NAHMS BEEF '97 STUDY PART III: BEEF COW-CALF PRODUCTION .
United StatesDepartmentof AgricultureAnimal andPlant HealthInspectionServiceVeterinaryServicesPart III:Reference of1997 Beef Cow-Calf ProductionManagement and Disease ControlNational Animal Health Monitoring SystemJanuary 1998
AcknowledgementsThis report has been prepared from material received and analyzed by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services (VS)during a nationwide study of management and health on cow-calf operations.The Beef ‘97 study was a cooperative effort between State and Federal agricultural statisticians,animal health officials, university researchers, and extension personnel. We want to thank the NationalAgricultural Statistics Service (NASS) enumerators and State and Federal Veterinary MedicalOfficers (VMO’s) and Animal Health Technician’s (AHT’s) who visited the operations and collectedthe data for their hard work and dedication to the National Animal Health Monitoring System(NAHMS).The roles of the producer, Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), NAHMS Coordinator, VMO, AHT,and NASS enumerator were critical in providing quality data for Beef ‘97 reports. Thanks also to thestaff at the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) for their efforts in generating timelyreports from Beef ‘97 data. All participants are to be commended for their efforts, particularly theproducers whose voluntary efforts made the study possible.Dr. Nora Wineland, NAHMS Program Leader
Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Terms used in this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Section I: Population Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A. General Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2.3.4.5.6.7.Breeding herd description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Breed makeup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cow disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPA participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hours per beef cow managing and caring . . . . . . . . . . .Low price impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Changes in environmental and grazing management practices.3455689B. Calving and Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. Reproductive technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9C. Health Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.Castration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Weaning management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vaccinations administered . . . . . . . . . . . . .Type of vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Calf respiratory vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . .Brucellosis vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Economic impact of selected health conditions . .Problem diseases for the U.S. beef cattle industry.1214161718192122D. Disease Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231. Vaccination of cattle brought onto the operation2. Distance to captive animals . . . . . . . . . . .3. Frequency of wildlife sightings . . . . . . . . .4. Access to dairy cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Type of grazing used . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Distance to grazing areas . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Carcass disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Fly control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. Rodent control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. Feed storage unit accessibility . . . . . . . . .23242525262728292930
11.12.13.14.15.16.Females calving per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Selected breeding and calving management practicesTravel to fairs or shows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manure handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Familiarity with Johne’s disease . . . . . . . . . . .Opinions on U.S. outbreak preparedness . . . . . . .303131323233E. Feed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341. Creep feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34F. Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351. Marketing calves for feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352. Marketing calves for breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393. Cull cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Section II: Sample Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Section III: U.S. Inventory of Beef Cows and Number of Operations Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
IntroductionIntroductionThe National Animal Health Monitoring System’s (NAHMS) Beef ‘97 study was designed to provide both participants and the industry with information on the nation’s cow-calf population for education and research.NAHMS is sponsored by the USDA:APHIS:Veterinary Services (VS).Beef '97 Participating StatesThe first NAHMS national study of the beef cow-calf industrywas the 1992-93 Beef Cow-Calf Health and Productivity Audit(CHAPA). Beef ‘97 was the second NAHMS national studyof that industry. NAHMS developed study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting industry membersabout their informational needs and priorities. The objectivesare listed inside the back cover of this report.The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)collaborated with VS to select a statistically-valid sample from23 states for Beef ‘97 (see map at right). The 23-state targetpopulation represented 85.7 percent of U.S. beef cows onJanuary 1, 1997, and 77.6 percent of U.S. operations with beefcows.#3455**Identification numbers are assigned to each graph in this reportfor public reference.Part I: Reference of 1997 Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices was released in June 1997. July’s Part II: Reference of 1997 Beef Cow-Calf Health & Health Management Practices continued documenting Beef ‘97 studyresults. NASS enumerators collected data for these reports from 2,713 producers via a questionnaire administered on-farm from December 30, 1996, through February 3, 1997.Federal and state Veterinary Medical Officers (VMO’s) and Animal Health Technicians (AHT’s) collected dataon-farm for Part III: Reference of 1997 Beef Cow-Calf Production Management and Disease Control fromMarch 3 through May 23, 1997, from 1,190 operations that had five or more beef cows on January 1, 1997.Part IV: Changes in Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices will combine results of the 1992-93 CHAPA withthe Beef ‘97 results for comparable items and is expected to be released in February 1998.The 23-state target population of operations with five or more beef cows: 85.9 percent of beef cows on U.S. operations with five or more beef cows (see table below). 79.7 percent of beef cow operations in the U.S. with five or more beef cows (see the table on the next page). 85.0 percent of all beef cows in the U.S.Target Population - Beef Cows 66.3 percent of all beef cow operationsin the U.S.Within the 23 Beef ‘97 states, the targetpopulation with 5 or more beef cows represented: 99.2 percent of all beef cows and85.5 percent of all beef cow operations inthe 23 states.Beef Cow Inventory - January 1, 1997On OperationsOn All*with 5 or MoreOperationsBeef CowsPercent All(1,000 Head) (1,000 Head)** Beef United States (50 states)Beef ‘97 (23 states)23 states as a85.785.9percent of United States* Source: USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).** NAHMS projection.—Beef ‘97 reports are accessible on the WorldWide Web athttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cahm(menu choices: National Animal Health Monitoring System and Beef Cow/Calf).USDA:APHIS:VS1NAHMS Beef '97
IntroductionTerms Used in This ReportDiscussions of selected topics are also accessible on the Internet through goher.aphis.usda.gov(menu choices: APHIS Information; Animal Health Information; Animal Health Monitoring, Risk Assessments,and Emerging Issues).Target Population - Beef Cow OperationsFor questions about this report or additionalBeef ‘97 and NAHMS results, please contact:Centers for Epidemiology and Animal HealthUSDA:APHIS:VS, attn. NAHMS555 South Howes; Fort Collins, CO 80521Telephone: (970) 490-8000Internet: NAHMS INFO@aphis.usda.govStatesOperations with Beef Cows, 1996On Operations with 5 or MoreAll* OperationsBeef Cows (1,000 Head)**Percent 597,30385.5United States (50 states)Beef ‘97 (23 states)23 states as a77.679.7percent of United States* Source: USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).** NAHMS projection.—Terms Used in This ReportBeef cow: Female that has calved at least once.Beef heifer: Female that has not yet calved.Herd size: Size groupings based on number of beef cows on hand January 1, 1997.N/A: Not applicable.Operation average: A single value for each operation is summed over all operations reporting divided by thenumber of operations reporting.Population estimates: Averages and proportions weighted to represent the population. For this report, the reference population was cow-calf operations with five or more beef cows in the 23 selected States. Most of theestimates in this report are provided with a measure of variability called thestandard error and denoted by ( ). Chances are 95 out of 100 that the interval created by the estimate plus or minus two standard errors will contain the trueExamples ofpopulation value. In the example at right, an estimate of 7.5 with a standard error 95% Confidence Intervalsof 1.0 results in a range of 5.5 to 9.5 (two times the standard error above and be10low the estimate). The second estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error of 0.3 andresults in a range of 2.8 and 4.0. Most estimates in this report are rounded to the95% ConfidenceIntervalnearest tenth.8Regions:West: California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming.Northcentral: Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.Southcentral: Oklahoma and Texas.Central: Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri.Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee,and Virginia.Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the operations fromwhich Beef ‘97 data were collected.NAHMS Beef '9726420( 1.0)( 0.3)Standard ErrorsUSDA:APHIS:VS
A. General ManagementSection I: Population EstimatesSection I: Population EstimatesA. General Management1.Breeding herd descriptiona. Percent of operations by best description of the beef breeding herd by herd size:Percent OperationsNumber CowsBeef BreedingHerd DescriptionLess StandardThan 50 ErrorRegistered cattle only6.6 ( 2.3)Commercial cattle (includingcomposite breeds) 72.7 ( 3.6)Both registered and commercialcattle20.7 ( 3.1)Total100.050-99StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error3.9( 1.5)3.6( 1.0)2.8( 1.6)5.8( 1.7)75.8( 3.2)69.7( 3.3)70.4( 5.9)72.8( 2.7)20.3( 3.0)26.7( 3.2)26.8( 5.8)21.4( 2.3)100.0100.0100.0100.0Most operations (72.8 percent) were best characterized as having commercial cattle only. Slightly morethan one in five herds (21.4 percent) had both commercial and registered cattle. Relatively few operations (5.8 percent) had registered cattle exclusively. The percentage of operations with the various typesof animals was consistent across herd sizes.Percent of Operations by Best Descriptionof the Beef Breeding HerdRegistered only5.8%Registered & AHMS Beef '97
Section I: Population Estimates2.A. General ManagementBreed makeupa. Percent of operations by best description of the breed makeup of the majority of beef cows by herd size:Percent OperationsNumber CowsBreed MakeupLess StandardThan 50ErrorPurebred or straightbred (includingcomposite breeds) 21.9 ( 3.6)Crossbred:2 breeds44.8 ( 3.7)3 or more breeds 33.3 ( 3.8)Total100.050-99StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error18.4( 3.8)15.0( 2.3)30.4( 6.1)20.8( 2.6)44.037.6( 3.8)( 3.6)46.039.0( 3.9)( 3.7)40.828.8( 6.0)( 5.2)44.734.5( 2.8)( 2.8)100.0100.0100.0100.0Nearly four-fifths (79.2 percent) of operations had crossbred cows. The largest percentage of herds (44.7 percent) had cows that were crossbred using two breeds followed by crosses of three or more breeds (34.5percent of operations). Only 20.8 percent of operations were comprised primarily of purebred or straightbredcows. Herds of the largest size (300 or more cows) were more likely to have had cows that were straightbredor purebred than herds of smaller sizes.b. Percent of operations by best description of breed makeup of the majority of the 1996 calf crop byherd size:Percent OperationsNumber CowsBreed MakeupLess StandardThan 50ErrorPurebred or straightbred (includingcomposite breeds) 17.9 ( 3.2)Crossbred:2 breeds36.3 ( 3.7)3 or more breeds 45.8 ( 4.1)Total100.050-99StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error10.5( 2.2)12.6( 1.9)25.6( 6.1)16.3( 2.4)37.751.8( 4.0)( 3.9)40.347.1( 3.9)( 3.8)41.532.9( 6.1)( 5.4)37.046.7( 2.8)( 3.0)100.0100.0100.0100.0The largest percentage of herds (46.7 percent) had calves that were crossbred using three or more breeds. Anadditional 37.0 percent of herds had calves that were crossbred using two breeds. Calves from three or morebreed crosses represented the largest percentage of herds in each size group with the exception of the largestherds (300 or more cows) where more operations had crossbred calves using two breeds. Overall, 83.7 percent of operations had crossbred calves. Comparing this table with the preceeding table (2.a. above)demonstrates that producers are attempting to take advantage of the hybrid vigor that can accrue from crossinganimals of different breeds.NAHMS Beef '974USDA:APHIS:VS
A. General Management3.Section I: Population EstimatesCow dispositiona. Percent of operations where, during the last 5 years, an increase in problems was perceived to beassociated with the temperament or disposition of cows by herd size:Percent OperationsNumber CowsLess StandardThan 50 Error8.4( 1.8)50-998.0StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error( 1.8)8.4( 1.9)5.4( 2.5)8.3( 1.3)Animal temperament can affect the ease with which animals can be handled. In addition, temperament ofthe animals can lead to problems with beef quality if flighty animals injure themselves during the handling process. Concern has been raised that the proportion of animals with less than ideal temperamenthas been increasing. Only 8.3 percent of producers perceived an increase in problems associated withtemperament or disposition of cows.b. Percent of operations where, during the last 5 years, an increase in problems was perceived to be associatedwith the temperament or disposition of cows by region:Percent OperationsRegionWest4.5Standard North- Standard South- or centralError Central Error Southeast Error Operations Error( 1.4) 10.5( 3.0)4.2( 1.1)8.9( 2.8)11.9( 3.7)8.3( 1.3)Few producers reported temperament problems. Operations in the West and Southcentral regions wereless likely to report increasing problems with temperament of cows than operations in other regions.4.SPA participationa. Percent of operations that used the Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) sponsored by theNational Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the USDA Extension Service to determine the profitability ofproducing beef calves by herd size:Percent OperationsNumber CowsLess StandardThan 50Error4.7( 1.5)50-992.5StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error( 0.9)3.0( 1.0)3.0( 1.5)4.2( 1.1)A Standardized Performance Analysis is a method to calculate financial and productivity measures forcow-calf operations on a consistent basis across operations and years. In spite of widespread availabilityof these analysis tools through local Extension personnel and even across the internet, relatively few operations (4.2 percent) have used them. There was little indication of differences in use of SPA by herdsize.USDA:APHIS:VS5NAHMS Beef '97
Section I: Population EstimatesA. General Managementb. Percent of operations that used the Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) sponsored by the NationalCattlemen’s Beef Association and the USDA Extension Service to determine the profitability ofproducing beef calves by region:Percent OperationsRegionWest4.0Standard North- Standard South- or centralError Central Error Southeast Error Operations Error( 2.2)4.6( 2.0)4.8( 2.7)1.8( 0.8)5.1( 2.4)4.2( 1.1)There was little indication of differences in use of SPA across regions with the exception of the Central regionwhich had the smallest proportion of operations (1.8 percent) that reported having used SPA.5.Hours per beef cow managing and caringa. Operation average hours per beef cow per week allocated to the managing and caring for theanimals in the cow-calf operation by season and herd size:Operation Average (Hours per beef cow per week)Number CowsSeasonLess StandardThan 50ErrorWinterSpringSummerFall0.880.860.660.70( 0.06)( 0.06)( 0.07)( 0.06)StandardStandard 300 StandardAllStandardError 100-299 Error or More Error Operations Error50-990.330.420.200.25( 0.02)( 0.03)( 0.01)( 0.02)0.240.330.180.18( 0.01)( 0.02)( 0.01)( 0.01)0.190.300.160.18( 0.02)( 0.02)( 0.02)( 0.01)0.720.730.530.57( 0.04)( 0.05)( 0.06)( 0.05)The largest number of hours per cow per week was spent on cow-calf operations in the winter (.72 hours) andthe spring (.73 hours). These results are to be expected since most calves are born in the spring months and inmany regions, winter is a time of supplementary feeding. Larger operations appeared to be more efficientwith labor than smaller operations since they had the lowest hours required per cow per week in each seasonof all the size groups. These findings may be, in part, due to a larger investment in labor-saving mechanizedequipment plus recognition that some amount of labor is fixed regardless of herd size.Operation Average Hours per Week per Beef CowAllocated to Managing and Caring for the Cow-calfOperation by Season and Herd SizeWinterSpringPercent OperationsSummerFall10.88 18 0.180.190.16 0.180Less than 5050-99100-299300 or MoreNumber Cows#3681NAHMS Beef '976USDA:APHIS:VS
A. General ManagementSection I: Population Estimatesb. Operation average hours per beef cow per week allocated to managing and caring for the animals inthe cow-calf operation by season and region:Operation Average (Hours per beef cow per 30.550.63Standard North- Standard South- StandardStandardStandardErrorcentralError centralError Central Error Southeast Error( 0.16)( 0.15)( 0.14)( 0.13)0.510.740.320.34( 0.06)( 0.10)( 0.14)( 0.06)0.810.640.490.74( 0.10)( 0.08)( 0.06)( 0.12)0.640.750.500.40( 0.11)( 0.11)( 0.13)( 0.06)0.7
on-farm forPart III: Reference of 1997 Beef Cow-Calf Production Management and Disease Controlfrom March 3 through May 23, 1997, from 1,190 operations that had five or more beef cows on January 1, 1997. Part IV: Changes in Beef Cow-Calf Management Practiceswill combine results of the 1992-93 CHAPA with
Ground Beef Round 11 32,765 255.00 - 275.00 264.32 Ground Beef Sirloin - Blended GB - Steer/Heifer/Cow Source - 10 Pound Chub Basis- Coarse & Fine Grind Blended Ground Beef 73% - Blended Ground Beef 75% 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Blended Ground Beef 81% 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Blended Ground Beef 85% - Blended Ground Beef
CANADA BEEF BUSINESS PLAN 2016/17 We put the best of Canada into our beef. 01 CANADA BEEF Canada Beef 2016 Business Plan Table of Contents 1 . beef and veal industry, operating under the Canadian Beef Cattle Research, Market Development and Promotion Agency (the Agency). We work together with generations of
Importance of reproductive efficiency in beef cattle production A great portion of the expenses in cow-calf production systems is dedicated to the maintenance of healthy cows in productive condition. At the same time, approxi-mately one third of cows removed from the beef herd are eliminated because of reproductive failure ( 33%, NAHMS 2007 .
Give students the Beef Cooking Methods handout and the Beef Cooking Methods worksheet to study and complete. Using the Beef Cuts chart from the Basics About Beef book, have stu-dents list one to two cuts of meat each cooking method would be appro-priate for. The chart has a helpful key to help studen
Sep 24, 2021 · Ground Beef Sirloin 12 24,156 323.00 - 380.50 342.44 Blended GB - Steer/Heifer/Cow Source - 10 Pound Chub Basis- Coarse & Fine Grind Blended Ground Beef 73% 22 289,249 204.80 - 237.00 214.55 Blended Ground Beef 75% - National Weekly Boxed Beef Cutou
Free Range Beef Production from small-scale & emerging beef cattle farmers in South Africa . Question Can high-quality beef products be . Develop farmer psychologicial profiles (in beef & poultry value chains) & correlate profiles with farmer business performance to customise development programs e.g.
Beef’s Role in a Sustainable Food System* Sara E. Place1 1Senior Director, Sustainable Beef Production Research, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor with the Beef Checkoff, Centennial, CO Much of the recent interest in sustainability regarding food is in response to a growing world population
2003–2008 Mountain Goat Software Scrum roles and responsibilities Defines the features of the product, decides on release date and content Is responsible for the profitability of the product (ROI) Prioritizes features according to market value Can change features and priority every sprint Accepts or rejects work results Product Owner .
