We Do What We DoA collection of Full Value Beef™ articles

Elanco, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. © 2014 Elanco Animal Health.

PORT 32567-2 | USBBUMUL01056

Winter Issue

2014

Ensuring Healthy Animals CattleFax Long-term Outlook

The Importance of Proper Implanting BEEF Profit Tips

Managing your Terminal Implant Window for Maximum Profit CattleFax Feedyard Packet

Implanting Profits Drovers Advertorial

Using Liver Data Insights to Improve your Bottom Line Beef Today

Growing Profitable Calves by Building Immunity Beef Today

Protecting your Profit Potential as BRD Costs Rise Sharply in 3rd Quarter CattleFax Feedyard Packet

BRD: Back to the Basics Drovers

Understanding the Relationship Between Feed Intake and Veterinary Medicine Costs CattleFax Feedyard Packet

Table of Contents2

4

7

8

12WHY GALLERY & EXPERT PROFILESWHY

2

A passion for veterinary medicine

While being a veterinarian in private practice for more than 20 years, Kerry Keffaber, D.V.M., advisor for Scientific Affairs and Policy at Elanco, developed a passion for helping animals get healthy and thrive in their environment.

“What is most fulfilling is helping ensure animals are healthy and free of pain and suffering,” said Kerry. “If I can help provide tools with Elanco’s Research and Development and Market Access teams so that animals can survive and producers have the resources they need to get animals thriving and highly productive, that’s what motivates me every day.”

Twelve years ago Kerry started as a field technical consultant for Elanco. Since then, he has had other roles, but in his current position, he helps the food-chain team communicate complex data and insights to educate a broader audience about contemporary agriculture and how technologies play an important role in food production.

Antibiotic acceptance in an evolving world

At a time when more and more consumers are looking for information about how their food is produced, it is imperative to build confidence in the food they’re eating. While practicing

veterinary medicine and working on Elanco’s Research and Development team, Kerry knew that veterinarians and producers needed tools such as antibiotics for animal health and well-being.

“Regardless of how safe, effective and valuable any tool is to producers, consumers need confidence in that technology, which is why there has been more focus on antibiotics,” said Kerry.

Consumers’ mindsets shift the industry’s outlook

“Because consumers have a growing interest and impact on food production, Elanco has made a commitment to better understand consumers’ needs,” said Kerry. “Being able to frame discussions and help consumer groups understand what is going on in farming is imperative so they have confidence in the food they eat.”

As part of this effort, Elanco conducted market research in multiple countries and cities across the United States to better understand what consumers know about antibiotics and particularly how the agriculture industry can better communicate its needs and build confidence in beef products.

“There’s always going to be 5 to 10 percent we’ll never agree with, but that leaves 90 percent in the middle that

we can engage with and find common ground,” said Kerry.

Part of that communication begins with visiting various food-chain groups, such as processors, retailers and quick-service restaurants, to help them educate consumers about how antibiotics are used. These conversations also focus on new regulations on antibiotic use and how they compare with policies in other countries.

“People in agriculture are not the moveable middle since we only make up 2 to 5 percent of the population,” says Kerry. “Finding solutions that support only agriculture will not build confidence in consumers and allow us to maintain the freedom to operate and use the tools we need. While continuing to use all products responsibly, we must do a better job at communicating with consumers in a language they understand.”

Antibiotic regulation changesIn December 2013, the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized rules regarding veterinary feed directives (VFD) and how antibiotics should be used in

Ensuring Healthy AnimalsWE DO WHAT WE DO

WE DO WHAT WE DO

Elanco’s work in the area of Assurance and Access enables access to markets and technologies, and helps build confidence in the food products our customers and their customers provide to consumers around the world.

Visit elanco.us/why to see why we do what we do and learn more about

Full Value Beef™.

3

WE DO WHAT WE DO

WE DO WHAT WE DO

Elanco, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.

© 2014 Elanco Animal Health.PUL 33098-1

USBBUNON01260

Kerry Keffaber, D.V.M. Full Value Beef Expert

production agriculture to better protect public health as it pertains to antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics in a shared class, which are medically important and used in both humans and animals, will be available only for therapeutic use under the oversight of a veterinarian. Antibiotics used in animals only will still be available over-the-counter for production and therapeutic reasons.

“Producers realize that if they’re going to raise animals, they’re going to need antibiotics and we want them to be used responsibly,” said Kerry. “That means using the shared-use-only antibiotics for therapy prescribed by a veterinarian.”

This transition is driven by three FDA reports. Guidance for Industry No. 209 establishes key principles for the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals. The second report (No. 213) provides a road map for implementing those principles by addressing issues including label claims. The final report (CFFR 558) aims to modernize and streamline the VFD process.

“While the principles and labeling process are voluntary, once those labels have been changed, compliance with those labels is not voluntary,” says Kerry. “Veterinarians, feed manufacturers and producers will have to use these products only according to label.”

Producer involvement“Antibiotics aren’t going away,

but how we use them will change,” explains Kerry.

For cattle producers, the goal is to maintain access to the tools they need while doing the right thing in treatment of their animals. Demonstrating responsible use will allow them to maintain access to tools that are important for an animal’s well-being and for overall sustainability.

“Several producer associations are providing input that will be used to make the system workable,” said Kerry. “But it’s also important to know where the process is going.”

Kerry says it will be critical for producers to have an ongoing relationship with a veterinarian, one who knows your herd and its health needs, understands the processes and

will help make the transition. “I think it’s a win-win. Having

a veterinarian involved helps ensure you’re preventing antimicrobial resistance by implementing a protocol that is effective and provides producers the best return,” says Kerry.

Elanco’s role in antibiotic assurance

“Elanco had the first and only VFD product for swine over 10 years ago,” explains Kerry. “We helped develop both the paper and electronic forms and educated different groups on that process. Moving forward, we will support a web-based system that minimizes errors and manages VFD-related records.”

Elanco is committed to investing in systems to ease the transition and demonstrate antibiotic stewardship. It is also ready to educate producers, veterinarians, feedmill manufacturers and feedmill inspectors to help get everyone on the same page.

“We’re really focusing on helping build the sophistication of tools and educating those involved throughout the production process to be better equipped to use those tools correctly,” said Kerry.

Why Kerry does what he doesEvery day at Elanco, people like

Kerry are working to provide tools, education and support for producers. Kerry’s why — “Survive, Provide and Thrive” — applies to animals and more importantly to what he believes are the stepping stones a person takes to have an extraordinary life. Helping others on their path from survive to thrive applies to his work with people and his work with animals as a veterinarian.

“The first thing we all need is the basics to simply survive, which is especially true in animals. One must meet these needs before they can provide to others” says Kerry. “It’s transformational when we get to thrive. People excel and impact others around them while animals thriving are extremely healthy.”

As a veterinarian, there is nothing more appealing to Kerry than an extremely healthy animal that is thriving in its environment. In his role, he is able to not only help producers

and veterinarians get to that level, but also help them get their animals there as well.

“In the beef industry, there will be challenges in implementing these changes, but the industry is working together to make sure it’s a practical solution going forward,” says Kerry. “We will get there, so remain calm and confident as we move through this time of change.”

Survive, Provide, Thrive

WE DO WHAT WE DO

WE DO WHAT WE DO

The value of implants today Implants continue to be the most cost-effective and proven technology available to producers for improving feed efficiency and gain in cattle. First approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1956, implants are used in over 90 percent of feedlot cattle in the U.S. today.1,2 It is no surprise this percentage is so high considering the return producers receive. When compared to non-implanted controls, implanted cattle have been shown to increase their average daily gain by 18 percent and improve feed conversion by 9 percent.3 These improvements, when converted into dollars, result in a total net effect of up to $84/head/year, and with the average cost of a two-implant program at $3.50, this translates into a 24:1 return on a producer’s investment.3*

Not all implants are created equal Robert Botts, Ph.D. and Elanco technical consultant, advises that producers should understand that there are differences among implants and implant programs, and those differences can affect marketing strategies, implant defect rates and the producer’s bottom line. “It’s important to understand your end goals when selecting an implant program,” said Botts. “If your goal is an extremely high quality grade, then an implant with low potency is your best choice to improve grade. Alternately, if you want to improve live or carcass weight, a more aggressive implant program is the way to go.” The rate of implant defects can also be affected by the type of implant chosen. Today, one abscessed implant costs a producer $53/hd, while a missing implant costs $91/hd.4* These costs, when spread over the total herd, can quickly eat away at the 24:1 return producers are anticipating. Utilizing implant technologies that aim to reduce implant defects and improve the health of the implant site are one way to boost implant performance and protect upside return. “There’s a lot of money at stake when implanting —about $84/hd3*—so I recommend Component® with Tylan® implants because they deliver localized

antibacterial protection that improves the health of the implant site and overall performance,” said Botts. “This ensures you’re maximizing your implant ROI because when there are no implant defects, the implant can provide maximum performance improvements.”

Measuring the success of your implant program Without a proper quality control (QC) program in place, there is no way to determine what type of return producers are receiving from their implant investment. Regular ear checks, as part of a QC program, are essential for verification of implant quality. Ear checks can be used to determine the rate of defects at a feedyard and help producers set goals for maintaining or improving these rates. “Ear checks can be especially important in feedyards with relatively high employee turnover,” said Botts. “They can help you identify if your employees need additional training, because if they are mismanaging an $84 ROI by not applying implants correctly, you have a problem.” Elanco provides free ear check services as part of its Zero Defect Implanting program. While other companies suggest that improper implants are not a problem, Elanco has checked over a million head of cattle over the past 15 years to show producers that abscessed and missing implants can still stand in the way of them maximizing their implant investment. “Even very low defect rates, 2.9 percent for example, can result in major losses for a pen,” said Botts. “These animals are worth more than ever before, so it is critical to understand how improper implants can impact the animal and ultimately, your bottom line.”

Key takeaways As a seasoned end-point management expert, Botts not only advises feedyards on how to implement and apply implants, but how to develop an implant protocol that maximizes their returns. Botts’ top implant takeaways for producers: “Implants provide a big return relative to other technologies; use them. Implants work virtually 100 percent of the time, unless they are abscessed or missing; apply them correctly. Finally, have a QC program in place to ensure proper application and routine follow-up checks to see if you’re maintaining your goals.”

The Importance of Proper Implanting

Elanco, Full Value Beef, Benchmark® and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.

© 2014 Elanco Animal Health.OPTA 32703-1

USBBUCPT00035

Working with customers to identify their competitive

advantage and then amplify it is what drives Robert.

Visit elanco.us/why to see additional Why’s and to learn more about

Full Value Beef.

Competitiveness

Robert Botts, Ph.D. Full Value Beef Technical Expert

*Calculation assumes 700 lb. feeder weight, $141.00 cwt, 150 days on feed, $280/ton DM feed price.1Botts, Robert. 1996. Synovex Plus technical manual.22013. The use of growth-promoting implants in U.S. feedlots. United States Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO.3Duckett et.al. 2013. Anabolic implants and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science. 92: 3-96.4Elanco Animal Health Internal Files 2010; T1EUS090001. Data on file.

Implant ROI in today’s market3*

44

Managing your terminal implant window for maximum profit

USBBUNON01182

*Calculation assumes .28 conversion x 600 lbs gained = 168 lbs less feed @ $0.145 = $24.36/head1An analysis from Elanco’s Benchmark database on 9,043,817 head of cattle closed 2012-2014, in all regions.

Elanco, Benchmark®, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.© 2014 Elanco Animal Health.KNOWLS 31842-9

Optimum terminal implant windowImplants continue to be the most cost-effective and proven technology available to producers for improving feed efficiency and gain in cattle. When it comes to executing an implant protocol, understanding terminal implant windows and their management allows producers to maximize their profit potential.

Robert Botts, Ph.D. and Elanco beef technical consultant, recommends that producers begin with the end in mind and select their terminal implant window based on their cattle marketing strategy.

“One of the mistakes that I have seen producers make is simply calculating the half-way point for the feeding period, whether the cattle were expected to be on feed for 90, 120 or 200 days, and re-implanting there,” says Botts. “However, this type of planning can be problematic when you begin to factor in varying cattle weights, especially lower-weight cattle who are on feed for a longer period of time.”

Based on today’s economics, Elanco’s Benchmark® database indicates the optimum terminal implant window is between 60 and 80 days.1 Why those days? Managing the terminal implant window within this time frame has been shown to help optimize results in gain and feed conversion.1

Terminal implant windows and your bottom lineAs shown in Figure 1, 2012-2014 Benchmark data indicates over 31 percent of all lots closed had a terminal window of longer than 80 days rather than the desired 60-80 day window. While this may not seem like a large number, when looking at feed conversion, this can quickly add up to a lot of missed opportunities.

Figure 1: Terminal implant window distribution1

“Looking at our Benchmark database, we’ve seen that as you stretch out your terminal window, your feeding efficiencies go down,” says Botts. “After 80 days, for every additional 10 days cattle are implanted, performance drops by 0.07 units of efficiency.”1

For example, Benchmark indicates that reducing a terminal implant window from 100 days to 60 days can result in 0.28 unit improvement in feed conversion. This adds as much as $24.00/head of feed conversion* — just by properly managing the terminal implant window.

Figure 2: Managing the terminal implant window to improve feed conversion1*

“Looking at the data you can see the improvements,” says Botts. “The best part is that it doesn’t cost you anything to make these types of improvements. It’s all just in managing the terminal implant window.”

Additional cattle management opportunities exist while re-implantingIn addition to realizing improvements in their bottom lines by managing an optimal terminal implant window, producers can also take advantage of additional opportunities. Firstly, re-implanting can serve as an opportunity to conduct animal health management practices, including re-vaccination and parasite control. This time can also be utilized to better identify the best time to begin feeding a beta-agonist and to more accurately project marketing dates. Lastly, this also allows producers to evaluate their implanting quality — missing and abscessed implants — on the initial implant.

“Most of these additional management opportunities are just as important as re-implanting and can benefit performance in cattle,” says Botts. “Completing them all at once gives producers the operational efficiency they need to maximize their profits.”

0

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0%

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

% o

f Lot

sFE

Terminal Window, days

Terminal Window, days

31.5% >100 days

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

6.45 at 100 days

6.17 at 60 days

Total — Linear (Total)

$24.00/head di�erence

0

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0%

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

% o

f Lot

sFE

Terminal Window, days

Terminal Window, days

31.5% >100 days

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

6.45 at 100 days

6.17 at 60 days

Total — Linear (Total)

$24.00/head di�erence

0

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

0%

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

% o

f Lot

sFE

Terminal Window, days

Terminal Window, days

31.5% >100 days

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

6.45 at 100 days

6.17 at 60 days

Total — Linear (Total)

$24.00/head di�erence

Key points•Managementofterminalimplantwindowsresultsinbettergainandfeedconversion•Today’seconomicsindicatethattheoptimalterminalimplantwindowisbetween

60 and 80 days•Othermanagementopportunitiesexistduringre-implanting,includingrevaccination,

parasite control and overseeing a beta-agonist program•Toidentifyadditionalprofitopportunitieswithinyourterminalimplantwindow,

contact your Elanco sales representative

5

6

A Deeper LookImplantIng profIts their substantial return on investment puts implants among the most cost-effective technologies available to cattle producers.

In any business, you have to spend money to make money — and the cattle business is no exception. Producers must choose where spending makes the most sense and understand how and when a given input will pay off. That analysis naturally starts with the question, “How much investment do I have to make?” If the input is implants, the answer is simple: very little. A lifetime implant program typically costs about $6 per head, says Robert Botts, Ph.D., Elanco beef technical consultant.1

Value for every segmentThe return on that small investment starts at the ranch level, although with calves — and stockers, too — there’s been a misconception that if animals are implanted early, they don’t get the benefits later, Botts says. “But that’s been proven over and over to be false,” he says.2 In fact, implanting a suckling calf, usually at 45 days old, can add about 20 pounds of weaning weight. “They’re worth about $2 a pound, so that’s $40.”3 With stockers, implanting before turnout can improve gains by about 15%.2 So, a typical 2-pound-a-day gain without an implant could become 2.3 pounds with an implant, or 45 additional pounds over a 150-day grazing period.2 “Every pound then is worth about $0.85,” says Jason Sawyer, Ph.D., associate professor at Texas A&M.4 “The implant added $38.25 in value — so my return on investment on one implant (just over $2) was 1700%.†” In the feedyard, implants are seeing returns of more than $80 right now, thanks to an average 18% improvement in daily gain and a 9% improvement in feed efficiency, Botts says.5 “So you’ve got $40 plus $38.25 plus $80 — that’s about $160, pretty easily, in returns from three implants.” And the best part, Sawyer says, is the certainty of that return. “If you put the money in a savings account instead, you’ll get half a percent interest,” he says. “Why not spend it on something that gets a 1700% return?”

protecting your returnsThe one issue that might threaten that return is “improper” implants — those that go missing from the ear or become abscessed. Training crews on proper technique can help reduce the chances of that happening. “It is a skill and takes some training, but it’s a relatively simple procedure that’s easy to learn, and good techniques are easy to implement,” Sawyer says.

Poor sanitation during implanting is another factor that can affect implant success rates. “Bacteria can create an abscess, which can rupture the site and push the implant out or form a layer of connective tissue around the implant and wall it off,” Botts say. That tissue forms to keep infection contained, but it can also contain the implant and prevent its absorption and benefits. The choice of implant also makes a difference in maximizing returns; not only do producers need to choose a product labeled for the class of cattle they’re implanting, they can improve their success rates by choosing one, like Component® with Tylan®, that delivers localized antibacterial protection to help protect the health of the implant site to help maximize return on investment. “We’re not implanting under sterile conditions,” Botts says. “That’s where the antibacterial properties of the Tylan pellet become important. They can help overcome some of the challenges that we can’t control. Tylan greatly reduces abscesses and with proper sanitation and training, you can get to a rate of 98% proper.”6

With all these factors in place, the risk of improper implants can go down, Sawyer says. And, he adds, when it comes to implanting, the biggest risk of all is not doing it. “It’s an extraordinarily valuable and reliable production technology,” he says. “It’s an investment I’ve always been very willing to make.”

The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow the label and use directions.

ImplantsAdminister one dose in the ear subcutaneously according to label directions.

†Assumes implant price of $2.25.1Pritchard, R. H., Bruns, K. W., and Boggs, D. L. 2003. A comparison of lifetime strategies for beef steers. Department of Animal and Range Sciences. South Dakota State Univ.

2Kuhl, G. L. 1998. Implanting stocker cattle: Impact on growing and finishing performance, and carcass merit. Kansas State Univ.

3Selk, G. 1997. Implants for suckling steer and heifer calves and potential replacement heifers. Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK.

4United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. Market News.5Duckett et.al. 2013. Anabolic implants and meat quality. Journal of Animal Science. 92: 3-96.6Elanco Ear Check Database.

Tylan® is a trademark for Elanco’s brand of tylosin.Elanco, Component®, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks

owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.©2014 Elanco Animal Health.

OPTA 32462-1USBBUCPT00038

By SUZANNE B. BOPP

WE DO WHAT WE DO

WE DO WHAT WE DO

Liver abscesses can occur at all ages and in all types of cattle. At harvest, livers are visually evaluated by Elanco liver checkers on size and occurrence of abscesses, which correlates to abscess severity (0, A or A+). When severe liver abscesses occur, this typically involves more carcass trimming, which directly affects profitability for both feedyards and packers.

Through Elanco’s Full Value Beef™ partnership, liver check services help identify the prevalence of liver abscesses at feedyards, providing individual, regional and historical data and analytics to make data-driven management decisions with confidence.

Understanding liver abscess impacts on feedyards

“Losses due to liver abscesses can be significant to a feedyard. Severe liver abscesses (A+) lead to both reduced live performance and decreased carcass performance in cattle,”1 said Justin Homm, Ph.D., Elanco beef technical consultant. “This dual decrease in cattle performance affects feedyards when they market their cattle. For example, if selling on a grid, dressing percentage and quality grade can be negatively affected by the severity of liver abscesses, which directly translates into profit loss.”

By understanding the contributing factors that lead to severe liver abscesses, such as days on feed and feed type, a feedyard can make adjustments in bunk management practices. Increasing roughage levels, managing feed additives or modifying days on feed are management opportunities that can decrease the incidence of liver abscesses.

Managing the feedyard-packer relationship

For both producers and packers, liver abscesses lead to lower-yielding beef carcasses.2 Liver abscesses impact packers in two ways: loss of saleable product and cost of time and labor. “Any liver abscess, regardless of severity, causes a liver to be unsuitable for human consumption. At a minimum, packers lose the market value of livers, which are an important component of the beef export market,” said John Scanga, Ph.D., Elanco technical consultant. Decreased market value is only one concern: severe liver abscesses can also adhere to the carcass wall and may rupture — causing a decrease in processing-chain efficiency due

to downtime and excess carcass rail-outs, an increase in time and labor costs, a reduction in carcass weight due to trimming or, possibly, loss of the entire carcass.

Scanga advises, “To improve the feedyard-packer relationship, managers should use Elanco liver check data to have a conversation about liver abscesses and identify management practices that contribute to these abscesses. Packers and feedyards should work collaboratively because packers need cattle and feedyards need packers.”

Adding value to your operation“We want to understand your needs and

show you the full value of a true partnership. Our goal is to work together to discover opportunities that impact the profitability of your operation,” said Abby Jones, Elanco U.S. Beef Marketing.

The value added to operations by Tylan® goes far beyond the product in the bunk. Elanco Tylan customers also receive liver check services — one of the many benefits that set Tylan apart from generic tylosin. Since 1985, Elanco has checked livers on more than 40 million head of cattle.3 This commitment to capturing data and understanding liver abscess prevalence is what allows Elanco to work with customers to determine solutions to improve both cattle performance and their bottom lines. “We can help you understand the effect reduced cattle performance has on your bottom line and determine the best solutions for your feedyard,” said Jones.

“With Elanco’s analytic capabilities — including liver check data and Benchmark® — we can help you find actionable insights for continuous improvement. That’s just part of our Full Value Beef partnership,” she added.

The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow the label and use directions.

TylanFor reduction of incidence of liver abscesses: Feed continuously at 8 to 10 g/ton of tylosin (90% DM basis) to provide 60 to 90 mg/hd/d.1Hicks, B. 2011. Effect of liver abnormalities on carcass merit. Oklahoma Panhandle Research and Extension Center Beef Cattle Research Update. Available: http://oaes.pss.okstate.edu/goodwell/Publications/Animal%20Science/2011%20Beef%20Reports/Update%20Feb%202011.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2014.

2Elanco Study. Influence of Tylan on liver abscesses and animal performance. A 40-trial summary. Data on file.

3Elanco Liver Check Service data. Data on file.

Using Liver Data Insights to Improve Your Bottom Line

Tylan® is a trademark for Elanco’s brand of tylosin.Elanco, Benchmark®, Tylan®, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks

owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. © 2014 Elanco Animal Health.

USBBUTPX00092RUTY 33068-1

Visit elanco.us/why to see why we do what we do and learn more about

Full Value Beef.

Passion, People, Purpose

Abby JonesFull Value Beef Expert

7

WE DO WHAT WE DO

WE DO WHAT WE DO

Protecting a calf at the beginning of the production period — while it is still on the ranch or farm — can have a big impact on productivity for the rest of the animal’s life.

“A calf’s ability to stay healthy is shaped by what happens at the ranch,” says Bruce Hoffman, D.V.M. and Elanco technical consultant. “Sickness can reduce animal well-being and productivity, so it is important to have a strategy to keep calves from ever getting sick. If an animal is vaccinated on the ranch it is better prepared to meet disease challenges at the sale barn and beyond.”

Keeping calves healthy. According to Hoffman, three factors affect a calf’s ability to resist disease: the status of the calf, the animal’s environment and pathogen presence. Calf status includes animal stress level, how well the calf is prepared to fight off disease, genetics and nutrition. Environment includes cold or heat stress, crowding and comingling. Finally, the presence — or absence — of bacteria and viruses within a calf can affect the potential for disease. These three factors work together to protect a calf or cause it to get sick.

“The biggest question is, how do we reduce stress to the animal?” says Hoffman. “While the calf is on the range, it’s in a low-stress environment, but when it gets to the sale barn it’s generally under a lot of stress and has a greater chance of getting sick.”

Once a calf is stressed, its immune system is compromised, reducing the animal’s ability to resist disease and allowing viruses and bacteria — some of which occur naturally inside the animal — to cause infection. While an animal may not get sick on the ranch, if its immunity has not been built up properly, once it leaves the ranch it can be susceptable to viruses. This sets up a pathway for bacteria, primarily Mannheimia haemolytica

and Pasturella multocida, to move into the lungs and cause life-threatening infections. Even if an animal overcomes this disease challenge, the lifetime profitability of the animal is reduced.

“Reducing stress and giving vaccinations prior to transportation are excellent ways for a cow/calf operation to reduce the impact of respiratory infections and disease,” says Hoffman.

Increased productivity, increased profit. Producers receive premiums for quality calves that have been vaccinated for respiratory pathogens. Buyers see extra value in an animal that is less likely to get sick. Vaccination on the ranch is a good way to reduce the probability of an animal getting sick later in life. “The key is getting the vaccine into a healthy, well-nourished animal before periods of stress. In the face of stress, the immune system does not respond as well, so ideally we want to give vaccines in a low-stress environment,” says Hoffman. “This enables the animal to have immunity when it gets to that high-stress environment and is challenged by pathogens.”

The ranch is a low-stress environment where a calf can respond to a vaccine by building immunity. A calf that has been vaccinated early in life will have a much stronger response to pathogen exposure it may encounter at the sale barn and is less likely to get sick or be affected by disease damage throughout its life. “In general, there are too many calves that do not get vaccinated for respiratory bugs before they leave the ranch,” says Hoffman. “Producers need to realize the importance of vaccinating for viruses and bacteria, and should consider using Titanium® 5 + PH-M to get protection from both in a single vaccine. As an industry, it is our responsibility to prepare these calves for life by vaccinating, because disease not only costs producers money, it also impacts the entire production chain.”

The label contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow the label and use directions. Do not vaccinate within 21 days of slaughter.

Growing Profitable Calves By Building Immunity

Elanco, Titanium® and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.

©2014 Elanco Animal Health.VAC 32280-1

USBBUTIT00030

Visit elanco.us/why to see why we do what we do and learn more about

Full Value Beef.

Bruce Hoffman, D.V.M.Full Value Beef Expert

Empowering Others

8

It’s that time of year again. Time to reassess your bovine respiratory disease (BRD) treatment protocols in order to give you the best economic return as we head into and throughout the fall run. Brad Williams, D.V.M. MBA and Elanco technical consultant, suggests veterinarians and their clients begin the process by considering disease-risk factors. “Typically, in the fall we see more dramatic temperature fluctuations, more precipitation and commingling, and lower placement weights. With all of these factors together, it’s no wonder we see a sharp increase in death loss and medicine costs starting in the third quarter.”

Elanco’s Benchmark® data1 reinforces his point (chart 1) — over an eight-year period, in almost 7.7 million head of cattle weighing less than 600 pounds, we see an average low of 3.1% death loss in Q1, with an average high of almost 3.9% in Q3. “In today’s market for six-weight cattle, from first quarter to third quarter that’s a $12.002 increase in your losses across every head placed.”

A fresh look at the economics of metaphylaxis in today’s market“I can’t ever recall when animals have been worth as much as they are today. So, when it comes to the treatment and control of BRD in at-risk calves, the practice of metaphylaxis (on-arrival group treatment) with a proven and reasonably priced antibiotic is your best bet for reducing the economic impact of BRD and protecting your investment,” says Williams.

Looking at various death loss and morbidity rate scenarios can help producers and their veterinarians better understand the true cost of BRD across the pen and make more economically informed decisions when determining treatment protocols for this fall.

“We’ve outlined three different lot scenarios for six-weight cattle (chart 2)3. With today’s prices, even in the 2% death loss/ 20% morbidity scenario, treating with Micotil® (tilmicosin injection) metaphylaxis and getting a one-half reduction in disease impact saves you $5.78/head across all placements compared to not using a metaphylaxis treatment. The same response in a 4% death loss/40% morbidity group, which may be more typical in the fall, shows that metaphylaxis yields a $23.78 advantage. The cost of your Micotil metaphylaxis is well worth the investment up front, especially when your cattle are worth what they are today.

“Keep in mind that these costs are only associated with death loss and medicine costs. If you factor in the performance losses associated with BRD, the differences may drastically increase. Since today’s prices are high for both feeder and fat cattle, we are looking at traditional margins, but have a lot more capital at risk. So, we need to do everything we can to protect your profit potential.”

Protecting your profit potential as BRD costs rise sharply in 3rd quarter

Chart 1. Death loss and vet med charges by quarter, < 600-lb placement weight1

Key points• Benchmark data shows that mortality and vet med costs increase

dramatically in the fall• Your animals are worth more today, so you need to do everything you

can to reduce the economic impact of BRD across placements• Micotil (tilmicosin injection) metaphylaxis is a proven solution for the

treatment and control of BRD and to reduce your economic losses

USBBUMIC00110

Elanco, Micotil®, Benchmark®, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.© 2014 Elanco Animal Health.KNOWLS 31842-8

1Elanco Benchmark database: 7,679,627 animals (53,441 lots) weighing less than 600 lbs placed 2008 to 2013. 2 .039 -.031 = .008 x $1,500 = $12.003Assumptions: Micotil metaphylaxis cost based on MSRP at 1.5 cc/cwt; treatment cost estimated at $30.00/hd; and feeder calf priced at 250/cwt X 600 pounds = $1,500 (USDA-OK Department of Ag Market Feeder Steers on 7-29-2014).

Chart 2. Economic impact of metaphylaxis on BRD across all placements (600-lb)3

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

27.0

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0Q1 Q2

Placement by quarter

Avg

vet m

ed c

harg

es, $

/hd

Avg

% d

eath

loss

Q3 Q4

% death lossVet med charges ($/hd)

$0

Death loss: 2%Pull rate: 20%

$/hd

acr

oss

all p

lace

men

ts

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

Treatment cost

Death loss$100.00

$80.00

$60.00

$40.00

$20.00

$120.00

Death loss: 6%Pull rate: 50%

Death loss: 4%Pull rate: 40%

Cost of Micotil metaphylaxis

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

27.0

26.5

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5

24.0

23.5

23.0Q1 Q2

Placement by quarter

Avg

vet m

ed c

harg

es, $

/hd

Avg

% d

eath

loss

Q3 Q4

% death lossVet med charges ($/hd)

$0

Death loss: 2%Pull rate: 20%

$/hd

acr

oss

all p

lace

men

ts

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

No Meta

Meta with 1/3

reduction

Meta with 1/2

reduction

Treatment cost

Death loss$100.00

$80.00

$60.00

$40.00

$20.00

$120.00

Death loss: 6%Pull rate: 50%

Death loss: 4%Pull rate: 40%

Cost of Micotil metaphylaxis

$36.00

Important Safety InformationSee label for complete use information, including boxed human warnings and non-target species safety information. Micotil is to be used by, or on the order of, a licensed veterinarian. For cattle or sheep, inject subcutaneously. Intravenous use in cattle or sheep will be fatal. Do not use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Use in lactating dairy cattle or sheep may cause milk residues. The following adverse reactions have been reported: in cattle: injection site swelling and inflammation, lameness, collapse, anaphylaxis/anaphylactoid reactions, decreased food and water consumption, and death; in sheep: dyspnea and death. Always use proper drug handling procedures to avoid accidental self-injection. Do not use in automatically powered syringes. Consult your veterinarian on the safe handling and use of all injectable products prior to administration. Micotil has a pre-slaughter withdrawal time of 42 days.

$36.17$30.22

$72.00

$60.28

$48.22

$105.00

$82.21

$64.72

9

10

A DEEPER LOOKBRD: BACK TO THE BASICS Healthy calves need a foundation of good fundamental husbandry practices.We demand a lot from calves, hauling them long distances then mixing groups from multiple sources together when they’re stressed and tired. But with a beef industry composed of many independent producers, we’ll always have those collection points where calves are gathered and commingled — and where they can start to break with bovine respiratory disease (BRD).

Vaccinate earlyPreventing a BRD outbreak means laying a foundation of basic husbandry practices. “A lot of this goes back to good fundamentals,” says Shaun Sweiger, D.V.M., beef production medicine consultant at Cattle Stats, LLC and part-time faculty member at Iowa State University. Brett Terhaar, D.V.M., Elanco technical consultant, agrees. “You’ve got to do the basics — get the basic husbandry things taken care of instead of pulling the calves off their mothers and relying on them getting an antibiotic down the road,” he says. Instead, producers can start setting calves up for success at branding or turnout with a vaccination — “the blocking and tackling of the cattle world,” as Terhaar calls it. “We see that calves respond to vaccines when they’re young — when the immune system gets turned on to respond to pathogens and to the booster that will come up in the fall.” At about the time of weaning (5 to 6 months), maternal antibodies (from colostrum received at birth) will be wearing off. “They start to be more vulnerable again right when we want to move calves,” Terhaar says. A booster at this point gives their immune system a second encounter with the pathogens — “The immune system likes to see things twice before the real threat occurs,” Terhaar says. Any strategy other than revaccination means playing catch-up and is much less likely to be successful. “At any level — stocker, backgrounder or feedyard — we can vaccinate them, but we’re way behind,” Sweiger says. “The exposure has already happened.”

Introducing new calvesFor calves arriving at the feedyard, basic husbandry to help prevent BRD outbreaks means “making sure calves have access to highly nutritious feed and clean, fresh water,” Sweiger says. But during the business of fall, these details are often overlooked, he says. “Many animals don’t get a proper introduction to a feedbunk and waterer. They know what water sounds like, so allow the waterer to overflow on the ground or pull the drain plug so they hear the water running. Then if they do go up to it, make sure it’s something they want to drink and not dirty.” The feedbunk should draw calves’ attention by including something that resembles what they’re used to, like hay. “Getting newly arrived calves to eat is critical to the success of the animal health program,” Sweiger says.

The human factorWith the right preventative measures in place, the next important factor is early detection of any BRD symptoms. That comes down to people: having someone check calves twice a day — someone trained and who knows what to look for. “We have a labor force that’s getting farther removed from their rural background,” Sweiger says. The result: good husbandry practices can suffer. “Let’s spend a little time with the calves so we can start seeing the subtle signs of calves getting sick. Early intervention is key. If we’re in a hurry, or the labor force is short, and we don’t give time and attention to those newly arrived calves, the outcome is not good.” Keeping calves healthy is not just good business — it’s what our industry strives to do every day. With increased scrutiny from consumers surrounding animal well-being, the beef industry can’t risk sickness and death rates becoming the next animal welfare issue, Terhaar says. “We’ve got to just get back to the basics,” he adds. “Good animal husbandry practices, vaccination — it’s the reason we are all in this business — to take good care of these animals so they can feed our growing population.”

By SUZANNE B. BOPP

1Edwards, A. J. 1996. Respiratory Diseases of Feedlot Cattle in the Central USA. Bovine Practitioner. 30:5-7.2Galyean, M. L., L. J. Perino and G. C. Duff. 1999. Interaction of Cattle Health/Immunity and Nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1120-1134.3Loneragan, G. H., D. A. Dargatz, P. S. Morley, and M. A. Smith. 2001. Trends in Mortality Ratios Among Cattle in US Feedlots. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219:1122-1127.4Chirase, N. K. and L. W. Greene. 2001. Dietary zinc and manganese sources administered from the fetal stage onwards affect immune response of transit stressed and virus infected offspring steer calves. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 93:217-228.

BRD accounts for 75 percent of feedlot morbidity and

50 to 75 percent of mortality, costing the industry an estimated

$800 to $900 million annually1-4

Elanco, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.

© 2014 Elanco Animal HealthVAC 33099-1

USBBUNON01228

10 11

Understanding the Relationship Between Feed Intake and Veterinary Medicine Costs

Key points• Understanding the variables that result in lower feed intake can be used to

identify and manage high-risk groups of cattle in your operation• Lost performance costs more today than ever before; setting feed intake

threshold levels can help pinpoint high-risk cattle before they have a negative impact on the bottom line

• To learn more about the correlation between feed intake and veterinary medicine costs or to determine your operation’s intake threshold levels, contact your Elanco sales representative

USBBUNON01270

Elanco, Benchmark®, Full Value Beef and the diagonal bar are trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates.© 2014 Elanco Animal Health.KNOWLS 31842-12

1An analysis of Elanco’s Benchmark database of 45,392 lots of cattle involving 6,720,494 steers and heifers weighing 400-700 lbs from 2011-2013 in the North Plains, Central Plains and High Plains. Data was restricted to lots that consumed between 0.5 and 2.9 percent of initial body weight during the first 14 days.

Table 1. Modeled DMI signals as a percentage of initial BW as criteria for reducing mortality and veterinary medicine costs

Steers, DMI Heifers, DMI

Initial weight, lbs 7 days 14 days 7 days 14 days

400 1.83 2.22 1.75 2.11

500 1.82 2.16 1.78 2.11

600 1.82 2.14 1.91 2.19

700 1.87 2.14 1.93 2.18

As cattle arrive at the feedyard, the first 7 to 14 days are critical in reducing morbidity and mortality and optimizing average daily gain and efficiency. Because feed intake is a key driver of increased daily gain and improved animal health, it’s important to understand the many factors that can affect it — geography, region, sex, in-weight and source — to name just a few.

Casey Maxwell, Ph.D. and Elanco beef technical consultant, recommends that producers consider these variables, while simultaneously analyzing low feed intake levels, to manage high-risk pens and improve their bottom line.

“Low feed intake and decreased performance are highly correlated,” says Maxwell. “Cattle that experience low feed intake for the first 7 to 14 days experience higher death loss and veterinary medicine costs for the remainder of the feeding period.”

Warning signals within the first seven days?

An analysis of Elanco’s Benchmark® database from 2011-2013 on over 45,000 lots of cattle shows a strong relationship between feed intake levels within the first seven days and veterinary medicine costs (Figure 1). For example, steers and heifers coming into the feedyard that consume less than 1.8 percent of their initial body weight (DM basis) are more likely to have increased veterinary medicine costs — about $20 more per head. As the rate of dry-matter intake (DMI) decreases during those first seven days, veterinary medicine costs increase, getting close to $50 per head for cattle consuming less than 1.0 percent of body weight (BW).1

“Cattle that don’t consume enough feed as they come into the yard can be problematic down the road,” says Maxwell. “This may not be a novel idea, but understanding the correlation and setting threshold levels for feed intake right from the start can provide producers with the warning signal they need to address high-risk cattle and better manage their marketing objectives.”

Using analytics to make decisions

Table 1 illustrates a sample model of feed intake threshold levels. Using this example, 400-lb steers consuming 1.83 percent or less of their initial BW within the first 7 days should be flagged as high risk. For 400-lb heifers, those consuming 1.75 percent or less within the first 7 days should also be flagged.1

When feed intake threshold levels are set, as the example in Table 1 demonstrates, high risk cattle can be identified within the first 7 to 14 days, allowing producers to consider adjusting management practices to help improve cattle health and performance to capture profit.

“Utilizing Benchmark and the real-time data we’re collecting now, Elanco is able to help producers not only identify and set their threshold levels, but also assist them with adjustments that may need to be made in order to meet their marketing goals,” says Maxwell. “For example, if we know certain cattle aren’t going to gain as much or perform as well during the first 7 to 14 days, producers may need to modify their projections to minimize risk.”

To discuss management and risk strategies to improve performance on your operation, contact your Elanco representative or technical consultant.

Adds Maxwell, “it’s all about what we can do to help producers improve their bottom lines.”

50

40

30

20

10

0

Day 0-7 dry-matter intake, % initial BW

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9

Vet

med

, $/h

d

Figure 1. Dry matter intake as a predictor of veterinary medicine costs1

SteersHeifers

WE DO WHAT WE DO

Competitiveness

Expert Profile

Robert Botts

Empowering Others

Expert Profile

Bruce Hoffman

WHY GALLERY & EXPERT PROFILES

PATH TO PARTNERSHIP Your 2013 Rumensin® Winter Rewards Program

PATH TO PARTNERSHIP Your 2013 Rumensin® Winter Rewards Program

USBBUMUL01056

WHY

12