The Virginia Cattleman P. O. Box 9 Daleville, VA 24083-0009 Non-Profit Organization U. S. Postage PAID Daleville VA 24083 Permit No. 8 Official Publication of the Virginia Cattleman’s Association • PLEASE NOTIFY SENDER IF ADDRESS LABEL IS INCORRECT What’s Inside What’s Inside Sandy Adams Is New VDACS Commissioner............................................ Page 4 VA Beef Council Partners With Kroger/Virginia Tech ............................... Page 17 Tom Nixon Named Farmer Of The Year .................................................. Page 20 2014 4-H Stockman’s/Quiz Bowl/Livestock Judging .............................. Page 28 The The Virginia Cattleman Virginia Cattleman VOLUME 36 NUMBER 7 CIRCULATION 8,000 AUGUST 2014 Elizabeth, Tom, Kim and Robert Nixon of Glenmary Farm 2014 Swisher Sweets/Sunbelt Ag Expo Virginia Farm of the Year. See article on page 20.
Transcript
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 1
The Virginia CattlemanP. O. Box 9Daleville, VA 24083-0009
Non-Profi tOrganizationU. S. Postage
PAIDDaleville VA 24083
Permit No. 8
Offi cial Publication of the Virginia Cattleman’s Association • PLEASE NOTIFY SENDER IF ADDRESS LABEL IS INCORRECT
What’s InsideWhat’s Inside
Sandy Adams Is New VDACS Commissioner ............................................Page 4
VA Beef Council Partners With Kroger/Virginia Tech ...............................Page 17
Tom Nixon Named Farmer Of The Year ..................................................Page 20
TheThe Virginia CattlemanVirginia CattlemanVOLUME 36 NUMBER 7 CIRCULATION 8,000 AUGUST 2014
Elizabeth, Tom, Kim and Robert Nixon of Glenmary Farm 2014 Swisher Sweets/Sunbelt Ag Expo Virginia Farm of the Year. See article on page 20.
PAGE 2–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Opportunities
Continued on Page 22
Jason CarterExecutive Secretary
We know your business and know how hard you work. Farm Credit has been fi nancing the needs of cattle farmers for nearly a century. We also work hard to help you realize the vision you have for your operation.
Give us a call today to fi nd out more about how we can help you keep growing.
Loans for: Livestock | Land | Farms | Equipment | Homes | Agribusinesses and More
We salute our cattle farmers.800.919.FARM FarmCredit.com
NMLS# 456965
The month of August is the tra-ditional kick off of the fall calf run in Virginia. Since the inception of the Virginia Quality Assured feeder cattle program, August has steadily evolved as the month for a feeder to choose from the great-est number and widest variety of sources for VQA calves in load lots from around the state. This August producers participating in VQA sales in Buckingham, Central Virginia, Fredericksburg, Abingdon, Bedford/Campbell and other areas will likely re-alize the highest margins on feeder calves they have ever seen. Values in excess of $200/cwt have lately become the norm for steers and heifers alike across the board in weight and including yearlings. The prospects for beef demand remain high both on the hoof and in the case. These are certainly unprecedented times for the cattle business and never before has the producer been so in control of their profi tability.
I was raised, like many of you, to feel a certain amount of skepti-cism for the business. Margins were tightly controlled from the top down and the cow calf producer had limited options or opportunities for their own market development. My how things have changed. The world we live in has made communica-tion and discovery of information as simple as Goggle and a phone call. Reputations are much less the stuff of legend and the destina-tion of cattle much less ambigu-ous for many of us. Traditional basis made Virginia calves worth more in the spring and less in the fall, relative to the Midwestern prices, and a fairly regular cattle cycle of every seven or eight years challenged everyone as well as provided some comfort in pre-dictability. That predictability was also expressed over years of certain consistencies such as black steers heading to Pennsylvania in the fall. The infl uence of the Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois feeders was unmistakable here. Beginning each August, as
the ballers progressed their way from the thousands of small farms around the Commonwealth, order buyers would spend countless hours putting together truckloads of calves destined for a feedlot or a barn where they would be resorted with other calves to meet customer expectations. As the fall marched on, the sale barn seats would begin to swell with Mennonite farmer feeders whose silage had been made and had barn space to fi ll. They came for the black Angus infl uenced M-1 steers. Traditional steers that were without some of the stretch and set down more than the more powerful genetic cattle of today. Steers that finished looking as broad as they were long and may have been as likely to have been picked over for the rail a handful at a time. These steers were often managed in excess of the tradi-tional western feedlot standards. Cost of gain was not as great a concern as percent Choice and dressing percentage. How many single loads of six weight steers lived for 200 days under a bank barn in New Holland gradually dwindling from 80+ to none while going to Moyer and Treuth? My how times have changed.
While these traditional markets
still hold infl uence, the breadth of other market players has grown dramatically. From Fredericks-burg down to Southside, up 29 into central Virginia, across the Blue Ridge and down 81 and west into the Coalfi elds, the business has transformed dramatically. Premiums have been placed on program cattle that benefi t from sound management of produc-tion. Planning for next year’s calves begins before conception and in many cases our calves don’t simply fall off the map when they leave our borders. The cattle cycle has been somewhat relegated to the textbooks as a global market of infl uencers that include every-thing from the median income in China to BSE in Brazil to El Nino and La Nina are driving specula-tion along with the expected price of corn. Basis has arguably be-come nothing more than the cost of transportation. The expected margins and opportunity keep the feeders pencils sharpened year around now. While cattle sup-ply issues may have encouraged speculation and support some of the cash values for cattle we see to-day, it also has forced many feed-ers to look for calves outside of the Plains and that has benefi ted Virginia producers infi nitely. Our
Tel O Auction sales are inundated weekly by folks intending to send cattle to destinations in a growing radius beyond the Corn Belt. Our quality cattle fi t the orders and expectations well and the stretch and base of our powerful cross-bred genetics are feeling at home in their pens. Just recently a load of 550 steers went to South Dakota from Abingdon. Purchased in the $250+ range, traveling 1300+ miles at $10 - $12/hundred and a little shrink, how much were they worth when they reached their new zip code? You can bet their new owner knows to the penny and there is ample risk manage-ment in place to cover the note.
The cattle business is fraught with risk at every level now. Not the life threatening kind of risk but the risk that necessitates good fi nancial planning. This is a calf market where every cow calf pro-ducer, even with no knowledge of cost of production, will make money. That however is not a business plan. Managing high risk to increase the odds of high reward are more necessary now than ever. From simple put op-tions to government subsidized livestock risk protection insur-ance, the premiums are just pen-
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 3
MARTIN MACQUEEN
101 Pioneer Road • Covington, VA 24426 • 540.965.2199www.highroad.photorefl ect.com
HIGH ROADLIVESTOCK
PHOTOGRAPHY& VIDEO
Customized EmbroideryLet Us Personalize Jackets, Windbreakers, Sweatshirts,
or Hats for You and Your Farm
Contact : Allison Osborne 276-780-0452Chilhowie, Virginia
Shipping Available
Twisted Wire Design
Larry Kuehn and Mark Thallman, US Meat Animal
Research Center
The 2014 table of adjustment factors to be used to estimate across-breed expected progeny differences (AB-EPDs) for eigh-teen breeds was released at the Beef Improvement Federation
Annual Meeting in Lincoln, NE on June 20 (see Table 1). Across-breed adjustment factors have been calculated for growth traits and maternal milk since 1993. Adjust-ment factors for carcass traits have been calculated since 2009; to be included, breeds must have car-cass data in the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) data-
U.S. MARC Releases Across-Breed EPD Figures
Augusta County Equipment Field Day and Cave View Farm, Weyers Cave, VA.
base and report their carcass EPDs on an actual carcass basis using an age-adjusted endpoint. Bulls of different breeds can be compared on the same EPD scale by adding the appropriate adjustment fac-tor to the EPDs produced in the most recent genetic evaluations for each of the eighteen breeds. The AB-EPDs are most useful to
commercial producers purchasing bulls of more than one breed to use in crossbreeding programs. For example, in terminal cross-breeding systems, AB-EPDs can be used to identify bulls in different breeds with high growth potential or favorable car-cass characteristics.
As an example, sup-pose a Gelbvieh bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 68.0 lb and a Her-eford bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 46.0 lb. The across-breed adjust-ment factors for weaning weight (see Table 1) are -19.4 lb for Gelbvieh and -4.2 lb for Hereford. The AB-EPD is 68.0 lb – 19.4 lb = 48.6 lb for the Gelbvieh bull and 46.0 - 4.2 = 41.8 lb for the Hereford bull. The expected weaning
weight difference when both are mated to cows of another breed (e.g., Angus) would be 48.6 lb – 41.8 lb = 6.8 lb.
Most breed associations pub-lish EPDs at least on an annual basis. These EPDs predict differ-ences expected in performance of future progeny of two or more bulls within the same breed for traits including birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, and maternal milking ability (as reflected in progeny weaning weights). Normally, the EPDs of bulls from different breeds cannot
be compared because most breed associations compute their EPDs in separate analyses and each breed has a different base point. The across-breed adjustment factors allow producers to com-pare the EPDs for animals from different breeds for these traits; these factors refl ect both the cur-rent breed difference (for animals born in 2012) and differences in the breed base point. They should only be used with EPDs current as of June 2014 because of potential changes in EPD calculations from year-to-year.
PAGE 4–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
The VirginiaCattlemen’s Association
Affi liated with theNational Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc.
P.O. Box 9Daleville, Va 24083-0009
540/992-1009www.vacattlemen.org
The Virginia Cattleman540/992-1011
540/992-4632 - FAXpublished monthly by the
Virginia Cattlemen’s Association
Editor ...................................... Jason [email protected]
Region 1Chuck Miller ................................Crockett
Region 2Joe Meek .......................................Dublin
Region 3Forrest Ashby .............................Staunton
Region 4Rick Matthews .........................Browntown
Region 5Steve Hopkins ...............................Louisa
Region 6Tom Nixon .................................. Rapidan
Region 6Lin Jones .............................New Canton
Region 7Brett Stratton ........................ Appomattox
County Cattlemen
POLICY & INDUSTRY ADVOCACY BOARD
Gene Copenhaver ...............Meadowview District 1
Joey Davenport ...................Glade Spring District 1
Bill McDonald .........................Blacksburg District 2
Steve Furrow .......................Rocky Mount District 2
Bill Tucker .................................. Amherst District 3
Jon Repair ................................ Glasgow District 3
Jared Burner .................................. Luray District 4
Allen Heishman ......................... Edinburg District 4
John Goodwin ............................. Orange District 5
James Kean ..................................Louisa District 5
Jay Calhoun .............................. Callands District 6
Mike Henry ........................... Chesterfi eld District 6
Continued on Page 22
Richmond Times Dispatch
It was only after much thought, and with some reluctance, that Sandra J. “Sandy” Adams put her name in the hat to be considered as the next commissioner of the
Virginia Department of Agricul-ture and Consumer Services. The agency traces its lineage in state government back to the 1800s and is responsible for regulating and promoting Virginia’s oldest and largest industry — agriculture. Previous commissioners who have led the agency have come from a farming background. Adams is a certifi ed public accountant who has worked in state government for 31 years, 18 of those with the agency, including 3½ years as deputy commissioner and two stints as acting commissioner.
When the job as the commission-er opened up with the start of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s administration this year, Adams at fi rst declined to be considered for the lead role. “I did not really put my name in the hat because I had always felt that the commissioners came from an agricultural background,” she said. “I thought that must be a prerequisite.” “But then I talked to a few people who said, ‘Who knows the agency better than you do, Sandy, and how we serve farm-ers, and how we provide consumer protection,’ ” she said. “I thought and pondered on it, and I talked with my husband about it and thought ‘Well, maybe I will go ahead and put in my résumé.’ ” On June 6, McAuliffe announced that Adams had been named com-missioner.
Keeping Watch On Virginia’s Biggest Industry
Sandra J. Adams
She is the fi rst woman to hold the title in the agency’s history. “I am just honored and privi-leged, really,” Adams said in an interview last week at her offi ce in Richmond. “For me, things just fell into place.” Adams is “a bit of a nontraditional commissioner,” said Todd Haymore, Virginia’s secretary of agriculture and for-estry and a former agency com-missioner. Once Adams decided to apply for the job, she emerged as the best of a small group of highly qualifi ed candidates who were considered for the post, Haymore said. “She has always sort of been in the background, but it has always been apparent that she is a quality person and a capable leader,” he said. “She has
been a trusted adviser of mine for seven years now.” Though she is not from a farm, “I hope the fact that I have been in the agency for so long and I know how we serve the farmers and farm community, makes up for that difference,” Adams said.
Adams is not entirely removed from farming roots. She was born in western Maryland, and her family moved to Harrisonburg when she was 7, so she grew up near farms, and her friends lived on farms. Her father was a phar-macist. Her mother had grown up as one of 12 children on a family farm. In school, “I always loved math,” Adams said. She majored in economics at the University of Mary Washington and earned a
certificate of accounting at Vir-ginia Commonwealth University. That led her into a job with the Virginia Department of Taxation, where she worked for 13 years as an auditor, then budget manager, then fi nance director, before she took a job in 1996 as director of finance for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Ser-vices. She moved from that role to become director of administrative and fi nancial services in 1999, then deputy commissioner in 2010.
Adams is leading the 435-em-ployee agency at a time when state officials are pushing to promote and sell more Virginia agricultural products in growing overseas markets such as China,
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 5
Continued on Page 8
1-800-230-0024 www.pasturemgmt.com
Powder River Livestock Equipment: Products as tough as the professionals who rely on them
XL Manual Chute Side Exit XL Chute with Self-Catch Headgate
Classic Deluxe Calf Table Classic Self-Catch System
All products shown are CLASSIC SERIES and include 5-year
warranty
Bob Goodlatte, H. Morgan Griffi th and Robert Hurt
The editorial board at The Vir-ginian-Pilot is welcome to dis-agree with our position on the En-vironmental Protection Agency’s proposed Total Maximum Daily Load. However, there is no argu-ment about whether or not we should take steps to protect the Chesapeake Bay. We wholeheart-edly agree that it is a national treasure that should be preserved. But, it’s about the law.
The law says that it is the right of the states to implement water quality goals - not the EPA. It’s not currently, nor has it ever been, within the executive branch’s purview to change the intent of the law. That’s why the American Farm Bureau Federation has fi led a lawsuit against the EPA, and
that is why 39 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives, including the three of us, have joined an amicus brief in support of Virginia’s authority to imple-ment these goals. The TMDL sets the limit on the amount of nitro-gen, phosphorus, and sediment discharged into the Bay and each of its tributaries. Although the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to establish a TMDL, the power is reserved by the states to determine just how to improve water quality.
The EPA has exceeded their au-thority in the Clean Water Act by setting specifi c nutrient reduction allocations by sector, a power cur-rently reserved to the states. The EPA has basically given every state in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed an ultimatum. They must do ex-actly what the EPA says or EPA has threatened to take over the state’s
water quality programs. In some cases, we are already seeing the EPA rewrite water quality plans. This is contrary to the very intent of the Clean Water Act, which acknowledges states’ rights and says, unless “expressly provided” by Congress, nothing in the statute shall “be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to [their] waters.” And Congress further declared its policy to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibili-ties and rights of States... to plan the development and use... of land and water resources.”
The agriculture community, lo-cal and state governments, home-builders, businesses, and families in the watershed would all be impacted by the EPA’s regula-tions. It could cost localities tens of
millions to comply while adding signifi cant compliance costs for farmers and businesses already facing greater costs of business in this economy. Despite a promise to Congress over three years ago, the EPA has yet to conduct a cost/benefi t analysis to determine the overall cost or feasibility of these mandates. And contrary to much of the rhetoric you may hear, the states in the watershed have made progress in restoring the bay and want to see the continued resto-ration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project for the Chesa-peake Bay found that from 2006 to 2011 farms in the bay reduced nitrogen leaving fi elds by 26 per-cent and reduced phosphorus by 46 percent. Additionally, USDA es-timates that 96 percent of farms in the watershed have implemented
some conservation practices.On another note, before ac-
cusing us of not having a vested interest in this issue, perhaps the editors should fi rst review a geography book. We each rep-resent communities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Potomac, James, and Shenandoah Rivers in the 6th District, the Rap-pahannock and James Rivers in the 5th District, and the headwa-ters of the James in the 9th District are all part of the watershed - all eventually making their way to the Bay. Our interest in this is very real for our constituents. You certainly don’t have to live by the bay to be impacted by these regu-lations. The goal of all involved is the same: the continued health and vitality of the bay.
This is not a Democrat vs. Re-
EPA Rules Overlooks Legal Issues
PAGE 6–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Continued on Page 9
Cotton & Associates Select Commercial Female Sale
When? August 15, 201412 Noon EST
Fauquier Livestock Exchange, Inc.
Marshall, VA
540-364-1566
How? If interested in consigning or purchasing, please contact:
Zack Hileman 540-460-2776 Jerry Crenshaw 703-244-4767
www.cotton-associates.com • 517-546-6374
FF
Where?
Why? Genetic predictability is enhanced through
For Sale Registration, please call or visit: Superior Productions • 800-431-4452 or www.superiorlivestock.com
Live Auctions • 816-392-9241 or www.LiveAuctions.TV
On location at the yards selling live through the sale ring.
On the Internet:
CATTLE WILL SELL
Featuring & Selling Over 500 females!
By Video:
Sharply higher beef prices in the US, a weak Australian cur-rency and a dramatic increase in cattle slaughter in Australia have helped boost US imported beef supplies in the fi rst half of 2014. The increase in imported volume has certainly helped US fast food operators and others in the foodservice industry, which rely on the supply of imported lean grinding beef for a signifi -cant portion of their needs. The spread between 90CL frozen imported beef and fresh domes-tic 90CL beef was as high as 43 cents per pound in April and it has averaged about 32 cents per pound since February. To put this in perspective, this means a dif-ference of about $12,500 on each truckload of product delivering to a processing facility. It is a very big savings and one that users of imported beef may fi nd diffi cult to replicate in the second half of this year.
So what is driving the US im-ported beef market at this point and how do we see it developing in the second half of 2014? First, the combination of record prices in the US and sharply higher cattle numbers in Australia have proved to be explosive. Accord-ing to US Customs, the supply of Australian beef cleared through customs as of June 17 was 31.3% higher than the comparable pe-riod a year ago. Overall imported beef cleared through customs was up 8.4% and higher imports from Australia accounted for about 92% of the overall increase. More beef has been imported from Canada (+6.7%) and Mexico (+5%) but lower imports from New Zealand and Central Amer-ica have offset those increases. Australian cattle slaughter in the past 12 months has reached all time record levels as drought conditions have severely reduced feed availability. A majority of cattle in Australia are finished on grass and hopes of increased moisture in the fall and winter (Southern Hemisphere) have not come to pass.
Indeed, the situation may re-main dire should an El Nino weather pattern develop in the next six months as some me-teorologists have suggested. In the last four weeks, Australian cattle slaughter has averaged 18% above year ago levels and
US Beef Imports To Decline some 25% higher than the five year average. Keep in mind that the beef industry in Australia is an export business, with some
75% of the volume going to other countries. The surge in slaughter numbers has meant that more beef has become available in the world
market.Until earlier this year, the ad-
ditional Australian supply was absorbed by China, which has
emerged in the last two years as a major global beef importer. In-deed, by late 2013 Australian beef
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 7
PAGE 8–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
PBEEF ROUND UFALL B
MINERALSAVINGS TIME:
$50 OFF PER TON OR$1.25 OFF PER BAG
(August 1 – September 5)(August 1 September 5)
*Offer expires January 31, 2015. No payments and no interest until February 1, 2015. Offer limited to agricultural multi-use account customers. Some transactions may occur prior to actual product delivery. After the promotional period, interest charges will begin to accrue at the rate provided in the multi-use account credit agreement. Subject to John Deere Financial, f.s.b. approval and merchant participation. Offer limited to qualifying products. See your retailer for complete details. Plan #22469.
s Include:Qualifying Products> Feeders > Fencing
quipment > Livestock handling eqs> Livestock health itemsand minerals> Selected beef feeds a
> Pasture renovationP t ti
ALS, FALL DISCOUNTS ON BLOCKS, TUBS, MINERAPLAN AHEAD FOR FEED AND MEDICATED FEED ADDITIVESLIQUID FE
ENTS/NO INTEREST*NO PAYME NTERENTEREST* NTERESMONTHSFOR 6 M SN QUALIFYING AVAILABLE ONAND SUPPLIESCATTLE FEED A
ROANOKE-HOLLINSSTOCKYARD
HOLLINS, VIRGINIA
Sales Every Monday2:00 P.M.
QualityFeeder Cattle
Graded Steers, Bulls and Heifers Weekly
Chris Theimer, Manager
540-992-1112
Mowing Hay
PLEASE SEND US PHOTOS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE UPCOMING PAPER!
Mail to Jacquelynn Davis atP.O. Box 9, Daleville, Va 24083-0009
publican issue or rural vs. urban. The EPA’s complex TMDL is of great concern to communities in the watershed, like many of those we represent. And the EPA’s regulations are not the solution. The federal government should be a partner in helping the states achieve their water quality goals, not mandating and micromanag-ing what is best for individual states.
U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte represents the 6th District of Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives. H. Morgan Griffi th represents the 9th District. Robert Hurt represents the 5th District.
Continued from Page 5
Legal Issues
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 9
Burt Rutherford, BEEF Magazine
It is, at best, a murky propo-sition, trying to peer into the industry’s future. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try,” says one long-time industry warrior. And while we’re trying to look ahead, he says, it might be a good idea to look around a little, too. Speaking recently to BEEF editors, Chandler Keys, long-time beef industry lobbyist in Washington, D.C., offered his thoughts and opinions on the beef business and its future. “I think what a lot of people are trying to figure out is how will a mature economy, a mature society, going to operate in the next 10 to 20 years? What’s the industry going to look like; what
exports to China were almost as large as those to the US. So far this year, however, Chinese purchases have not kept pace. In part this is due to product preferences, avail-ability and ultimately price. De-mand and prices for lean grinding beef (cow meat) have exploded in the US and we calculate that Aus-tralian shipments of lean grinding beef to the US are up some 50% since February. Australian beef ex-ports to China in May were down 27% compared to year ago levels as authorities there imposed more stringent test for hormone growth promotants. But volumes to China are expected to pick up once again as industry adjusts to the new re-quirements and it is unlikely that China demand for beef will fade anytime soon.
US imported beef supplies sea-sonally decline in the second half of the year, largely because New Zealand supplies drop sharply and Uruguay is limited by quota. Australian slaughter is probably at full capacity now and a resurgence in Chinese buys will likely keep Australian shipments to the US at or below current levels. As a result, the spread of imported beef to domestic product will narrow in the second half of 2014, implying higher costs for beef processors and ultimately US consumers.
Continued from Page 6
Beef Imports
The Industry’s Future Is Positive But Partly Cloudyis the consuming public going to look like?”
Good questions. And while the answers may be difficult to pin down, they are questions wor-thy of debate and discussion as cattlemen make expansion deci-sions in the wake of high market prices and changing demograph-ics in the cattle business, Keys says. His general take is that there’s still some consolidation to be done in the poultry sector, hog producers have a tough go ahead of them as they deal with Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, and packers are going to try to get closer to the consumer by buying brands. “In a mature economy, (packers will) try to figure out a brand strategy to drive growth.”
Then there’s the cattle busi-ness. The challenge, Keys says, is figuring out the supply equation. “Seventy percent of our beef comes from 30% of our produc-ers,” he says. The flip side of that is 70% of producers produce 30% of the beef. “I want to know if that 70% (of producers) is going to be around the next 10 years.”
He ponders that question from several perspectives. First are the changing demographics of beef producers. They’re getting older and if cattle are only a part-time endeavor for them, they may opt to cut back. “I look at the cow-calf business and I think, ‘who’s going to do this?’ I know the guy with 200 cows or more, they’re going to do it (stay in business and even expand), unless they get droughted out. But who’s going to lead 30% of our produc-tion that comes from small opera-tions? I think that’s the challenge for our business, to figure out the supply side,” he says.
Another challenge is how will cattlemen operate in an in-creasingly competitive protein industry? “I worry about our ability to look inside ourselves,” he says. “That’s not the case with other proteins,” he adds. “If you’re in the hog business, you know everything about it. These poultry guys, when they get to work in the morning, know exactly what’s going on and they react correctly. And I
think the dairy industry will get more that way.” Cattlemen, as a general rule, don’t do that. They tend to be unfamiliar with the other segments in the marketing chain. And more to the point, Keys says, they tend to have little or no knowledge of how their competitors in the pork, poultry and dairy industries operate. To become more fully competi-tive in the protein complex, that knowledge and understanding will become more and more im-portant, he contends.
And that’s true for packers and feeders, not just cow-calf produc-ers, he says. Cow-calf production is risky, and if feeders and pack-ers want to continue to have an adequate supply, they’re going to have to figure out how they can take some of the risk off the table for cow-calf producers. But it won’t be by owning land. It may be by long-term contracts or part ownership of cows. “At the end of the day, they could help offset the risk of owning those cows through some sort of long-term relationship.”
Keys says people tell him his concern about the beef industry’s ability to get the supply side of the business in order is mis-placed. If calf and feeder prices get high enough, expansion will happen. “I hope they’re right and I’m wrong,” he says. “But it’s this nagging suspicion I have that we’re in a new era in cow-calf production. If you’ve got 200 mother cows, I think you’re in the business and will try to find ways to expand. If you’ve got less than 200 cows and you do it by yourself, I’m not so sure you’re going to run out there and try to find pasture, buy cattle and find a hired hand,” he says. “My tagline is we’ve worked diligently for 30 years getting our demand solid and global. And demand for our product is solid and global today, no doubt about it. Then we look around and say everything is good, bring on the cows. And there are no cows. Then we say they’ll come, just get these calf prices up to $2.50. I hope they do. But that’s the quandary, right?”
I believe the Virginia Cattlemen Association has a very bright future. I look forward to work-ing with you to make that future bright. Let me start by introducing myself as your new President of VCA. My name is Steve Hopkins and I run a 300 head cow calf commercial operation in Louisa County. I have also worked as the Agriculture Extension Agent in Orange County for the past twenty four years. I serve as the advisor to the Central Virginia Cattlemen Association and rep-resent the Radiant market on the VCA Feeder Council. My wife Crysti and I have two sons, Blake who is 16 years old and Garrett who is 13 years old.
I have served on the Virginia Cattlemen Association Board of Directors for the past three and a half years. We have seen a lot of changes during that time. Jason Carter took over as our Executive Secretary and between the Beef Industry Council and Cattlemen Association we have seen an additional four changes in cur-rent staff. In March the member-ship passed the new revisions to the bylaws that created the Policy Council in addition to the Feeder Council and a new Ex-ecutive Committee that consists of in addition to myself: Gene Copenhaver, President-Elect; Bill McDonald, Policy Council Chair; Glenn Wheeler, Feeder Council Chair; Phil Blevins, Treasurer, Scott Greiner, Advisor; Forrest Ashby; and Steve Furrow. The new policy side will give VCA a formatto form policy decisions, but more importantly it gives rep-resentation across the state with two directors from each of the six different regions. Local and re-gional cattlemen groups that pay dues can also have representatives on the policy council. Finally, the new structure allows industries and markets that pay dues and a way to have input into VCA
The new structure provides op-portunities for more people to be
3691 S. Middle Rd., Quicksburg, VA 22847 • (540) 335-1885 • [email protected] www.shenandoahvalleysimmentals.com to view bull videos
Home of “the keepin’ kind”
Bulls and Females Available
PAGE 12–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
VIRGINIA CHAROLAIS ASSOCIATION
Charolais bullsfor the most
discriminating buyer
124 Kindig RoadWaynesboro, VA 22980
Walt Winkler(540) 943-6144
CrossMountain Cattle Co.
Robert Farmer8030 Greenwich Rd.Catlett, VA 201195
540-270-3886Gerry Scott 540-379-1975
Cell 540-968-1987Fax 540-962-7508
BreedingPolled-Registered
Performance CharolaisWilliam and Agnes Anderson
P.O. Box 304Altavista, VA 24517
(434) 369-5366
“Keeping the commercial producers in mind”
River Croft Charolais CREWS FARMS
Registered Charolais
784 Payneton RdChatham, VA
Billy Crews, Barry CrewsBilly C. Crews, Brent Crews
(434) 656-2361(434) 656-3771
2013-2014VCA Offi cers
Bill Thompson – President1295 Park AvenueClifton Forge, VA 24422540-968-1987
Kaitlin Smith – Vice President454 Old Farm RoadLexington, VA 24450540-463-6778
Deidre Harmon – Secretary1445 Pipers Gap RoadGalax, VA 24333276-233-8852
Walt Winkler – Treasurer124 Kindig RoadWaynesboro, VA 22980540-943-6144
Rob Farmer – Past President8030 Greenwich RoadCatlett, VA 20119540-270-3886
Chad Joines –Southwest DirectorJunior AdvisorVirginia TechDept of Animal & PoultryScienceBlacksburg, VA 24061540-557-7263
We would like to invite anyone interested in becoming a member of our association to call one of the offi cers listed above.
It is time to begin choosing consignments for the Fall Sale. The purebred Charolais you consign should be of a quality to promote your herd and the Charolais breed as well. Our members, past consigners and new Charolais breeders are invited to enter cattle in the sale. With our new association rules, a consigner can consign one breeding age bull per each female lot. All breeding age bulls must pass a complete fertility exam. Our sales manager for this sale is Robert Morton of Bob Morton Marketing. If you would like to consign Charolais cattle to our sale and do not receive a consignment form, you may contact Mr. Morton at [email protected] or phone 931-842-1234. You may also contact Bill Thompson at [email protected] or 540-968-1987.All members of the Virginia Charolais Association are entitled to join all the sales we sponsor.
Our next sale
14th Fall Herd
Improvement Sale
at Virginia Tech
Nov. 8, 2014
1:00 PM
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 13
Continued on Page 14
Kenneth W. RodefferKenneth Wayne Rodeffer, 63,
passed away on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, at his home. Kenny was born in Harrisonburg on Jan. 31, 1951, and was a son of the late Brownie Virginia (Cline) and Rudolph Young Rodeffer. He worked as a marketing specialist for the Virginia State Department of Agriculture in Richmond for over 35 years, and was a member of Summit Church of the Brethren in Bridgewater. Kenny served in the National Guard. Kenny loved to hunt and enjoyed the outdoors. He was an avid gardener and farmer.
On June 19, 1970, he married Mary (Clooney) Hill Rodeffer, who survives. In addition to his wife he is survived by a daughter, Natalie R., wife of Chris Camp-bell, of Staunton; a son, Nathan R. Rodeffer, of Bridgewater; two sisters, Karen R., wife of Robert Airey, of Dayton and Sharon, wife of Mike Embres, of Bridge-water. He is also survived by three grandchildren, Bradly and Nicholas Rodeffer and Corinne Campbell.
A memorial service was held at 7 p.m. Sunday, July 6, 2014, at Summit Church of the Brethren, with the Revs. Cole Schrogham and Steve Spire offi ciating.
Obituary
Mark A. McCann, Scott J. Neil and Deidre D. Harmon, Animal and Poultry Sciences
Over the past two years, fi eld samples from beef cattle farms in Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay water-shed have been collected to gauge
Figure 1. Phosphorus intake and excretion as infl uenced by amount of supplemental P
Phosphorus Supplementation Of Beef Cattlephosphorus (P) status of cattle in a project sponsored by a CIG grant from NRCS and the Virginia Ag Council. Samples collected from participating farms included soil, forage and fecal samples, a ques-tionnaire regarding fertilization and supplementation practices and a tag from their free-choice mineral. Forage samples were analyzed for nutrient and mineral analysis. One hundred twenty locations from 11 counties par-ticipated with sample collection (N = 168). Sixty-seven producers completed the survey instrument in addition to the full complement of forage and fecal samples.
During the same period of time
two feeding trials were conducted on campus where steers received different levels of phosphorus supplementation from mineral or corn gluten feed. Levels of supplementation ranged from below to well above animal phos-phorus requirements (Diets 0-3). The steers were fed a base ration of chopped grass hay which was low in phosphorus and fitted with fecal collection bags which allowed for total fecal collection. This allowed an accounting of P consumed versus P excreted in feces. Beyond measuring total P excreted, laboratory analysis also determined the inorganic and organic P content of each fecal
sample. Inorganic P is also referred to as water soluble phosphorus and is the P fraction which is most
likely to contribute to P runoff leaving a watershed during a rain.
PAGE 14–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Continued from Page 13
Phosphorus
Division of Ashby Herd Health Services, Inc.2420 Grace Chapel RoadHarrisonburg, VA 22801
Day/Night (540) 433-04301-800-296-COWS (2697)
Randall H. Hinshaw, D.V.M. (540) 246-2697
ResultsCampus feeding studies- The
feeding studies indicated that as greater amounts of P were fed, greater amounts of P were excret-ed via the feces. This relationship held true regardless of the source
of P (mineral vs corn gluten). Additionally, as greater amounts of P were fed and excreted, the fraction of inorganic P excreted in the feces also increased (fi gure 1). This would suggest that as the amount of P supplemented exceeds cattle P requirements, the amount of inorganic or water soluble P excreted also increases. The net result of feeding P above cattle nutrient needs is that a greater amount of P is excreted and a larger portion of the ex-creted P is in a form more vulner-able to runoff.
Field Study- Figure 2 displays the percentage of soil samples in each of the Virginia Cooperative Extension soil P classification levels. The smaller percentages of samples fell in the low and
involved with VCA. However, a new structure does not guarantee change nor success. It is up to each one of us to become actively engaged with VCA to form what direction it takes over the next sev-eral years. VCA has done an excel-lent job marketing our cattle over the years. This needs to be a top priority under the new structure just as it has been in the past. The cattle market is at an all-time high, but an additional dollar earned is an additional dollar when the market is high or low.
Just as NCBA, other organiza-tions, and many local cattlemen associations have added member-
ship benefi ts such as discounts on equipment, I believe over the next several years we can offer more benefi ts to the membership. I be-lieve you will see the newspaper continue to grow in size and qual-ity. You probably have noticed a big improvement in print quality over the past couple of months.
I believe with the new structure we can have a bigger voice on many policy issues. In order to do this we will need help from many of you for not only input, but also to make contacts when needed. A hundred voices go much further than one voice representing a hundred people. I encourage you to be active in your local associa-
Continued from Page 11
VCA Future Directiontion, provide input to your regional directors listed in the front of this newspaper, and become active yourself attending VCA functions such as our regional educational programs next winter and conven-tion that will be held under a new format next summer.
I believe Virginia Cattlemen’s future direction is very bright, but it is going to take everyone’s par-ticipation to be so. It is an honor to serve as your president and feel free to let me know how you think our direction is going and what we can do to make it better.
Figure 2. Soil P categories (135 samples)
Figure 3. Forage P Levels (168 samples)
Figure 4. Relationship between Soil P and Forage P
very high categories, while over 70% of the collected samples were in the medium and high classifi ca-tion. The distribution of Forage P content is displayed in Figure 3. The overall average Forage P % was 0.34 % of DM. Table 1 at the end of the article contains the P re-quirements of cows and growing stockers. It should be noted that the average Forage P of the fi eld samples exceeded the P require-ment of all stages of production. While there were farms which needed P supplementation, they were the exception rather than the rule. Figure 4 depicts Soil P and Forage P from each farm. There is a general trend for increased For-age P levels as Soil P increases, but the relationship is not as strong as one might expect. Soil pH, forage
maturity and rainfall also infl u-ence Forage P. So in general Soil P was only a fair indicator of the Forage P level.
Cattlemen who participated in the study also submitted feed tags of the free-choice mineral they were feeding. Farm mineral supplements were categorized into four levels of P content (0, 1.0-2.5, 3.0-5.0, and > 6.0 %). Mineral P content was unrelated to forage or hay P content on the farm. In fact, the average forage P content from the farms for the 0, 1-2.5, 3-5 and 6-8 % mineral categories was 0.27, 0.37, 0.37 and 0.46 %, respectively. This would suggest that farms offering min-erals with higher P levels had a pasture or hay forage which was already high in P and required no supplementation. Fecal samples collected were analyzed for total and inorganic P. Results are plot-ted against the mineral P level in
Figure 5. As the P content of the free-choice mineral increased, the total phosphorus concentration of the feces also increased. Also, as the fecal Total P increased, a greater percentage of the P was in the inorganic form. This is characteristic of P excretion on diets which exceed the animal’s requirement. The inorganic form of P is water soluble and provides a greater runoff risk.
Continued on Page 15
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 15
Beef PromotionUpdate
www.vabeef.orgBeef! It’s What’s For Dinner!®August 2014
A Monthly report on your Checkoff Dollars at work
from the Virginia Beef Industry Council
Virginia Beef Council • P.O. Box 9 • Daleville, VA 24083 • 540.992.1992
3201 Frederick Ave. • St. Joseph, MO 64506816.383.5100 • www.ANGUS.org
Angus JournalThe Angus Report
The Smyth County Farm Bureau Women’s Committee and Extension Offi ce partnered with the Virginia Beef Industry Council to present Girls
Night Out. The program educated working mothers with families in the areas of meat selection, meat preparation, industry myths and facts and food safety. The Girls Night Out served to educate the working mothers in hope that they will be more informed consumers and will help to serve as advocates for the meat industry among their groups of friends and colleagues. The women spent 1.5 hours preparing enough beef to taste as well as enough to take home with them to feed a family of four. Special thanks to Dr. Paige Pratt and Dr. Mark McCann, both from Virginia Tech, for coordinating this program.
Sixty-seven producers com-pleted the survey in addition to submitting soil and forage sam-ples. Nutrient management plans (NMP) are a tool used to minimize whole farm environmental impact and enhance nutrient conservation on the farm by limiting soil ero-sion and runoff. Fifty-fi ve percent of participants had implemented NMP at the time of survey comple-tion. In relation, twenty-fi ve per-cent of all producers sampled for-age to determine nutrient content. The majority of producers that sampled forage (94 %) currently utilized nutrient management plans. Participants ranked criteria for mineral supplement selection. Responses were weighted based upon participant designated or-dinal ranking of criteria (3 for primary, 2 for secondary and 1 for tertiary criteria). Interpretation of response distribution suggests that the primary criterion for mineral supplement selection was price (20.6 %), followed by local avail-ability (17.8 %) and trace mineral content (17.5 %). Sixty-nine percent of producers supplemented a com-mercial complete mineral mix and 22% used a trace mineral salt block. Eighty-two percent of participants indicated willingness to reduce mineral phosphorus supplemen-tation levels if forage analyses revealed that feed and forage resources were capable of meeting phosphorus requirements, while
Continued from Page 14
Phosphorus
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
0 1.0 - 2.5 3.0 - 5.0 6.0 - 8.0
Fecal P, %
Mineral Phosphorus Content, %
Total Inorganic
Figure 5. Total and Inorganic P excretion as infl uenced by mineral P content
Table 1. Phosphorus requirement of beef cows and growing stockers Beef cow % P Stockers % P
15 % indicated uncertainty, and 3 % indicated unwillingness.
Results from the field trial indicate on the majority of farms forage P was adequate for stock-ers and lactating cows. Removing P from the mineral supplement would reduce P excretion and also save money. Sampling fresh forage or hay is a way to estimate P available. A fecal analysis takes into account the amount of added
P from mineral or feed sources of the herds. The majority of the cattlemen participating in the study were receptive to modi-
fying their P supplementation based on forage test results while only 6% were opposed to any modifi cation.
“Minerals are always clean and dry”- Mike Moretti - Moretti Dairy - Sonoma, CA
“Cut my mineral and salt bill by 40%”- Scott Wadsworth - St Ignatius, MT
Fly ControlWorks great for fl y and pinkeye control.Logical insecticideapplication station.
Available In 2 ModelsAvailable In 2 Models
Quality Equipment at Competitive Prices
Information or Brochures:Peter Hostetler • 1-540-810-4605
New “Rancher” HydraulicSqueeze Chute
CompleteWorking Facilities
for Cattle andBison
Heavy, rugged construction – Built to last!
Beef Buzz
The Virginia Beef Industry Council, through a partner-ship with Kroger and Virginia Tech Animal & Poultry Sciences Department, hosted the first “Kroger Beef Camp” on June 20, 2014 at the Virginia Tech campus.
Kroger moved their annual meat show conference from Roanoke to the Inn at Virginia Tech in order to facilitate a required at-tendance by their staff.
Kroger Beef Camp was de-signed to educate the attendees about the entire beef industry and system in order to increase their prod-uct and knowledge confi dence. Addition-ally, VBIC provided a session to enhance the customer service program utilized by Kroger. The tour also gave attendees ma-terials and resources to assist them in con-versations with their customers to increase consumer education and successful eating experiences.
Because of the scope of this tour, VBIC also rallied the support of other state beef coun-cil and national staff. All SBC staff falling into Kroger ’s Mid-
A Great Example Of Beef Checkoff Partnerships!
Atlantic division was extended an invitation to attend or contrib-ute. North Carolina provided 2 staff members, Ashley Herring & Bryan Blinson. NCBA sent their regional retail account manager, Shelley Bradway. Due to VBIC’s
relationship and support of the NEBPI, Christie Brown was able to reach out of her territory and help as support staff. Addition-ally, Russell Woodward from the Texas Beef Council con-
ducted portions of the Consumer Engagement session. Russell was asked to attend because of his successful beef camps with Kroger’s South-West division.
An all-inclusive beef training event
Kroger Beef Camp brought together approximately 140 meat managers from the Mid-Atlantic Division (Ohio, Kentucky, Ten-nessee, West Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia) for a one-day, hands-on educational experience. Attendees ranged in beef experience from less than 2 years up to an impressive 47 years of meat cutting.
Speakers:Chad Joines (Agricultural Su-
pervisor, Manager of VT Beef herd)
Dr. Dan Eversole (Professor, Animal & Poultry Sciences)
Valerie Van Dyke (Virginia Beef Indus-try Council)
Russell Woodward (Texas Beef Council)
Dr. Jason Scheffl er (VT Meat Science Co-ordinator, Manager of VT Meat Center)
Kristen Stufft (As-sistant Manager – VT Meat Science Center)
Kroger Beef Camp Sessions:
Production Tour—
Photo by Christie Brown
VT Kentland Farm: Chad & Dr. Eversole presented
the beef cattle lifecycle, an over-view of VT beef herd, and herd health practices. All segments of the beef industry and the beef choices available to consumers were discussed, as well as breed-
ing practices, genetics selection, and technological advances that have assisted with all segments. Attendees were able to walk around feed bunks, evaluate live cattle, see corn silage and
Continued on Page 18
PAGE 18–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Don’t Just Buy a Bull….Invest in a Program
Buy or lease a Roseda Black Angus bull and become apartner in an innovative branded beef program. RosedaFarm will purchase your Roseda sired calves at com-petitive prices plus a premium based on your level ofmanagement and record keeping. Bulls start at $1200with bull leases at $500/season. For information con-tact:
Buy or lease a Roseda Black Angus bull and become a partner in an innovative branded beef program. Roseda Farm will purchase your Roseda sired calves at competitive prices plus a premium based on your level of management and record keeping. Bulls start at $2000 with bull leases at $1000/season. For information contact:
Raylene Nickel
Like many other ranchers, John Maddux faces the uncertainties of starting another season with little drought relief in sight. Even if late winter and spring bring snow or rain, replenishing soil moisture and rejuvenating the health of rangelands may be a long-term process requiring continued vigi-lance in stocking rates and herd management.
Maddux adjusted his manage-ment practices to implement a strategic destocking plan last summer. As a result, he reduced the stocking rate on rangelands by a third. He’ll follow the same strategy if the drought continues.
Here are two changes the Wau-neta, Nebraska, rancher made in order to downsize the herd and to better match stocking numbers to decreased range production.1. Wean calves early and cull cows
“I started weaning in July, when calves were about 60 days old,” Maddux says. “At the beginning of August, I got rid of a bunch of cows – cows that had bad bags, poor dispositions, and other problems.”
This culling amounted to 100 head, or 5% of his 2,000-cow herd. Weaned calves were put in a sepa-rate pasture and supplemented with wet distillers’ grains. In the
fall, calves went on cornstalks and were supplemented with wet distillers’ grains along with silage.
In general, the practice of wean-ing calves early can signifi cantly stretch the stocking capacity of pastures.
“For every two and a half days that a calf is off the cow, you can fi gure that you have saved enough feed to support a cow for one additional day,” says Don Adams, director of the Univer-sity of Nebraska’s West Central Research and Extension Center at North Platte.
In other words, each day that a calf is weaned conserves 10 pounds of forage per day, the equivalent of a .4 grazing day for a dry cow. Weaning early offers nu-tritional benefi ts to cows, as well.
“During a drought, it’s natural for grass to be less nutritious,” says Adams. “By getting calves off cows, you reduce the cows’ nutritional needs to better match the nutritional status of the forage. This has the effect of conserving grass for grazing.”2. Shorten the breeding season to carry fewer females
Because cows were not expend-ing energy for lactation during the breeding period, Maddux was able to expose them to bulls for a shorter time and still get a good conception rate.
“After a 45-day breeding sea-
son, I had a conception rate of 92%,” he says.
Cows were pregnancy-checked by ultrasound in October, and open cows were sold. This second culling removed 8% of the herd.
Pregnant cows due to calve af-ter the fi rst 45 days of the calving season will be sold in late winter as bred cows. The high conception rate resulting from early weaning offers the added benefi t of letting Maddux retain fewer bred heifers.
“I’ll only keep the replacement heifers that are going to calve in the fi rst 30 days of the calving season, and I’ll sell those due to calve after that,” he says. “Next year, I’ll only keep heifers calving in the fi rst 21 days of the calving season.”
By maintaining tight calving windows, Maddux has bred females to sell that don’t fi t his calving schedule, and these com-mand a good sales value.
“If a female is bred, she may fi t someone else’s operation,” he says. “She’ll sell for a premium over and above the cull cow price. As a rule of thumb, the price of a bred cow in late winter or early spring is about double the price of a cull cow sold in the off time of the year.”
For Maddux, using a tighter breeding season as a means of
other feed, and to continue their discussions.
According to our pre-tour survey, most of the attendees believed that producers rated 3 out of 5 on level of understand-ing the needs of retailers. After attending the production ses-sion, the average rating was 5
out of 5, and attendees now feel a lot more favorable towards producers. “[It] makes you appreciate the quality of the product we sell”, one attendee commented. Another refl ected, “[I] never realized there were so many breeds of cows, and the process they go through to get them ready. Enjoyed the visit”.
Consumer Engagement & Cus-tomer Service – Livestock Arena Classrooms:
Valerie & Russell led a cus-tomer service session that in-cluded slides from Beef Uni-versity’s “Customer Service: Your Differentiating Factor” module. This session expanded to include Kroger-specifi c topics and the Kroger model for OSAT scores: Acknowledge, Assist, and Appreciate. Overwhelm-ingly, Kroger meat managers agreed that customer service was the most importance facet of their job responsibilities. “We wouldn’t be here without our customers” many stated.
Russell discussed the chal-lenges and rewards of speaking with customers. Attendees were encouraged to evaluate their clients and listen to their specifi c needs before providing beef edu-cation or a specifi c product. He
Photo by Christie Brown
Continued from Page 17
Kroger Beef Campstressed the importance of asking the right questions to uncover the real needs of customers.
There was a great dialogue between meat managers and speakers about the importance of retaining customers and en-suring that they have a positive cooking/eating experience with Kroger’s beef products once they leave the store.
Valerie also walked attendees through some of the Checkoff resources available to utilize in their beef knowledge expansion. VBIC, with the help of design services, created a tear-pad for Kroger stores to display at the meat counter. These pads pro-mote the Interactive Meat Case
Use Strategy To Reduce A Herd
Continued on Page 20Continued on Page 34
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 19
Virginia Simmental Association
www.virginiasimmental.com
On June 19-21, 2014, the Virginia Junior Simmental and North Carolina Junior Simmental Associations hosted the American Junior Simmental Association Eastern Regional Classic in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Exhibitors from 14 states competed at this event. The exhibitors competed in six contests, including Sales Talk, Cattlemen’s Quiz, Livestock Judging, Public Speaking, Showmanship, and the Cattle Show.
Six junior members from Virginia competed in this event. These members were Kelsey Powers-Barb, Krista Barb, Hayden Campbell, Daniel Campbell, Zack Jones, and Hunter Watkins. The juniors represented Virginia very well. Hunter
Watkins placed fi rst in Livestock Judging. Krista Barb placed second in Public Speaking and tenth in Sales Talk. In the Cattle Show, Zack Jones was a class winner and placed third and fi fth overall in the Bred & Owned Purebred show. Hayden Campbell and Krista Barb each placed third in their Divisions with their purebred heifers.
The junior members would like to thank all the adult members that helped make this event a success.
Beef cattle, turkeys and row crops are major enterprises at scenic Glen-mary Farm overlooking the Rapidan
guiding herd reduction serves to increase the overall effi ciency of the herd.
“In my experience, fertility is the most important factor in main-taining herd effi ciency,” he says.
Continued from Page 18
Reducing Beef Herds“The end result is that I invest less labor per cow and typically have more pounds of weaned calf per cow. Because the value of every cow is increased, I improve the overall economics of the herd by keeping the early-calving cows.”
Glenmary Farm Named 2014 Virginia Farm Of The Year
Tuesday, Oct. 14 at the Sunbelt Ag Expo farm show in Moultrie, Ga.
A 30-year farmer, Nixon farms about 4,000 acres. He rents most of the land and his family owns 378 acres. “We rent from absentee landowners because land prices are high,” says Nixon.
Though he doesn’t irrigate, his crop yields are good. Per acre yields last year were 175 bushels of grain and 20 tons of silage from 750 acres of corn, 10 tons of silage from 250 acres of sorghum, 50 bushels of soy-beans from 1,000 acres, 83 bushels of wheat from 400 acres, 95 bushels of barley from 400 acres and 75 bushels of oats from 50 acres. He also grows hay on 400 acres producing 3.8 tons per acre and has about 1,600 pasture acres.
“We try to raise about 6,000 tons of corn silage each year, and we har-vest about 1,000 tons of high mois-ture corn to feed in our feedlot,” he says. “Last year, we had high corn yields and good prices, so we sold 50,000 bushels of corn for cash.” He raises less corn silage if he has good supplies of small grain silage. This year, he’s spreading risks by plant-ing forage sorghum.
His 750-head cowherd has 500 fall-calving and 250 spring-calv-ing females. He buys about 2,000 stocker cattle yearly, and more if he has excess grass. He also raises 153,000 turkeys yearly on contract with Cargill.
“We sell home-raised calves in trailer-load lots through the Virginia Quality Assured program,” Nixon explains. “We market stockers in trailer-load lots through a weekly Tel-O-Auction sale sponsored by the Virginia Cattlemen’s Association. Buyers in Pennsylvania and Iowa often purchase these cattle. We sell fi nished cattle on yield and grade or to a packer in Maryland as source and age verifi ed cattle.”
His feedlot holds 1,000 head. He feeds out his own cattle and provides custom feeding for other cattle owners. Nixon has operated the Culpepper Beef Cattle Improve-ment Association Bull Test Station for 18 years. He feeds about 100 bulls for a 112-day test period.
Heifer development is important, for rebuilding his herd and for sell-ing bred heifers to local and out-of-state producers.
Nixon has built a young, produc-
tive cowherd. He sells about 15% of his cows as bred females. “I’d rather sell a bred cow than a cull cow,” adds Nixon. “I like to move them out when they’re still productive. This year, with cattle prices high, we may sell more cows.” Nixon also uses social media to help market his cattle.
“Diversifi cation helps with risk management,” says Nixon. “So we built our feedlot, turkey houses, and started managing the bull test station. Feeding the bulls has led to additional custom feeding for local producers.”
Nixon follows a nutrient manage-ment plan updated yearly. New feedlot facilities allow manure to be used as a nutrient to reduce his fertilizer costs.
He built a modern barn with a squeeze chute and double alleys for treating cattle. He has also upgraded equipment by renting a farm with grain bins, buying a new combine and buying a new wide planter adaptable to variable rate seeding, auto steering and global positioning guidance.
His conservation work includes
Tom Nixon
Continued on Page 21
River near Rapidan, Va. Robert T. “Tom” Nixon II, who owns this farm, is focused on flexibility in
growing and marketing cattle and crops.
For instance, he harvests corn as a cash crop or si-lage, depending on prices for corn and beef cattle. He’s equally fl exible in sell-ing cattle, be they weaned calves, stockers, bred cows or fi nished cattle from his feedlot.
As a result of his suc-cess raising cattle, crops and turkeys, Nixon has been selected as Virginia’s state winner of the 2014 Swisher Sweets/Sunbelt Expo Southeastern Farmer of the Year award. Nixon joins nine other state win-ners from the Southeast as fi nalists for the award. The
is a full service farm equipment dealership in Southside Virginia
that has been in business for over fi fty years. We carry numerous product lines in order to
match the right product to your needs.
“Distributor for both Virginia and North Carolina”
sediment ponds, fencing off water-ways, manure storage facilities and cover crops.
A 1995 fl ood destroyed 200 acres of corn silage. After the fl oodwaters receded, he planted a successful sor-ghum silage crop. Hot weather took a toll in 1999. Crop yields dropped 50%, and the heat killed 30% of the heavy tom turkeys in his houses. In 2004, Pilgrim’s Pride decided to stop producing turkeys, and Nixon was fortunate to get a new contract with Cargill to raise turkey hens.
The farm’s Glenmary name comes from an original King of Eng-land land grant. Nixon says a small house built on the farm in 1733 was donated to a local museum.
“During the early 1990’s, we faced a decision,” Tom recalls. “We struggled during the 1980’s, and had to decide whether to move forward. We worked with Exten-sion farm management agents to develop budgets and financial plans.” This resulted upgrading the feedlots and investing in the turkey facilities. “These changes paved the way for us to grow,” recalls Tom.
He has been active in agricultural organizations. He is a founder and served as president of the Central Virginia Cattlemen Association, formed to help producers market their calves.
Nixon has also been active in Culpepper Cooperative, Orange County Farm Bureau and the Or-ange County Fair. On the state level, he has been active in Virginia’s Cattlemen’s Association, Feeder Council and Cattle Feeders.
Continued from Page 20
VA Farm Of The YearHe met his wife Kim at a farm
fi eld day when she worked as an integrated pest management agent for Virginia Cooperative Extension. Kim is from a poultry and beef farm and she manages the turkey op-eration. She also manages the farm offi ce and uses the computer for all fi nancial records, cattle inventories, custom feeding billing and field crop records.
Kim has been an Orange County 4-H Club leader who taught live-stock care to 4-H members, and chaired a community service com-mittee for a local livestock club. She is a Junior Advisor for the Virginia Junior Angus Association. She was also a director on the Culpepper Soil and Water Conservation District. The Nixons are active in Mitchells Presbyterian Church.
Tom and Kim have two children, Elizabeth and Robert, who are de-veloping an embryo transfer donor cow program with their registered Angus cows. They each own more than 14 commercial cows in addi-tion to their registered cattle. They also sold 4-H Club lambs until Elizabeth started attending college in Kansas.
The Nixons are ready if their chil-dren come back to farm. Elizabeth is mainly interested in cattle and Robert focuses on crops. Elizabeth is nationally recognized in livestock judging. She will attend Oklahoma State University and will double major in Animal Science and Ag Communications, while Robert intends to study diesel mechanics after high school.
Robert “Bobby” Grisso, associate director of the Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service, is state coor-dinator of the Farmer of the Year awards. Steve Hopkins, Extension agent in Orange, Va., introduced Tom to Kim and nominated Nixon for the award. “Tom has an impres-sive farm,” says Hopkins. “It is remarkable how he expanded his farm. He has an outstanding family and they all promote agriculture.”
As the Virginia winner of the Swisher Sweets/Sunbelt Expo award, Nixon will receive a $2,500 cash award and an expense paid trip to the Sunbelt Expo from Swisher International of Jackson-ville, Fla., a $500 gift certifi cate from Southern States cooperative, the choice of either $1,000 in PhytoGen cottonseed or a $500 donation to a designated charity from Dow Agro-Sciences, and a Columbia vest from Ivey’s Outdoor and Farm Supply.
He is now eligible for the $15,000 cash prize awarded to the overall winner. Other prizes for the overall winner include use of a Massey Ferguson tractor for a year from Massey Ferguson North America, another $500 gift certifi cate and a
Heritage gun safe from Southern States, the choice of either another $1,000 in PhytoGen cottonseed or a second $500 donation to a desig-nated charity from Dow AgroSci-ences, and a Columbia jacket from Ivey’s Outdoor and Farm Supply.
Swisher International, through its Swisher Sweets cigar brand, and the Sunbelt Expo are sponsor-ing the Southeastern Farmer of the Year awards for the 25th consecutive year. Swisher has contributed some $964,000 in cash awards and other honors to southeastern farmers since the award was initiated in 1990.
Previous state winners from Vir-ginia include: Nelson Gardner of Bridgewater, 1990; Russell Inskeep of Culpepper, 1991; Harry Bennett of Covington, 1992; Hilton Hudson of Alton, 1993; Buck McCann of Carson, 1994; George M. Ashman, Jr. of Amelia, 1995; Bill Blalock of Baskerville, 1996; G. H. Peery III of Ceres, 1997; James Bennett of Red House, 1998; Ernest Copenhaver of Meadowview, 1999; John Davis of Port Royal, 2000; James Huffard III
of Crockett, 2001; J. Hudson Reese of Scottsburg, 2002; Charles Parker-son of Suffolk, 2003; Lance Everett of Stony Creek, 2004; Monk Sanford of Orange, 2005; Paul House of Nokesville, 2006; Steve Berryman of Surry, 2007; Tim Sutphin of Dublin, 2008; Billy Bain of Dinwiddie, 2009; Wallick Harding of Jetersville, 2010; Donald Horsley of Virginia Beach, 2011; Maxwell Watkins of Suther-land, 2012; and Lin Jones of New Canton, 2013 .
Virginia has had two overall win-ners, Nelson Gardner of Bridgewa-ter in 1990 and Charles Parkerson of Suffolk in 2003.
A distinguished panel of judges will visit Nixon’s farm and farms of the other nine fi nalists during the week of Aug. 4-8. The judges this year include farmer Brian Kirksey of Amity, Ark., the overall winner in 2008; John Woodruff, retired University of Georgia Extension agronomist from Tifton, Ga., who specialized in soybeans for many years; and Clark Garland, longtime University of Tennessee Extension ag economist from Maryville, Tenn.
PAGE 22–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Troy Marshall, BEEF Magazine
Have you ever attended a meeting and heard a producer talk about his branded-beef pro-gram, rotational grazing system or planned breeding system that utilizes artificial insemination, etc.? These folks usually have incredible data on the gains they’ve made and such claims are almost universally correct. It truly is amazing what they’ve achieved. These folks are usually asked to present their story not
only because of their successes in implementing these strategies but also in their long-term expe-rience in these areas. It makes sense, as they are the experts, but I’ve come to believe that with expertise comes a lack of under-standing or appreciation about exactly what it took to get to that level of expertise. These present-ers almost always make it sound easy. As an analogy, I know horse trainers who can describe in two sentences how to get a horse to do a sliding stop, but for anyone
who listened closely and tried to go out and execute that move, it’s never quite as simple as it sounds.
The problem with experts is that they’ve learned so much about the subject of their ex-pertise that they can’t relate to a person’s lack of expertise and remember to tell you everything you need to know. I experienced this fi rst hand this summer as we have attempted to implement a more intensive grazing manage-ment plan. I just hope the experts
nies on the dollar and more than worth the investment. There is simply no excuse for the average cattle producer to risk the oppor-tunity value of their calves over continuing to ride an increasing market. There is little reason to be concerned over a dramatic decline in the value of cattle in the foreseeable however after many months in uncharted ter-ritory, the articles are starting to appear and suggest that we may be heading for a period of level-
while also working to preserve Virginia farmland. The state has beefed up its international mar-keting efforts for Virginia farm products in recent years, with a trade offi ce in Hong Kong and consultants working in Asia, Eu-rope, India and Latin America. As the state’s secretary of agriculture and forestry, Haymore is focusing on promoting and selling Virginia agricultural products in world markets. Adams is focusing on the agriculture and consumer services department’s daily mis-sion, which involves a wide array of responsibilities.
Most Virginians likely are not aware of all the things agency does. It has three major divisions that encompass marketing, ani-mal and food industry services, and consumer protection. “That is why I love this agency. It is diverse, and there is something new every day,” Adams said. She
added that the agency’s staff is its biggest asset. “I think this agency is fortunate because we have
people working here that really love what they do and want to do a good job,” she said.
Continued from Page 4
Keeping Watch
Continued from Page 2
Opportunitiesing out. Unfortunately, the media and the speculators don’t seem to react with much levity themselves when market corrections occur and force limit down scenarios for 24 to 72 hour stretches that make a marketing plan supplemented with risk management much more comforting.
I learned in the last few years that I was not wise to say any lon-ger that I never thought I would see this or that. My grandfather used to enjoy remarking that he had seen everything from the horse and buggy to a man on the
moon. That was indeed true in the 20th century. Human popula-tion and the amount of informa-tion generated continues to grow exponentially. Speculation is not seasonal in our business any lon-ger and has been augmented with tools that our fathers and grandfa-thers didn’t have. Knowledge is always free but even in times of great profi tability education can be quite expensive. Invest some research and sweat equity time in a long term marketing plan that has a tool box of relationships and risk protection strategies.
Expert Advice Doesn’t Eliminate Learning Things The Hard Wayare right and that it gets easier over time. I try to learn as much as I can from experts, but the one thing I admit that I always ignore is when they say it is easy and no
big deal to implement x y or z. That’s because I usually fi nd they have forgotten to mention about 40 things that I will be forced to learn the hard way.
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 23
Instant Savings! Bring in this ad for a special discount during the month of May.
Cattle Farms, Timberland, Hunting Tracts Appraisal & Consulting Services Available
The title here highlights just how far the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) has pushed its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) are taking public comments on a proposed regulation that would expand the federal government’s authority over waters; private property rights be damned. This article attempts to provide pro-ducers with a taste of the proposed expansion and the devastating impacts it could have on their op-erations, in hopes that you talk to your elected offi cials at the county, state and federal level to ask that they do everything in their power to prevent this federal land grab.
When passed in 1972, the CWA created a regulatory permitting system to control discharges (discharge includes dirt, manure, fertilizer, litter, pesticides, etc.) into “navigable waters.” The term “navigable waters” is defi ned in the CWA as “waters of the United States” and nothing more. This absurdly vague definition has provided the implementing fed-eral agencies (namely EPA and the Corps) with the enormous loophole they needed to sys-tematically gain more and more regulatory authority over smaller and less significant “bodies of water” (a term used loosely) over the past 40 years. Despite Supreme Court rulings striking down broad interpretations of their authority over isolated waters the agencies keep trying to expand federal jurisdiction over ditches, ponds and puddles.
Twice there have been propos-als in Congress to delete the word “navigable” altogether from the CWA. Due in large part to the pushback from farmers and ranch-ers, both attempts failed and the Congressmen and Senators who pushed for the legislation were ousted during the next election.
But EPA and the Corps are now trying to do regulatorily what the American public would not let them do legislatively. On March 25, the EPA and the Corps released their proposed rule redefining what qualifi es as a “water of the U.S.” Broad and ambiguous terms are used throughout the proposal and key terms are left undefi ned, leading to the conclusion that the federal agencies have granted themselves regulatory authority over every wet spot in the country. Here are some highlights of the proposal:
• Those waters that qualify as traditionally navigable waters (can float a canoe), interstate waters, the terrirorial seas, and impoundments of these types of waters remain “waters of the U.S.” This is not a change from the cur-rent regulation.
• The proposal makes every “tributary” a “water of the U.S.” The agencies defi nition of
“tributary,” for the fi rst time, includes ditches and ponds. It also includes streams that only hold water during a rainfall event (“ephemeral stream”). No analy-sis or proof is needed by the regulator, it is automatically under federal jurisdiction.
• Through its broad defi nition of “adjacent waters,” the proposal would make every “water”
(undefi ned) in a fl ood plain au-tomatically a “water of the U.S.,” no analysis needed; if it is wet in a fl ood plain it is now going to be under federal jurisdiction. This in-cludes ditches, ponds, manmade conveyances like storm water structures, ephemeral streams that might run through fi elds, wet areas on pastures, or any other wet area located in a fl ood plain. The proposed regulation does not provide a frequency of fl ooding, begging the question-are we talk-ing about a
20-year fl ood plain? A 100-year
Dear EPA: Is That Puddle Navigable?fl ood plain? The regulation allows the regulator to use his/her
“best professional judgment” to determine the size.
• Similarly, the proposal would make every water in a “ripar-ian area” a “water of the U.S.” Riparian area is vaguely defi ned as “transition areas between ter-restrial and aquatic ecosystems.” Again, the proposal gives the regulator the power to decide the size of this transition area.
Even if a water does not fall into a fl ood plain, riparian area, or is outside the defi nition of a “tribu-tary” it still might be a federal wa-ter. Even a water that is geographi-cally isolated from all other waters. The agencies do this through their “signifi cant nexus” analysis. “Signifi cant Nexus” is the phrase coined by Justice Kennedy in one of the important Supreme Court decisions on this subject. Justice
Kennedy said (in his concurring opinion) that the EPA/Corps could regulate isolated wetlands that are wholly intrastate if it had a “signifi cant nexus” to a navigable water. He clarifi ed that the phrase signifi cant nexus means more than speculative or insubstantial. It would make common sense that such an important phrase would be clearly defi ned by the agencies, but common sense just is not as common as you might think. In this proposal the agencies pass on providing a clear test or defi -nition for this important phrase and instead point to a non-peer reviewed study that fails to look at what is “signifi cant.” Essentially EPA is saying in this study that any connection is signifi cant, and therefore all isolated waters could come under federal jurisdiction. Again, I suppose one could say this is “clarity,” but it certainly is
not the kind of clarity landowners were asking for. And to put the icing on the cake, if the geographi-cally isolated water doesn’t have a “signifi cant nexus” to larger water bodies, the agencies will still claim jurisdiction if they determine that when it is grouped with other “similarly situated waters in the region” it has a signifi cant nexus to traditionally navigable waters. Clear as mud? Remember, the agencies say they are proposing the defi nition so landowners can have “clarity.”
The costs. Well, they could po-tentially be catastrophic, not only monetarily but on the federalism principle of government. If you take a look at the proposed rule one thing is clear - it is written so broadly that almost everything is now under federal jurisdiction.
Continued on Page 25
PAGE 24–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Gelbvieh Breedersof Virginia, Inc.
2157 Black Lick RoadRural Retreat, VA 24368
President: Nathan Haver - 540-997-5376Vice President: Tom Lavelle - 276-223-4488Secretary: Joe Wilson - 276-628-4163Treasurer:Judith Sweeten - 276-228-6347
LAST CALLGELBVIEH
Tom Lavelle, DVM2984 Peppers Ferry Rd.Wytheville, Va. 24382
(O) 276-223-4488(H) 276-223-0104
CHARLES E. ATKINS,OWNER
(276) 783-6100
Flowing Spring Gelbvieh6235 Lee Hwy.
Atkins, VA 24311
SOUTHFORK FARMSGELBVIEH &
BALANCER CATTLE
Nathan and Sue Ellen Haver969 Little River Rd.Goshen, Va. 24439
To find a Gelbvieh or Balancer® breeder near you contact a member of the Gelbvieh Breeders of Virginia
2 + 2 = 5Add as much as $1,000 over the life of a crossbred cow with planned crossbreeding.
Money Making Mathematics:
HETEROSIS IS YOUR KEY TO PROFITABILITY
Crossbreeding is smart and easy. www.GELBVIEH.org
Balancer® is a Gelbvieh x Angus or Red Angus registered hybrid.
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 25
What’s your dream? Beautiful 64 acre farm could be a cattle farm, horse farm, alpaca, lamas, vineyard. Well maintained 3 BR 2 BA home with amazing views of pasture, ponds and woods. Ready to farm! All farm equipment
conveys: 2001 Ford F150, 2008 Featherlight trailer, 2012 New Holland
EPA states in the proposal that the purpose for the rule is “to make identifying waters of the U.S. less complicated and more effi cient.” I guess they have achieved their goal if every water is now under federal control, but as an industry that is based on strong principles we should be outraged at their overall belief that the federal government can be so smug as to say it has the power to regulate everything. Fortunately the agen-cies keep claiming they are going to save farmers and ranchers, and that the regulation will actually benefi t our industry. You read that correctly, the agencies are trying to pacify the agriculture community by putting out misleading infor-mation saying that agriculture will actually benefi t from this federal land grab. This is simply a smoke and mirrors routine. Here’s why the rule will not benefi t agricul-ture, and in fact, could paralyze production agriculture as a whole.
First, state sovereignty, local land use planning, the Constitu-tion, and the words of the CWA itself that limit the reach of the federal government would be obliterated if the agencies are al-lowed say “everything is a federal water, but we (the agencies) will allow you to do A, B, and C activi-ties on your own land.” There is something fundamentally wrong with this line of thought. Second, farmers and ranchers should not have to depend on the mercy of a regulator that may or may not grant the farmer an exemption. A farmer would be in a constant state of confusion about what is in and what is out, and whether he or she might get a lawsuit filed against them by an envi-ronmentalist or EPA. Sec. 505 of the Clean Water Act allows “Any citizen [to] commence a civil ac-tion on his own behalf…against any person…who is alleged to be in violation of this Act.” If a neighbor, environmental activ-ist, or anyone else does not like what you are doing, even if you think that activity qualifi es for an exemption, you can be sued under the Clean Water Act and will have to prove your innocence.
To alleviate some legal liability, farmers and ranchers will need more regulatory “jurisdictional determinations” (where the regu-lators come out and look at a water
Continued from Page 23
EPA you are concerned may be a “water of the U.S.” and give you a yes or no thereby indicating whether you need to get a permit or not), and these JDs and the subsequent per-mitting process can be extremely time consuming and expensive. Data from two decades ago show that a Sec. 404 Dredge and Fill permit costs around $30,000 and takes a year to get through the process. It is safe to say that this number would be much greater today and with more and more permits required, take longer to get through the process. It could prevent pesticide applications, pasture maintenance, expansions, construction projects, and many other activities that happen on farms every day. These activities could be completely precluded or delayed for years, shutting down productive activity altogether.
Agricultural exemptions - don’t put much faith in them despite what the regulators will tell you. The agricultural exemptions in the CWA are confusing, so here is an attempt at clarifying what they are and what they are not. First, there are only two exclusions from the actual category of “waters of the U.S.” that involve agriculture: (1) Prior Converted Croplands (PCC) and (2) Waste Treatment Systems. The PCC exemption is interesting because it is literally saying that these “lands” are not “waters.” It should tell you something that this had to be spelled out. The Waste Treatment System exemp-tion includes retention ponds and lagoons that feeding operations use to catch any rainwater that might have come in contact with manure or cattle. By regulations under the same law these struc-tures must catch everything that
would be a “discharge” if it went into a “water of the U.S.” Obvi-ously these should not require additional regulation when they are literally required by the Clean Water Act.
The proposed regulation in-cludes a few new exclusions that directly touch the cattle industry. First, the agencies have added ex-clusions for “artifi cial ponds used exclusively for stock watering;” “ditches that are (1) excavated wholly in uplands, (2) drain only uplands, and (3) have less than perennial fl ow;” and ditches that do not contribute fl ow, either di-rectly or through another water, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas or an impoundment of a jurisdic-tional water.” Emphasis added. So, for every segment of every ditch on your property you will need to analyze whether it meets all the criteria for one of these exclusions. That is at least four analyses for each segment of ditch, and because we know farmers and ranchers have loads of extra time on their hands, this should be a welcome task (sarcasm implied). If your ditches do not fall into these exclusions then they are “waters of the U.S.” and every activity that allows pesticides (spraying a nearby fi eld), dirt (cattle nearby), nitrogen, phosphorus (fertilizer/manure) or anything else seen as a discharge will need a federal permit, unless the government
gives you a reprieve via the ex-empted activities below. Addition-ally, if you have a “natural pond” on your property, it is considered a “tributary” by defi nition and au-tomatically a jurisdictional water.
The other “exemptions” the agencies talk about are not ex-
emptions from “waters of the U.S.,” but are exempted from the meaning of “discharge” or are ac-tivities exempted from requiring a permit. The fi rst is the agricultural storm water exemption, which states that storm water runoff from agricultural operations is not a discharge from a point source under Sec. 402, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The other ex-emptions fall under Sec. 404, the dredge and fi ll permit program. Under Sec. 404(f)(1) agriculture has a number of exempted activi-ties. The waters on farmland that these activities impact would still be considered a “water of the U.S.” under this proposal, but the farmer would not need a 404 permit for these specifi c activities. Activities outside those listed that impact these waters would need a 404 permit. These exempted activities include plowing, seed-ing, cultivating, harvesting, minor drainage, soil and water conserva-tion, maintenance of drainage, construction of irrigation ditches, construction and maintenance
of stock ponds, construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads (in accordance with BMPs), and maintenance of structures (dams, dikes, levees). Unfortu-nately, this section also contains section 404(f)(2), known as the “recapture provision” which gives EPA and the Corps the option to take away any of the exemptions in 404(f)(1) that were just listed if the regulator believes the activity is bringing the water into a new use that will result in a “reduc-tion in the reach or impairment of flow.” This recapture provi-sion has had the result of taking away many of the exemptions that 404(f)(1) provides agriculture and therefore the agencies cannot claim with certainty that even these limited activities are truly exempted. Activities that are not covered by these exemptions in-clude introduction of new cultiva-tion techniques, planting different crops, changing crops to pasture, changing pasture to crops, chang-ing cropland to orchard/vineyard,
Continued on Page 26
PAGE 26–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Continued from Page 25
EPA
www.wythelivestock.com
Special Sales held on Tuesday start at 7:00 P.M. All cattle
AUGUST 12, 2014 AUGUST 26, 2014 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 OCTOBER 21, 2014
STEER & HEIFER HOLSTEIN STEER STEER & HEIFER SALE HOLSTEIN STEER SALE CLEAN UP SALE FOR ALL
REGULAR LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS EVERY THURSDAY @ 1:00 P.M. Graded sale every Thursday
Please visit our website to get our 2014 Goat & Sheep Sale Dates
Produce F1 Calves & gain pounds + Heterosis
Bulls $2000-$2500 or lease$500 until spring
“Will also buy calves back @ top market price”Scott Strosnider - Stephens City, VA @ (540) 877-7182
PUREBRED GREY
BRAHMAN BULLS
“FOR SALE OR LEASE”
Wayne was a real cowboy. A child of the Great Depression, he grew up on a dirt farm near Malcolm, Nebraska. Wayne was still young when his father died, leaving him to take over the farm. He tells the story that in drought years the only grass left was on the side of the road, and you pas-tured your side. Mounted on his lineback gelding, assisted only by his dog, and armed just with his blacksnake (what Easterners call a bull whip), Wayne kept his polled Herefords in a bunch so they
would graze and not trample the valuable forage. This also made them easier to control, especially when cows and calves had to be moved through an intersection to further roadsides
Wayne went to college and became an engineer; he worked for the Extension Service and farmed/ ranched on the side. He eventually sold the property and wound up in Virginia to be near family. I met Wayne and his wife Betty some years ago. We share a lot of interests… cattle, engineer-
changing cropland to nurseries. Any of these activities would need a 404 permit.
In tandem with the proposed rule, the agencies along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture have issued an “interpretive rule” clarifying that activities associated with implementing 56 specific Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation prac-tices would be exempted from the 404 permit
requirement under the “normal farming and ranching” exemption under Sec. 404(f)(1). The interpre-tive rule is immediately effective but only applies if the producer
WYTHE COUNTYLIVESTOCK
EXCHANGE, INC.
is in compliance with the NRCS standards. In addition, the exemp-tions apply only so long as the conservation activities are ongo-ing. They do not apply if there is a change of use. Indeed, once con-servation activities are complete, the landowner will likely have features that will be higher quality and more likely to be considered waters of the U.S. The interpre-tive rule has no effect on CWA jurisdiction, i.e., the exemption is not an exclusion from federal CWA jurisdiction. The wet features these practices touch will still be consid-ered waters of the U.S., but will not need a 404 permit, however, those activities could need a 402 permit or could create the need to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan
in place. In addition, these newly created permit exemptions, created by interpretive rule, which is es-sentially nothing more than agency guidance, do not have the force of law. Therefore, it is disingenuous for the agencies to suggest that by adding this interpretive rule they have mitigated the effect of the proposed rule on cattle producers.
So one must consider, after read-ing this, can you be certain that when conducting routine activities
on your property you will not be touching a regulated “water of the U.S.” with a nonexempt activity? I certainly cannot say with any certainty that any activity that takes place on a farm or ranch will be safe from EPA and the Corps’ long reach.
What can you do to stop these regulators run-a-muck? Comment on the proposed rule. An easy way to do so is to go to www.BeefUSA.org and click on to the Issues tab
and follow it to the “Waters of the United States” proposal. Also, tell your friends, neighbors, local elected offi cials, state representa-tives, federal representatives and your senators about the devastat-ing impacts this regulation would have on agriculture, and demand that it be stopped. On social me-dia use #DitchTheRule. The only chance we have of stopping this devastating regulation is to all speak up.
A Dirt Road Diary
Wayne Steve Lucas
ing, church, and ministry. We have one point of disagreement. Can you be a cowboy and not own a horse, a dog, and a blacksnake?
This contention is not a divisive issue in our friendship, but I have long wondered how to respond to his question. I use the word “cowboy” in my email address, and write stories and poems about cowboys and the cowboy life. I recognize this alone does not make me a cowboy. I do not own a horse. Furthermore, my dog is a pet that in the presence of cattle would certainly be more of a hindrance than a help. I do have a whip, but I have no idea where it is.
I’m sure Wayne would not ac-cept my premise that my head and foot gear defi ne me as a cowboy. I wear a weatherworn Resistol,
and prefer pull on boots, but so do any number of country music singers, actors, and Wall Street types whose only interaction with a cow is steak at a four star restau-rant. Likewise, I can’t claim that merely owning cows makes me a cowboy, and I think Wayne would agree. We have both known any number of folks who own cows who call themselves dairymen and purebred breeders, not cowboys.
Webster’s Dictionary’s defi ni-tion of a cowboy is ”One who tends cattle or horses.” Wayne and I, I think, agree that this is an over generalization, unless you defi ne the word “tends” as mak-ing the well being of your cows your first priority. If tending means checking your cows’ con-dition every day, no matter if the temperature is 110 degrees above
or 30 degrees below, in blazing sun, pouring rain, or knee deep snow, it describes a cowboy. If tending means being late for din-ner with the neighbors because you had to pull a hip locked calf or had to search for a cow when your count came up wrong, it de-picts a cowboy. If tending means doing what it takes to keep the stock fed, if it is dividing pastures into smaller paddocks with step in posts and wire, or herding them down the road with a lineback stallion, dog, and blacksnake, it defi nes a cowboy. I think I can call myself a cowboy. I’ll let you know if Wayne concurs.
Note: I asked Wayne to fact check
this story for me. He responded: “I guess I can still brag and wish I could still wear boots and fi t in a saddle.”
Bulls Available for Sale - Contact John Wheeler910-489-0024 • [email protected]
Herd ID# - 1221
Registration # - P43337477DOB - 09/24/2012
Herd ID# - 1223
Registration # - P43326722DOB - 10/28/2012
Herd ID# - 818
Registration # - P42946376DOB - 10/11/2008
What do you want in your next Herd Sire? How about these traits!
Good Disposition • Easy Calving • Growth • Quality CarcassesProduce Excellent Cow Replacements • Produce Herd Bulls
7th Annual CommericalBred Heifer Sale
SATURDAY
NOON
I-81 Exit 60 ~ Rural Retreat, VA300 Bred Heifers
Due to start calving Feb. 15th, 2015, 60 daysMake plans For Your Spring Replacements!
Heavy Angus Influence
For More Info Contact: Edwin Wagoner & Associates
(276)-768-8539For pictures and info, visit us on the web at:
www.wagonerauctions.com
Looking to Buy or Sell?Our Nationwide Network of Marketing Services
Can Assist You With Your Needs
www.brubakersales.com
Ken Brubaker
Elaine Grings, Cow/Calf Management & Production Specialist, SDSU Extension
How important is it to cull those cows with excitable tempera-ments? Being a ‘good mother’ can be an important trait in a cow for protecting her calf, being too aggressive can have negative con-sequences. Excitable cattle tend to have high levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, in their blood, which can affect health, reproduc-tion and growth in your cattle.
Temperament can be quanti-fi ed by using several tests when working cattle in chutes. A chute score is a 5-point scale (1= calm, no movement, 2 = restless move-ment, 3 = frequent movement with vocalization, 4 = constant move-ment, vocalization, shaking of the chute, 5 = violent and continuous struggling) that can be assigned when cattle are in the chute. Exit velocity or fl ight speed has been measured by researchers using infrared sensors. Researchers in Colorado compared fl ight speed measured by sensors to an exit score (1 = walk, 2 = trot, 3 = run) assigned by an observer and found the exit score to be well related to fl ight speed and negatively related to average daily gain. Averaging an exit and chute scores to give a temperament score gives a better indication of expected animal per-formance than either score alone as they are likely measuring slightly different behaviors.
Research in Oregon has shown effects of temperament on repro-
duction in beef cattle. Over four hundred spring-calving range cows at two locations in eastern Oregon were tested for tempera-ment using both a chute score and measurement of exit veloc-ity from a squeeze chute. About 25% of the cows were scored as aggressive and these cows had lower pregnancy rates (89%) than the adequate temperament cows (95%). At one location, cows were bred by AI followed by turn out with a bull. The second location used natural service mating only. The lowered pregnancy rate even when bulls were used indicates that the effect was not due solely to stress during handling at AI. Based on this and other studies, the researchers suggest culling on temperament or adapting cattle to handling to maximize reproduc-tive performance in beef cows.
Increased handling of heifers may help them to become adjusted to the handling process and to humans. The same researchers in Oregon conducted a study to evaluate the effect of acclimating heifers to handling on reproduc-tive performance. After weaning, they divided heifer calves into two groups. One group was processed through a handling facility three times a week for four weeks. Heif-ers receiving more frequent han-dling reached puberty at an earlier age than their herdmates, but preg-nancy rates after AI were not differ-ent. The more frequently-handled heifers had lower exit scores than those handled less frequently, but chute scores did not differ between
Cattle Temperament Plays A Large Role In Performance
the two groups. The research therefore suggests that training heifers to handling may decrease days to puberty. They do caution that this training needs to occur when animals are fairly young because older cows did not change their temperament behavior when handled more frequently. A recent study conducted in Louisiana did not fi nd a relationship between temperament score and pregnancy status in beef heifers, but did see a negative relationship of score to weight gain, with heifers with higher scores gaining less weight.
Temperament can affect your bottom line beyond reproduction. Cattle with excitable tempera-ments can have decreased growth rates as a result of altered metabo-lism associated with high levels of stress hormones. These hormones can affect how energy is used by the body and can affect stores of protein and energy. Not only does this affect rate of gain, but can also affect carcass characteristics by the effects on body energy stores. In addition, cattle with excitable temperaments tend to have more bruising on the carcass and in-creased incidence of dark cutters.
Kenneth T. Swain feeds his calves in Craig County - grandson on Kenny and Carol Hale.
PAGE 28–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
The 2014 State 4-H/FFA Stock-men’s Contest and State 4-H Livestock Quiz Bowl were held at Alphin Stuart Livestock Arena and Litton Reaves Hall in Blacks-burg, VA.
The 2014 Stockmen’s Contest consisted of 74 junior and 67 se-nior competitors that are in the 4-H or FFA programs. The contest consists of a livestock specifi c quiz, identifi cation of livestock equip-ment, breeds, feeds, and meat, judging of live sheep, live cattle, meats, and hay. New to the contest this year was a keep/cull class, questions on meats and hay, and a senior judging scenario judged solely on performance data and EPD’s. The winning Senior team
will go on to compete at the Na-tional 4-H Stockmen’s Contest that will be held at the North American International Livestock Exposi-tion in Louisville, Kentucky. This year’s winners are from Augusta County 4-H. Team members in-clude: Jake McCall, Cole Leonard, Cassidy Simmons, and Simon Liggett. In addition to Augusta 4-H, a congratulations goes out to our top 5 Senior teams, Fred-erick County 4-H, Carroll County 4-H, Shenadoah County 4-H, and Rockingham County 4-H. The top 5 Senior Individuals were: 1st Place – Claire Gleason (Carroll County), 2nd Place-Cody Boden (Frederick County), 3rd Place- Han-nah Craun (Rockingham County),
4th place- Jake McCall (Augusta County), and 5th Place- Cole Leon-ard (Augusta County). Top honors were also awarded in the junior division, which consists of youth ages 9 – 13. The top fi ve teams were (in descending order) – Rock-bridge County 4-H, Washington County 4-H, Rockingham County 4-H, Montgomery County 4-H, and Frederick County 4-H. The top 5 junior individuals were: 1st Place – Alex Wheeler (Washington County), 2nd Place- Camile Mitch-ell (Chesapeake), 3rd Place- Caleb Boden (Frederick County), 4th Place- Brent Hostetter (Rockbridge County), and 5th Place- Ethan Clouse (Montgomery County).
The State 4-H Livestock Quiz
Bowl was held in conjunction with the State 4-H/FFA Stockmen’s Competition. This quiz bowl was open to 4-H teams across the state. The Quiz Bowl drew in 15 Junior teams and 13 Senior teams for the event. Competitors were asked individual one-on-one questions, team questions, and the fun toss-up questions that were open to anyone. Each round lasted approximately 15 minutes and consisted of general livestock questions. The First Place Team will compete at the National 4-H Livestock Quiz Bowl Invitational in September during the Ak-Sar-Ben 4-H Stock Show. This year’s winning team is Montgomery County 4-H Livestock Club and
the winning team members are Kaylee Greiner, Jack Redifer, Samuel Gerrard, and Will Boyd. The 2nd Place team was Frederick County 4-H and consisted of Gor-don McIntire, Matt Ferrari, Evan Lineweaver, and Cody Boden. Additional honors went to the 1st place Junior Team, Rockingham County 4-H (Carly Carpenter, Jacob Craun, Paul Craun, and Katelyn Funkhouser) and 2nd place to Montgomery County 4-H (Sidnie Saville, Ethan Clouse, Leah Greiner, and Luke Redifer).
All contest results and addi-tional 4-H Livestock information can be found on the youth Live-stock web site at www.ext.vt.edu/youthlivestock.
2014 State Stockmen’s And 4-H Quiz Bowl Competitions Held
First Place Junior Quiz Bowl Team from Rockingham County. Pictured from left to right are: Coach Brian Carpenter, team members Carly
Carpenter, Paul Craun, Katelyn Funkhouser, Jacob Craun, and Coach Tammy Craun.
Second Place Junior Quiz Bowl Team from Montgomery County. Front row: (from left to right) team members Blake Hall, Ethan Clouse, Sidnie
Saville, Luke Redifer, and Leah Greiner. Back row: coach Scott Greiner.
First Place Senior Quiz Bowl Team from Montgomery County. From left to right are: Coach Scott Greiner, Jack Redifer, Kaylee Greiner,
Samuel Gerrard, and Will Boyd.
Second Place Senior Quiz Bowl Team from Frederick County. From left to right: Andrew Ferrari, Courtney Walls, Helena St. Clair,
Catieadele Slater, and Coach Ruth Boden.
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 29
First Place Senior Stockman’s Team from Augusta County. From left to right: Cole Leonard, Coach Eric Stogdale, and Cassidy Simmons.
Not pictured: Simon Ligget and Jake McCall.
Second Place Senior Stockman’s team from Frederick County. From left to right: coach Bob Ashby, Cody Boden, Matt Ferrari, Courtney Walls,
Gordon McIntire, and Coach Ruth Boden.
First Place Junior Stockmans’ team from Rockbridge County.From left to right: Ryan Borer, Brent Hostetter, Jenna Hamilton, Tyller Roney, and
Coach Patty Hamilton.
Second Place Junior Stockman’s team from Washington County. From left to right: Olivia Bostic, Zeren Belcher, Coach Kate Belcher, Alex Wheeler,
and, Kassidy Slaughter.
Stockman’s Contest top ten Senior individuals.(left to right, 10th-1st) Gordon McIntire, Jack Redifer, Jessica Vass, Cassidy Simmons,
Cole Leonard, Hannah Craun, Cody Boden and Claire Gleason.Not pictured: Simon Liggett (7th) and Jake McCall (4th)
Stockmen’s Contest top 10 junior individuals. (from left to right, 10th-1st) Chet Boden, Seth Stowe, Paul Craun, Zeren Belcher,
Zach McCall, Ethan Clouse, Brent Hostetter, Caleb Boden, Camille Mitchell, and Alex Wheeler.
PAGE 30–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
The 2014 State 4-H Livestock Judging Contest was held on June 25, 2014 at Alphin Stuart Livestock Arena in Blacksburg, VA.
The 2014 Livestock Judging Contest brought in 63 junior and 55 senior contestants that are enrolled in 4-H programs from across the state. The 2014 contest consisted of a total of 8 judging classes. Species-specific ques-tions were asked on two of the judging classes for both juniors and seniors. Seniors gave reasons on four judging classes, while junior contestants gave reasons on two judging classes.
The top 3 senior teams have the option to judge as a team at a higher level contest, with the top team receiving the first choice. This year’s top senior team was from Rockingham County 4-H. Team members include: Caley El-lington, Hannah Craun, Makalyn Nesselrodt, and Bailey Carpen-ter. A congratulations goes out to our top 5 Senior teams:1st place – Rockingham County 4-H, 2nd place- Augusta 4-H Team A, 3rd place- Augusta 4-H Team C, 4th place- Shenandoah 4-H, and 5th place- Rockbridge County 4-H.
The top ten senior individuals are given the option to try out for
the Virginia State 4-H Livestock Judging Team, which will repre-sent Virginia at the National Lev-el contests. The top junior and senior individuals were awarded belt buckles sponsored by Bill & Dot McKinnon and Land of Promise Farms. The top honors were awarded to Caley Ellington from Rockingham County. The top ten individuals rounded out as follows: 2nd place- Autumn Garber (Augusta County), 3rd place-Bailey Hadacek (Augusta County), 4th place- Sarah Harris (Rockbridge County), 5th place- Cassidy Simmons (Augusta County), 6th place- Hailey Shoe-
maker (Shenandoah County), 7th place- Jessica Vass (Carroll County), 8th place-Samuel Ger-rard (Montgomery County), 9th place- Cole Leonard (Augusta County), and 10th place- Nicole Kibler (Shenandoah County).
Top honors were also awarded in the junior division, which consists of youth ages 9 – 13. The top five teams were (in descend-ing order) – Rockbridge County Team A, Montgomery County, Frederick County, Rockingham County Team A, and Orange County. The top ten junior indi-viduals were: 1st place- Camille Mitchell (Chesapeake), 2nd place-
Zane Redifer (Montgomery County), 3rd place- Zach McCall (Augusta County), 4th place- Jor-dan Strickler (Augusta County), 5th place- Caleb Boden (Frederick County), 6th place- Brent Hostet-ter (Rockbridge County), 7th place-Paul Craun (Rockingham County), 8th Place-Sidnie Saville (Montgomery County), 9th place-Jenna Hamilton (Rockbridge County), and 10th place-Ryan Borer (Rockbridge County).
All contest results and ad-ditional 4-H Livestock informa-tion can be found on the youth Livestock web site at www.ext.vt.edu/youthlivestock.
2014 State 4-H Livestock Judging Contest
First Place Senior Team from Rockingham County.(left to right) Caley Ellington, Makalyn Nesselrodt, Hannah Craun, Bailey Carpenter,
and Coach Dave Walker.
Second Place Senior Team from Augusta County.(left to right) Coach Coach Shirley Kaufman, Cole Leonard, Keri Cromer,
Jake McCall, Bailey Hadacek, and Coach Eric Stogdale.
First Place Junior Team Overall from Rockbridge County.(left to right) Tyller Roney, Jenna Hamilton, Ryan Borer, Brent Hostetter,
and Coach Patty Hamilton.
Second Place Junior Team from Montgomery County.(Left to Right) First row: Zane Redifer, Ethan Clouse, Luke Redifer,
and Sidnie Saville. Second Row: Coaches Scott Greiner and Tracy Redifer.
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 31
John Benner, Agriculture Extension Agent,
Amherst County, Virginia
As beef producers, grow-ing our own feed and feedstuffs for back-grounding or breeding cattle development purposes can be challenging. Uncooperative
weather and persistent pests, among other things, can reduce crop yields and quality. Today beef producers must constantly evaluate their feedstuff and forage systems and consider practical alternatives that fi t their produc-
tion goals. One possible option for various crop rotation systems is winter triticale harvested for forage.
Winter triticale (trit uh KAY lee), a hybrid of winter rye and winter wheat, is most widely used as a winter cover crop and for spring forage. This forage can be grazed
or harvested in May prior to seed head emergence. It can be planted in late August and through late November. Optimal planting dates can vary dependent on cli-mate, temperature, and cropping systems. According to Dr. Wade
Senior State 4-H Livestock Judging top 10 individuals. (left to right) Front Row: Nicole Kibler, Cole Leonard, Jessica Vass, Hailey Shoemaker, Cassidy Simmons. Second Row: Sarah Harris, Bailey Hadacek, Autumn Garber, and
Caley Ellington. Not Pictured: Samuel Gerrard.
Junior State 4-H Livestock Judging top 10 individuals. (left to right) Front row: Ryan Borer, Jenna Hamilton, Sidnie Saville, Paul Craun,
Brent Hostetter. Second Row: Caleb Boden, Jordan Strickler, Zach McCall, Zane Redifer and Camille Mitchell.
2014 State 4-H Livestock Judging Contest
Forage Cover Crops: TriticaleThomason Extension Grains Spe-cialist, Virginia Tech, optimum planting dates can range from late September through mid-October. “For triticale, the optimum plant-ing date is a window of about 1 week before to about 1 week after the fi rst average freeze date for the area.” Part of the reasoning for this, Dr. Thomason stated, is that earlier fall plantings can result in stronger root and tiller develop-ment prior to winter dormancy.
Triticale Testing A twenty fi ve acre plot of triti-
cale was planted in Amherst County late in the season on No-vember 22, 2013. Seeding for the plot was drilled into soybean and corn residue at 120 lbs/acre with a seeding depth of 1 ¼”. Crimson clover was planted in conjunction with the triticale at 20 lbs/acre to provide residual nitrogen for future crops. Seed costs for the test were high, at approximately $75/acre. One ton of poultry lit-ter was applied spring 2014 with 46 units of nitrogen applied per acre in April. Nutrient removal rates for triticale put estimates at 90 lbs N, 30 lbs P205, 155 lbs K20 ( Cornell Extension Service). A complete fertilizer using only 20 lbs N should be applied at seed-ing. A heavy nitrogen application is recommended in the spring fol-
lowing green up, with half of the total N application being a com-mercial source to increase nutrient availability during this growth period. 100 pounds of urea was used for the spring application in the Amherst test.
Harvesting triticale can be done by several methods. If the area can be fenced triticale can be rotationally grazed. As the acre-age in the Amherst test was not fenced, the crop was harvested as baleage and wrapped. To cap-ture forage at its highest energy levels, triticale must be harvested before the boot stage at fl ag stage (photo above) of development, before any part of the seed head has emerged. The correspond-ing yield range for this stage of harvest is between 2-4 tons (dry matter) dependent on inputs and environmental conditions. Pre-cutting forage samples dated May 13 put Crude Protein at 15.24% and Total Digestible Nutrients at 64.68% of dry matter, with dry matter being at 16%.
Baling was completed on May 19, 2014. Total baleage yield estimations are calculated at 4.59 tons/acre as fed. On a dry mat-ter basis, with moisture content at 35% dry matter yield was 1.6 tons/acre. Samples collected from wrapped and fermented
baleage did refl ect a progression in maturity with Crude Protein and Total Digestible Nutrients concentrations at 13% and 59.65%, respectively. With total variable costs at $123/ton, 35% dry matter, costs per lb of available nutrients should be about $0.27/lb TDN, or about $1.35/lb CP. Under these conditions, costs of triticale pro-duction are comparable to other small grains for feedstuff prices.
The long and seemingly endless winter we recently endured is something hard to predict, even during a late planting time of November. Given earlier plant-ing date, reduced winter kill and greater performance of crimson clover, the increased quality and yield would have decreased per ton, and per lb/TDN, CP. The triticale bales are slated to be fed to yearling and developing heifers and weaned stocker calves. BMR Sudex was planted in the fi eld shortly after triticale harvest.
As with many crop and live-stock systems, the total value of a cover crop depends greatly on the performance of the crop itself and the relative return, or in this case, forage produced with re-spect to yield and quality by the crop. This test triticale proved to be an effective cover crop despite diffi cult winter conditions.
PAGE 32–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Name ___________________________________________
Farm/Business Name ________________________________
_____Please renew my membership (Current members only)
-
Working for Virginia’s Cattle Industry Marketing Virginia feeder cattle through special graded sales, tel-o-auctions, andspecial board load salesSupporting Virginia’s cattle industry through representation at regional andnational industry eventsProviding educational opportunities to Virginia’s cattle producers on a local andstate-wide levelRepresenting the cattle industry in regulatory and policy issuesWorking with industry groups, media and government to insure Virginia’sCattlemen have a voice
Membership benefits include a one year subscription to The Virginia Cattleman
newspaper—providing valuable and timely information to VCA members!!
For more information call our office at (540) 992-1009 or visit http://vacattlemen.org/membership_join.php
INGREDIENTS
1. 1-1/2 to 2 pounds beef Country-Style Ribs, cut into 1-inch pieces
2. 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
3. 3/4 cup beef broth
4. 2 tablespoons plus 1/4 cup cayenne pepper sauce for Buffalo wings, divided
5. 2 teaspoons garlic powder
6. 2 teaspoons onion powder
7. 1/4 cup blue cheese crumbles
8. Carrot and celery sticks (optional)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR BUFFALO-STYLE BEEF BITES
1. Heat oil in large stockpot over medium heat until hot. Brown half of beef ribs; remove from stockpot. Repeat with remaining beef.
2. Return beef to stockpot. Add beef broth, 2 tablespoons buffalo sauce, garlic powder and onion powder; bring to a boil. Reduce heat; cover tightly and simmer 1-3/4 to 2
BUFFALO-STYLE BEEF BITES
Total Recipe Time:2 to 2-1/2 hours
Makes 8 to 12appetizer servings
hours or until beef is fork-tender.
3. Remove beef from cooking liquid to large bowl; discard cooking liquid or reserve for another use. Toss beef with remaining 1/4 cup buffalo sauce. Sprinkle with blue cheese crumbles. Serve with carrot and celery sticks, if desired.
NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION FOR BUFFALO-STYLE BEEF BITES
Nutrition information per serving: 133 calories; 8 g fat (3 g saturated fat; 1 g monounsaturated fat); 46 mg cholesterol; 453 mg sodium; 1 g carbohydrate; 0.3 g fi ber; 15 g protein; 2.0 mg niacin; 0.1 mg vitamin B6; 1.6 mcg vitamin B12; 1.5 mg iron; 15.0 mcg selenium; 4.7 mg zinc; 43.3 mg choline.
This recipe is an excellent source of protein, vitamin B12, selenium and zinc; and a good source of niacin.
Beef ribs can be served on 6-inch wooden skewers or with wooden toothpicks.
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 33
2014 Dublin Feeder Cattle
Summer Sale Schedule
August 13, 2014All Breeds of Steer and Heifer Sales
All Sales held at Pulaski LivestockMarket Dublin, VA
540-674-5311Sale time 7:30 p.m.
For Info Contact: Joe Meek540-674-6080 H, 540-674-5311 O
Dublin Feeder Cattle Assoc.P.O. Box 370Dublin, VA 24084
4176 Silling Rd., Dayton,VA7145 Polly Pitcher Hwy, Greencastle, PA
540-879-BULL (2855)Direct Agents for
Slaughter & Feeder Cattle Sales
Mike Allen • 540-476-4680 - Load LotsJames Housden • 540-476-0269 • Feeder/FatsBarry Wilkins, Jr. • 540-607-6032 • Feeder/Fats
JBS FED Cattle Buying Station
NEED GRAZING CATTLE?We purchase & sell “Farm Fresh”
calves to meet your needs.
Our business has been built on providing rural America withinnovative financial products delivered by knowledgeable and
experienced agricultural specialists.
Member FDIC
Our Agricultural Lenders are available to serve you.
Relationships Built To Last
Ranked Among the Top Agricultural Lenders in the Country.*
First Bank& Trust CompanyAgricultural Lending Division
*February 2013 American Banker. Based on year-end 2012 FDIC reports.
David CuddyCommercial Ag. Loan Offi cer
Farm CreditAbingdon, VA
We all know the story of Mr. Newton’s gravitational revela-tion while sitting under the apple tree. We feel the effects of this law of nature every minute of every day. It’s so obvious that we don’t have to think about it. Anything that moves away from the ground, unless we build some sort of structure to hold it in place, will eventually land back on terra fi rma again, and usually with a “thud”.
For several months, now, I’ve listened to and participated in many discussions about the current state of cattle prices, and when we’ll reach a point at which they begin to once again take heed to Mr. Newton’s law of universal gravitation, returning from whence they came. It seems as though every time we think we’ve seen the top of the cattle market, we’re proven wrong, as prices continue to set new records almost every week. Now, I’m certainly not a follower of Henny Penny (another great mind in the science of gravitational theory), but I do think that we need to keep some things in mind as we enjoy the upward tide in cattle prices. And to remember, that they won’t go up forever.
To recap what you probably already know, as I am writing, the board for August feeder cattle is sitting at just under $215/cwt. Compared to the US average feeder cattle price from 2009, that’s an increase of $118.91/cwt, or a whopping 124%, over a period of only 5 years. By com-parison, from the lows of 1986, when feeders averaged $58.64/cwt, it took until 2004 (almost 20 years) for them to break the $100 barrier, settling at $104.30, an increase of 78%. The take home message there, in case you missed it, is that prices have gone up re-ally fast lately.
There are many factors that have caused the record rise in cattle prices, most of which you’re also well aware of. These include our very small beef cattle herd, the smallest it’s been since the early 1950’s. Secondly, U.S. con-sumer demand is very strong and
What Goes Up Must Go…growing, increasing by around 10% just this year, and that’s with beef retail prices at record highs! Thirdly, tremendous increases in demand overseas has turned the U.S. into a net exporter of beef for the fi rst time ever, adding in the neighborhood of $400/head to every animal slaughtered for beef right now. Most prognosticators feel pretty confi dent that we’ve finally entered an expansion
phase in the cattle cycle, which in the short run, will only drive prices higher, as cows and heifers are taken out of the feeding and slaughter supply and kept on the farm. The stage appears set for 2015 to be an even better year than this one has been, however, without some planning on our part, the same ride that has been so good lately, could also bite us in the pants if we’re not prepared
to manage through what could be somewhat of a roller coaster ride in the fairly near future.
Am I saying the bottom is go-
ing to fall out? I do not call the market, but even if the market remains strong I believe it’s going
Continued on Page 35
PAGE 34–AUGUST 2014–THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN
Economically priced and more feed value for your money.
We Feed What We Sell
PERFORMANCE FEEDSYOUR PROFITABLE FEED SOLUTION
Non bagged bulk feed available for delivery• MUST order a min. of 3 tons • Call for pricing and scheduling
50 Years of Profi table Stocker Cattle OperationVisit www.performancefeedco.com
Family owned and operatedMark Pendleton Jason Pendleton
Hominy, Cottonseed Hulls, DDG’s and other feed ingredients
Find the Dealer nearest you:S.G. Spangler Farm Supply
P.O. Box 310Scottsville, VA 24590
434-286-3200
A.W. Tomlin826 Possum Island Rd.
Madison Heights, VA 24572434-213-5572
West End Feeds2065 W. Lee Hwy
Wytheville, VA 24382276-620-1821
Donald Price1058 Turkey Island Rd.
Crew, VA 23930434-294-1772
HUCKLEBERRY BEEF
Our young stock program makesthe difference.
Out of AI sires & damsAll home bred & raised
For further information call: Curtis Sowers @ 540-230-6957 Mark Sowers @ 540-230-0177
1145 WILLS RIDGE RD, FLOYD, VA 24091
HuckleberryCattle.comQuality Breeding Stock you can count on.
Production Cow Sale1st Saturday each December
Commercial bull salesEach spring
ATTENTION CATTLE PRODUCERS
The Virginia Cattlemen’s Association is the Commonwealth’s agricultural grassroots producer group devoted to the cattle business. Our strength is in our membership and the knowledge and assets the cattle producers bring to the table. A very important part of our business is the relationships we have with land owners whom we rent and lease from for our operations. Those folks, despite not owning cattle, play a critical role in the sustainability of the Virginia beef business. At VCA we want to get them involved in understanding our business and make them members too.
With their permission, please send VCA the name, address, telephone number and email of the people you rent land from that could be interested in getting involved as VCA members. We will send them a free 6 month trial subscription to The Virginia CattlemanThe Virginia Cattleman newspaper to get them started.
Our strength is in our knowledge and our membership. Building relationships has always been an important part of the cattle business and that is what we continue to strive to do.
Marketing, Representation & Education
Coleman Farm Supply152 Main Street
Appomattox, VA 24522434-352-7298
Dodd’s Farm Supply1103 Lynchburg Avenue
Brookneal, VA 24528434-665-7591
Frank Walton222 Smokey Haven Rd.
Amherst, VA 24521434-944-1830
Crop Production ServicesP.O. Box 64
501 West DanvilleSouth Hill, VA 23970
434-447-7603
Moneta Farm & Home CenterStuart Woodford
11739 Moneta Rd.Moneta, VA 24121
540-297-5558
Tanyard Branch FeedStephen Hite732 Hite Drive
Nelson, VA 24580
R.G. Cattle, Co.Floyd, VA 24091540-651-8626
Amelia EquipmentService, L.P.
18085 Genito Rd.Amelia, VA 23002
804-561-5885
tools and Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner’s website. 89% of attend-ees said that they plan to utilize these pads in store to provide ad-ditional information and cooking tips to customers. Meat Cutting Session – VT Meat Center:
Kristen & Jason led a multi-topic meat cutting and carcass breakdown session at the VT Meat Center. Jason provided an overview of the VT Meat Center and how cattle are harvested in comparison with larger plants. He showed a hanging carcass and the locations of the primal/subprimals, as well as USDA grading cards. Jason then led the group through a demonstration on cutting the shoulder clod to get the fl at iron. He explained how the fl at iron is sometimes cut incorrectly with connective
tissue still intact, and how that translates to a bad eating experi-ence for customers.
Kristen explained the origin of popular cuts through a vacuum sealed & reassembled “carcass puzzle”. She discussed how the location of each cut relates to their cooking and eating proper-ties. While the attendees have a vast knowledge of beef products, many have never cut meat from the entire carcass. Attendees benefi tted from the opportunity to ask questions and learn exactly how the cuts they sell come to be packaged.
“[I’m] very thankful beef comes the way it does [to Kroger]” one attendee said, referring to the boxes of subprimals Kroger re-ceives vs. cutting down an entire carcass. The majority of attendees said that the meat cutting session
increased their confi dence in sell-ing beef.
Resu lts:Attendees were given pre- and
post- assessments to determine the quality and usefulness of the camp (attached). After com-piling the answers from both assessments, this camp shines as a strong example of training opportunities for beef councils to interact with infl uencers in retail. There are several topics that lend themselves well to a follow-up training or activity, including information about inspections, processing cattle, and additional production information. Virginia Beef Industry Council feels con-fident that the attendees will utilize their knowledge and skills from the tour to further beef sales in the state of Virginia and sur-rounding Mid-Atlantic division.
Continued from Page 18
Kroger Beef Camp
THE VIRGINIA CATTLEMAN–AUGUST 2014–PAGE 35
to get volatile. High prices, espe-cially when they’ve run as quickly as they have recently, are a sure recipe for volatility. It’s a proven fact that price variability increases as markets rise. And since we’re in record territory for prices, that probably means we’re in the same record territory for volatility. Plus we always need to be prepared for what economists call Black Swans-unforeseen events that may negatively impact the cattle market such as war, disease out-break, currency valuation, and/or negative publicity on anything related to the beef industry or food production that may impact consumer demand.
For stocker operators, much like feedlot operations, the big-gest challenge over the next 12 months, according to presenters at the Cattle Fax Risk Manage-ment Seminar, held in Denver last month, is going to be avail-ability of capital. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or Isaac Newton) to fi gure out that it’s costing a lot more to buy cattle right now than it did just a few months ago. So, what you might have been able to do with $250,000 before, might now cost you $500,000 or more. That means that you will need a lot more money to operate at the same level you’ve been, and unless you’ve got deep pockets, you’re probably going to need to talk to your lender about increas-ing your line of credit, and for most of us, that should probably say: increase your line of credit again. And it might not be quite as easy next time, in fact, I’m go-ing to make the argument that it shouldn’t be as easy. And before you blow a gasket, just hear me out.
Lenders have watched prices continue to march up, just like the rest of the world. And it’s been as good for them as it has for producers; more loan volume equals more income, which is good for everyone. But with that, comes some challenges. First off, a lender has to make sure that they have adequate collateral to offset the risk of making the loan. Now we all understand how collateral works, but it becomes diffi cult to value the collateral, if most of it is walking around on 4 hooves. Here’s why: during an average year, there’s about a
21% difference in the seasonal high vs. the seasonal low price for feeder cattle. During periods of exceptionally high prices, the volatility in the markets can in-crease substantially. So, if we use the August board as a starting place, assuming that $214.55 were the high for a particular year, then we can expect, at some point, that prices will drop to around $169.49. So as a lender, what value do I put on the cattle I’m holding as collateral? Probably not $169, but probably not $214 either.
As a lender, the best way for me to offset this risk is to establish a borrowing base. The simple defi nition of borrowing base is the amount of equity you have in your cattle, and lenders may require a certain percentage of borrowing base for your operation. For ex-ample, if you are required to have a 20% borrowing base in your cattle and in the current market, the cattle are worth $100,000, then the lender will loan up to $80,000 against those cattle, requiring you to have $20,000 in equity (your own money) invested in them. Now, if that 20% number sounds familiar, it should. Recall that in average years, the range from high to low in the feeder market is a little over 20%. Whether your lender requires it or not, I think it’s a good idea to make it a goal to have at least 20% equity in your cattle. This does a couple of things. First, if the market does drop 20%, and you are forced to sell your cattle in that market, you can at least revolve your operating note, which will help make sure you’ve got capital available for the next turn. Secondly, liquidity is very important in providing weathering ability for any opera-tion. The more liquid you are, that is to say, the more cash you have or the more assets that can be quickly converted to cash, compared to your short term debt obligations (operating loans, accounts with suppliers and current year term debt payments), the better posi-tioned you are to weather adver-sity, be it from a down market, a crop failure or some other calam-ity. If you can weather a 15 to 20% drop in cattle prices and not be in the hole on your line of credit, you’ll probably have a lot more fl exibility, both with your lender and in the overall management of your operation. Undercapitalized
Continued from Page 33
What Goes Up operations may have a much more difficult time accessing capital going forward, putting them at much greater risk, so make a point to build yourself a cushion while you have the opportunity.
Another discussion I’ve made a point to have with many of my clients lately has been about how they manage risk in their opera-tion. Often, I see eyes glaze over and a strange look come over their faces, which is often followed by something to the effect of “well, uh…”. Honestly, for most of us, when we start thinking about “risk management”, it brings to mind confusing charts and a mind-blowing deluge of numbers and information that might as well be written in Greek. But, there are a lot of ways to manage risk, many of which just take a little common sense.
For the remainder of the current discussion, I’d like to briefl y touch on some key risk management concepts that I think could be very benefi cial for many cattle produc-ers, especially stocker operators. An in depth discussion of any one of these would require much more space than is available for the current article, but will hopefully provide some food for thought.
The end goal of your risk man-agement strategy should be to manage margin risk. Margin risk is any factor that can have a nega-tive infl uence on your profi t mar-gin. Obviously, there are many margin risk factors that we cannot control, like weather. Other fac-tors, though, can be managed, and this is where we get the term Risk Management. Risk management is not just about selling a futures contract or buying a put, rather it is a well thought out plan, to help you maximize your profi tability both in good times and in bad.
Let’s start with the common sense stuff. The most basic of which can be summed up in a simple statement. “Money is either made or lost on stocker cattle when you write the check.” If you pay more when you buy them than you can get for them when you sell them, then you’ve already started toward the cliff. There’s obviously more to it than that, but with a little homework, you should have at least a rough idea what those cattle are going to be worth at market time. At the very least, you should be able to fi gure out how much you’d need to get for them, just to break even, and then decide how realistic it would
be for you to get there.Secondly, you need to have
some idea of what it’s going to cost you to grow the calf to market weight. Seems pretty simple on the surface, but it’s another one of those areas, where I see people’s eyes glaze over. If you don’t know whether you made money or not, and you don’t know how much it cost you to operate last year until you look at your tax return, then there’s a problem. Cost of gain is different for everyone and depends on cost of medication or vaccination, cost of grass (could be rent, loan payments or just simply what the same real estate would be worth if you used it for something else), cost of grain/supplements, interest expense on operating notes, death loss, etc… The list could go on, but these are generally the biggies. If you break this cost down to a per-head basis, you can then fi gure out how much you need to add to the break-even based on purchase price, in order to cover your expenses.
That’s the easy part. From here on out, things can become a little trickier. But let’s start simple. Once you know what the cattle will cost, you basically have two ways to make more money on them. You can reduce your input costs (cost of gain), or you can increase the price you receive for them when you sell them. It’s important to make sure you operate as effi ciently as possible, both in good times and bad, so the concept of controlling costs probably makes sense to most of us, and is pretty straight forward for the most part.
I want to focus, though, on the end price, and what we can do to manage the risk we are exposed to in the sale market for our cattle. There are plenty of ways that we can increase the price we receive vs. the average market, and again, that’s a discussion for another day. But how can we protect ourselves against changes in the market itself? And before you blow this off, let’s stop and think for a sec-ond. Right now, a good 8wt feeder steer could be worth $1,800. If you purchase a 5 wt. calf, at $255/cwt., then you’ve got about $1400 invested up front. Assuming you spend another $40/hd on health and interest expense, you’re up to $1440, then add in cost of grass and a 3% death loss and you’re looking at another $50/hd., which brings total cost of cattle to more like $1490 - $1500/hd. Let’s go a
step further… Let’s say the market drops 15% before you sell your cattle, and you’ve left yourself completely open to that drop. That $1800 steer is suddenly worth around $1530. Your margin for error just got a whole lot tighter. One wrong move and you’ve gone from a profi table turn to a money-losing proposition in a hurry.
And there’s the rub. One of the greatest risks facing stocker opera-tors right now is down-side price risk at sale time. Calf prices are high, and based on all indicators right now, will likely stay that way for a while. We have a huge glut of excess feeding capacity and a lot of cheap corn, so there’s incentive for feeders to place lighter cattle, meaning that calf prices might have a little more leg under them right now than feeders. We’re also seeing herd expansion, meaning fewer heifers in the mix, so the competition for the cattle you’ll want to turn out will likely only get more intense. You can only limit overhead and cost of cattle so much, so it’s becoming increas-ingly important to be able to man-age your risk when cattle are sold. There are many ways to manage price risk, and it’s a little different for each producer. In a later article, we’ll dig a little deeper into specif-ics on ways that you can protect against market risk.
As a lender, I know fi rst-hand that producers, and especially stocker operators are making larger investments in the pur-chase of cattle than they ever have in history. And it makes me very nervous when I talk with a producer who’s not given much if any thought to how they plan to manage the risk of a drop in the markets. Next time, we’ll walk through the steps in putting together a solid plan to help man-age your risk and smooth out the highs and lows in the markets. But the fi rst step in that process is to have a fi rm grasp on your opera-tion, your cost of production and your fi nancial position. Once you understand that, you’ll be ready to take the next steps and lay out a roadmap toward better profi tabil-ity or at least a little better sleep at night. So until we meet again, do a little homework and hold on tight and enjoy the ride.
David is a loan officer in the Commercial Ag Business Line, working out of the Abingdon, VA Farm Credit Offi ce. He can be reached at (276) 628-5191 or [email protected].
