RETURN TO HOMEPAGE

      NEW YORK Simmental ASSN.

                 NEWSLETTER      

INDEX 

Page   5       To Castrate or Not to Castrate      Page 14   Tips to Prevent Calf Scours  

Page   6       Breed Improvement                       Page 17   List of Semen Studs

Page   7       Organic and Natural Feeding         Page 18   Natural Beef  

Page 10       Gender Selected Semen                 Page 20   Winter Feeding

Page 11       Feeding Moldy Hay                       Page 20   Giving Proper Shots

Page 12       Proxy for voting                             Page 23  Membership Dues - BILL

Page 13       Annual Meeting Notice

Page 5

Cow Calf: To Castrate Or Not To Castrate? 

A question commonly discussed around small town coffee shops would sound like this:  “Is it worth the trouble to castrate male calves at ‘calf working time’ or should I just leave them to sell as ‘cutter bulls’?”   

A survey conducted by Oklahoma State University of eastern Oklahoma livestock markets in 1997 and 1999 showed that on average, bull calves were $2.00-3.00/cwt less expensive than steers of similar weight.  Other studies in other states have suggested that bull calves are currently being discounted even more.  In fact, last week at the Oklahoma City National Stockyards, 270 head of 468 pound feeder steers sold for $132.57/cwt while 60 head of 478 pound feeder bull calves sold for $124.66/cwt.  Both groups were graded medium and large frame, number one muscling score.  Therefore the bulls that weighed 10 pounds more, returned $24.55 less per animal.   

However, that discount may still not be enough.  Until the last few years, there has been very little information available to Oklahoma producers on the additional production costs associated with purchasing lightweight bulls vs. steers for use in a stocker operation.  Therefore, the objective of several OSU studies was to evaluate differences in performance and health status of steers vs. knife-castrated or band-castrated bulls. 

Stocker calves castrated well prior to purchase (steers) had significantly improved daily gain (2.35 lb/day vs. 1.77 lb/day) and dry matter intake (8.85 lb/day vs. 7.59 lb/day) compared with calves castrated after purchase and at processing (bulls).  No difference was observed in the feed:gain ratio.  The number of times removed from the pen for disease treatment was significantly less for steers versus bulls, suggesting a healthier appearance.  In addition, the number of treatments and time of recovery tended to be lower in steers versus bulls.  One third (33.3%) of the steers were treated at least once; whereas 59.3% of the "cutter bulls" were treated at least once.  None of the steers were treated more than one time; whereas 23.5% of the newly castrated bulls were treated more than once.  (Berry, et al. 2001 OSU Animal Science Research Report). 

Although more experiments comparing the effects of purchasing steers vs. bulls on performance, health, and economics are needed, data suggests that the lower costs per pound associated with purchasing bulls are out-weighed by the additional cost of decreased performance and increased sickness.  Medical costs were much higher for bulls compared to animals purchased as steers.  Medical costs escalate when cattle require more than one medical treatment.  As the cattle markets put more and more emphasis on value-based marketing of feeder calves, cow calf producers can expect to be discounted increasingly for leaving male calves un-castrated. 

Source: Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University 

Page 6

A Commitment to Breed Improvement

Oct 15, 2007 11:16 AM
By Marty Ropp, Director of Field Operations American Simmental Association 

Simmental breeders are working hard to provide the most complete Continental genetic package for the U.S.beef industry.

You might ask yourself, what exactly does that entail? It is the pursuit of a genetic package that perfectly compliments British breeds, ensures ideal crossbred replacement females for commercial producers and promises an end product with the necessary balance of quality and cutability. No other Continental breed provides the combination of maternal excellence and carcass value that Simmentals bring to the table.

Just glance at the latest results from the USDA Meat Animal Research Centergermplasm project. You will find Simmental at or near the top among Continental breeds for almost every economically important trait ranging from fertility to efficiency to marbling. In fact, Simmentals rank first for most of the important traits evaluated.

The main reason SimGenetics compete so well among their competitors is the long standing breeder dedication to using genetic evaluation and cutting edge selection technology to constantly improve their product. Today's American Simmental cattle are easier calving, more moderate in terms of mature size and more maternally useful than at any time in history.

In addition our long-running carcass progeny testing program gave Simmental breeders a head start, by providing the information needed to improve carcass and performance traits. Finally, our commitment to a multi-breed philosophy for genetic evaluation has given members and their customers the tools needed to manage heterosis and capture valuable genes available in the industry.

Heterosis
If someone developed an injectable product that would increase lifetime productivity of a cow by 25 percent, producers would stand in line to buy it. They would run cows through a chute four times a year if necessary, just to take advantage of this huge increase in production. This product does not exist in a bottle, but it can be found in semen tanks and bull development yards everywhere.

It's called heterosis. Research has shown time after time that it works to the tune of about a 25 percent increase in lifetime cow productivity. It's no wonder the biggest trend in U.S.beef genetics is once again crossbreeding.

With the huge potential that hybrid vigor offers to increase profitability, it is at the edge of negligence for seedstock producers to not encourage their customers to take advantage of it. Whether producers manage a breed crossing system or utilize composite seedstock to simplify the process, planned crossbreeding makes commercial cattlemen money!

One of the greatest changes to crossbreeding systems is the development of genetic evaluations that combine breed effects with individual genetic merit to predict production outcomes for commercial herds. With these advances, there is no need to consider anything but the best and most proven germplasm available for your crossbreeding needs.

Today's top end composite cattle are a good example. The days of simple crossbred bulls with questionable parentage and genetic value are soon to be gone. These seedstock are being replaced by designed composites that utilize the most valuable genes that complimentary breeds have to offer, in an easy to use package that retains heterosis and promotes profitability.

During these good times in the beef business, the American Simmental Association (ASA) has been busy planning for the future. Throughout the past year, the ASA has implemented an inventory based reporting and registry system so maternal production can be more completely documented and evaluated.

Over 80,000 females were enrolled in the program in its first year. In addition, the first dollar value index EPDs were released in 2007. These sophisticated selection tools represent the decision making process while emphasizing real dollar differences between genetic options. The ASA also offers an All Purpose Index (API) and a Terminal Sire Index (TSI). Currently these are the most technologically advanced indexes offered by any breed and are backed by the first, largest and most reliable multi-breed genetic evaluation available in the beef industry today.

If you have more questions about today's SimGenetics and what they offer your business, visit www.simmental.org or contact the association at 406-587-4531.

Page 7

The big picture
By Kim Watson (Friday, June 15, 2007)

Demand for organic and natural food products continues to grow among consumers. In 2005, consumers spent about $44.5 billion on organic and natural foods, according to Erica Kuhlmann with BMO Capital Markets’ Food Group. Over the next few years, a 24 percent growth in natural beef and meats is expected.

That growth in consumer demand is already making its way into the beef marketplace as premiums continue to be paid for cattle participating in a verified natural and organic program. The definition of natural is varied among different brands and programs, but USDA’s definition for natural applies only to meat itself, not to how the meat was raised. In general, however, the term natural typically means an animal produced without antibiotics or growth promotants from birth to slaughter.

Under that definition, producers choosing to place cattle in a natural program can expect premiums up to $15 per hundredweight, says Erik Loe, a South Dakota State University Extension feedlot specialist.

Even with that premium, however, you need to be aware of some of the differences in performance between cattle in regular feeding programs and natural feeding programs. Cattle falling out of the program, also, can increase cost of production and reduce profit potential.

Performance differences
Cattle going into the feedyard under a natural feeding program will see an increase in cost of gain. That’s due to lighter finished weights, higher conversion rates and lower average daily gains.

Consulting nutritionist Todd Milton says producers typically see average daily gains reduced by 0.5 to 1 pound per day, and dry matter conversion rates are typically 1 to 1.5 pounds higher than conventional feeding regimens. That means finished weights are typically 75 to 100 pounds less. “The net effect is less weight gain at a higher cost,” Milton says.

Levi Berry, with Flint Rock Feeders in Gruver, Texas, says that when he gets a load of cattle going into a natural feeding program, he estimates 7 cents per pound in-crease in cost of gain when penciling out breakevens. He also anticipates at least a 0.5-pound difference in conversion and 0.5-pound reduction in gain, compared to cattle in regular feeding programs.

Loe says that when implants, ionophores and antibiotics are removed from the management regimen, there’s an anticipated 10 to 15 percent reduction in feed conversion. “What that equates to for premiums needed would be $90 to $100 per head, when selling fat cattle in a natural program,” Loe says.

Limiting dropouts

The biggest potential for reduced performance and profit potential is dropout rates among animals removed from the natural program because they received antibiotic treatment for illness.

Loe says ideally you want cattle with a 10 percent or less dropout rate. “Once you approach that 10 percent exclusion rate, you may need to look at alternative feeding and marketing programs.”

Reducing the number of cattle dropping out of a natural program is critical. That’s why genetics and management history at the ranch are more important for cattle in natural programs, Milton says.

“The most important thing is to build immunity at the ranch,” Berry adds. He says that typical preconditioning programs that wean at 45 days may not be ideal. Instead, he says research is showing that 60 days of weaning helps boost immunity and reduce dropout rates.

Also vaccinations for respiratory disease, clostridial disease and liver abscesses at the ranch are critical for cattle going into natural programs to boost that immunity well before the animals move to the feedyard.

Once those cattle are in the feedyard, the rations need to be adjusted. A feedyard with experience in feeding natural cattle will know optimal rations. Loe says they recommend that roughage be slightly increased and that processed grain be limited to decrease the incidence of acidosis, since ionophores cannot be fed in a natural program. Loe adds that research on yeast-based additives and direct-fed microbials is ongoing with mixed results, but these products may improve efficiencies lost by removing ionophores from the diet.

Loe says once those cattle are in the feedyard, you need to monitor them closely to make quick decisions to remove cattle that become sick and require treatment.

All of these factors impact breakevens on cattle in a natural program. There are tools, however, that can help you analyze how these performance changes and potential premiums can impact overall profitability. An online calculator has been developed at South Dakota State University to help analyze breakevens in a natural beef program.

Page 10

Commercially available sex-sorted semen is now available for a limited number of sires, reports Sandy Johnson, K-State livestock specialist. Despite assorted claims from time to time, the only proven, repeatable and reliable method of sorting is done with a machine called a flow cytometer/cell sorter. The initial development of this technology was by USDA scientists. Private industry now has licensed key patents and patented other aspects of the technology. The amount of research funding needed to take this process to commercialization was only available in private industry.

Sperm cells are sorted based on the X bearing sperm containing 4 percent more DNA than the Y sperm. A dye that attaches to the DNA makes the X sperm brighter when viewed by the proper electronic equipment and a powerful computer. Cells must pass a light beam one at a time to be sorted correctly.  

The machine can discern three populations 20 to 30 percent X sperm, 20 to 30 percent Y sperm and 40 to 60 percent unknown with 90 percent accuracy.  

Typically one conventional dose of semen of each sex can be produced in an hour however, there is considerable variability between sires and even ejaculates. Recently the Monsanto Corporation has developed a multinozzle flow cytometer to provide gender sorted semen at 85 percent accuracy. No field data have been presented on subsequent fertility of their proprietary process. 

To adapt the process for commercial purposes multiple machines costing over $300,000 each and a lower dose inseminate are used. Insemination of unsexed sperm at a lower dose produces normal fertility for some bulls and only slightly reduced fertility in other bulls. When a conventional dose of sexed sperm is used, pregnancy rates are slightly lower than with unsexed semen. The sorting process increases handling and processing time and exposes the cells to a concentrated dye. Sperm move through the sorter at 50 miles per hour and come to a stop in a collection device only to be centrifuged at high speeds to concentrate them enough to fit 2,000,000 in a .25 ml straw. Pregnancy rates to sex-sorted sperm vary with management, female age and parity. Research results ranged from 35 to 100 percent of unsorted controls. In the best conditions, pregnancy rates were 70 to 90 percent of controls. 

Thus if normal conception rates are 70 percent, then 49 to 63 percent conception rates might be expected with sexed sperm. Under average conditions, pregnancy rates are 50 to 70 percent of controls. Ten percent of pregnancies are expected to be of the "wrong" sex. If 10 animals are inseminated, four to five become pregnant one to two could be of the wrong sex, with the end sex ratio similar to normal. Larger numbers of females (minimum of 20) would need to be inseminated before achieving the distortion of sex ratio desired. 

The cost of currently available sex-sorted semen is about $30 more than the same bull unsorted. In the sorting process, 75 percent of the semen is wasted since only one gender is usually desired from a given bull. Sex-sorted semen is not available from the most popular bulls because owners can sell all of this semen they can produce. Because of the cost of sorting and reduction in pregnancy rates, George Seidel of Colorado State University estimates that one gender must be worth $300 more than the other at birth for sexing semen to be profitable.  

Sexed semen is only recommended where an existing highly successful AI program is already in place. Fertility will be highest in virgin heifers when inseminating after a detected estrus. 

Use of cows and/or fixedtimed AI will generally result in unacceptable fertility rates. In superovulated cows, the number of good quality embryos is reduced by about half with sexed-sperm compared to control. 

Calves born from matings with sexed semen are completely normal with the exception of gender ratio. Abortion rates, neonatal death rates, gestation length, birth weights, weaning weights and incidence of abnormalities were similar with sexed semen compared to controls. 

Currently the use of sexed semen is limited due to cost and reduced fertility. Improvements should come over time and allow for more widespread application.

Page 11

Cattle Health: Feeding Moldy Hay 

Feeding moldy hay to livestock is a tough decision. All hay contains some mold, but when mold becomes noticeable the decisions become important.  

Usually, mold makes hay less palatable, which can result in lower intake or in animals refusing to eat the hay.  Poor weight gains or loss in body condition may result from the lack of nutrient intake.  Many other problems from mold occur because of mycotoxins produced by certain mold fungi. This also is part of the decision problem since not all molds produce mycotoxins and the amount produced by those that do is unpredictable.  

Direct negative affects of moldy hay are difficult to document. Horses may be more sensitive to mold than other livestock. For instance, mold spores often contribute to respiratory and digestive problems like colic or heaves in horses. Cattle apparently are less affected by mold, but certain molds can cause mycotic abortions or aspergillosis.  Aspergillosis is an infection caused by the fungus Aspergillus that usually affects the lungs.  

People, too, can be affected by mold spores which cause a condition called “farmer's lung” where the fungus actually grows in lung tissue. So try to avoid breathing in many of these spores.  

The best course of action often is to minimize feeding moldy hay to more sensitive animals, like horses or pregnant cows.  This may require a keen eye or sensitive nose when selecting hay to feed each day. Mixing moldy hay with other feedstuffs can dilute problems sometimes, but be careful that you don't make your animals sick by tricking them into eating bad hay that they normally would refuse.  

Mold is a difficult problem to deal with. Common sense and good observation often are your best decision aids.  Source: Dr. Rick Rasby, Extension Beef Specialist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Beef Cattle Production Timely Topic http://beef.unl.edu/stories/200212100.shtml  

Source: Adapted by Dr. Glenn Selk from Dr. Rick Rasby, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Page 12

How to Vote WhenYou Can’t Attend the Annual Meeting

Are you interested in the issues to be considered at the January Annual NYSA Membership Meeting? Would you like to have a voice in determining the direction of the Association? But, do you find it difficult or impossible to attend in person? If your answer to each of these is yes then you may be a candidate for the Proxy voting option.

The proxy form shown is the official form used by NYSA to provide active members a vote at Annual Meetings in

absentia. To use this proxy, you must fill it out, sign it, have it notarized & give it to someone who is attending the meeting.

A few precautions should be taken when using this form:

·An authorized representative for the membership must sign.

• The bearer of the proxy is the person who will present your proxy at the meeting as if you were present. Any  instructions about voting on specific issues should be between you and the person to whom you give your proxy

• Only an active membership can cast a vote at the annual meeting either in person or by proxy.

Proxy forms can be solicited by any member of the Association. Since you are giving your right to vote to someone else, obviously, you want to be cautious about how you are being represented. Officers, Directors, or anyone else you know and respect can be a potential proxy bearer.

A time & place can be reserved at each annual Meeting for the registering and validation of proxies. They are checked for active status, authorized membership signature and proper form. The bearer is then given a verification of the numbers of authentic proxy votes they are entitled to cast at the Annual Membership Meeting. Generally, proxies are only used on controversial issues or when a close vote tally occurs.

If you are interested in holding an office, you should know their duties (This is a brief description)

President - shall be the principal executive officer and shall supervise and control all of the business & affairs of NYSA   He shall preside at all meetings. He shall perform all duties incident to the office of president and such other duties as may be prescribed by the board of directors.

Vice-President - In the absence of the president or in event of his inability to act, the vice-president shall perform the duties
of the president, & when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions of the president,

and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the board of directors.

Secretary/Treasurer - shall keep the minutes, see that all notices are duly given, keep a register of the post-office address of each member; handle correspondence. Have charge and custody of and be responsible for all funds & securities, receive & give receipts for moneys due & payable, & deposit all such moneys. The Secretary/Treasurer's position is subsidized. Other duties are a newsletter 5 times/yr, annual directory, volume purchases, order NYSF awards, handle NYSF Premium monies, maintain web site, and other duties as may be prescribed by the board of directors.

Proxy Ballot

Page 13

ANNUAL MEETING

January 26, 2008

3:30 PM 

HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE

NY Beef Producers Assn. Annual Meeting

Holiday Inn, Carrier Circle, Syracuse, New York

                       AGENDA:                                  Slate of Directors:

                 Election of Officers & Directors                                     Art Reynolds

                   (Either by ballot or proxy)                                           Ken White

                       Committee Reports                                                Chan Phillips        

                              Budget                                                     Slate of Officers:

                        Yearly Events                                              President:  Art Reynolds

                                                                                                      V-President:  Randy Rugenstein

                                                                                                           Secr/Treas:  Jeanne White

                                            PLEASE ATTEND

Page 14

Page 17

ABS                          1-800-ABS-STUD

Accelerated Genetic     1-800-451-9275

Cattle Visions             1-866-356-4565

Genex/CRI/Alta            1-888-333-1783

Gen Hor - Semex         1-800-347-4671 x106

Genetic Hor - SEK       1-800-443-6389

Integrated Genetic        1-800-446-4210

ORIgen                        1-866-867-4436

Select Sires                 1-540-483-5123

Ultimate Genetics        1-800-962-7466

Universal                    1-800-227-8774