Business Decisions for the Bottom Line

“Business Decisions for the Bottom Line”

Celebrating the 67th Annual

Proceedings

May 9 - 11, 2018

Department of Animal Sciences

Alto and Patricia Straughn IFAS Extension Development Center Gainesville, Florida

2250 Shealy Drive

PO Box 110910

Gainesville, Florida 32611

352-392-1916

Department of Animal Sciences 352-392-9059 (Fax)

Welcome to the 2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course:

The 2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course Program Committee and the Department of Animal Sciences would like

to welcome you to this year’s Short Course. We look forward to this week every year in anticipation of delivering

the premier educational event for serious beef cattle producers in the Southeast. We hope that you enjoy the

program and take away some new knowledge about the beef cattle industry’s future direction, additional

management decision making skills, and new information about specific production and management practices that

impact your beef cattle enterprise.

Planning for the Florida Beef Cattle Short Course is a year-round event. Shortly after every Short Course we review

the survey comments from those participants that return them to us. The surveys are one of our key mechanisms to

get your feedback about the quality and content of the Florida Beef Cattle Short Course. We appreciate the

feedback that we get and would welcome all of our participants to return the surveys and voice their opinion. Late

in the summer we begin evaluating subject areas and specific topics for the next year’s Florida Beef Cattle Short

Course. Our program committee works hard to identify important, timely topics that impact our beef cattle

producers. We then work through the fall to identify the best speaker for that topic area and invite them to speak at

the Florida Beef Cattle Short Course. We are privileged to get nationally recognized individuals to speak at the

Florida Beef Cattle Short Course and appreciate the limited time they have in their schedules. Likewise partnering

with our valuable Allied Industry partners we work to bring you a viable and diverse Tradeshow to share industry

and product specific information.

Gainesville has been the home of the Florida Beef Cattle Short Course for the past 66 years. Survey responses

consistently indicate that our participants prefer the Florida Beef Cattle Short Course to stay in Gainesville.

Remaining in Gainesville offers certain advantages for us to deliver the excellent program that you have come to

expect. We hope the Alto and Patricia Straughn Extension Professional Development Center location provides a

comfortable and professional location, allowing us to provide a cost-effective, valuable learning experience for you.

The Program Committee has worked hard over the years to deliver a premier program at a reasonable cost to our

participants. The Florida Beef Cattle Short Course is a self-sustaining program and receives no direct financial

support from the UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences or UF/IFAS Extension. In as much, the Florida Beef

Cattle Short Course has to meet costs associated with speakers’ expense, meeting space, refreshment breaks, and

material costs. Unfortunately, we have to pass those costs on to our participants. Just like the beef cattle industry,

our costs of operation continue to increase in all facets.

Thank you for choosing to attend the 2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course. We hope that the program meets your

expectations and provides you with valuable information to impact your beef cattle enterprise.

Best Regards,

Matt Hersom

Chair, 2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course

67th Annual

Florida Beef Cattle

Short Course

May 9 – 11, 2018

Presented by

Department of Animal Sciences

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

2018 Florida Beef Short Course Committee Matt Hersom, Chair

Chad Carr

Joel McQuagge

Todd Thrift

Depart the Straughn Center, turn left on

Shealy Dr. (.02 mi)

Go to stop light and turn left on SW 16th

Ave/SR-226 W. (0.2 mi)

Bear left onto SW Archer Rd/SR-24 W. (0.5 mi)

Turn left onto SW 23rd Ter (0.8mi)

Road name changes to SW 23rd St.

Go through the round-about.

Your destination is on the left

Beef Teaching Unit-3721 SW 23rd St.

A 3721 SW 23rd St.

Depart the Beef Teaching Unit and turn

left onto SW 23rd St. (0.3)

Turn left on SW Williston Rd/SR 331 N.

(0.9 mi)

Turn right onto SW 13th St./US-441

S./SR-25 S. (1.4 mi)

Turn right onto SW 63rd Ave./CR 23 (0.4)

Your destination is on the right (if you

reach SW 21st Terr., you’ve gone too far)

1934 SW 63rd Ave. C

B

Table of Contents Allied Industry Trade Show, Exhibitors & Sponsors .............................................................1

Program Schedule/Agenda ......................................................................................................7

Program Participants ...............................................................................................................9

Speaker Biographies .............................................................................................................11

Fed Cattle Beef Quality Audit-Bailey Harsh ........................................................................15

Beef’s Role in a Sustainable Food System-Sara E. Place ....................................................23

Implications of the New Tax Code-Tom Bryant & Ryan Beasley ........................................29

Preparing for the Calving Season-Lew Strickland ................................................................43

Implications of Cow Size Change-David Lalman ................................................................45

Reproductive Vaccination-Doug Ensley ...............................................................................51

Effect of Cattle Health on Performance During the Stocker and

Feedlot Periods-John T. Richeson.........................................................................................77

Secure Beef Supply Plan-What Beef Producers Need to Know-Molly J. Lee ......................81

Bronson Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab:

Leptospirosis & Trichonomisis Update-Reddy Bommineni ..................................................85

Please visit our webpage-page @ http://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/beef_extension/index.shtml

The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information.

UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication does

not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition.

http://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/beef_extension/index.shtml

Allied Industry Trade Show UF/IFAS Beef Teaching Unit

May 10, 2018

Exhibitors and Sponsors

EXHIBITOR & GOLD SPONSOR

Alltech

Brent Lawrence

350 Davenport Drive

Thomasville, Georgia 31792

Telephone: 229-225-1212

Email: [email protected]

EXHIBITOR

Bayer Animal Health

Alan Davis

1875 West Socrum Loop Road

Lakeland, Florida 33810

Telephone: 863-860-4755


EXHIBITOR

Boehringer Ingelheim

Caroline Feagle

5890 Deer Park Road

St. Cloud, Florida 34773

Telephone: 352-895-0350


James Stice

Telephone: 863-640-3843


Clay Reynolds

Telephone: 256-794-0993


EXHIBITOR

Carden & Associates, Inc.

Fred Simons

525 Pope Avenue NW

Winter Haven, Florida 3388

Telephone: 863-291-3505


Lennie Hollister

Telephone: 863-291-3505


"Business Decisions for the Bottom Line" 1 2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course

mailto:[email protected]








May 10, 2018


EXHIBITOR

Cargill Animal Nutrition Pete Dola

6730 SE 135th Avenue

Morriston, Florida 32668

Telephone: 352-299-6891


EXHIBITOR

Chiefland Farm Supply

Tiffany Banner

215 E. Rodgers Boulevard

Chiefland, Florida 32626

Telephone: 352-493-4294


EXHIBITOR

Chipola Cattle Equipment & Consulting, LLC

Andy Andreasen

3519 Caverns Road

Marianna, Florida 32446

Telephone: 850-209-2690


EXHIBITOR

Datamars

Chad Johnson

PO Box 1088

Chiefland, Florida 32644

Telephone: 352-535-5320


EXHIBITOR & GOLD SPONSOR

Farm Credit

Zak Seymour

12300 NW US Highway 441

Alachua, Florida 32615

Telephone: 386-462-7643









May 10, 2018


EXHIBITOR

Florida Angus Association Richie Longanecker, President

Big Timber Cattle Company

PO Box 1177

Lithia, Florida 33547

Telephone: 813-927-9090


Kelley Longanecker, Florida Junior Angus Advisor

Big Timber Cattle Company

Telephone: 813-967-3443


JR Baker, Treasurer

Florida Angus Association

Baker Cattle Company

Telephone: 727-236-0249


EXHIBITOR

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Division of Animal Industry Stephen Monroe

407 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Telephone: 850-410-0900

www.FreshFromFlorida.com


EXHIBITOR

Furst-McNess Company

Bob Simon

PO Box 168

Wellborn, Florida 32094

Telephone: 813-748-7328






http://www.freshfrom/




May 10, 2018


EXHIBITOR

Genex Cooperative, Inc.

Earl Jones, Jr.

PO Box 497

Trenton, Florida 32693

Telephone: 352-494-6780


EXHIBITOR

Graham Livestock Systems

Stan Graham

4355 Barwick Road

Quitman, Georgia 31643

Telephone: 229-224-5002


SILVER SPONSOR & EXHIBITOR

Hubbard Feeds

Amber Whitehurst

Telephone: 868-450-7164

[email protected]

Rebecca Weeks

Telephone: 386-878-6218


Lynn Greeson

Telephone: 863-634-1003


EXHIBITOR

Merck Animal Health

Greg Woodard

12940 Tom Gallagher Road

Dover, Florida 33527

Telephone: 813-918-2712










May 10, 2018


EXHIBITOR

MWI Animal Health

Travis Wiygul

PO Box 247

Williston, Florida 32696

Telephone: 352-427-6116


EXHIBITOR

Phibro

Bret Meyers

PO Box 70

San Antonio, Florida 33576

Telephone: 863-532-1703


EXHIBITOR

Select Sire Power

Steve Furrow

PO Box 370

Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151


Telephone: 540-520-4804

Parker Capparelli

Telephone: 352-262-1393

David McAuley

Telephone: 863-634-9733

EXHIBITOR

Sparr Building and Farm Supply

Cody Hensley

PO Box 298

Sparr, Florida 32192

Telephone: 352-427-8970


Matt Gonzales


Telephone: 352-207-1593








May 10, 2018


SILVER SPONSOR

Sunbelt Ag Expo

Chip Blalock

290-G Harper Boulevard

Moultrie, Georgia 31788

Telephone: 229-985-1968


EXHIBITOR

Tru-Test, Inc.

Michael Johnson

528 Grant Road

Mineral Wells, Texas 76067

Telephone: 940-327-8020


GOLD SPONSOR

Westway Feed Products, LLC

Terry Weaver

PO Box 2447

Lake Placid, Florida 33862

Telephone: 863-840-0935


EXHIBITOR

Y-Tex Company

Stacey A. Wood

32801 Highway 441 N. Lot 221

Okeechobee, Florida 34942

Telephone: 863-532-5282


EXHIBITOR

Zoetis

Kurt R. Piepenbrink

1539 Pleasant Harbour Way

Tampa, Florida. 33602

Telephone: (813)-267-7601 (cell)








2018 Florida Beef Cattle Short Course

“Business Decisions for the Bottom Line”

Straughn Extension Professional Development Center

2142 Shealy Drive

Gainesville, FL 32811

Agenda subject to change

Wednesday, May 9, 2018 1:00 Welcome

1:15 Florida Cattlemen’s Comments – Ken Griner, President Florida Cattlemen’s Association

1:30 Market Outlook – Jamey Kohake, Paragon Investments, Inc

2:15 Fed Cattle Beef Quality Audit - Bailey Harsh, University of Illinois

3:00 Break

3:30 Life Cycle Analysis – Dr. Sara Place, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

4:15 Spotlight on Florida Beef Rancher – Clint Richardson, Deseret Ranches

5:00 Reception

Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:30 Implications of the New Tax Code for the Beef Cattle Producer – Tom Bryant, Beasley & Bryant

CPA’s

9:15 Dealing With the Calving Cow – Dr. Lew Strickland, University of Tennessee

10:00 Break

10:30 Implications of Cow Size Change – Dr. David Lalman, Oklahoma State University

11:15 Producer Panel Discussion on AI Success and Failure

12:00 Lunch/Afternoon Trade Show at the Beef Teaching Unit

1:30 Demonstrations (subject to change)

Calf Pulling Demonstration

Cull Cow Management and Re-feeding

Cattle Welfare-Well-being-Handling

Cow- Bull Matching

Reproduction Technology Demonstration

6:00 Cattlemen’s Steak Out

Friday, May 11, 2018 8:30 Pros and Cons of Modified-live vs Killed Vaccines in the Cow Herd – Dr. Doug Ensley,

Boehringer-Ingelheim

9:15 Effect of Cattle Health on Performance During Stocker and Feedlot – Dr. John Richeson, West

Texas A &M University

10:00 Break

10:30 Securing the Beef Industry – Dr. Molly Lee, Iowa State Univ.

11:15 Florida Diagnostic Lab: Leptospirosis and Trichonomisis Update - Reddy Bommineni, Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bronson Animal Disease Diagnostic

Laboratory

12:00 Adjourn

Follow this link to register online at http://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/beef_extension/bcsc/2018/short.shtml


http://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/beef_extension/bcsc/2018/short.shtml


Ryan Beasley

Beasley & Bryant, CPA’s

Telephone: 863-646-1373


Reddy Bommineni Bureau of Diagnostic Laboratory

Division of Animal Industry

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Telephone: 321-697-1405

[email protected]

Tom Bryant Beasley & Bryant, CPA’s

Telephone: 863-646-1373


Chad Carr UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 352-392-2454


Doug Ensley Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health

Telephone: 706-340-2578


Ken Griner Florida Cattlemen’s Association, President

Telephone: 352-535-5219


Bailey Harsh University of Illinois, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 217-333-3131


As of July, 2018

UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Matt Hersom UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 352-392-2390


Jamey Kohake Paragon Investments, Inc.

Telephone: 785-338-4111


Program Participants










David Lalman Oklahoma State University, Department of Animal Science

Telephone: 405-744-9286


Molly Lee

Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine

Telephone: 515-294-2035


Joel McQuagge

UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 352-392-6363


Sara Place

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Sustainable Beef Production

Telephone: 303-850-3301


Clint Richardson Deseret Ranches

Telephone: 407-892-3672

Web site: http://deseretranchflorida.com/

John Richeson West Texas A & M

Telephone: 806-651-2522


Jesse Savell UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 352-392-2455


Lew Strickland University of Tennessee, Department of Animal Science

Telephone: 9743538


Todd Thrift UF/IFAS, Department of Animal Sciences

Telephone: 352-392-8597







http://deseretranchflorida.com/





Speakers Biographies 67th Annual Florida Beef Cattle Short Course

Ryan Beasley

Beasley & Bryant, CPA’s., Lakeland, FL Mr. Ryan Beasley grew up with accounting in his blood due to the fact that his father started his practice

in 1977 the same year Ryan was born. Ryan attended the University of Florida and acquired a degree in

Agribusiness Management followed by a degree in accounting from Florida Southern in Lakeland,

FL. He has been an integral part of the growth of the firm for the past 18 years and is a Certified Public

Accountant. Mr. Beasley is the Managing Partner for Beasley, Bryant & Company, CPA’s, PA. Mr.

Beasley has extensive experience in public taxation which he uses to help provide QuickBooks

consulting, outsourced CFO services, tax compliance and business/entity planning. Mr. Beasley has co-

authored numerous agricultural tax articles. He is a member of the Florida Institute of Certified Public

Accountants, The Florida Cattlemen’s Association, and multiple other organizations.

Reddy Bommineni Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bronson Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Kissimmee, FL Dr. Reddy received both Veterinary and MS degrees from College of Veterinary Medicine, Hyderabad,

India. During that time he worked on Bluetongue virus isolation, diagnosis and vaccine development. He

worked as a poultry industry consultant for a few years in India. Subsequently, he came to the USA and

got a PhD from Oklahoma State University. During his PhD he worked on avian immunology with a

dissertation topic of “Chicken cathelicidins as novel antibiotics”. After graduate school he got

postdoctoral training at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA in the area of

anatomic pathology. He is a board certified Poultry Veterinarian (ACPV, American College of Poultry

Veterinarians) and also got diplomat status with American College of Veterinary Microbiologists

(ACVM) in Immunology and Virology subspecialties. He worked as head of microbiology at New

Mexico State Veterinary Diagnostic lab, during that time he was instrumental in controlling Equine

Piroplasmosis, Bovine Trichomoniasis and Vesicular Stomatitis. Prior to coming to Florida he worked as

Poultry Diagnostician with VDACS, located at the Harrisonburg Laboratory. His primary responsibilities

include diagnosing the diseases in commercial and backyard poultry, participating in NPIP (National

Poultry Improvement Plan, as an official state agency administrator) and regulatory programs in Virginia.

He serves on the editorial board of Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation (JVDI) and NPIP

technical committee. His interests (apart from diagnostics) are food safety, foreign animal diseases, and

veterinary biologicals. He serves as a consulting veterinarian for infectious disease diagnosis and vaccine

production in Southeast Asia. He is working with USAID to improve the economy of poultry farmers in

Bangladesh and Nepal by controlling Avian Influenza and other poultry diseases.

Tom Bryant Beasley & Bryant, CPA’s., Lakeland, FL Mr. Bryant has been a practicing Certified Public Accountant in the State of Florida since 1975, and is

Senior Tax Partner of Beasley, Bryant & Company, CPA’s, PA, Lakeland, Florida, representing clients

with complicated and difficult business and tax issues. Mr. Bryant has over 40 years of domestic and

foreign business and tax experience in both the public and private sectors. He is a seasoned business

and tax consultant that has held various interim positions in companies including CEO, CFO and

COO. Over the years, Mr. Bryant has advised on and worked through many corporate issues involving

manufacturing, cost control, distribution, reorganizations, consolidations and successions. He also

concentrates in business structure, planning, asset protection, tax and litigation support, and banking

and credit issues. Mr. Bryant has authored and published numerous articles on various business and

tax topics, and performed lectures on these same topics. He is a member of the Florida Institute of

Certified Public Accountants, The Florida Cattlemen’s Association, and multiple other organizations.


Doug Ensley

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Duluth, GA After receiving his DVM degree from Kansas State in 1988 he spent time as an associate in practices in

Illinois and Nebraska. These practices were primarily focused on beef production both in the cow/calf and

feedlot. He decided to purchase a practice in Kansas that focused primarily on beef practice with an

emphasis on cow/calf and stocker. In 1998 he attended Iowa State University where he received his

Master of Science in Beef Production in 2001. He was hired as the University Veterinarian with

responsibility for the food animals owned by Iowa State University. This responsibility included sick

animal treatments and herd health. Additionally, Dr. Ensley was involved in monitoring research being

conducted on the animals. He was a member of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee during

his time at Iowa State. While at Iowa State he was a member of the Animal Health Committee for the

IVMA and the ICA.

In 2003 Dr. Ensley was hired by the University Of Georgia College Of Veterinary Medicine to teach beef

production and to participate in cattle research. His responsibilities included lecturing on ruminant

digestive diseases, lameness in cattle, and beef production to the veterinary students. He also participated

in the UGA farm practice where he took students on farm calls to teach clinical skills.

Since 2008 Dr. Ensley has been working in industry, first with Fort Dodge Animal Health and currently

with Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health.

Ken Griner Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Chiefland, FL A Florida native, Ken Griner is President of Usher Land & Timber, Inc., a family owned logging, farming

and cattle company in Chiefland, Levy County, Florida. He is a graduate of Davidson College in North

Carolina. He has served on the Forestry Advisory Committee of Florida Farm Bureau and is the current

President of the Florida Cattlemen’s Association. Ken is one of the founding members of the Florida

Cattle Ranchers branded beef program. In 2016, Ken was recognized as the Outstanding Rancher and

Leader by the Florida Cattlemen's Association and Farm Credit of Florida. Ken is a charter member of

Suwannee Valley Rotary Club in Chiefland and has served on the Advisory Board to the Florida Sheriff’s

Boys Ranch and the Nomination Committee for Farm Credit of North Florida. In March of 2018, Ken

and his wife, Lynetta, were honored by the Alachua Lions Club at its 79th Annual Cattlemen's Dinner for

their contributions to the Florida Cattle Industry. Lynetta, and son, Korey, are also involved in the family

business. Ken and Lynetta live in Fanning Springs, on the banks of the Suwannee River.

Bailey Harsh

University of Illinois, Department of Animal Sciences, Urbana-Champaign, IL After July, University of Florida, Department of Animal Sciences, Gainesville, FL Bailey Harsh is currently a Ph.D. student in Animal Science at the University of Illinois. Originally from

Radnor, Ohio, Bailey obtained her B.S. degree in Animal Science in 2013 from The Ohio State

University. While at OSU, Bailey was President of the Saddle & Sirloin Club, a member of the meat and

livestock judging teams, and an undergraduate employee of the meat science lab.

Bailey completed her M.S. degree in Meat Science at Oklahoma State University in December 2014

where her research focused on the effects of production systems and production technologies on strip

steak palatability and muscle dimensions. As a student at Oklahoma State, Bailey held leadership

positions in the Animal Science Graduate Student Association and was awarded the Animal Science

Distinguished Graduate Fellowship. Her current research is focused on the effects of a beta-agonist on

nitrogen excretion, nutrient digestibility, as well as expression and protein abundance of beta-receptor

subtypes. She was recently recognized for her industry and campus achievements by being awarded an

American Angus Foundation Graduate Scholarship. Bailey has accepted a position with the University of

Florida as an Assistant Professor of Meat Science where she will begin summer 2018.


Jamey Kohake

Paragon Investments, Inc., Topeka, KS Jamey Kohake is a licensed commodity broker. He is a veteran broker with over 15 years of experience

serving customers around the world. Mr. Kohake is a sought after public speaker, as his vast knowledge

of agriculture markets is highly sought after. Mr. Kohake also provides commentary weekly on several

radio outlets and on television when his schedule accommodates. Mr. Kohake offers an advisory service

for agriculture producers to assist them with all of their marketing needs. Mr. Kohake resides in Topeka,

KS.

David Lalman

Oklahoma State University, Department of Animal Science, Stillwater, OK Dr. Lalman is a professor (Harrington Chair) and Extension beef cattle specialist. His primary

responsibilities are in cow/calf and stocker cattle nutrition and management. Dr. Lalman's research

and extension program emphasis is on increasing profitability and sustainability and reducing cost of

production through improved forage utilization, better matching beef cattle genetics to forage resources

and evaluating beef production systems and alternatives. He has an interest in technologies impact on the

beef industry and how it can be utilized to advance the industry. Dr. Lalman frequently appears on the

television show SUNUP to give expert advice on cattle nutrition.

Molly Lee Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, IA Dr. Lee received her Bachelor’s in Animal Science from Michigan State University in 2009, her Doctor

of Veterinary Medicine degree from Iowa State University in 2014, and her Master’s in Public Health

from the University of Iowa in 2017. She spent a year in private mixed animal practice in rural Kansas

before beginning her current position as a veterinary specialist with the Center for Food Security and

Public Health. Here, she uses her background in beef and dairy production medicine to contribute to a

variety of projects, including research and development of educational materials on foreign, emerging,

zoonotic, and reportable diseases of animals for use by veterinarians, animal owners, and the public,

especially those related to Foot and Mouth Disease and Avian Influenza. Dr. Lee is actively involved in

organized veterinary medicine and serves on committees within the Iowa Veterinary Medical Association,

American Association of Bovine Practitioners, and United States Animal Health Association.

Sara Place National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Sustainable Beef Production, Centennial, CO Sara Place is the Senior Director of Sustainable Beef Production Research at NCBA. Her role is to

oversee The Beef Checkoff funded sustainability program, including using life cycle assessment to

benchmark the US beef industry’s sustainability. Prior to joining NCBA, she was an Assistant Professor

of Sustainable Beef Cattle Systems at Oklahoma State University for four years, with a split research and

teaching appointment. She received her Ph.D. in Animal Biology from University of California, Davis, a

B.S. in Animal Science from Cornell University, and an A.A.S. in Agriculture Business from Morrisville

State College.

Clint Richardson Deseret Ranches, St. Cloud, FL Clint Richardson is General Manager of Deseret Cattle and Citrus a division of AgReserves, Inc. He

began work at Deseret Cattle and Citrus in 1999 and worked in various management positions until 2009.

Over the last 8 years, prior to returning to Central Florida last summer, Clint was General Manager of

multiple AgReserves ranches in Texas and Oklahoma. Clint is a graduate of the University of Kentucky

with a Bachelor of Science in Animal Science and earned a Master’s in Agri-Business from The King

Ranch Institute for Ranch Management. He and his wife Debra have been married for 24 years and have

four children.


John Richeson

West Texas A & M, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Canyon, TX Dr. John Richeson is an Assistant Professor of Animal Science and faculty supervisor of the Research

Feedlot at West Texas A&M University. He also teaches several undergraduate and graduate courses,

serves on numerous University committees, and is an advisory board member for two industry

organizations. Research interests include evaluating management, nutritional, and immunological

manipulations to improve health and growth of feedlot cattle. Additional research efforts include

evaluation of biomarker and behavioral technology to assist in the prediction and early detection of

bovine respiratory disease. Dr. Richeson received his BS, MS, and PhD in Animal Science from

Oklahoma State University, Texas Tech University, and University of Arkansas, respectively. Between

his educational pursuits, Richeson worked for a major cattle-feeding company in Colorado and then

managed the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.

Lew Strickland University of Tennessee, Department of Animal Science, Knoxville, TN Lew Strickland is a 1999 graduate of Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine. He was in large

animal private practice in Tennessee and Pennsylvania for seven years before returning to Auburn to

complete a theriogenology (reproduction) residency. While completing a master’s degree he also earned

diplomate status with The American College of Theriogenologist. After completion of the residency, he

served as interim Extension Veterinarian for The State of Alabama Extension System. He then returned to

large animal private practice in Alabama for three years before accepting the role of Extension

Veterinarian for the University of Tennessee where he currently serves.


Fed Cattle Beef Quality Audit Bailey Harsh1,2

1UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences, Gainesville, FL 2University of Illinois Department of Animal Sciences, Champaign-Urbana, IL

Introduction The first National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) was conducted in 1991 to create a nationwide snapshot of

the status of the beef industry. The executive summary of the first NBQA in 1991 suggested a need for a

nationwide audit, repeated periodically, to provide producers with the information needed to improve the

quality and value of the U.S. beef supply as well as identify and address industry shortfalls. In the last 25

years, five NBQAs have been conducted: 1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2011, and most recently in 2016.

Although early NBQAs focused primarily on traditional beef quality shortcomings and non-conformances

such as marbling, carcass blemishes, and external fat, in recent years, topics of concern to the beef

industry have expanded to include food safety, consumer needs, sustainability, and animal handling. The

three primary components of the NBQA-2016 include: 1) face-to-face interviews with different industry

sectors, 2) in-plant research comparing data of the 2016 audit to the previous five surveys, and 3) a

strategy session to review results, discuss implications, and identify future industry needs.

Face-to-face interviews Interviews were conducted to identify how feeders, packers, retailers, foodservice, further processors, as

well as government and trade organizations (GTO) describe and rank importance of quality attributes.

Discussions revealed food safety was rated as the most important quality factor evaluated in the NBQA-

2005 and NBQA-2016. Although the importance and expectation of food safety may in many cases be

implied in this day and age, a growing number of industry sectors have begun to require food safety

guarantees as a prerequisite for business.

Eating satisfaction as well as product consistency and uniformity surfaced as main priorities for physical

product quality. Of the packers surveyed for the NBQA-2016, around 55% expressed a willingness to pay

up to a 10% premium if eating satisfaction could be guaranteed. Approximately 66% of further processers

voiced a willingness to pay additional premiums for products with weight and size guarantees. The desire

for greater uniformity of end product weights and thicknesses is likely a reflection of changes observed in

carcass sizes.

In-plant research Transportation data (8,000 live cattle) revealed packers have been sourcing cattle from further distances

with an average 155-mile sourcing radius and maximum distance of almost 870 miles. Additionally,

average trailer area per animal suggests not all fed cattle were allotted adequate space during

transportation. Nonetheless, cattle demonstrated good overall mobility on arrival with almost 97% of

cattle assigned a mobility score of 1 (represents normal movement with no apparent lameness).

Live animal data demonstrated a high rate of individual animal identification (96%) and decrease in total

number of hot-branded fed cattle. Furthermore, fewer side brands were observed compared with previous

audits. With hides accounting for as much as 75% of carcass by-product value, these changes in hot-brand

presence and location have resulted in greater capture of full hide value and suggest greater

implementation of Beef Quality Assurance program practices.

Slaughter floor data (25,000 carcasses) revealed an increase in lost carcass value to offal condemnations.

Specifically, the percentage of condemned livers in 2016 was markedly higher than previous audits


resulting in greater lost opportunities than years past. Abscesses were the leading cause for liver

condemnation highlighting the continued importance of technology use to reduce abscess prevalence and

severity.

Although all live animal and carcass quality defect data (blood splash, dark-cutters, advanced maturity,

etc.) have and will continue to be evaluated by researchers in the plant, NBQA-2011 and NBQA-2016

also included instrumental grade data collected from over 2.4 and 4.5 million carcasses, respectively

(Boykin et al., 2017b). Table 1 from Boykin et al. (2017b) provides a comparison of instrument-graded

(4,544,635 carcasses) and in-plant grade data (9,106 carcasses). Data from this comparison suggests

NBQA-2016 in-plant data are indicative of real population averages.

Means, ranges, and standard deviations (SD) for carcass quality and yield attributes from NBQA-2016 are

shown in Table 2 (Boykin et al., 2017a). For comparison, Table 3 (Boykin et al., 2017a) depicts means of

the same attributes reported in the five previous NBQAs.

The average hot carcass weight (HCW) reported in NBQA-2016 was 859 lbs, which represents an 8.5%

increase over the NBQA-2005 average of 792 lbs. Current USDA reports would suggest that HCWs were,

on average, lighter in 2017 than 2016, possibly due to a greater number of cattle on feed in 2017,

alleviating the need to feed calves to such heavy weights. Maybe the most interesting parameter from the

NBQA-2016 is the HCW distribution shown in Table 5 (Boykin et al., 2017a). Of the 7,379 total

carcasses evaluated, the heaviest weight category accounted for almost a full 1% of the carcasses

evaluated in-plant with the average HCW for this weight group being 1,139 lbs. Assuming an average

dressing percentage of 63%, this equates to an 1,809 lb market steer. With U.S. daily slaughter totals of

approximately 100,000 fed cattle each day, this snapshot suggests that at certain times throughout the year

close to a thousand 1,800 lb steers are slaughtered daily.

In 2016, the average marbling score was Small 70, a nearly 9% improvement (+38 units) over the NBQA-

2005 average of Small 32. After adjusting for carcass maturity, the average quality grade increased from

Select 90 in 2005, to Select 96 in 2016. Although average marbling scores have increased modestly,

greater changes in the frequency distribution of quality grades (QG) have been observed. Table 7 from the

NBQA-2016 (Boykin et al., 2017a) reports the frequency of USDA QG was 3.8% Prime, 67.3% Choice,

23.2% Select, and 5.6% other (category includes Standard, Commercial, Utility, dark cutter, blood splash,

hard bone, and calloused eye). The NBQA–2011 frequency of USDA QG was 2.1% Prime, 58.9%

Choice, 32.6% Select, 5.1% Standard, 0.9% Commercial, and 0.3% Utility. These data demonstrate a

nearly doubled percentage of Prime (+1.7% units) as well as a marked increase in the number of Choice

(+8.4% units) carcasses. This is paired with a concomitant decrease in the frequency of Select (−9.4%

units) carcasses since 2011.

Strategy Session Results of the face-to-face interview and in-plant research components highlighted three primary areas of

focus for the industry to continue improving: 1) food safety and animal health, 2) beef quality and

reduction of variability, and 3) optimizing beef cattle value capture and reducing waste.

Further development of food safety and animal health practices will need to include greater

implementation of information-sharing and record-keeping technologies, as well as continued

improvement of preventative health strategies, husbandry techniques, and food safety interventions. In the

area of eating satisfaction, continued development of genetic selection technologies and cattle sorting

strategies will help to maximize end product uniformity. Finally, investment in research and technology

development will improve value capture and production efficiencies for multiple industry sectors.


Literature Cited Boykin, C. A., L. C. Eastwood, M. K. Harris, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, A. N. Arnold, J. D.

Hasty, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, R. J. Delmore, Jr., J. N. Martin, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, M.

M. Pfeiffer, T. E. Lawrence, T. J. McEvers, T. B. Schmidt, R. J. Maddock, D. D. Johnson, C. C. Carr, J.

M. Scheffler, T. D. Pringle, A. M. Stelzleni, J. Gottlieb, and J. W. Savell. 2017a. National Beef Quality

Audit-2016: In-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers

and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 95:2993-3002. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543

Boykin, C. A., L. C. Eastwood, M. K. Harris, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, A. N. Arnold, J. D.

Hasty, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, R. J. Delmore, Jr., J. N. Martin, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, M.

M. Pfeiffer, T. E. Lawrence, T. J. McEvers, T. B. Schmidt, R. J. Maddock, D. D. Johnson, C. C. Carr, J.

M. Scheffler, T. D. Pringle, A. M. Stelzleni, J. Gottlieb, and J. W. Savell. 2017b. National Beef Quality

Audit-2016: Survey of carcass characteristics through instrument grading assessments. J. Anim. Sci.

95:3003-3011. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1544

Eastwood, L. C., C. A. Boykin, M. K. Harris, A. N. Arnold, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, J. W.

Savell, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, J. D. Hasty, R. J. Delmore, Jr., J. N. Martin, T. E. Lawrence, T. J.

McEvers, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, M. M. Pfeiffer, T. B. Schmidt, R. J. Maddock, D. D. Johnson,

C. C. Carr, J. M. Scheffler, T. D. Pringle, and A. M. Stelzleni. 2017. National Beef Quality Audit-2016:

Transportation, mobility, and harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that affect quality and

value of cattle, carcasses, and by-products. Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:229-238. doi:10.2527/tas2017.0029

Hasty, J. D., M. M. Pfeiffer, L. C. Easwood, D. A. Gredell, C. L. Gifford, J. R. Levey, C. M. Cashman, D.

R. Woerner, J. N. Martin, R. J. Delmore, Jr., W. B. Griffin, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, C. A.

Boykin, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, A. N. Arnold, J. W. Savell, D. L. Pendell, and K. E. Belk.

2017. National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Phase 1, Face-to-face interviews. Transl. Anim. Sci. 1: 320-332.

doi:10.2527/tas2017.0039







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

of increasing affluence that will lead to growth in global demand for food and animal protein specifically.

Increases in food demand have led to concerns that we will be unable to meet the nutritional needs of

future generations without causing serious environmental damage or exceeding the resource carrying

capacity of earth.1

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization defines a sustainable food system as “a food system that

delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental

bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised.”2 Discussions

related to the sustainability of our food system sometimes include arguments to reduce or abandon animal

proteins with a particular focus on beef, because of its higher environmental footprint relative to other

foods.3, 4 While environmental footprints (e.g., water and carbon footprints) are useful tools to benchmark

the sustainability of an individual food industry or commodity, like beef, they are also unable to capture

all the relevant components of a sustainable food system.

Multiple factors important to a sustainable food system that are not captured in environmental footprints

include:

1. Cattle can convert human-inedible feedstuffs into high quality human-edible protein.5

2. Cattle consume forages/roughages (high-fiber plant feeds) that are grown on lands unsuitable for

cultivation, thereby expanding the land base available for food production.6

3. Cattle consume byproduct feeds from the food, fiber, and biofuels industries.6

4. Integrating cattle into row-crop plant agriculture systems (e.g., grazing corn stalks after

harvesting corn, grazing winter wheat that is subsequently harvested for human-use grain) can

have environmental and socioeconomic sustainability benefits.7

5. Beef cattle operations represent over 33% of the farms in the United States8, and thus beef cattle

producers play an important role in the agricultural economy and the social fabric of rural

America.

The unique biology of cattle contributes both to beef’s role in a sustainable food system and its

environmental footprint. Beef cattle are ruminant animals, which means they have a specialized stomach

that contains four compartments. The largest of these compartments is called the rumen (hence,

ruminants), which is home to trillions of microscopic bacteria, protozoa, and fungi. The trillions of

microorganisms in the rumen of cattle and the host animal have a mutually beneficial relationship. The

microbes are provided a warm, moist environment and a constant food supply from the feeds, enabling

access to nutrients within the feeds that would otherwise be indigestible without the actions of the

microorganisms.

Because of the unique biology of cattle, they fill an important role in our food system and the U.S. bio-

economy by using human-inedible feeds or eating things that people cannot (Figure 1).9

*This proceedings paper is a fact sheet on beefresearch.org available at the link below:.

https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSyst

em.pdf


https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSystem.pdf

https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSystem.pdf

Human-inedible feeds for cattle include the plants cattle eat on range and pasture lands unsuitable for

cultivated agriculture (e.g., the 770 million acres of rangeland10 in the United States), and byproducts

from the biofuels, fiber, and human food industries. By using byproducts that would otherwise go to

waste, cattle are enhancing the sustainability of other industries. For example, cattle eat distillers grains

from the corn ethanol industry, cottonseed that is a byproduct of cotton production, and beet pulp that is a

byproduct of sugar beet production.

Figure 1. Life cycle feed intake of a grain-finished beef animal in the United States.9

Over 90% of the lifetime feed intake of beef cattle is not in competition with the human

food supply.

The relative difference in the human nutritional value of the feeds cattle eat versus the human nutritional

value of beef can be substantial. This means cattle are acting as “upcyclers” in our food system: rather

than simply recycling, cattle are upgrading human inedible plant proteins and food waste into high-quality

protein and essential micronutrients, such as B vitamins. In some U.S. grain-finished beef production

systems, more human-edible protein is generated in the form of beef than cattle consume in the form of

feed (Figure 2).6 Even when cattle are consuming human-edible feeds, such as corn grain, they are

upgrading plant proteins to more complete and digestible proteins for humans. For example, the digestible

indispensable amino acid score of beef is 2.6 times greater than corn grain,11 because the protein in beef is

more bioavailable and contains a balance of the essential amino acids humans must consume in their diet.

81%

10%

9%

Human inedible forage

(whole plants)

Human inedible

byproducts, vitamins,

minerals

Human edible grain


Figure 2. Efficiency of protein conversion by U.S. beef production expressed two

ways.6 Gross efficiency was calculated as outputs of human edible protein in the

form of beef divided by total protein feed inputs (i.e., no consideration given for

if the protein in feed was human edible, like corn, or inedible, like grass). Human

edible return was calculated as outputs of human edible protein in the form of beef

divided by human edible protein feed inputs. The value of 1.19 indicates that 19%

more human edible protein is returned from U.S. beef production than the beef cattle

consume (i.e., beef cattle are a net source of protein to the human food supply).

One of the costs of the upcycling service provided by cattle is the production of methane from the rumen

by microorganisms. Methane is a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping

heat in the earth’s atmosphere on a 100-year time scale.12 The methane naturally released from the mouths

of cattle, called enteric methane, contributes a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gas emissions

produced by beef cattle. Enteric methane emissions make up 47% of the total carbon footprint of beef

from grass-to-consumer’s plate13 and represent 1.8% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United

States.14 Improved production efficiency has increased the amount of beef produced per animal, and led to

decreases in enteric methane emissions from beef cattle over time. Compared to 1975, enteric methane

emissions from U.S. beef cattle were 34% lower15 (Figure 3) and U.S. beef production was 1% higher in

2014.16 Additionally, the United States produces approximately 18% of world’s beef supply with only 8%

of the global cattle herd. While researchers at Land Grant Universities across the United States are

exploring ways to practically and cost-effectively further reduce natural emissions of enteric methane, it

is important to recognize that methane production is the tradeoff of the sustainable service of upcycling

that cattle provide.

0.08

1.19

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

GROSS EFFICIENCY HUMAN EDIBLE RETURN

PROTEIN EFFICIENCY OF U.S. BEEF

Eff

icie

nc

y (

pro

tein

in

be

ef/

pro

tein

in

fee

d c

on

sum

ed

by

ca

ttle

)


Figure 3. Trends from 1961 to 2014 in enteric methane emissions per kg of beef carcass weight for the

United States and the rest of world average (Panel A) and total enteric methane emissions from the U.S.,

other industrialized nations (i.e., European Union, Canada, Australia), and developing nations (e.g.,

Brazil, India; Panel B)

In conclusion, beef cattle play a unique role in a sustainable food system by upcycling – they consume

plants and byproduct feeds of lower value and upgrade them to high-quality protein. Additionally, cattle

can graze and consume feeds that are grown on land that is unsuitable for cultivation, thereby expanding

the land base available for food production. Further, the United States has the most productive beef

system in the world and consequently is the most environmentally-efficient.

References 1Foley, J.A., N. Ramankutty, K.A. Brauman, E.S. Cassidy, J.S. Gerber, M. Johnston, N.D. Mueller, C.

O’Connell, D.K. Ray, P.C. West, C Balzer, E.M. Bennett, S.R. Carpenter, J. Hill, C. Monfreda, S.

Polasky, J. Rockström, J. Sheehan, S. Seibert, D. Tilman, and D.P.M. Zaks. Solutions for a cultivated

planet. 2011. Nature. 478:337-342.

2HLPE. 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High

Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome,

2014.

3Eshel, G., A. Shepon, E. Noor, and R. Milo. 2016. Environmentally optimal, nutritionally aware beef

replacement plant-based diets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:8164-8168.

4Clark, M. and D. Tilman. 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural

production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Letters.12:064016.

5Oltjen, J.W. and J.L. Beckett. 1996. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems.

Journal of Animal Science. 74: 1406-1409.

6Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 1999. Animal agriculture and global food

supply. Task force report No. 135 July 1999, Department of Animal Science, University of California,

Davis, CA, USA.

7Sulc, R.M. and A.J. Franzluebbers. 2014. Exploring integrated crop-livestock systems in different

ecoregions of the United States. Europ. J. Agronomy. 57:21-30.

8USDA. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Available at:

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

(accessed August 17, 2017).

A B


https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

9National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef

Cattle, Eight Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

10Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. 2008. Sustainable Rangelands Ecosystem Goods and Services.

Available at: http://sustainablerangelands.org/pdf/Ecosystem_Goods_Services.pdf (accessed August 17,

2017).

11Ertl, P. W. Knaus, and W. Zollitsch. 2016. An approach to including protein quality when assessing the

net contribution of livestock to human food supply. Animal. 10:1883-1889.

12Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, et al. 2013. Anthropogenic

and natural radiative forcing. In: T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.M.B. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.

Boschung, et al., editors, Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working

Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge

Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK and New York. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed

5 May 2017).

13Battagliese, T., J. Andrade, R. Vinas, K. Stackhouse-Lawson, C. A. Rotz, and J. Dillon. 2015. U.S. Beef

– Phase 2 Eco-efficiency Analysis.

http://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability%20Completed%20Project%20Summ

aries/BASF_NCBA%20US%20Beef%20Industry%20Phase2_%20NSF%20EEA%20Analysis%20Report

_FINAL.pdf

14EPA. 2017. Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015. U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

15U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT Database – Food and agricultural data. Available

at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed August 17, 2017).

16USDA NASS. 2017. Statistics by Subject. Available at:

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=ANIMALS&PRODUCTS (accessed

August 17, 2017).


http://sustainablerangelands.org/pdf/Ecosystem_Goods_Services.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability%20Completed%20Project%20Summaries/BASF_NCBA%20US%20Beef%20Industry%20Phase2_%20NSF%20EEA%20Analysis%20Report_FINAL.pdf



http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=ANIMALS&PRODUCTS


Implications of the New Tax Code for the Beef Cattle Producer

May 10, 2018

1

Preserving Your Heritage

Summary

Individuals

Tax rates: individuals, trusts/estates, and other Estate and gift tax exclusions/exemptions Capital gains Other provisions

Businesses

Tax rates Pass-through deduction Entity selection Asset expensing and depreciation Net operating losses Excess business losses Citrus provisions Other provisions 1031 “like-kind exchanges” Agriculture impact recap

Disclaimer

This material has been prepared for educational purposes only and is not intended tobe relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please refer to youradvisors for specific advice.

2



Individuals

3


Tax Rates

Household Income Old * New *

$1 – $19,050 10% 10%

$19,051 – $77,400 15% 12%

$77,401 – $156,150 25% 22%

$156,151 – $165,000 28% 22%

$165,001 – $237,950 28% 24%

$237,951 – $315,000 33% 24%

$315,001 – $400,000 33% 32%

$400,001 ‐ $424,950 33% 35%

$424,951 ‐ $480,050 35% 35%

$480,051 ‐ $600,000 39.6% 35%

Over $600,000 39.6% 37%

Individuals

Lower tax rates at most income levels

* Married Filing Joint

4



Tax Rates

Income Old New

$0 - $2,550 15% 10%

$2,551 - $6,000 25% 24%

$6,001 – $9,150 28% 24%

$9,151 - $12,500 33% 35%

Over $12,500 39.6% 37%

Trust/Estate & “Kiddie”

Trust tax rates modified (see table)

Kiddie Tax: Unearned income of children is now based on trust/estate tax rates

Formerly based on parent’s personal tax rates

5


Estates and Gift Taxes

Income Old New *

Estate Tax Basic Exclusion $5.6 million $11.2 million

GST Exemption $5.6 million $11.2 million

Gifts, 709 (unified credit) $5.6 million $11.2 million

Gifts, no 709 $14,000 $15,000

* In 2026, these amounts will revert back to 2017 amounts, indexed for inflation.

Exemptions and Exclusions Increased

6



Capital Gains

Capital Gains Rates

No substantial changes, rates remain intact

0% for households (MFJ) with less than $77,200 income

15% for households (MFJ) with income between $77,200 and $479,000

20% for households (MFJ) with income beyond $479,000

Obamacare taxes (3.8% NIT and 0.9% additional Medicare) remain

7


Other Provisions

Standard Deduction Roughly Doubled (and Indexed)

Married Filing Joint $24,000

Head of Household $18,000

Single $12,000

Personal Exemptions Eliminated

To help pay for other benefits (like the increased standard deduction)

2% Miscellaneous Deductions

Repealed – deductions no longer available for certain items likeunreimbursed employee expenses, investment expenses, etc.

State and Local Tax Deductions

All state and local taxes, including property taxes, are now limited to$10,000 annually

8



Businesses

9


Tax Rates

Income Old New

$1 – $50,000 15% 21%

$50,001 – $75,000 25% 21%

$75,001 – $10,000,000 34% 21%

Over $10,000,000 35% 21%

Corporations

Flat rate - lower for most corporations

Not to be confused with S Corporations, which are “pass-through” entities

10



Pass-Through Deduction

Background: Repeal of § 199 Domestic ProductionActivities Deduction (DPAD)

DPAD had certain unique benefits, like reducing adjusted grossincome (AGI)

DPAD was allowed only for taxpayers with domestic productionactivities. Generally, this included agricultural producers.

DPAD was not limited by entity type

In DPAD’s place, a new deduction was provided…

11



§ 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction

Generally 20% of a taxpayer's QBI from a pass-through entity(partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship)

“QBI” defined as the net amount of items of income, gain, deduction,and loss with respect to the trade or business - exceptions apply

Does not lower adjusted gross income (AGI) or self-employmenttaxable income

Not limited to domestic producers; however, taxpayers in certainservice businesses are subject to phase-outs

* See additional handout material *

12




QBI Deduction: Simplified Example

Farmer made $100,000 net income (all of it qualifying as QBI) from hisfarm in 2018. Rather than paying tax on $100,000, as he would have inprior years, he will be allowed a $20,000 deduction (20% of $100,000)against this QBI, and therefore will only pay tax on $80,000 of thisincome.

Considerations

Requires separate calculations for each pass-through trade or businessincluded on an individual’s tax return

Various exemptions, phase-outs, limitations, and other nuances apply– calculation or forecast can be complex

13


Entity Selection

Entity Selection Considerations

Sole proprietorship

Partnership

S corporation

C corporation

Limited liability company (LLC)


14



Asset Expensing/Depreciation

Section 179 expense

Limit doubled to $1 million in 2018 (plus indexing)

Phase-out starts at $2.5 million (plus indexing)

Can be used to optimize taxable income

Cannot use Sec. 179 to deduct more than net taxable business income

Tangible personal property

“Qualified real property” now includes improvements to nonresidentialreal property: roofs, heating, ventilation, and A/C; fire protection andalarm systems; and security systems

15



Bonus Depreciation, Section 168

Allowable amount doubled to 100%

Now can include used property

Phase out beginning in 2023

80% in 2023

60% in 2024

40% in 2025

20% in 2026

Zero afterwards

16




Farm Machinery & Equipment

Recover period changed from 7 years to 5 years on new equipment only(exceptions apply)

Most 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year MACRS farming property now allowed200% declining balance

15- and 20-year MACRS farming property still required to use 150%declining balance

17



Automobiles

Higher base amounts of depreciation caps for passenger automobilesfor which no bonus or Section 179 expense taken:

$10,000 for the year that a vehicle is placed in service,

$16,000 for the second year in the recovery period,

$9,600 for the third year in the recovery period,

$5,760 for the fourth, fifth and sixth year in the recovery period

Light SUV/Truck

Subject to a $25,000 limitation, per-vehicle, on the amount that canbe expensed under Code Sec. 179

6,000 pound GVW, cargo area less than 6 feet

Heavy SUV/Truck

Limit does not apply to 14,000 pound GVW or cargo area 6 feet orgreater, or carries 9 or more passengers

18



Net Operating Losses

Net Operating Loss Usage Limited

Effective date: years ending after 12/31/17

NOL Deduction – now limited 80% of taxable income

Intervening year calculation

Max 80% NOL deduction

Farmers carry back a NOL two years, rather than five years

Election allowed to forego farming loss carryback

All other losses must be carried forward


19


Net Operating Losses

Net Operating Loss Example

2018: Taxpayer generates a $90,000NOL, which carries forward

2019: Taxpayer has taxable income of $100,000

Less: 2018 NOL carryover[2019 Limit ($100,000 x 80%)] ($80,000)

Equals: Taxable Income for 2019 $20,000

The remaining 2018 NOL of $10,000 ($90,000 - $80,000) is carriedforward indefinitely.

20



Excess Business Losses

Limitation on Excess Business Losses

New law: 2018 to 2025

Replaces limitation on excess farm losses for non-corporate taxpayers

Limits ability to offset farm losses against other sources of income

Target non-corporate taxpayers

Coordination within passive activity losses rule

Disallowed losses are treated as NOL’s


21


Citrus Provisions

Expensing/Uniform Capitalization (UNICAP)

Expanded exception from required capitalization production costs forcitrus producers with crop losses due to casualty

This exception now also applies to certain stakeholders (minority andsubsequent owners) other than the taxpayer which owned the property

Direct and indirect costs – preproduction

Replanting costs

Two years or more for production

Hurricane and greening

New investors


22



Other Provisions

Meals & Entertainment

Starting in 2018, no deduction for:

Activity considered to be entertainment, amusement, or recreation

Membership dues for business, pleasure, recreation, or other social purposes

On a facility of portion thereof used in connection with any of the above

Cash Basis Method of Accounting

New allowable gross receipts threshold increased from $10 million to $25million (average of three preceding years)

23


Section 1031 “Like-Kind Exchange”

Like-kind exchanges modified

Now limited to real property exchanges (buildings, land)

Setback for equipment-heavy industries like agriculture

However, the increase Sec. 179 expense and bonus depreciation limits helps

Farmer has old tractor worth $200,000

Farmer trades old tractor in for a new tractor worth $500,000

• No gain on the exchange• $300,000 cost basis• Take Sec. 179 expense or bonus depreciation

• $200k gain on the exchange• $500,000 cost basis• Take Sec. 179 expense or

bonus depreciation

24



Agriculture Impact Recap

Positives

179 Expense / Depreciation

New equipment is now 5 year property, down from 7

Pass-through deduction at 20% Cash basis Choice of entity: C corporation, S corporation, or partnership Estate 706/709 Citrus: Preproduction costs/263A Tax Rates

Negatives

1031 Like-kind exchanges: now, only real property Kiddie tax Business meals and entertainment NOL’s: carryback and 80% limitations

25


Questions?

Contact Our Agricultural Tax Team Tom Bryant, CPA | Senior Tax Partner Ryan Beasley, CPA | Managing [email protected] [email protected](863) 640-2008, Cell (863) 646-1373, Office(863) 646-1373, Office

Andrew Dunmire, CPA | Manager Sheri Grayson | Senior [email protected] [email protected](863) 646-1373, Office (863) 646-1373, Office

About UsBeasley, Bryant &Company, CPA’s, P.A. is afull-service tax, accountingand consulting firm basedout of Lakeland, Florida.Our firm was establishedover forty years ago, andtoday is a is a multi-generational practice ofCPA’s. We service clientsacross Florida and theSoutheast. Our success isbased on professionalism,responsiveness, and acommitment to quality.

26



Preparing for the Calving Season

Lew Strickland1

1University of Tennessee, Department of Animal Science, Knoxville, TN

Successful calving seasons are the result of good planning and hard work. Observation of cows and

heifers before and during the calving season is necessary to ensure a good calf crop. Cows should be

checked at least once daily during the calving season, and heifers should be checked more frequently,

perhaps several times a day. Having the cows and heifers in an easily accessible pasture will make this

task more manageable. Also, allowing animals to calve in clean pastures is better for the health of the calf

and the cow or heifer.

One of the complications encountered during the calving season is dystocia (a difficult delivery), and

sometimes calving assistance is required. Therefore, producers need to be familiar with the signs of

impending parturition as well as the sequence of events associated with normal labor and delivery to

determine when assistance is necessary.

Signs of impending parturition (calving):

The udder and vulva will often enlarge 1-3 weeks prior to parturition.

Cows and heifers often become more nervous (restless) and, if possible, may isolate themselves

from the rest of the herd just prior to parturition.

Cows and heifers may show signs of abdominal discomfort by kicking at their belly; they may

also glance to the rear nervously.

The tail-head appears raised as ligaments around the rump of the cow or heifer relax.

Normal parturition is divided into three sequential stages:

Stage I – Preparatory

Duration – cows (4-8 hours); heifers (6-12 hours)

The cow or heifer may become nervous and isolate herself from the rest of the herd.

Uterine contractions begin.

‘Dropping’ of colostrum/milk into the teats.

‘Water bag’ appears towards the end of this stage. Stage II begins when the water bag breaks.

Stage II – Delivery of the calf

Duration – cows (< 1 hour); heifers (1-4 hours)

The cow or heifer is now actively straining.

In normal parturition, the calf’s forelegs and head protrude first about 70% of the time, and the

hind legs and tail come first about 30% of the time.

The calf is delivered.

Stage III – Expulsion of the placenta (afterbirth)

Duration – cows and heifers (1-12 hours; usually occurs within the first few hours)

Cow or heifer straining decreases.

Uterine contractions continue and the placenta is expelled.

If the placenta is not expelled soon after birth, do NOT manually remove the placenta by pulling

it out. Manual removal can leave portions of the placenta in the uterus and serve as a source of

infection.


Assistance may be necessary when parturition does not proceed as described, and early intervention is the

key to a successful outcome. Waiting too long to provide assistance unnecessarily risks the life of the cow

or heifer and her calf. Seek the help of a veterinarian or experienced producer when needed.

Supplies used to assist with calf delivery:

Obstetrical (OB) chains or ropes, and chains are preferred because they can be easily disinfected

after use. OB chains and ropes are used for pulling on the legs. NEVER attach OB chains or ropes

to the jaw and pull on a calf, as the jaw will almost always fracture.

OB handles for pulling on the chains or ropes

Mechanical calf puller (‘calf-jack’) – USE WITH CAUTION AND DO NOT APPLY

EXCESSIVE FORCE. A calf-jack can exert substantial force on the cow or heifer and the calf.

When used improperly the cow, heifer, and/or calf can be injured or killed. NEVER ATTEMPT

TO DELIVER A CALF BY PULLING WITH ANY TYPE OF VEHICLE.

OB lubricants

Plastic gloves

Buckets

Towels and paper towels

Iodine for disinfecting the calf’s navel

Some things to keep in mind when trying to decide when to call your veterinarian:

Calving takes time, and it often takes longer for heifers than cows, so be patient. However,

progress should be steady and generally fit within the time-frames previously mentioned. Once

Stage II begins (delivery of the calf), the cow or heifer should make visible progress about every

15 to 20 minutes.

Use the ‘2+1 rule’ to help determine when to call. Upon examination, 2 feet and 1 head (or 2 feet

and 1 tail) should be felt or seen for a normal delivery to proceed.

If the cow or heifer becomes exhausted and quits trying to calve, then assistance is necessary.

When in doubt, call your veterinarian. The outcome is always more favorable if assistance is

provided sooner rather than later.

If possible, and if safe for you and the animal, capture the cow or heifer needing assistance before your

veterinarian arrives. This will make his or her job easier, and minimize your expenses.

If you have any further questions, please contact your local Extension agent, or [email protected] 865-

974-3538.



Implications of Cow Size Change

David Lalman1, Aksel Wiseman1, Eric DeVuyst1

1Oklahoma State University, Department of Animal Science, Stillwater, OK

Introduction Dramatic swings in mature size of cattle have occurred in the U.S. beef industry since the 1930s. Pictured

below are champion animals selected at major U.S. livestock shows in 1953, 1989 and 2018. One factor

contributing to these dramatic swings over time is the high degree of heritability associated with mature

frame size. For example, during fall 2017, heritability of mature height in the Angus breed was reported

as 0.62, representing the highest heritability value among all 21 traits for which expected progeny

differences were calculated. Not surprisingly, there is a strong genetic correlation between mature height

and mature weight (0.76). Said another way, and as our history has proven, rapid and dramatic change can

be made in mature cow size (height and weight) if enough selection pressure is applied in a given

direction.

Consider that each 100 pounds of additional mature cow weight requires the equivalent of about 600

pounds of additional high-quality grass hay per year to maintain their body weight and condition

(NASEM, 2016). Consequently, feed costs and forage requirements will be impacted by mature cow size.

Even though the optimal phenotype for this characteristic has been debated for many years, it continues to

be an import consideration because of the impact it can have on ranch profitability, appropriate stocking

rate and consumer acceptance of beef products.

Cow Size Currently, mature frame size in the U.S. beef cattle industry could be described as moderate and

consistent. In fact, the genetic trend for mature height in Angus cattle has not changed since 1992

(American Angus Association, 2018). Using cow carcass weights as a barometer, mature cow weights

increased rapidly from the early 1990s through about 2004. Since that time, change in annual average cow

carcass weights has slowed and appears to be stabilizing (Figure 1). Similarly, the genetic trend for

mature cow weight in the Angus and Hereford breeds indicate a gradual, although slowing increase

through time (American Angus Association, 2018; American Hereford Association, 2018). Interestingly,

the Red Angus mature cow weight genetic trend increased consistently from 1970 through about 2003.

Since then, Red Angus mature cow weights have trended down (American Red Angus Association,

2017).


Changes in weight with no change in frame size suggests modification over time in body composition.

For example, most breeds’ genetic trend data indicate that carcass weights, muscularity (reported as

longissimus muscle or rib-eye-area), and to a lesser degree, back fat are increasing over time. At the same

time, consistent selection for growth in most breeds, combined with little to no selection pressure against

feed intake (until just recently), has led to a U.S. beef cattle population with increased capacity for feed

intake.

It is unknown whether genetic changes over the past 30 years have led to increased feed intake when

expressed as a percent of the cow’s body weight. Generally speaking, greater appetite is associated with

increased visceral organ mass. That is to say cattle have larger organs, particularly liver, rumen and

intestines than they used to have. Visceral organs are expensive tissue to maintain. Therefore, one might

conclude that from an industry-wide perspective, the annual cost to maintain a beef cow of the same

weight (or the amount of grazing land required) could be gradually increasing. Determining the relative

value of increased growth, carcass weight and feed intake compared to the increased cost, particularly

during the cow/calf phase of production, is a difficult and complicated task.

Output Considerations In an attempt to quantify the relationship of mature cow weight to calf weaning weight in commercial

cow/calf operations, researchers at Oklahoma State evaluated 3,041 records collected from three different

operations (Bir et al., 2018). In the data set, cow weights ranged from 635 to 1,922 pounds and calf

weaning weight ranged from 270 to 775 pounds. First of all, there was not a strong relationship between

cow size and calf weaning weight (Figure 2). In other words, there was a lot of variation in weaning

weight, and cow size explained only a small portion of this variation. In almost any cow herd, there will

be small cows that are individually efficient (relatively high weaning weight for their mature size) and

there are large cows that are individually efficient.

Although the relationship was not strong, it was statistically significant and positive. It was determined

that for each 100 pounds of additional cow weight, calf weaning weight increased by an average of 6.7


pounds. Arkansas data published in 2016 (Beck et al. 2016) indicated that this relationship was 19 pounds

of added weaning weight for each 100 pounds of additional cow weight. More recent data from North

Dakota (Ringwall, 2017) documented a 28-pound increase in calf weaning weight. Climate and

management practices likely have substantial impact on this relationship. Without solid evidence, cows in

a challenging environment will likely wean less calf weight per added 100 pounds of cow weight, perhaps

closer to 6 pounds. In less restrictive environments, the relationship will likely be at the upper end or

closer to 28+ pounds per 100 pounds of cow-added cow weight. “Less restrictive” can be interpreted as

higher quality, more abundant forage, lower stocking rate (allowing the cattle to select a better quality

diet), more harvested forage feeding, more supplementation, more winter annual grazing, less heat or cold

stress, less parasite exposure and so on.

Based on the evidence available; it appears that each additional 100 pounds of cow weight generates

about $6 to $30 of added calf income, depending on the calf market. However, in a 2011 study, the

addition of each 100 pounds of cow weight cost an additional $42 due to increased feed costs and grazing

land required (Doye and Lalman, 2011). To take this a step farther, in several published economic

evaluations of varying cow size and a given land resource, smaller and moderate cows have a financial

advantage for three primary reasons: 1) higher stocking rates for smaller cows result in more pounds

weaned per acre; 2) lighter calves sell for a higher price per cwt; and 3) the increased revenue from added

weaning weights do not offset the higher feed costs of larger cows (Bir et al., 2018). Obviously, items 2

and 3 in this list assume little to no market discount for smaller-framed calves that may have lower

growth rate and likely have lighter carcass weights.


Larger mature cow size generates more cull cow income, and this is considered in previously mentioned

economic evaluations. One factor often overlooked when crediting larger cows with increased cull

income is additional cow weight is not free to begin with. For example, comparing 1,000-pound cows to

1,400-pound cows and a $70 per cwt cull cow price, 1,400-pound cows generate an additional $280 at

culling time. However, the additional 400 pounds of growth required additional nutrients through the

development stages and about six to seven years of age when they finally reach their mature weight.

While forage is generally the cheapest feed resource on a ranch, the conversion of forage (even high

quality forage) to cow weight gain is low. Consequently, the increased cull cow income will be

substantially offset by the economic cost (although nearly impossible to measure) of developing or

growing the added cow weight.

Cow Size v.s. Carcass Weight Carcass weights along with genetic potential for growth and economical regional post-weaning

production systems may help establish logical minimum cow size. Carcass weight explains a large portion

of variation in finishing cattle profitability (Gadberry and Troxel, 2006). However, there is a strong

relationship between mature cow size and carcass weight (Nephawe et al., 2004). Therefore, in general,

selection for increased carcass weight will also lead to increased mature cow weight. Currently, maximum

carcass weight allowed before price discounts are applied is around 1,000 to 1,050 pounds. Consequently,

cattle feeders manage animals to minimize carcass discounts, which means they market them when

carcasses average around 800 to 900 pounds.

Lower carcass weights, in general, reduce profit potential during the finishing phase (Tatum et al., 2012).

Therefore, consideration should be given to the most likely post-weaning production system for a set of

calves. Lancaster et al., 2014 summarized data from 29 different experiments. These researchers

established that 94 percent of the variation in carcass weight could be explained by stocker-phase average

daily gain and finishing-phase entry weight when cattle were fed to a constant rib fat endpoint. Slower

stocker-phase rate of weight gain resulted in heavier carcass weight and heavier finishing-phase entry

weight resulted in heavier carcass weight. Consequently, a longer stocker-phase period combined with

slower or modest rates of gain will result in heavier finishing-phase placement weights and larger

carcasses for cattle of smaller mature size.

Grazing Land Resources and the Environment As shown in Table 1, heavier cows are expected to consume more feed/forage. In fact, a 1,500-pound cow

should consume around 8 pounds more dry matter per day compared to a 1,000-pound cow. Assuming

native rangeland pasture producing about 4,000 pounds of forage per year and a 25 percent harvest

efficiency, this equates to about four more acres required annually per head for the larger cows.

Beef cattle retain only about 20 percent of the nutrients they consume (NASEM, 2016). The remainder is

lost in feces, urine, respiration and eructation. Greenhouse gas emissions include methane, nitrous oxide

and carbon dioxide. Agriculture contributes about 8.0 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the world,

and enteric methane contributes 2.7 percent of that (EPA, 2016). Methane alone represents a loss of about

6.25 percent of total energy consumed. Therefore, selecting for more efficient cattle helps to lower the

carbon footprint (methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide), while improving efficiency of nutrient

utilization and reducing cost of production. On an individual animal basis, methane and nitrogen

emissions are greater in larger cows that consume more feed. However, when stocking rate is adjusted in

a way that results in similar grazing pressure, methane and nitrogen emissions are similar regardless of

cow size (Table 1)


Conclusion Cow size is an important consideration in a ranching enterprise. Because mature frame size and weight

are highly heritable traits, cow size can be, and has been, readily manipulated through selection. On

average, frame size throughout the beef industry has moderated and has been consistent for several years.

Just recently, mature cow weight appears to be stabilizing. Larger cows consume more feed on an

individual basis and in many situations, marginal increased weaning weight and cull cow income are not

adequate to pay for higher inputs due to increased cow size. Greenhouse gas emissions are greater for

larger cows because they consume more feed. However, when stocking rate is adjusted for cow size, total

ranch greenhouse gas and nitrogen excretion are similar.

Literature cited American Angus Association. 2018. Genetic trend EPD/$ value by birth year

http://www.angus.org/Nce/GeneticTrends.aspx. (Accessed: February 12, 2018).

American Hereford Association. 2018. EPD trends. https://hereford.org/genetics/breed-improvement/epd-

trends/. (Accessed: February 12, 2018).

American Red Angus Association. 2017. EPD trends. http://redangus.org/genetics/epd-trends. (Accessed:

February 12, 2018).

Beck, P. A., C. B. Stewart, M. S. Gadberry, M. Haque, and J. Biermacher. 2016. Effects of mature body

weight and stocking rate on cow and calf performance, cow herd efficiency, and economics in the

southeastern United States. J. Anim. Sci. 94:1689-1702.

Bir, C., E. A., E. A. DeVuyst, M. Rolf, D. L. Lalman; 2018. Optimal Beef Cow Weights in the U.S.

Southern Plains. J. Ag. Res. Econ. 43(1):102-116.

Doye, D. G. D. L. Lalman; 2011. In: Annual Meeting, Ferbruary 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas (No.

98748), 2011, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

EPA. 2016. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014. EPA 430-R-16-002.

EPA. Washington, D.C.

Gadberry, M. S., and T. R. Troxel. 2006. Nine-year summary of Arkansas Steer Feedout Program:

Factors contributing to value and return. Prof. Anim. Sci. 22:452-462


Lancaster, P. A., C. R. Krehbiel, G. W. Horn. 2014. A meta-analysis of effects of nutrition and

management during the stocker and backgrounding phase on subsequent finishing performance and

carcass characteristics. Prof. Anim. Sci. 30:602-612.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Nutrient requirements of

beef cattle. 8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Nephawe, K.A., L.V. Cundiff, M.E. Dikeman, J. D. Crouse, L. D. Van Vleck. Genetic relationships

between sex-specific traits in beef cattle: Mature weight, weight adjusted for body condition score, height

and body condition score of cows, and carcass traits of their steer relatives. Journal of Animal Science,

Volume 82, Issue 3, 1 March 2004, Pages 647– 653,https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/82.3.647.

Ringwall, K. A., 2017. In: What is right for the beef business: A discussion on cattle size, September 2,

2017, Manning, North Dakota, World Cattleman’s Cow Efficiency Congress.

Tatum, J. D., W. J. Platter, J. L. Bargen, R. A. Endsley. 2012. Carcass-based measures of cattle

performance and feeding profitability. Prof. Anim. Sci. 28:173-183.


Reproductive Vaccination-

Deciphering the MLV impact on fertility

Decision

•Prebreeding Vaccination of Cattle should• Provide fetal & abortive protection (BVD and

BoHV-1)• Not impede reproduction

• Impact of MLV vaccine prior to estrus synchronization?

Safety Efficacy


Day of Calving Season

Per

cen

tag

e o

f C

alve

s B

orn

Which ranch is likely to be more profitable?

Calving Distribution

Which ranch is better able to take advantage of selling truckload lots?Which ranch is best able to take advantage of early weaning?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Months of Gestation

Infertility:

Infection of ovaries, interference with cyclicity

Sporadic Abortions in Vaccinated Herds

Timeline For IBR and Effects on Reproduction

Spontaneous Abortion

Abortion Storms in Susceptible Herds

Adapted from Youngquist, Current Therapy in Large Animal Theriogenology, Ch 48, 1997.


Decision

Safety

Efficacy

Phases of Estrous Cycle

Senger, P.L. “Pathways to Pregnancy and Parturition” Current Conceptions Inc. 2nd Edition


Infertility in heifers inoculated with modified-live bovine herpesvirus-1 vaccinal strains against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis on postbreeding day 14

J.M. Miller, DVM PhD; M.J. Van Der Maaten, DVMm PhD: C.A. Whetstone, Ph DAm J. Vet Res, Vol 50, No. 4, April 1989

• Inocula• Four BHV-1 strains-originated from a repository of expired MLV-1

vaccines against IBR

• Heifers• 10 originated from a herd with no history of vaccination for IBR• Mated to a seronegative bull by natural service

• Experimental Design• On postbreeding day (PBD) 14

• 2 heifers inoculated IV with 5 ml of 1 of 4 strains of BHV-1 (total of 8 heifers)• Controls-2 heifers inoculated IV with 5 ml of noninfected cell culture

• Serurm was obtained prior to inoculation to check SN titers• Blood was collected for plasma progesterone at 1 to 3 day

intervals beginning on day of inoculation and continued till PBD 60

Materials and Methods


• BHV-1 was isolated from at least 1 nasal, vaginal swab, and blood sample from each of the 8 heifers inoculated with a BHV-1 vaccinal strain

• Plasma progesterone tests indicated • Control heifers remained pregnant 2 months post breeding• 4 of 8 inoculated heifers remained pregnant 2 months post

breeding• Pregnancy failure was observed in 4 heifers

• Conclusion• MLV BHV-1 vaccine may result in loss of pregnancy

Results


• 55 healthy excellently managed, confirmed pregnant Angus-cross heifers from the University of Wyoming herd vaccinated at 7-8 months of gestation

• Vaccinated with MLV in May 2010 prebreeding

Case History

• Abortions 32 days post vaccination

• Diagnostics conducted on six of seven aborted fetuses and one heifer that died

• Six heifers confirmed pregnant by ultrasound on vaccination found open at calving

• Lossed 14 pregnancies

Observations


• Diagnostic tests found numerous expressions of IBR symptoms and BoHV-1 antigens present in aborted fetuses

• NO BVDV was detected in aborted fetuses

• Abortions and pregnancy losses among the heifers in this study were observed following the use of a BoHV-1 MLV vaccine

Conclusion

“The effects of vaccination on serum hormone concentrations and conception rates in synchronized naïve beef heifers”Perry GA, et al., Theriogenology 2012


•59 heifers naïve to BoHV-1 and BVD•Group 1 (n=21): 2 doses inactivated vaccine* 36 & 8 days prior to AI

•Group 2 (n=7): 1 dose inactivated vaccine* 8 days prior to AI

•Group 3 (n=21): 1 dose MLV vaccine^ 8 days prior to AI

•Group 4 (n=10): 2 doses placebo ̌ 36 & 8 day prior to AI

•All, bred AI and then with bulls 14 days

Materials and methods

*ViraShield® 6+VL5 HB, ̌Inactivated Sterile Water Placebo, Novartis Animal Health US, Inc.

^Bovi-Shield GOLD® FP® 5 VL5, Zoetis Inc.Perry, et al., Theriogenology 2012

•Abnormal estrus cycle (<15 days)•Plasma P4 concentrations

• During the synchronization period• After AI

•Plasma E2 concentrations•Pregnancy rates

Measurements

Perry, et al., Theriogenology 2012


•MLV vaccinated heifers had higher % abnormal cycles

•MLV vaccinated heifers had lower E2 concentrations

•Pregnancy rates were lower in heifers that received MLV vaccine

Outcome

Perry, et al., Theriogenology 2012

•Naïve heifers•Vaccinated inside of time prior to breeding as on label directions

Outcome


• 60 Beef Heifers naïve to BVDV/BoHV-1 with reproductive tract scores ≥ 3 (scale 1-5)

• Heifers randomly assigned to groups and vaccinated 2 days after initial detected estrus:

Animals

Walz et al. Theriogenology 2015

Group Product 1st Vaccination 2nd Vaccination

A (n=20) Express® FP VL5

2 Days After Detected Estrus

10 Days Prior to Breeding

B (n=20) Express® FP VL5

2 Days After Detected Estrus


C (n=10) Citadel® VL5 2 Days After Detected Estrus


D (n=10) Citadel® VL5 2 Days After Detected Estrus



Fig. 1. Experimental design and timeline for vaccine administration, collection of samples, synchronization of estrus, and submission to breeding group. Events occurring after submission to the breeding group are not included. Group A heifers (n=20) were revaccinated with Express® FP 5 VL5 at 10 days before synchronized natural breeding ((short prebreeding interval). Group B heifers (n=10) were revaccinated with Express® FP 5 VL5 at 31 days before synchronized natural breeding (long prebreeding interval). Group C heifers (n=10) were administered Citadel® VL5 at 10 days before synchronized natural breeding (control short prebreeding interval). Group D heifers (n=10) were administered Citadel® VL5 at 31 days before synchronized natural breeding (control long prebreeding interval). BP,=breeding pen; CIDR-controlled internal drug release; P4=porgesterone.


• Interestral intervals

• Proportion of heifers exhibiting estrus within 5 days after synchronization

• Serum progesterone & estrogen

• Pregnancy rates• end of the study• first 5 days of the breeding season

• Mean day of conception

• Embryonic loss

• Ovarian and conceptus tissues were assayed for BVDV and BoHV-1

Measurements



Results:Interestral Intervals and Response to Estrus Synchronization

Group First interestrusinterval (days)

Second interestrusinterval (days)

Heifers exhibiting estrus in first 5 days of breeding season

Group A 19.2 (n=20) 22.5 (n=19) 19/20 (95%)

Group B 19.1 (n=20) 22.1 (n=20) 17/20 (85%)

Group C 20.0 (n=10) 21.3 (n=10) 9/10 (90%)

Group D 20.1 (n=10) 20.6 (n=10) 9/10 (90%)

p-value P=0.449 P=0.801 P=0.774


Results:Interestral Intervals and Response to Estrus Synchronization

Group First interestrusinterval (days)

Second interestrusinterval (days)

Heifers exhibiting estrus in first 5 days of breeding season

Group A 19.2 (n=20) 22.5 (n=19) 19/20 (95%)

Group B 19.1 (n=20) 22.1 (n=20) 17/20 (85%)

Group C 20.0 (n=10) 21.3 (n=10) 9/10 (90%)

Group D 20.1 (n=10) 20.6 (n=10) 9/10 (90%)

p-value P=0.449 P=0.801 P=0.774

Vaccination with Express® FP 5-VL5 did not result in negative reproductive impact based on:

• Duration of 1st or 2nd interestrus intervals• Proportion of heifers exhibiting estrus

within 5 days of synchronization• Mean day of conception• Pregnancies resulting from the first five

days of the breeding season



Results:Pregnancy Rates and Mean Day of Conception Within Breeding Season

Group Embryonic loss detected prior to study end date

Pregnant at study end date

Pregnant at study end from first 5 days of breeding season

Mean day of conception within breeding season

Group A 2/20 (10%) 14/20 (70%) 12/20 (60%)

4.2

Group B 1/20 (5%) 17/20 (85%) 15/20 (75%)

3.1

Group C 1/10 (10%) 9/10 (90%) 6/10 (60%) 5.3

Group D 0/10 (0%) 10/10 (100%)

5/10 (50%) 6.3

p-value P=0.72 P=0.177 P=0.556 P=0.459


Results:Pregnancy Rates and Mean Day of Conception Within Breeding Season

Group Embryonic loss detected prior to study end date

Pregnant at study end date

Pregnant at study end from first 5 days of breeding season

Mean day of conception within breeding season

Group A 2/20 (10%) 14/20 (70%) 12/20 (60%)

4.2

Group B 1/20 (5%) 17/20 (85%) 15/20 (75%)

3.1

Group C 1/10 (10%) 9/10 (90%) 6/10 (60%) 5.3

Group D 0/10 (0%) 10/10 (100%)

5/10 (50%) 6.3

p-value P=0.72 P=0.177 P=0.556 P=0.459

Vaccination with Express® FP 5-VL5 did not result in negative reproductive impact based on:

• Embryonic loss detected prior to the end of the study

• Pregnancy rates at the end of the study



•Vaccination with Express® FP 5-VL5 did not result in negative reproductive impact based on:

• Serum progesterone concentrations during estrus and diestrus

• Serum estrogen concentrations following initial vaccination or in the breeding pen

• BVDV was not detected in luteal tissue, ovarian tissue, or fetal tissues

• BoHV-1 was not detected in luteal tissue, ovarian tissue, or fetal tissues

Results


First Service Conception Rates

Following Vaccination with

Express® FP 5

C. Jones, K. Haden, D. RobbinsBIVI Tech Bulletin 03-106R-1


Effect of Vaccination on First Service Conception Rates

Study conducted in a commercial cow/calf operation that was on a routine MLV vaccination program.

• First Service Conception Rates Following Vaccination with Breed-Back FP 5 (Express FP 5) Vaccine

• Previous studies• Vaccination of sero-negative cows with MLV

vaccine just prior to breeding, may reduce fertility• This has impacted pre-breeding vaccination practices in

beef and dairy cows.

Rationale for Study


• Modified live IBR and BVD are commonly used to vaccinate cows prior to breeding

• An immune response is stimulated following replication of the modified live viruses

• There is a concern that the replicating viruses may invade the ovary, interfere with ovarian function, and result in infertility

Background

• Grooms DL, et al. J Vet Diagn Invest 1998; 10:130-134.• Isolated BVD virus from ovaries of sero-negative heifers

on day 12 following vaccination with MLV• Showed presence of BVD antigen in the ovaries of sero-

negative cows 30 days post-vaccination with MLV

• Chiang BC, et al. Theriogeniology 1990; 33:1113-1120.• Reduction in conception rate when sero-negative heifers

were vaccinated with a modified live IBR just prior to turning with bulls.

Background (continued)


• To evaluate if Express® FP 5 administered 10 days prior to breeding will reduce first service conception rates and overall pregnancy rates in cows that had been vaccinated with a modified live IBR and BVD vaccine prior to previous breeding seasons.

Objective

• 191 cows were sorted into two groups based on age and days post-calving

• All cows were 2 years of age

• All cows had received at least two MLV vaccines as heifers and had been vaccinated with MLV vaccine prior to each of the previous breeding seasons

• All were synchronized with the 7-11 Synch program and were time bred 60 hours following the second prostaglandin injection

Protocol


Treatment GroupsN Vaccination Timing Vaccines

Group 1 96 4 weeks prior to AI

Express® FP 5

Vibrio-Lepto-5

Group 2 95 10 days prior to AI

Express® FP 5

Vibrio-Lepto-5

MGA .5mg/hd/d

28 Days

10 Days

Vaccination and Synchronization Timeline

Group 1Vaccinated

Stop M

GA

StartMGA

GnRHGroup 2

Vaccinated

2nd

PG

F 2ά

GnRHand A.I.

8 Days 7 Days 1 Day 3 Days 7 Days 60 hours

1stP

GF

2ά

All cows were fed MGA and injected with PGF2ά and GnRH.


• Bulls were turned with cows six days following AI.

• All cows were pregnancy checked using ultrasound 33 days after AI.

• Cows open 33 days following AI were pregnancy checked via ultrasound 35 days after removal of bulls.

Protocol (continued)

Results

First Service Conception Rate

# Pregnant # Open Total % Pregnanta

Group 1 51 45 96 53.1%

Group 2 49 45 94b 52.1%

aNo significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p>.05).bOne cow culled prior to pregnancy check.

Note: The first service conception rates were consistent with previous years in which the same synchronization and fixed-time breeding program were used in this herd.


Results

Overall Pregnancy Rate# Pregnant # Open Total % Pregnanta

Group 1 92 4 96 95.8%

Group 2 87 7 94 92.5%

aNo significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p>.05).

• The first service conception rate and overall pregnancy rate were not significantly different in cows vaccinated with Express® FP 5 ten days prior to artificial insemination versus cows vaccinated four weeks prior to artificial insemination.

• Cows utilized in this study had received a yearly pre-breeding MLV vaccine in the years prior to the study.

Summary


Decision Safety

Efficacy

Timeline of BVDV Effects on Reproduction

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Months of Gestation

Persistent Infection

Adapted from Grooms, 2004

EED

Abortion

Congenital Defects

Congenital Infections (Cl)

INFERTILITY


• Prevention of persistent infection caused by BVDV Type 1 (including 1b) & Type 2

• 4 different non-cytopathic BVDV challenge viruses• 2 BVDV Type 1b• 2 BVDV Type 2

• 7 different challenge studies

Express® FP Vaccines PreventBVDV Persistent Infection

Challenge Virus

Treatment Group

# Positive/Total

Total % Protected

BVDV Type1b(3 Studies)

VaccinatesControls

2 of 5138 of 41

96%7%

BVDV Type 2(4 Studies)

VaccinatesControls

2 of 6450 of 51

97%2%

Summary of All BVDV Label Studies


• First vaccine labeled for prevention of persistently infected calves

• First vaccine with written financial guarantee

Express® FP Vaccines

Challenge Virus Treatment Group PI Positive

BVDV Type 1b VaccinatesControls

1/22 (4.5%)20/23 (87.0%)

BVDV Type 2 VaccinatesControls

0/18 (0%)21/22 (95.5%)

Protection Against Persistent Infection1 Year After Vaccination

A single dose of Express® FP 5-VL5 administered one year prior to challenge with BVDV Type 1b or Type 2:

• Demonstrated fetal protection against persistent infection

Zimmerman A., et al, The Bovine Practitioner 47, 1 (2013)


Challenge Virus

Treatment Group

Abortions

Cooper IBR Controls 18/19 (94.7%)

Cooper IBR Vaccinated 12 months

2/13(15.4%)

p<0.0001

IBR Abortion Challenge

A single dose of Express® FP 5-VL5 administered one year prior to challenge with IBR Cooper Strain:

• Demonstrated protection against IBR abortion for 12 months

Zimmerman A., et al, The Bovine Practitioner 47, 2 (2013)

Decision

Safety Efficacy

• IBR vaccination of pregnant cows & heifers is potentially the highest risk of causing abortions.

• Modified live IBR vaccine should be given to heifers at least 30 days prior to breeding.

• If heifers are not properly vaccinated they should not be vaccinated with MLV vaccines during pregnancy

ConclusionWhen designing heifer, pre-breeding vaccination programs, vaccination history should be carefully considered and multivalent MLV vaccines should be used according to label directions.


Decision

Safety Efficacy




Decision

Safety Efficacy




ConclusionWhen designing heifer, pre-breeding vaccination programs, vaccination history should be carefully considered and multivalent MLV vaccines should be used according to label directions.


Thank you!

Final questions?


Effect of Cattle Health on Performance During the Stocker and Feedlot Periods

John T. Richeson1 1Department of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX

Introduction There are numerous reasons why disease, namely bovine respiratory disease (BRD), impacts performance

in stocker and feedlot cattle. It is often said that “sick cattle don’t eat” and this manifestation is caused by

a complicated interaction of stress hormones, infectious pathogens, and products of inflammation that

affect the appetite of cattle. Furthermore, feed and water restriction during the marketing and

transportation process negatively alters rumen microbiota and the metabolic and hydration status of cattle,

leading to compromised digestion and physiological impairment upon arrival. Perhaps the more relevant

question as it pertains to cattle production in Florida is “what can I do to improve the health, and therefore

performance of my calves after they enter the stocker or feedlot arena”. The goal of this presentation is to

outline practical, research-based findings to help cow-calf producers understand factors that are most

likely to influence the health and performance of their cattle post-weaning.

Preconditioning Preconditioning is a comprehensive management practice first identified in the 1960s designed to reduce

the incidence and susceptibility to BRD during the stocker and feedlot segments of the beef production

system. The negative effects of stress are mitigated through preconditioning management; however, this

management practice must occur during a critical time period before marketing and transport to a stocker

operation or feedlot occurs. Although the specific requirements of different preconditioning programs

may vary, typical requirements include weaning calves on their origin ranch for a specified time (i.e. ≥ 45

days), vaccinating against clostridial and respiratory (IBR, BVDV type 1 & 2, PI3V, BRSV) pathogens,

treatment with anthelmintic, castration, dehorning, and training to consume feed from a bunk and water

from a trough before being marketed or transported to a stocker or feedlot facility (Cole, 1985; Duff and

Galyean, 2007). Each of these preconditioning requirements functions to reduce stress and disease risk in

preparation for the stocker or feedlot environment. For example, in the preconditioned calf, weaning

stress is reduced and overcome on the ranch of origin before shipping and commingling occurs. This

mitigates the additive effect of multiple stressors by shifting stress occurrences earlier (ie. weaning stress

on the ranch of origin rather than during transport to a feedlot with concurrent stressors). Not surprisingly,

preconditioned cattle perform better than high-risk cattle; during a 56 day receiving period ADG of 2.6

was reported for preconditioned calves vs. 1.9 lb for high risk calves (Richeson et al., 2012). In the same

study, the BRD morbidity rate was 7 and 70% for preconditioned and auction market cattle, respectively.

Because of improved health and performance, preconditioned cattle are typically more valuable. Net

return for preconditioned vs. non-preconditioned steers selling in a Kansas auction market from 1999 to

2004 was estimated between $14.28 (winter) and $31.84 (fall)/animal depending on market conditions,

calf weight and condition (Dhuyvetter et al., 2005). Whereas, the estimated $40 to $60/animal value of

preconditioned cattle in the feedlot is considerably greater than the estimated net return from marketing

preconditioned calves (Dhuyvetter et al., 2005). So why is it that so few cow calf producers take

advantage of preconditioning and the improved value that it holds? The small average herd size,

particularly in the Southeastern U.S. is problematic because risk associated with preconditioning is

increased. Some producers may have attempted preconditioning in the past, only to find disappointment

in the lack of premium price offered at sale. Buyers determine value and if preconditioned cattle must be

comingled after purchase the value of preconditioning is greatly diminished.


Vaccinating High-Risk Beef Cattle One of the major components of preconditioning is vaccination and there are numerous reasons why

vaccination during preconditioning, rather than upon feedlot arrival, is clearly advantageous. First, the

timing of vaccination during a preconditioning program is appropriate relative to subsequent stress and

natural challenge during transition of calves to a stocker or feedlot facility. Vaccine efficacy hinges upon

a robust immune response to the antigens contained in the vaccine and the immune system requires

several days to weeks to respond adequately. Furthermore, stress may alter the immune system’s ability to

respond to a vaccine and stress is reduced when vaccination is implemented at the ranch origin vs. feedlot

arrival. Although the current recommendation of feedlot consulting veterinarians is nearly unanimous in

favor of vaccination against respiratory viruses during initial processing of high-risk cattle, there is little

research to support this recommendation. Previous field studies have evaluated the timing of vaccination,

effects of revaccination, or compared different vaccine products; however, a negative control treatment is

rarely used. A recent study was conducted in which high-risk calves were vaccinated with a MLV

respiratory vaccine on day 0, 14 or non-vaccinated control group during a 42-day receiving period.

Although overall BRD morbidity was not different, the relapse rate was increased for the non-vaccinated

cattle and suggests at least some degree of respiratory vaccine efficiency occurred in this trial. Average

daily gain was reduced transiently for either vaccinated group, which may be explained by vaccine-

induced stimulation of the acute phase response, which is both catabolic and metabolically demanding

(Arthington et al., 2013). On the contrary, vaccine administration (intranasal vs intramuscular vs

unvaccinated control) was evaluated in newly received beef calves and no differences in BRD health

outcomes were observed. In another study evaluating the timing of MLV vaccine (day 0 or 14 from

arrival) in high-risk calves, cattle administered the delayed procedure had slight improvement in health

and performance.

Hydration Therapy Research A recent receiving study conducted at the West Texas A&M University Research Feedlot will be

presented. The study objectives were to evaluate the impact of oral hydration therapy during initial

processing on calf health and performance and determine the effect of hydration therapy and bovine

respiratory disease (BRD) on rumination behavior and rumen pH and temperature. Three truckload blocks

of high risk, auction-sourced bull (n=242) and steer (n=55) calves (initial BW=416 ± 42 lb) were used

during a 56-day receiving period. Prior to shipment (day -1), a subset (n=20/block) were fitted with a 3-

axis accelerometer collar to quantify rumination time and activity index, and administered a data logging

bolus to record rumen pH and temperature. At arrival (day 0), calves were randomized to receive 0.57 L

water/100 lb BW from a modified oral drenching apparatus (H2O) or no water administration (CON) and

sorted into treatment pens (n=15/treatment; 10 animals/pen). Standard arrival processing procedures were

implemented and bulls were surgically castrated and administered meloxicam on day 0; whereas,

modified-live virus respiratory vaccination was delayed until day 28. Treatment-blinded technicians

evaluated calves daily and assigned a clinical illness score (CIS) for BRD; those with CIS ≥ 2 and rectal

temperature ≥ 104°F were considered a BRD case and treated with an antimicrobial. Interim BW was

recorded and residual feed was collected every 14 days. Repeated measures data evaluated were analyzed

for fixed effects of H2O vs. CON and BRD cases (n=12) vs. non-treated cohorts (n=21; RCON). Final

BW (565.6 vs. 547.7 lb) and overall ADG (2.63 vs. 2.36 lb/day) tended (P=0.08) to increase and DMI for

day 42 to 56 (16.61 vs. 15.08 lb/day) was greater (P<0.01) for H2O vs. CON. However, BRD-associated

mortality was greater (P=0.05) in H2O (8.1%) vs. CON (2.7%). Daily rumen temperature was altered

(P=0.04) such that peak rumen temperature occurred earlier for H2O; whereas, CON had increased rumen

temperature following delayed vaccination on day 28. Calves diagnosed with BRD had decreased

(P<0.01) rumination time between 2000 and 0400 hours, greater (P<0.01) rumen temperature until


delayed vaccination on day 28, greater (P<0.01) hourly rumen temperature between 0900 and 0300,

transiently decreased (P=0.04) activity index between day 9 and 32, decreased (P<0.01) activity index

between 0800 and 2000, and altered (P<0.01) rumen pH. Increased performance and DMI was observed

for H2O; however, health outcomes were not improved. Earlier peak rumen temperature observed in H2O

may indicate physiological modification enabling a more pronounced inflammatory response, which is

supported by the numerical increase in BRD morbidity observed for H2O. Differences in rumination

behavior and activity index between BRD and RCON are potential tools for early detection of BRD.

(Tomczak et al., 2018).

Conclusions Unless a paradigm shift in the U.S. beef production and marketing system occurs, a large number of cattle

transitioning to stocker and feedlot segments will remain at high-risk for BRD and transiently poor

performance. Reasons include low adoption of preconditioning management at the ranch origin, stressors

experienced during the transition process, and a perhaps ubiquitous presence of bovine pathogens in

commingled groups of cattle. Cattle health directly affects growth performance because the inflammatory

response to infection results in catabolism and anorexia. Cow calf producers that retain ownership or

simply want what is best for the health and performance of their calves after marketing should consider

preconditioning. Preconditioning addresses nutritional, immunological and psychological factors that

ensure the best possible health and performance of cattle as they transition to stocker and feedlot

segments of the current beef production system. Research evaluating pharmacological alternatives to

control and treat BRD is warranted.



Secure Beef Supply Plan – What Beef Producers Need to Know Molly J. Lee1

1Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine,

Ames, IA

Foot and mouth disease (FMD), while harmless to people, causes blisters in animals with cloven hooves,

such as cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. It is the most contagious disease of livestock. However, it is not a

public health or food safety concern. Normal appearing cattle can shed FMD virus in bodily fluids like

saliva, urine, milk and even semen, two to four days before clinical signs appear. The FMD virus is very

easily spread to other animals on vehicles, people’s clothing or footwear, and equipment that can carry the

virus in saliva, manure or dirt. Foot and mouth disease has not affected United States livestock since

1929. However, if FMD were diagnosed today, State and Federal Officials would turn to USDA’s Foot

and Mouth Disease Response Plan, also known as “The Red Book”, to respond to this very contagious

livestock virus. The Red Book provides guidance on setting up Control Areas around Infected Premises,

which are farms with livestock that test positive for FMD. The size of the FMD Control Area could be as

small as a six mile radius from the Infected Premises for one farm, or very large, such as an entire region,

if several farms have positive animals. Movement controls will be put in place in the Control Area to limit

FMD spread. This will include moving animals between premises and to packing plants. At the beginning

of an FMD outbreak, several days to weeks may be needed before the livestock industry and federal and

state officials have sufficient knowledge of the extent of the outbreak to have confidence that animals can

be safely moved without contributing to disease spread. During this time, movement restrictions will be

put in place for the Control Area(s) to limit disease spread by animals, animal products, vehicles, and

other equipment. It is the Responsible Regulatory Officials’ responsibility during an outbreak to detect,

control, and contain FMD in animals as quickly as possible with the ultimate goal of eradication. It is the

producer’s responsibility during an FMD outbreak to protect their animals from becoming infected,

focusing on what they can control on their operation. To facilitate business continuity (movement),

producers will need to provide assurances to the Responsible Regulatory Officials that they are not

contributing to the spread of disease nor putting their own animals at risk of exposure. Some movements

carry more risk than others. Biosecurity will be paramount to limiting disease spread. Additionally,

producers should be prepared to manage their cattle operations if they are not allowed to move animals

for several days to weeks. Developing such contingency plans will allow time to conduct appropriate

surveillance to demonstrate a lack of evidence of disease and more confidence that a movement does not

present a significant risk for disease spread. Responsible Regulatory Officials will be making permitting

decisions regarding the movements of animals and animal products (semen, embryos) within, into, out of,

and through Control Areas based on the unique characteristics of the outbreak, the status of the premises,

and the risks involved with the types of movement. The Secure Beef Supply (SBS) Plan provides a

continuity of business plan for cattle operations in Control Areas that are affected by movement controls,

but not infected with FMD, so they can continue to move cattle. Cattle ranchers, feedlot operators,

livestock transporters, and packers rely on cattle movements to provide quality beef products to grocers

and consumers. The SBS Plan provides guidance for moving cattle that have no evidence of FMD

infection to harvest and to other premises, which could minimize lost income across sectors of the beef

industry. The SBS Plan is the result of years of collaboration between the beef industry, universities,

States, and the USDA. Participation is voluntary. The SBS Plan, funded by the USDA, also provides

resources to help producers protect their herd from FMD exposure. The SBS Plan recommends getting a

National Premises Identification Number, referred to as a PremID or PIN, for any operation that houses

animals. PINs can be requested from the office of your State Animal Health Official. The PIN includes a


valid 911 address and a set of matching coordinates (the latitude and longitude) reflecting the actual

location of the animals on the premises. Having a validated PIN speeds up communication and response

during an outbreak. Routine biosecurity is not enough when it comes to protecting cattle from FMD

exposure. The SBS Plan includes biosecurity guidance based on how FMD spreads. Producers can work

with their herd veterinarian and use the self-assessment checklist, corresponding information manual, and

template to develop an operation-specific, written, enhanced biosecurity plan. These resources are all

available on the SBS website. The biosecurity guidance includes implementing a LOS, or LOS, to limit

movement of FMD virus to areas where animals may be exposed. The Line of Separation is a clearly

identified boundary around or within an operation to separate off-farm from on farm movements. To

visualize the LOS concept, picture the operation as a castle. Think of the LOS as a moat around the castle

and the drawbridge is the access point – controlled by the operation. The operation decides when to lower

the drawbridge and let in any vehicle, after it has followed appropriate biosecurity measures, such as

being cleaned and disinfected. Another component of the SBS Plan is surveillance – looking for FMD in

the herd. If your operation is in a Control Area, surveillance may involve periodic farm inspections by

regulatory officials. Unfortunately there are no “cow-side tests” that quickly tell if an animal is infected

with FMD. Personnel observing animals daily, looking for clinical signs or changes in production, can

supplement inspections and testing. The SBS website includes resources to accomplish this. Abnormal

findings must be promptly reported to regulatory officials. In order to move cattle from a Control Area to

another operation or to a packing plant, producers will need to request a movement permit. Enhanced

biosecurity for the livestock truck, driver, and the entire cattle operation will be needed to prevent FMD

exposure. Surveillance during an outbreak will be necessary to ensure only cattle from herds with no

evidence of FMD infection are moved to other premises. These components can provide Continuity of

Business for producers who choose to participate. It is important to note that the SBS Plan is guidance

only. Another strategy for control of an FMD outbreak is vaccination. FMD vaccination may reduce

clinical disease, increase resistance to infection, and may slow the spread of the outbreak. However, use

of FMD vaccination has its challenges as there are multiple strains of FMD, with only limited cross-

protection, vaccine quantities may be limited, and use of vaccination would result in trade restrictions to

US exports. As the size of an FMD outbreak shifts from a small, focal outbreak to widespread or national

outbreak, the response shifts to include the use of vaccination. The decision to use vaccination in an FMD

outbreak is complex, and this decision will be made by Federal and State Officials based on the unique

characteristics of the outbreak.

For more information and resources on the Secure Beef Supply Plan, please visit www.securebeef.org.


http://www.securebeef.org/

2017www.securebeef.org

Secure Beef Supply PlanIn the Event of a Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak

Why is the Secure Beef Supply Plan needed?• Help operations in Control Areas whose cattle

have no signs of FMD continue to move cattle• Limit lost income for operations, haulers,

packers/processors, and grocers• Maintain the supply of beef products

to consumers because FMD is not a public health or food safety concern

How can you voluntarily participate in the Secure Beef Supply Plan?

• Contact your State Animal Health Official to request a Premises Identification Number (PIN)

• Visit the Secure Beef Supply website securebeef.org

• Develop your operation’s SBS Plan using the materials available in English and Spanish

How will the U.S. respond to a Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak?

• Response will focus on stopping the spread of this animal disease

• Control Areas will be set up around FMD infected and surrounding operations

• Movement restrictions will be put in place for animals and animal products in Control Areas

What is the Secure Beef Supply Plan?• Provides a workable business continuity plan

for operations that are under movement restrictions but not infected with foot and mouth disease (FMD)

• Offers movement guidance for producers, haulers, packing/processing plants, and officials managing the outbreak

• Provides biosecurity and surveillance tools for producers

The Secure Beef Supply Plan is funded by USDA.

Business Continuity

Biosecurity Surveillance

Movement Guidance



BRONSON ANIMAL DISEASE DIAGNOSTIC LABReddy Bommineni DVM, PhD, DACVM, DACPV

Laboratory Director

BADDL Update


Vet‐LIRN


BADDL Renovation Completed

• 2M awarded for renovation of existing facility

• As of November Renovation work completed

• Controlled Lab Environment with proper temperature and humidity control

BADDL: New facility

• Awarded 11.4 M for New facility

• We are at 100% drawings stage

• Anticipated project completion is fall 2019


BADDL: New facility

BADDL: New facility


BADDL: New facility

New Equipment

• MALDI‐TOF bacterial identification system ($210,000)

New automated technology for precise bacterial identification

• Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing

• Sensititer, new equipment for antibacterial susceptibility testing (Digital MIC system)


Clinical Pathology

Blood work like CBC, chemistry and few hormones

Immunochemistry

• Reopened Immunohistochemistry section with addition of following tests

– CWD

– Scrapie

– Leptspirosis

– BVD


• Bovine Trichomoniasis PCR

• BVD Antigen capture ELISA, PCR, IHC

• Leptospirosis IHC

• Neospora caninum ELISA

• BVD PCR

• Johne’s PCR

• Anaplasma PCR

• Bluetongue PCRs

Bovine Industry

Small Ruminants

• Now our Johne’s ELISA can be used for small ruminants

• Scrapie IHC – NAHLN

• SHI test for Caseous Lymphadenitis


BADDL: Role in One HealthFrom June 2016 started offering Mosquito testing

Zika

Chikungunya

Dengue

2017: mosquito pools tested: 5,163

Individualmosquitoes tested: 61,184

2016: mosquito pools tested: 6094

Individualmosquitoes tested: 78,610

Rabies Diagnosis

• In case of definitive human exposure‐ DOH labs perform the test.

• In case no human exposure‐ BADDL perform the test.


Outreach• Educational materials

– Bovine Trichomoniasis

– Avian Mycoplasmosis

– Bovine Viral Diarrhea

– Newsletter

In Pipeline

Salmonella, Campylobacter and AMR

Laboratory Sample Shipping Service‐UPS


Laboratory Sample Shipping Service‐Fedex

• Soon similar webpage will be available‐ Fedexlabels can be printed from home.

• If you want shipping labels please call the lab, we can send them electronically.

Customer service and Lean Management

Lean managementCustomer ServiceDecrease in Turnaround time


Thank you


Gold Sponsors!

Silver Sponsors!

Thank you for your continued support!


Documents

Business Decisions for the Bottom Line