We (practitioners, Extension, beef
producers, veterinary colleges…) are
constantly making everything we do
become obsolete… therefore we better
be working on the “next thing”
“When the rate of external change exceeds the rate
of internal change,
the end of your business is in sight…”
Jack Welch
CEO General Electric
Beef Production / Management Changes
for Contract Production
Bob L. Larson, DVM, PhD, ACT
If you don’t take
change by the hand
it will take you by the
throat.
Sir Winston Churchill
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Must know current economic position:
Cost of production
Return per unit of production (cow, acre, etc.)
Return on investment
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Must know current economic position
• What will be economic return?
Higher ?
Lower ?
Same ?
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Must know current economic position
• What will be economic return?
• Is economic investment required?
Buy shares ?
Facilities ?
Genetics ?
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Must know current economic position
• What will be economic return?
• Is economic investment required?
• Will economic risk be reduced?
Set income
Income buffers
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Must know current economic position
• What will be economic return?
• Is economic investment required?
• Will economic risk be reduced?
• Will production risk be reduced?
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Reduce Production Risk
Access to experts:
Veterinarians
Nutritionists
Animal Breeders / Geneticists
Quarterly (timely) visits
Available by phone
Available to visit if problem occurs
Cost of expert: contractor, producer, shared
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Reduce Production Risk
Access to experts (Recipes):
Health protocol
Rations (cows and calves)
Crossbreeding program
Alter / adjust “recipe”
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Possible Production Changes
Genetics Controlled:
Must buy certain bulls / females
EPDs, Breeders, Breed
Will be supplied bulls
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Possible Production Changes
Genetics Controlled
Calving Season Controlled
Must calve in certain window
Bonus for calves born certain months
Beef: Contract Production Considerations
• Possible Production Changes
Genetics Controlled
Calving Season Controlled
Production Practices Controlled
Use of implants
Use of creep feed
Use of antibiotics, ionophores, anthelmintics
Timing and selection of vaccinations
Anabolic Implants
• History
First implant (DES) approved in 1956
Ralgro approved in 1969
Estradiol / progesterone implants approved in 1984
Trenbolone acetate implants approved in 1987
TBA/Estradiol implant approved for stocker cattle in
1996
Anabolic Implants
• Regulated by FDA
• Utilize natural or synthetic hormones
Estrogen
Androgen
Progestin
• Zero withdrawal time
Implant Use in Cattle
• Increase weight gains by 8 to 18%
(15 to 40 lbs.)
• Greater response in steers vs. heifers
Implant Use in Cattle
• Benefits of implanting related to base
growth rate (i.e. forage quality, Mcal)
Better forage quality = more benefit from implants
The greater the gain w/o implants, the greater the
benefit from implanting
Need to gain 0.7 to 1.0 lbs daily to obtain
reasonable response
No negative effects if poor gain
Implant Use in Stocker Cattle
What about effects on future (feedlot)
gains and carcass performance?
No detrimental effects on feedlot gain
Added gain is maintained through the feedlot
phase
ADG is similar whether cattle were implanted
prior to arrival or not
Implant Use in Stocker Cattle
What about effects on future (feedlot)
gains and carcass performance?
No detrimental effects carcass quality
No difference in carcass traits compared to those
first implanted at feedyard arrival
Implant Use in Feedlot Cattle
What about effects on carcass
performance?
Decrease in quality grade
May impact tenderness
Creep Feeding in Cattle
• Weaning weights become unimportant
• May wean and start on feed younger
Feed Additives Used in Cattle
• Ionophores
Monenesin (Rumensin®)
Lasalocid (Bovatec®)
• Non-ionophore antibiotics
Bambermycins (Gainpro®)
Chlortetracycline
Oxytetracycline
Ionophores
• Improved ADG of cattle grazing a
variety of grass types
Gain improved by 15% (8-45%)
Daily gain increased by 0.12 to 0.3 lbs/d
Daily cost of ionophore < .5¢
Non-ionophore Antibiotic
(ionophore-like)
Bambermycins
• Ruminal effects and animal
performance similar to ionophores
One trial in grazing cattle - same performance
as monensin ( ADG 0.3 lbs)
Non-ionophore Antibiotic
(Not ionophore-like)
Oxytetracycline
Chlortetracycline
• Label approval for:
Improved feed efficiency
Increased rate of gain
Reduction in liver abscess
Control of anaplasmosis (Chlortet)
Non-ionophore Antibiotic (Not
ionophore-like)
Oxytetracycline
Chlortetracycline
• Efficacy for label claims:
Assumed to be similar to that of
ionphores
(ADG  15%; range 8-45%)
Biosecurity / Vaccination
Program For Cattle
• Protocol for incoming cattle:
Isolation
BVD testing
Vaccination during isolation period
• Vaccination program of source cattle
Related to controlling genetics
• Vaccination program for herd
Limit vaccines
Diseases likely to be a problem
Vaccines not likely to cause problems
Vaccines that are effective
Vaccine Recommendation
Dictated by contractor
Depends on who pays for vaccines
Contractor: Based on economic return
Producer:
Maximum decrease in risk for contractor
What Does The Future
Hold ??