Daily Archives: June 30, 2008

Watch Your Withdrawal Periods

Watch Your Withdrawal Periods

Michael Fisher, Area Extension Agent (Livestock), Colorado State University Extension

Good morning, I have provided this information to assist you with making informed decisions. If you have questions about this article or suggestions on making this or other articles better, please

Do you know what the withdrawal period is for the various animal health products that you administer to your livestock? For that matter, do you know what a withdrawal period is established for?

As livestock producers, we are the first line of defense in ensuring that the American meat supply is a quality, wholesome, and safe product. To help meet that goal, withdrawal periods have been established for many of the animal health products that are used in livestock production. This is a period of time beginning with the administration of a pharmaceutical product and lasting a set length that has been pre-determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The idea is that any pharmaceutical compound has a maximum allowable amount of residue that can be in the meat product or milk. The withdrawal period allows a period of time for the compound to be broken down within the animal following its administration. Neither meat tissue nor milk can be used from an animal that has a drug residue which exceeds the maximum residue limit (MRL) that has been set for that given compound. In other words, the withdrawal period is an opportunity for a treated animal to be in compliance with the MRL at the time of harvest or milking.

The FDA has established the MRL for the various medications based on several different locations within the animal. The residue source that is examined is dependent upon what medication is being monitored. As an example of the differences, Pfizer’s Draxxin (active ingredient: tualthromycin -18 day withdrawal) has a MRL of 5.5 parts per million (PPM) in the liver; while Elanco’s Tylan injection (active ingredient: tylosin – 21 day withdrawal) has a MRL of 0.2 ppm in fat, muscle, liver, and kidney. Pharmaceutical companies, under the FDA’s guidance, have to conduct trials to determine how much time it takes for a given compound’s residue to be at or below the assigned MRL following treatment of the animal. If the time needed ends in a fraction of a day, the withdrawal period is expanded to complete that day.


BeefTalk: Do We Exist Only If Someone Else Knows We Exist?

BeefTalk: Do We Exist Only If Someone Else Knows We Exist?

Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist, NDSU Extension Service

There now are two distinct products being produced along agricultural supply chains There now are two distinct products being produced along agricultural supply chains

Data education among producers, feedlot enterprises and all those involved in the beef chain is the priority.

The concept of data collection is knocking on the door of the beef industry, but the concept is not registering. In fact, there actually is a fairly large disconnect.

This is ironic because most, if not all, beef producers pride themselves on their understanding of the skills needed to master the production of beef. Today, there is another player simply called “data.”

The information associated with individual cattle is critical. Producers need to understand how livestock production is viewed.

Steve Holcombe is the founder and chief executive officer of Pardalis Inc. Pardalis is a third-party data storage company that values and treats data the same as money.


Packing Industry Struggles Continue

Packing Industry Struggles Continue

Troy Marshall

Tyson announced the sale this week of its Canadian beef operations to XL Foods Inc. for $107 million in Canadian dollars. Tyson has already closed three other plants and slipped from No. 1 to No. 3 in terms of beef-slaughter capacity in the U.S. The stocks of meatpacking plants have been taking a severe hit, but Tyson stock rose on news of the sale.

Another packer in trouble appears to be Creekstone Farms. USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) announced two weeks ago its agreement with Creekstone that prohibits the firm from buying any livestock without paying for them immediately at the time of purchase. Creekstone also had to nearly double the size of its bond nearly $4.5 million.


Corn Unreliable for Feed

Corn Unreliable for Feed

KXMB-TV Bismarck

In the cattle business you always have to be prepared.

A series of NDSU workshops are traveling the state this week helping producers learn more about planning for risk.

Producers in New Salem are learning new ways they can reduce input costs.

Livestock economist Harlan Hughes says the current Corn market is driven by demand not supply.

He says he expects the corn market to stay strong into the middle of the next decade.

He says now is the time producers really need to look into new ways they can use forages instead of grain to put weight on cattle.


Can We Select Cattle To Reduce Pinkeye Incidence??

Can We Select Cattle To Reduce Pinkeye Incidence??


Pinkeye has long been a costly nuisance to cattle producers.  Eye infections sometimes lead to partial or complete blindness in one or both eyes.  Reduced beef production in the form of lowered weight gain, milk production, body condition, and eventually even poorer reproduction can result from eye infections and lesions.  One of the culprits that initiates and spreads eye problems between herds and among herdmates is “Pinkeye” or more properly called Infectious Bovine Keratoconjnctivits.


Liquid Feeds Can Economically Improve Productivity

Liquid Feeds Can Economically Improve Productivity

Stephen B. Blezinger, Ph.D., PAS

Cattle Today

As we continue our discussion on managing our current economic situation in an effort to remain profitable or at least keep our heads above water, we have to re-evaluate the feeding and supplementation tools that are available to us. The use of liquid feeds is not new. Feeding molasses and similar products to cattle has been a common practice for over a century. The form and methods of feeding have changed significantly though. More producers are finding an application for the use of liquid feed products every day with other cattlemen asking questions such as: are they useful, cost effective, how do they compare to dry supplements, blocks, etc.? Will they fit into my program? One problem that the liquid industry faces is the great deal of skepticism which exists regarding the viability of molasses based products, although much of it is based on poor experiences many years ago. Fortunately, the liquid industry has come a long way in that time and the products manufactured today are based on years of experience as well as sound academic and industry-based research. The liquid feed industry was born to meet a couple of different needs. One, to provide a convenient, economical means of supplementing the nutritional needs of cattle. Two, to utilize a growing supply of liquid by-products from a host of feed and grain processes. While the cost of ingredients common to liquid feeds such as phosphoric acid and urea have gotten quite expensive, opportunities still exist to implement liquid programs in different cattle operations. Let’s take a detailed look at liquid supplements, their applications, the pros and cons.

Changing Supply/Demand Picture Reshaping Foreign Outlook

Changing Supply/Demand Picture Reshaping Foreign Outlook

Clint Peck

Beef Magazine

The key drivers in the short-term outlook for U.S. meat exports include politics, economic variables, domestic production, market access, consumer trends and competitor developments. Here’s a market by market analysis:

Asia/Pacific Rim. These drivers appear to be the basis for the four major themes that impacted beef marketing in the Asia/Pacific region in 2007 and into 2008, says Joel Haggard, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) senior vice president. Each country in Southeast Asia presents its own basic meat demand parameters the U.S. must meet if market access is to increase, he says.

The first major theme is the access constraints U.S. beef continues to face from Korea and Japan. “Partial market access has reduced sales to 60% of the capacity seen before 2003, the equivalent to $50 million/week in lost sales,” he says.