"Mr. Food" Video Available
by Roger L. McCraw

The "Mr. Food" video shows why proper handling of market cows and bulls is important to the quality of the end product. It was produced by the BQA Task Force of NCBA and is 15 minutes in length. You may request a copy from Communication Services by calling 919.513.3110.

In 1999, beef checkoff dollars funded the National Market Cow and Bull Audit. It revealed that producers are doing a better job of getting cull animals to market than they were five years ago. Data was collected from 21 plants across the country and from interviews with 21 packers. This audit considered only non-fed or cull animal slaughter.

In the previous audit, 1 animal or carcass of every 38.5 cattle or carcasses was condemned. In the most recent audit, only 1 out 90 animals or carcasses was condemned. You may remember that one of our displays used in the Beef Quality Assurance educational programs focused on responsible culling and how it improves herd productivity and efficiency. That educational effort, with active involvement and support from most of you, reached more than 2,500 beef producers in North Carolina. No doubt, some of the credit for the improvement shown by the audit is due to our BQA program.

An average of 16% of total income on cow-calf operations comes from salvage animals. Clearly, more responsible culling of animals has a direct economic impact to the farmer.

According to the 1999 audit, end-product quality can be improved most if producers focus on these key management areas:

- handle cattle properly (carcass bruises
topped the list of concerns)
- cull cattle earlier (arthritic joints and severe lameness were second among concerns)
- implement herd-health programs
- brand appropriately
- manage horns
- improve transportation

Some producers think beef from non-fed cattle is used only for ground beef. The audit revealed that 44% of the beef from market cows and bulls is sold as primals and subprimals. The video emphasis the important role of this beef to the food industry. •

Euthanasia of Cattle
by Roger L. McCraw

In dealing with cattle, situations sometimes arise where the most humane practice is euthanasia. The Animal Welfare Committee of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners has prepared a booklet on this topic. It is entitled, "Practical Euthanasia of Cattle - Considerations for the Producer, Livestock Market Operator, Livestock Transporter, and Veterinarian". It addresses the topic with emphasis on human safety, animal welfare and practicality. You may download a copy of the publication from the following web site:

http://www.aabp.org/HomePage/euth.htm

It is in PDF format and you must have Acrobat Reader to access it. The web site contains a link for you to download Acrobat Reader, if you do not currently have it installed.•

Can Cattle Partially Replace Tobacco?
by Roger L. McCraw

Many farmers in North Carolina are scrambling to identify agricultural enterprises that will help offset losses due to cuts in tobacco quotas. A number of alternatives have been proposed. What about cattle?

Drs. John Johns, Darrh Bullock, John Anderson and Les Anderson, University of Kentucky, reported in the "Kentucky Cattlemen" on a study they did on this issue. Although the situation in Kentucky may be somewhat different from ours, their results may be useful to you in working with producers in your county. The following information is summarized from their report.

The Kentucky Farm Business Management summary showed an average return above variable costs for tobacco of $2,268 per acre. The same summary showed variable or cash costs of $131 per beef cow. They assumed an average weaning weight of 500 pounds, 90% calf crop weaned and sold per cow exposed and an average price of $0.90 per pound for feeder calves. Each cow would generate gross income of $405 leaving $274 in income above cash costs. If these assumptions were met, it would take 8.3 cows to generate the same income above cash costs as an acre of tobacco.

Can cattle be added to replace lost income from tobacco? In some cases, farmers have additional land for the cattle or they can rent suitable land at a reasonable rate and cattle may be an attractive alternative. But the cattle must be managed properly to reach the production levels assumed.

Kentucky Farm Business Management records show a $54.60 lower cash cost per cow for producers in the high third of producers based on return compared to the low third group. Producers in the high third group sold 518 pounds of beef per cow while the low third group sold only 463 pounds per cow.

You may have some tobacco producers who should consider adding cattle or increasing their herd size.•