bovine meat salted, dried or smoked 1.74 160250 Bovine meat, offal nes, not livers, prepared/preserve 1.79
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to South Dakota!
    A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AGENTS Volume LXXV I No. 1 April, 2015 NACAA - 6584 W. Duroc Road - Maroa, IL 61756 - (217)794-3700 Welcome to South Dakota! S ion of c AL A SOC at o N IA i u O T c n I • EXTENSION • I o t T O s y A N s a N a • g • C l • RESEARCH • S a a O • LAND GRANT COLLEGE • T g U n N e N o n E i T NACAA t Y G t a 1915 – 2015 A s A L n great faces. great places. GR A ICU TUR owing professional L gr for 100 years ly Ce s lebrating 100 Year 20 1915 15 S I G H T S O F S O U T H D A K O T A page 2 President’s Corner C You’re Invited to the E Birthday Party in South Dakota! L Birthdays are special occasions, and 100th birthdays are You will find excellent facilities for E especially so. From July 12 -16, 2015, NACAA will celebrate the AM/PIC when you arrive in its 100th birthday at the Centennial AM/PIC in Sioux Sioux Falls, complete with FREE B Falls, SD. The celebration will include birthday cake, or parking, and the airport just a Mike Hogan R fifty cakes to be exact. Each state association will have its $5 cab ride away! (But you won’t own birthday cake at the AM/PIC, and state associations need a taxi to get to the airport, as NACAA President A and their families will be asked to decorate their state’s the South Dakota members have birthday cake however they choose on Sunday.
    [Show full text]
  • Abordagem Bayesiana Na Avaliação Genética De Plantas Perenes E Modelos Lineares Generalizados Aplicados Na Seleção De Cultivares E No Mapeamento De Qtls
    FREDDY LUIS MORA POBLETE Abordagem bayesiana na avaliação genética de plantas perenes e modelos lineares generalizados aplicados na seleção de cultivares e no mapeamento de QTLs MARINGÁ PARANÁ – BRASIL OUTUBRO DE 2008 FREDDY LUIS MORA POBLETE Abordagem bayesiana na avaliação genética de plantas perenes e modelos lineares generalizados aplicados na seleção de cultivares e no mapeamento de QTLs Tese apresentada à Universidade Estadual de Maringá como parte das exigências do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Melhoramento, para obtenção do título de Doutor. MARINGÁ PARANÁ – BRASIL OUTUBRO DE 2008 Dados Internacionais de Catalogação-na-Publicação (CIP) (Biblioteca Central - UEM, Maringá – PR., Brasil) Mora Poblete, Freddy Luis M827a Abordagem bayesiana na avaliação genética de plantas perenes e modelos lineares generalizados aplicados na seleção de cultivares e no mapeamento de QTLs / Freddy Luis Mora Poblete. -- Maringá, 2008. 151 f. : il. Orientador : Prof. Dr. Carlos Alberto Scapim. Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Programa de Pós-graduação em Genética e Melhoramento, 2008. 1. Bioestatística - Modelos Lineares Generalizados. 2. Bioestatística - Avaliação genética. 3. Plantas - Melhoramento - Mapeamento QTLs. 4. Plantas - Melhoramento - Inferência Bayesiana. 5. Plantas - Melhoramento - Análise longitudinal. 6. Bioestatística - Inferência Bayesiana. I. Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Programa de Pós-graduação em Genética e Melhoramento. II. Título. CDD 21.ed. 576.58 Permitida a cópia total ou parcial deste documento, desde que citada a fonte. (O autor) DEDICO Aos meus filhos, Javiera Ignacia e Felipe Andrés, cujas especiais presenças me motivam a tentar ser cada dia melhor. A Juanita Bruneau, pelo fundamental apoio nesta iniciativa. Aos meus pais, José Mora e Silvia Poblete, e ao meu irmão, Carlitos, por fazerem parte de minha vida.
    [Show full text]
  • Pho300007 Risk Modeling and Screening for Brcai
    ?4 101111111111 PHO300007 RISK MODELING AND SCREENING FOR BRCAI MUTATIONS AMONG FILIPINO BREAST CANCER PATIENTS by ALEJANDRO Q. NAT09 JR. A Master's Thesis Submitted to the National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology College of Science University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City As Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY March 2003 In memory of my gelovedmother Mrs. josefina Q -Vato who passedaway while waitingfor the accomplishment of this thesis... Thankyouvery inuchfor aff the tremendous rove andsupport during the beautifil'30yearstfiatyou were udth me... Wom, you are he greatest! I fi)ve you very much! .And.. in memory of 4 collaborating 6reast cancerpatients who passedaway during te course of this study ... I e.Vress my deepest condolence to your (overtones... Tou have my heartfeligratitude! 'This tesis is dedicatedtoa(the 37 cofla6oratingpatients who aftruisticaffyjbinedthisstudyfor te sake offuture generations... iii This is to certify that this master's thesis entitled "Risk Modeling and Screening for BRCAI Mutations among Filipino Breast Cancer Patients" and submitted by Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr. to fulfill part of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology was successfully defended and approved on 28 March 2003. VIRGINIA D. M Ph.D. Thesis Ad RIO SUSA B. TANAEL JR., M.Sc., M.D. Thesis Co-.A. r Thesis Reader The National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology endorses acceptance of this master's thesis as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology.
    [Show full text]