Usage of antimicrobials on seven farms of beef producers in Switzerland

2021 ◽  
Vol 163 (12) ◽  
pp. 859-870
Author(s):  
T. Gallin-Anliker ◽  
S. Wiedemann ◽  
C. Bähler ◽  
M. Kaske
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Darrh Bullock ◽  
Katherine VanValin ◽  
Jeffery Lehmkuhler ◽  
Leslie Anderson ◽  
Benjamin Crites ◽  
...  

Abstract An educational program was developed to assist beef producers with making informed bull purchasing decisions. There are two core pieces to this decision: targeting the bull’s genetics to the producer’s management and resources, and paying a price that maximizes the return on investment. This was a two-part educational program; the first session was classroom instruction with topics related to proper bull selection. At the conclusion of this session producers were assigned one of five management scenarios and received a sale catalogue with 60 bulls. Videos of all bulls were made available, along with all production information, including adjusted measurements, EPD and indices. The producers were tasked with returning the next week to attend the mock auction and purchase the best valued bull for their assigned scenario. At the conclusion of the auction, each scenario was discussed and the individual that purchased the best value bull in each scenario was recognized. Value was determined as the price paid for the bull compared to a price determined through an “economic selection index” equation. Beef producers (n = 322) participated in the program over 9 locations; in locations with less attendance, a reduced sale catalogue was used. Of the post-program survey respondents (n = 155), 71% were commercial beef producers, 27% were seedstock producers and 5% were Extension agents (n = 10, were cross classified). When asked how much time they spent reviewing the materials before the mock sale 8% said they made their decision at the sale, 16% spent 30 minutes or less, 58% spent 30 minutes to 2 hours and 18% spent over 2 hours preparing. When asked if the program would help with their next bull purchase, 88% said it would probably or definitely help. The conclusion was that this was a valuable educational program.


2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
David J Smith

Abstract Most commodity crops undergo milling, husking, ginning or other processing procedures before use as human food or fiber. Byproduct nutrient density varies with the type of grain or oil seed processed and use typically varies with nutrient needs of specific production situations. Drought or high grain prices may increase the use of byproducts; regionally available, low-cost ingredients such as cotton ginning byproduct may be used extensively by beef producers to replace forage. Doubt associated with the use of such byproducts is not typically related to nutritional value but with uncertainties about the presence of residual pesticides, herbicides, or harvest-aid chemicals. Potential chemical residues in consumer products and the concomitant financial and reputational losses borne by the industry provide an impetus for concern. Negative experiences with contaminated Australian beef established a long-lived suspicion of “cotton trash” that continues to impact the industry today. The purpose of this review is to discuss sources, amounts, and risks of chemical residues associated with byproduct feeds used in the southern United States with cotton ginning byproducts as a major focus. The use patterns of specific crop protection and harvest-aid chemicals will be discussed in context with chemical tolerances established by the U.S. EPA. In addition, U.S. pesticide monitoring programs in beef will be discussed. Although data describing the transmission of chemical residues from byproduct feeds into beef products are limited, the available data suggest some best practices could be adopted to mitigate concerns and minimize possible agrochemical residue contamination of beef.


2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shida Rastegari Henneberry ◽  
Joao E. Mutondo ◽  
B. Wade Brorsen

An equilibrium displacement model of the U.S. meat markets is used to measure the potential impacts of promotion investment, differentiating meats by types and by supply source, taking into account the U.S. participation in global meat markets, and considering imperfect competition in the meat industry. The increase in U.S. producer welfare resulting from a 10 percent increase in promotion ranges from -$1.29 million to $2.60 million for U.S. beef producers and from -$0.96 million to $1.67 million for U.S. pork producers, depending primarily on the advertising elasticity used.


Author(s):  
Gary Bennett ◽  
John Keele ◽  
Larry Kuehn ◽  
Warren Snelling ◽  
Aaron Dickey ◽  
...  

Phenotypes are necessary for genomic evaluations and management. Sometimes genomics can be used to measure phenotypes when other methods are difficult or expensive. Prolificacy of bulls used in multiple-bull pastures for commercial beef production is an example. A retrospective study of 79 bulls aged 2-year-old and older used 141 times in 4-5 pastures across 4 years was used to estimate repeatability from variance components. Traits available before each season’s use were tested for predictive ability. Sires were matched to calves using individual genotypes and evaluating exclusions. A lower cost method of measuring prolificacy was simulated for 5 pastures using the bulls’ genotypes and pooled genotypes to estimate average allele frequencies of calves and of cows. Repeatability of prolificacy was 0.62 ± 0.09. A combination of age-class and scrotal circumference accounted for less than 5 % of variation. Simulated estimation of prolificacy by pooling DNA of calves was accurate. Adding pooling of cow DNA or actual genotypes both increased accuracy about the same. Knowing a bull’s prior prolificacy would help predict future prolificacy for management purposes and could be used in genomic evaluations and research with coordination of breeders and commercial beef producers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 4085
Author(s):  
Hooks Teresa ◽  
Macken-Walsh Áine ◽  
McCarthy Olive ◽  
Power Carol ◽  
Henchion Maeve

Irish beef farms have experienced poor viability longitudinally, with industry and policy actors citing ‘crisis’ levels in 2013. A crucial differentiator between the beef sector and the dairy sector, which has higher farm incomes, is well-developed infrastructure of farmer-owned dairy processing and marketing co-operatives. To address the lack of representative farmer organisations and power imbalances in the beef supply chain, in 2016 the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine (DAFM) legislated for the establishment of beef Producer Organisations (POs), facilitating beef producers to collectively strengthen their market positioning. While PO legislation is a significant development in potentially enabling supply chain integration of farmers, how the legislation is operationalised by Irish beef industry stakeholders will ultimately shape the nature and breadth of engagement with the PO model and, consequently, the impact of the legislation. In a context where there is little or no prior experience of such organisations in the beef sector, this paper presents an analysis of current stakeholder views in relation to the establishment of POs. Research involved a desk based review of the submissions made during the consultation period for the beef PO legislation and interviews with key informants in the Irish beef industry. We analysed Irish stakeholders’ views through the lens of lessons learned from the existing literature on how POs operate internationally. Results indicate some stakeholders’ perceptions of the need for a nationally coordinated approach in the establishment of an Association of POs, which concurs with the literature. However, stakeholders have not emphasised the benefits of Interbranch Organisations (IBOs), which involve vertical collaboration with other chain actors such as processors and retailers, an approach that has proven successful internationally. Nor have Irish stakeholders identified the potential of differentiating or premiumising beef products, which, according to international evidence, is necessary for improving profitability and farm-level incomes. Stakeholders identified the main threats to the future success of POs in Ireland as members’ lack of commitment and processors’ lack of willingness to engage with POs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 182 ◽  
pp. 105078
Author(s):  
Cara S. Wilson ◽  
David J. Jenkins ◽  
Tamsin S. Barnes ◽  
Victoria J. Brookes

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akim Omokanye ◽  
Calvin Yoder ◽  
Lekshmi Sreekumar ◽  
Liisa Vihvelin ◽  
Monika Benoit

Producing high quality forage and maintaining productive pastures is a major challenge that beef producers encounter, as rejuvenation is a complex and costly challenge. This is part of a series of papers looking at potential options and methods of rejuvenation to improve the productivity of older forage stands in northern Alberta. The methods of rejuvenation investigated were sub-soiling, break & re-seeding, a combination of manure application plus subsoiling, high stock density grazing, bale grazing, pasture rest, as well as direct seeding in spring and fall. In this series, forage dry matter (DM) yield, forage nutritive value and economic performance are presented and discussed. The top 5 forage DM yielders were bale grazing, manure + subsoil in fall, break & re-seeding, high stock density grazing and fertilizer application in that order. In both years, bale grazing consistently produced higher forage DM yield than other methods including control, with bale grazing giving up to 100% higher yield at site-1 and 219% at site- 2 for the 2-year total forage DM. Most forage nutritive value parameters measured were similar for the rejuvenation methods investigated. A simplified economic analysis done in this study showed that the direct input cost of rejuvenation an old forage stand was higher with the break & re-seeding method than other methods. However, for bale grazing, when the cost of hay bales used was factored in, then the cost of bale grazing far exceeded those of other methods including break & re-seeding. The implications of the results obtained in this study in relation to beef cattle production system are highlighted.


2016 ◽  
Vol 95 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 08-08
Author(s):  
K. M. Bennett ◽  
M. K. Mullenix ◽  
J. J. Tucker ◽  
L. A. Kriese-Anderson ◽  
S. P. Rodning ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document