BEEF CATTLE COMMENTS VOLUME 22 NUMBER

BEEF CATTLE COMMENTS VOLUME 22 NUMBER 5, December 2013 Prepared by: Mike Baker, Beef Cattle Extension Specialist, Cornell University Phone: 607-255-5923 Fax: 607-255-9829 E-mail: mjb28@cornell.edu Web page: www.ansci.cornell.edu/beef/ 1. HOLD THE DATE TEMPLE GRANDIN AT WINTER MANAGEMENT MEETING 2 2. FACTORS AFFECTING THE PRICE OF FEEDER CATTLE IN NEW YORK... 3 3. BQA UPDATE... 3 a) Needle Selection... 4 b) Needle stick injuries on farms... 5 4. EFFECT OF DIET ON PERFORMANCE OF CATTLE FOR GRASS FINISHING.6 5. HAY FEEDER DESIGN AFFECTS HAY WASTE... 8 6. FEEDER S CORNER... 9 a) Effect of Simmental, Angus and crosses in feedlot and carcass characteristics.... 9 b) Impact of antibiotics on incidence of bovine respiratory disease.... 9 7. TO DO DECEMBER/JANUARY... 11 1

1. HOLD THE DATE TEMPLE GRANDIN AT WINTER MANAGEMENT MEETING Friday, January 17, 2014 9:00 AM Welcome, Andy Weaber, NYBPA President 9:15 AM Life Lessons from the Farm- Jake Ledoux, NYS FFA Vice President & NYJBP 9:30 AM Understanding how Social Media works in the Cattle Industry- Steve Ammerman, NY Farm Bureau 10:15 AM NCBA Sustainable Project- Daren Williams 11:00 AM Basic Principles of Animal Behavior and How it Affects Handling- Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University 12:00-1:15 PM Lunch and Trade Show 1:20 PM Current Animal Welfare Issues- Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University 2:15 PM Telling Our Story on the National Level- Daren Williams, Executive Director, NCBA, Communications 3:15 PM Partners in Action -State Social Media- Jean O Toole & Cindy Phillips, NYBIC 4:15 PM Taking a Look at Crop Insurance Options for Beef Producers- Sarah Johnston, Risk Management 4:30 PM Adjourn and Trade Show Closes 5:00 PM NYBPA Annual Meeting January 18, 2014 8:00 AM Registration and Trade Show Opens 9:00 AM - Noon MBA Graduation- Daren Williams 9:00 AM Welcome, Randy Librock, NYBPA Vice Pres. 9:15 AM Using Pasture/Hay Crop Insurance for Drought- Related Hay & Pasture Losses-A multiyear Perspective- Robert Zufall- Farmer 10:00 AM Expect More From Your Pasture & Stored Forage - Rod Porter, Kings AgriSeeds 11:00 AM Welfare Considerations in Dehorning & Castration of cattle. US recommendations, European experience- Dr. Mary Smith, DVM, & Matthias Josef Wieland, DVM, Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine 12:00-1:30 PM Lunch, Trade Show, and *** NYJBPA Semen Auction*** 1:30 PM Designing the Ultimate Panel System for Handling Cattle- 2

2:00 PM NY Junior BPA Annual Meeting Courtney Dyer, Priefert, Public Relations 2:30 PM Genetically Engineered Crops: What Are They? Who s Growing Them? Who s Eating Them? Who Cares?- Dr. Margaret Smith, Professor in Plant & Genetics, Cornell University 3:30 PM Optimizing Your Herd s Performance via Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition - Dusty Abney & Brad Carter, Cargill 3:30 PM NY Hereford Annual Meeting 4:30 PM Adjourn and Trade Show closes 5:30-6:30 PM Reception (Cash Bar) 6:30 PM Annual Dinner and Awards Banquet NYBPA Scholarship Benefit Auction The dates for the 2014 Beef Cattle Winter Management Meeting are January 17-18 and will be held at the Holiday Inn, 441 Electronics Pkwy. Liverpool, NY. The key note speaker on Friday, January 17 will be Dr. Temple Grandin, who will make two presentations: Cattle Handling Facilities and Animal Welfare. Dr. Grandin is a nationally known expert on animal behavior and needs little introduction to beef producers. We are extremely excited and honored to have her on the program. Also on Friday Daren Williams, director of the Masters of Beef Advocacy program will lead a discussion on how to Tell your beef story ; this is a very timely topic given the consumers confusion about modern beef production practices. Steve Ammerman, NY Farm Bureau will discuss the impact of social media. Utilizing risk management tools will be discussed along with a farmer s story on how it has worked on his farm. Finally, staff from the NY Beef Industry Council will provide a workshop on using face book, twitter and other communication tools. Saturday s program continues the theme of telling your story with topics on factors that affect animal well-being. For more information, contact Brenda Bippert, NYBPA Executive Secretary, (716) 902-4305, nybeefproducers@aol.com or visit the website http://www.nybpa.org/. 2. FACTORS AFFECTING THE PRICE OF FEEDER CATTLE IN NEW YORK This is a three year project where a technician has been trained to collect data on feeder cattle at special feeder calf sales held at Finger Lakes Livestock Exchange. Through spring of 2013 data has been collected on nearly 10,000 head and 3900 lots. Even though cattle are grouped by sex, weight and breed prior to entering the sale ring, 49% are still sold as single head lots. This presents a challenge in efficiently marketing cattle in load lots. Compared to Hereford cattle, black feeder cattle brought a premium of $12/cwt. And bulls were discounted $8/cwt. It was disappointing that preconditioned feeder cattle only brought a $2.80/cwt. Premium. Compared to prices reported on 550 lb. by CattleFax, NY steers, weighing 500-600 lbs. were priced $29/cwt. less. Obviously there is still work to do in increasing the price of NY feeder cattle. The complete article can be found at http://ansci.cornell.edu/wp/beefcattle/. 3. BQA UPDATE 3

a) Needle Selection Reducing carcass damage and minimizing animal discomfort and stress are important principals of Beef Quality Assurance. Administering health products requires the proper selection of needle size and length. Primary considerations in needle selection include route of administration, size of the animal, and location site. Secondary consideration in needle selection includes viscosity of the fluid (how thick and tenacious the fluid is) and volume/amount of fluid injected. NEEDLE SIZE SELECTION Route of administration SQ (1/2-3/4 inch needle) IV (1 ½ inch needle) IM (1 inch needle) Cattle Weight, lb. Cattle Weight, lb. Cattle Weight, lb. Injectable viscosity <300 300-700 >700 <300 300-700 >700 <300 300-700 >700 Thin (e.g. Saline) 18 18-16 16 18-16 16 16-14 20-18 18-16 18-16 Thick (e.g. Oxytetracylcine) 18-16 18-16 16 16 16-14 16-14 18 16 16 SELECT THE NEEDLE TO FIT THE CATTLE SIZE (THE SMALLEST PRACTICAL SIZE WITHOUT BENDING) When to Change Needles Change needles every 10 to 15 head to prevent using a dull needle and developing a burr on the end of the end of the needle. Change needles immediately if the needle bends. Do not straighten it and use it again. Obtain a new needle if the needle in use becomes contaminated with feces or an irritating chemical. Use only a sterile needle to pull vaccine or medicine from a bottle. This keeps the contents in the bottle sterile. Store unused needles in a protected area and dispose of used needles following these suggested guidelines. Suggested disposal of used needles and syringes: 1. Place in a container with a secure lid; 2. Place the container in a rigid container lined with plastic; 3. Dispose of as solid waste. Your veterinarian must determine how animals will be handled should a needle break in the neck muscle. A broken needle is an emergency and time will be of the essence. Broken needles migrate in tissue and if not immediately handled will be impossible to find, requiring the animal to be destroyed. Under no circumstances should animals with broken needles be sold or sent to a packer. Cleaning Syringes and Needles The use of disposable equipment is recommended and preferred. However, if used, reusable syringes, needles and other injection equipment should be heat sterilized by boiling. Any disinfectants, including alcohol, if used, must be thoroughly rinsed from equipment, for they will neutralize vaccine and chemically react with some antibiotics. If disinfectant is used, syringes should be thoroughly rinsed with sterile water before use. Sterile water can be purchased. Distilled water is not sterile water. Consult your veterinarian before sterilizing equipment to make sure you are using proper techniques. Improper sterilization can reduce the effectiveness of future injections and result in infection 4

at the injection site. Don't contaminate modified live virus products with disinfectants as efficacy will be decreased or even eliminated. b) Needle stick injuries on farms Handling and Disposal Protocol It is important to develop a protocol for using syringes and needles that allows for disposal of needles into puncture-proof containers while working with cattle. Do not use automatically powered syringes with drugs that are potentially dangerous to people. Never put uncapped needles in your pockets. Avoid climbing gates, pens and fences with uncapped syringes or needles. Never inject toward any part of your body or a co-worker. To recap needles: place cap on flat surface, slide needle into cap, pick up and snap cap firmly in place with your fingers. Needles can be pushed into the rubber tops of used vac- cine or medication bottles if no other safe disposal has been planned. Do not throw unprotected needles into trash containers through which needles can penetrate, putting trash handlers at risk. Cattle Vaccines: Human Health Concerns There are no live cattle vaccines, which have label warnings for the ability to induce human infection that can be purchased and used by farmers and farm workers. Handling modified live vaccines of any kind may be a health risk to individuals with weakened immune systems. Injury Risks and Prevention Problems caused by needle stick injuries are usually due to the effect of the drug compound accidentally injected, to the introduction of microorganisms (germs) from non-sterile equipment or from the skin or clothing of the individual affected. Rarely, an animal illness could be transmitted to a person via this route. Reuse of syringes/ needles without sterilization is commonplace on many farms. While even a sterile needle injected into skin, especially through typical farm work clothing, is likely to introduce microorganisms, the likelihood increases if the needle is unsterile. Consider using only single-use needles for all injections to minimize the risk of infection. Workers handling drugs, biological products, needles, and syringes need to work with clean hands. Uncapped needles present a high risk for injury. Recapping needles is also a high risk procedure. Put syringes with needles directly into puncture-proof disposal containers (without recapping). Do not pre-load syringes with medications dangerous to people. Providing adequate restraint facilities for animals is key to minimizing both the risk and occurrence of needle stick injuries. 5

Treatment for a Needle Stick Injury All needle stick injuries must be considered serious. Instruct employees to report all of these injuries to their supervisor. A physician should be consulted, who may want to review the drug or biological material being used with the farm veterinarian. A needle stick injury, unless it is a superficial scratch, is a puncture wound. It is difficult to assure that it is clean, therefore, consult a healthcare professional about appropriate first aid. Be aware of early signs of infection: pain that develops after the initial pain of the needle stick subsides, swelling, redness spreading around the injection mark, or fever. Any sign of infection requires prompt medical treatment. In addition, even when there is no obvious infection, a needle stick injury could be a risk for tetanus. Tetanus vaccinations for employees should be kept current. Developed by Cornell University Agricultural Health & Safety Program with assistance from Belinda Thompson, DVM, Dept. of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University. For more information contact: Agricultural Health & Safety Program, 777 Warren Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850 Toll Free: 877-257-9777 Fax: 607-257-5041 Website: www.vet.cornell.edu/pub/cu/agri/ 4. EFFECT OF DIET ON PERFORMANCE OF CATTLE FOR GRASS FINISHING. An experiment examining the effect of winter diet on subsequent performance and carcass quality of cattle to be finished on grass was initiated in February, 2004. In keeping with the style of marketing employed by small beef farms in the northeast, this project involves cooperation among several groups. The cattle are provided by a beef producer in Vermont. Funding for a portion of the expenses along with providing ultrasound services is the New England Livestock Alliance. Finally the cattle were fed and managed at the Beef Unit of the Cornell University s Teaching and Research Center. During the first phase of the experiment calves were assigned to one of four treatments: 1) hay crop silage + corn grain, 2) hay crop silage + citrus pulp, 3) haycrop silage, only and 4) medium quality dry hay. The first phase was completed April 30. The results of the 87 day feeding period are shown in Table 1. 6

Table 1. Performance of Heifers and Steers Fed Forage Diets (87 Days) Treatment 1 Begin wt, lb Out wt, lb ADG, lb. DMI, lb. FE 2 Heifers (n=24) HCS + corn 535 762 a 2.60 a 17.40 a 6.83 a HCS + citrus 506 681 a,b 2.01 b 14.58 b 7.35 a HCS 489 603 b 1.31 c 12.28 c 9.79 b Dry hay 534 656 b 1.40 c 15.93 a 11.85 c Steers (n=12) HCS + corn 505 743 2.73 a 17.5 6.47 a HCS + citrus 580 756 2.01 b 15.2 7.56 a HCS 528 658 1.50 c 14.3 9.60 b Dry hay 584 689 1.21 c 15.9 13.4 c 1 Treatments: HCS = haycrop silage; citrus = citrus pulp 2 Feed efficiency a,b,c, Means in column with different superscripts differ (P<0.05) Supplementation, whether with corn or citrus pulp increased daily gain compared to the nonsupplemented treatments. Whether on the all haycrop silage or dry hay diet, there was no difference in average daily gain (ADG) of the two all forage diets. The cattle supplemented either with cracked corn or citrus pulp were the most efficient. Generally, cattle that gain faster are more efficient. Table 2 gives the pasture performance of the cattle through August 12 as affected by winter feeding regimen. As expected cattle that had not been supplemented with corn grain during the winter had the highest ADG on pasture. This is due primarily to the compensatory gain of the cattle on the lower energy diets. When ADG is evaluated over both seasons, even though the non-corn supplemented cattle gained faster during the 104 day grazing season, the higher energy ration during the winter feeding period supported a higher cumulative ADG. Table 2. Performance of Heifers and Steers on Pasture (104 days) as Affected by Winter Feeding Treatment Treatment 1 Initial wt, lb. 104 day wt, lb. 104 day ADG, lb. Cum ADG 2, lb. Heifers (n=24) HCS + corn 762 863 a 0.97 a 1.70 a HCS + citrus 681 815 1.29 b 1.63 a HCS 603 752 b 1.43 b 1.37 b Dry hay 656 790 1.29 b 1.35 b Steers (n=12) HCS + corn 743 842 0.96 a 1.76 a HCS + citrus 756 878 1.18 1.53 HCS 658 828 1.54 b 1.53 Dry hay 689 824 1.30 1.27 b 1 Treatments: Diet during the winter feeding period. HCS = haycrop silage; citrus = citrus pulp 2 Cumulative ADG from beginning of winter feeding period (191 days) a,b Means in column with different superscripts differ (P<0.05) On August 12, the cattle which had received corn during the winter feeding period were pulled from pasture and placed on a high energy finishing ration. As evidenced by the low ADG (<1.0 lb), pasture was not meeting the nutrient requirements necessary to support a higher rate of gain. Table 3 shows the performance of the cattle that remained on pasture. These cattle remained on pasture until October 13. Winter diet had no effect on subsequent performance of heifers or steers while on pasture. The cumulative ADG over the 87 day winter feeding season and 166 day pasture season was higher in 7

heifers that were supplemented with citrus pulp. Table 3. Performance of Heifers and Steers on Pasture (166 days) as Affected by Winter Feeding Treatment Treatment 1 Initial wt, lb. 166 day 166 day Cum. ADG 2, wt, lb. ADG, lb. lb. Heifers (n=18) HCS + citrus 681 883 1.22 1.50 a HCS 603 802 1.20 1.24 b Dry hay 656 851 1.18 1.25 b Steers (n=9) HCS + citrus 756 946 1.15 1.45 HCS 658 889 1.39 1.42 Dry hay 689 924 1.41 1.34 1 Treatments: HCS = haycrop silage; citrus = citrus pulp 2 Cumulative ADG from beginning of winter feeding period (253 days) a,b Means in column with different superscripts differ (P<0.05) For more information, contact Mike Baker, mjb28@cornell.edu, 607-255-5923 5. HAY FEEDER DESIGN AFFECTS HAY WASTE At a meeting last night of the Tri-County Grazers in Bath, the question came up on hay waste. While this data has been published numerous times, I thought it useful to publish it again. The table below contains three studies looking mainly at feeder design, but one early study compares using a feeder to no feeder. Effect of feeder design on hay waste Feeder Study Design/ hay waste, % Buskirk, Univ. of Cone Ring Trailer Cradle Michigan, 2003 3.5 a 6.1 a 11.4 b 14.6 b Lalman, Oklahoma State Univ., 2011 Cone Ring, sheeted Ring, no sheeted Polypipe bottom bottom 5.3 a 13.0 b 20.5 c 21.0 c Bell and Maertz, Univ. Hay feeder No feeder of Missouri, 1973 9 45 Values in same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05) Hay waste can be controlled with the type of feeder. If hay is $100/ton and 20% is wasted that s $20/ton. If we assume it takes 2-3 ton of hay to feed a cow through the winter, it doesn t take too many cows to justify the purchase of a hay saving feeder. Now, not all of this hay is wasted. If the hay feeders are moved throughout the field so that nutrients do not concentrate, then N, P, K and organic matter from the wasted hay can be used by next year s forage crop. In fact it is estimated that each ton of 8

hay has $20-$25 of fertilizer value. However when hay is expensive or in short supply, conserving this resource for cows and not fertilizer may be the best option. 6. FEEDER S CORNER a) Effect of Simmental, Angus and crosses in feedlot and carcass characteristics. This study was conducted to evaluate direct breed effects, maternal breed effects and individual heterosis on subsequent steer performance, carcass, and feed efficiency traits. This was a consecutive 2-yr trial using 158 steers. The same dam breeds, Angus (AN) and purebred Simmental (SM), were used both years. Also, the same AN and SM sires (n = 11) were used both years. Steers were AN, SM, or AN SM breed composition. At weaning calves were placed on to a common ration. Compared to Angus, the direct effect due to Simmental was a 57 lb. heavier weight at weaning and a 101 lb. heavier finish weight. In the cross bred calves, those out of Simmental cows were 53 lbs. heavier at weaning and 96 lbs. heavier at finish than calve out of Angus dams. Heavier milking Simmental cows were most likely the cause of increased weaning weight of purebred and crossbred calves and a larger mature size, which carried through to the finish weight. Individual heterosis resulted in increased weaning weight, though the increase was smaller than the direct breed effect (9 lb. vs 57 lb.). Direct breed effects resulted in Simmental steers tending to gain more and be more efficient in the feedlot compared to Angus steers. There was no maternal effect on feedlot performance. Individual heterosis did decrease the amount of feed required for a pound of gain by 3.4%, along with some other measures of efficiency. Angus direct breed effect increased backfat and improved marbling score from low Choice to high Choice. Simmental increased hot carcass weight 64 lb. (902 lb. vs. 838 lb.) and ribeye area 1.2 square inches (14.5 in 2 vs. 13.3 in 2 ). Simmental also had the most desirable yield grade at 2.74. Maternal breed effect increased HCW 55 lb. as a result of the SM dam. Individual heterosis improved marbling score. The authors concluded that direct breed effects affected performance, feed efficiency measures, and carcass traits as expected. However the positive effect of individual heterosis on feed efficiency has not been documented before and needs further evaluation. (Reference: Retallick,. et al., 2013. J. Anim. Sci.91:5161 5166) b) Impact of antibiotics on incidence of bovine respiratory disease. Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the major health issue faced by cattle feeders. Metaphylaxis is the treatment of all cattle with an antibiotic on arrival. The purpose is to provide a level of protection to cattle when they are most susceptible to BRD. Tulathromycin (trade name Draxxin ) is an antibiotic that develops high and persistent levels of drug in the lungs. Florfenicol (trade name NuFlor ), tilmicosin (trade name Micotil ) and enrofloxacin (trade name Baytril ) are the most commonly used drugs used to treat BRD. The authors of this study aimed to develop 2 health economic models that estimate the clinical and economic consequences of using tulathromycin compared with florfenicol, tilmicosin, and enrofloxacin for control (metaphylaxis) and treatment of BRD. Table 1 shows the 9

data from the 5 studies and 8000 cattle used to evaluate metaphylaxis (control) and the 10 studies and nearly 3000 cattle to evaluate treatment as the first line of defense. In the first study tulathromycin controlled BRD in 61.8% of the cattle compared to 32.2% for florfenicol. Tulathromycin had fewer subsequent BRD cases (1.40) a lower percentage of chronics (1.7%) and fewer mortalities (0.0%). Similar results can be seen for tilmicosin. Clinical consequences. For the treatment group, that is cattle were not given antibiotics on arrival, but treated as they showed signs of BRD, cattle responded to treatment with tulathromycin 51% of the time, were re-treated 2.14 times, had 18% chronics and 6% deads, which compares to cattle treated with Florfenicol which responded 25% of the time, had 2.32 retreats, 27% chronics and 21% mortalities. Table 1. Outcomes of metaphylaxis and treatment on incidence of BRD with three antibiotics compared to tulathromycin. Control or treatment success (tula 2 /comp) Antibiotic comparison Metaphylaxis (Control) Avg. number of subsequent BRD 1 cases (tula 2 /comp) Percentage chronics (tula 2 /comp) Percentage mortalities (tula 2 /comp) Florfenicol 61.8%/32.2%* 1.40/1.85 1.7%/7.0% 0.0%/0.8% 81.9%/72.0%* 1.39/1.90 1.2%/5.3% 0.4%/0.8% Tilmicosin 80.3%/62.8%* 1.42/1.67 1.3%/3.7% 0.8%/1.2% Treatment 92.9%/77.7%* 1.29/1.37 1.0%/2.3% 0.3%/1.9% 67.1%/32.0%* Not reported 1.4%/7.5% 3.4%/13.6% Florfenicol 51.0%/25.0%* 2.14/2.32 18.0%/27.0% 6.0%/21.0% 53.2%/23.2%* 2.86/3.17 19.1%/42.4% 1.1%/5.1% 79.4%/63.6%* 1.74/2.06 3.1%/10.1% 1.0%/0.0% 76.5%/53.0%* 1.30/1.53 3.9%/14.8% 0.9%/3.4% Tilmicosin 73.0%/67.0% 1.33/1.91 2.0%/4.0% 0.0%/1.0% 77.6%/60.6%* 1.32/1.56 0.0%/4.3% 0.0%/3.2% 76.5%/43.1%* 1.30/1.53 3.9%/19.7% 0.9%/3.2% Enrofloxacin 87.9%/70.2%* 1.27/1.25 0.0%/0.8% 0.0%/0.0% 80.0%/62.5%* 1.43/1.41 5.8%/6.7% 2.5%/2.5% 87.8%/74.7%* 1.00/1.08 0.0%/0.0% 5.6%/10.8% 10

1 BRD = bovine respiratory disease 2 tula = tulathromycin *P < 0.05 Economic consequences. Cost of medication was highest with tulathromycin (drug cost as of 2010). However, costs of subsequent treatments and costs of removals were lowest with tulathromycin in all metaphylaxis and treatment studies because of the lower probabilities of BRD occurrences or reoccurrences. The total costs per animal (considering cost of medication and all other BRD related costs) were lower with tulathromycin compared with florfenicol (metaphylaxis and treatment studies), tilmicosin (metaphylaxis and treatment studies), and enrofloxacin (treatment only studies). Depending on the study selected as basis for efficacy evaluation, overall costs per bovine using metaphylaxis varied between $27.89 and $49.60 (tulathromycin), $54.72 and $90.81 (florfenicol), and $40.72 and $122.25 (tilmicosin), and in the treatment only studies costs per animal associated with BRD were calculated between $34.68 and $162.70 (tulathromycin), $87.85 and $306.57 (florfenicol), $65.99 and $149.01 (tilmicosin), and $58.13 and $116.49 (enrofloxacin). Furthermore the authors concluded, when used as first choice for control or treatment of BRD, tulathromycin was associated with the lowest numbers of antimicrobial treatments necessary for the management of BRD in U.S. feedlots. Therefore, tulathromycin lowers the total absolute number of anti- biotic treatments in feedlot cattle, contributing to a more prudent use of antimicrobials in livestock. (Reference: Nautrup, et al., 2013. J ANIM SCI, 91:5868-5877). 7. TO DO DECEMBER/JANUARY 1. Take forage sample for nutrient analysis. Depending on your locality, hay may be in short supply or of poor quality. Allocating the best feed to younger, higher producing animals will stretch out your supply. If practical feed and manage separately: a. weaned heifer calves b. first and second calf heifers and old thin cows c. the rest of the dry herd d. lactating cows and their calves e. herd sires 2. Cows should be in body condition score of 5.0-6.0 for March calving (Smooth appearance, last 3-4 ribs are just visible, and there is some brisket fat). 3. Heifers should be in body condition score 5.5-6.5 (slightly fatter than cows, can begin to see pockets of fat on either side of tail head). 4. Watch for lice 5. Make initial selection of replacement heifers. Factors to base selection: 205 day adjusted weight, MPPA of dam, temperament and soundness. 6. Wean calves less than 120 days old before hard winter weather sets in. They will do better on grain plus hay, than if left on their dams. 7. Calves kept over the winter should be fed to gain 1.3-1.5 lb/day. Full fed legume/grass hay plus 5-6 lbs. of grain will support this level of growth. 11