News Update
Jan. 9, 2009

CAB Brochure Explains Carcass Grading

When U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) graders stamp carcasses, they estimate the eating experience for consumers and provide report cards for producers. They also measure cutability, or red meat yield.

Most carcasses are graded, but very few qualify for the top of the USDA pyramid. Understanding beef grades is not only important to consumers’ purchase decisions, but also to the profit goals of producers.

“It’s important for diners and shoppers to be able to buy beef that’s consistently enjoyable,” says Lance Zimmerman, supply development marketing manager for Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB). “That was the idea behind the Certified Angus Beef® brand when it was founded in 1978, and that exceptional eating experience is a standard the company still upholds today.”

To help producers and consumers understand how beef qualifies for the brand’s stamp of approval, CAB created a brochure explaining the grading process.

“We tried to produce a quick guide for cattlemen who want to know what goes on during the few seconds their animals are evaluated in the packing plant,” Zimmerman says. “It should help answer some of the most frequent questions we get about quality and yield grades.”

The “Beef Carcass Grading Overview” also details the four most common carcass defects — all of which prevent cattle from earning the CAB stamp — and what causes them. In addition to marbling and cutability details, the brochure presents a short history of the USDA grading system and how CAB fits into that.

For free brochures contact Marilyn Conley at mconley@certifiedangusbeef.com or call 330-345-2333.

— Release provided by CAB.

AngusSource® 2008 Contest Winners

The top groups in the 2008 AngusSource® Carcass Challenge (ASCC) “blew the doors off” average quality grades, says program director Sara Snider.

Three feedlots won more than $1,000 in cash and prizes for first- through fifth-place finishes during the inaugural year of the contest. Entries consisted of at least 38 head of age-, source- and genetic-verified calves fed through the network of Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB)-licensed partners.

“Our goal was to illustrate the value of those calves in the feedyard and recognize those procuring AngusSource calves and targeting the brand,” Snider says.

Beller Feedlot, Lindsay, Neb., received $500 for the winning group that went 80.7% Certified Angus Beef and Prime. That’s more than four times the national average.

Those 62 steers were purchased from longtime Montana customers Mike Green, Dennis Green and Scott and Traci Glasscock.

The third-place entry, at 68.2% CAB and Prime, also belonged to Beller Feedlot. That earned them an additional $100.

Neighboring feedyard, Beller Corp., scored second and fifth place in the ASCC. The cattle purchased from Gray’s Angus Ranch, near Harrison, Neb., went 69.1% CAB and Prime. Their No. 5 group went 67.4%.

Cattleman’s Choice Feedyard, Gage, Okla., and Jimmy Taylor, Elk City, Okla., split the $100 prize for their fourth-place entry. Taylor’s first time retaining ownership showed 66 steers going 67.7% CAB and Prime.

Snider says the American Angus Association is looking forward to this year’s contest, which will continue to name quarterly winners in each region before bestowing a national title at the end of the year.

“We’d really like to see the contest grow,” she says. “If you’re feeding at or selling to a Certified Angus Beef-licensed feedyard, just make sure they know you are interested in the ASCC. There’s no cost to enter, and the paperwork is minimal.”

In addition to the 38-head minimum, cattle must be harvested in one lot. They can be steers, heifers or mixed-sex groups and can come from multiple operations, if all are AngusSource enrolled.

To learn about the AngusSource program or the ASCC, visit www.angussource.com, contact Snider at 816-383-5100 or email her at ssnider@angus.org.

— Release provided by CAB.

NCBA to Host Webinar on EPA Regulations that Begin Jan. 20

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) will host a “webinar” Jan. 15 at 4 p.m. Eastern time (3 p.m. Central; 2 p.m., Mountain; 1 p.m., Pacific; and 10 a.m., Hawaiian) focused on NCBAenvironmental reporting requirements that must be complied with by Jan. 20, 2009.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule requiring all large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs; those with 1,000 head of beef cattle or more) to notify state and local emergency response officials about ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from their operations if they emit 100 pounds (lb.) or more of these substances during any 24-hour period.

Telephone notifications must be made no later than Jan. 20, and a written report must be submitted within 30 days thereafter, to avoid severe penalties. Smaller animal feeding operations (AFOs) and ranching operations are not required to submit notifications. These notifications are required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

To RSVP for the webinar visit: https://cc.callinfo.com/r/1ommerir3y9tk. To ensure we have enough lines, please RSVP by noon Eastern time on Wednesday, Jan. 14th. This event is open to all. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact NCBA’s Elizabeth Bostdorff at 202-879-9128 or ebostdorff@beef.org.

— Release provided by NCBA.

Protect Cattle From Parasites, Help Clean up Pastures

Only 5% of parasites live in cattle, which means 95% of parasites are on pastures.1 That is why Dr. Bert Stromberg, parasitologist and professor of the College of Veterinary Medicine at University of Minnesota, says a parasite control program also can help reduce parasite burdens on pastures.

“We know that a large number of parasites live on the pastures and they can survive there for an extended period of time, even during Minnesota winters,” Dr. Stromberg says. “Therefore, producers should keep in mind that a strategic deworming program should focus on taking care of parasites in the host before they contaminate pastures.”
Dr. Frank Hurtig, director of Merial Veterinary Services, says a fall parasite control treatment, combined with freezing conditions will help, but producers should not stop there.

“Freezing conditions will help kill some of the parasites on pastures,” Dr. Hurtig says. “Producers should consult their veterinarians about the best time to treat for parasites, but cleaning up cattle in the spring also can help reduce the overall parasite load that can affect cattle’s performance.”

He adds that in Southern climates, it is even more important that producers consider parasites on pastures — they cannot count on a freeze to do the work for them.

“In climates in between North and South, where temperatures may be moderate one week and freezing the next, producers need to remember that as long as cattle are grazing, they can pick up parasites,” Dr. Hurtig says.

To demonstrate this, a study was conducted in Oregon — a place where temperatures can fluctuate — during two weeks in the winter.2

During this time, temperatures never got above freezing. Results varied; however, parasite-naïve calves turned out on contaminated pastures on one operation picked up as many as 200,000 nematodes.2

“This study shows that if cattle are exposed to pastures they continue to ingest parasites during the winter months,” Dr. Hurtig says. “It is essential to break the life cycle of the parasites when they are in the cattle to help reduce pasture re-contamination.”

He adds that producers should discuss a strategy with their veterinarian to help ensure cattle are protected from parasites all year.

“Producers may not realize it, but parasite control treatments are only effective against worms for the day you treat in the case of some white dewormers, and 14 to 28 days for endectocides, depending on the product used and the parasite,”3 he says.

He adds that it is equally important that producers use products that are effective against the economically important parasites in their area. For example, not all products control liver flukes, so Dr. Hurtig says producers need to make sure they use a product labeled for liver fluke control, such as Ivomec® Plus (ivermectin/clorsulon).

“Ivomec (ivermectin) brand products come in four formulations, which means producers have the option to choose a product that meets their specific needs,” he adds.

Parasite control has been identified as the most economically important practice to beef production.4 However, Dr. Hurtig says, for a parasite program to be most effective, producers should use products they can trust.

For more information, contact your local Merial Sales Representative or visit www.merial.com.

1. Arseneau, J. Parasite control. Beef Health Management Course. University of Minnesota Extension Service. Lesson 4.
   
2. Rickard, L.G., Zimmerman G.L. The epizootiology of gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle in selected areas of Oregon. Vet Parasitology 1992;43:271-291.
   
3. Based on data provided in FDA Freedom of Information summaries.
   
4. Lawrence, J.D., Ibarburu, M.A. Economic analysis of pharmaceutical technologies in modern beef production. Iowa State University 2007.
   

— Adapted from a release provided by Merial.

Contributions to Anti-Meat Groups Increased in 2007, Group Says

Donations to anti-meat animal rights groups increased 11% during 2007, the latest period for which statistics are available, according to the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA).

The Alliance reports the trend likely carried through to 2008 as activist groups raised funds to provide support for California’s Proposition 2, undercover video operations, legislative initiatives and legal actions.

Contributions to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its subsidiaries grew 11%. On the international front, donations to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, a relatively moderate group targeting animal agriculture, rose 80% compared to the previous year.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest activist group in the U.S., reportedly collected about the same amount of money in 2007, $130 million, as during the previous year, the Alliance reports.

Much of this increased funding is attributed to donors who are not fully aware of the anti-animal use campaigns of many of these groups, said Animal Agriculture Alliance Executive Vice President Kay Johnson Smith.

Alliance research showed total donations to the most significant domestic and international animal extremist groups reached $330 million in 2007. By comparison, the beef checkoff program collects about $75 million annually to fund a wide variety of demand-building projects.

— Provided by the Kansas Livestock Association (KLA).

— compiled by Crystal Albers, associate editor, Angus Productions Inc. (API)