U of A University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

Pictures of chickens, flowers, wheat, a boy looking through a magnifying glass, irrigation pipe, soybean pods, and fruits and vegetables.

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Experiment Station


Search | Publications | Jobs | Personnel Directory | Links
County Offices | Departments

About Us

Find Us

For the Media

Agriculture

Aquaculture
       & Fisheries

Beef
Beekeeping
Corn
Cotton
Dairy
Forage/Pasture
Forestry
Grain Sorghum
Horses
Horticulture
      Commercial

Poultry
Rice
Soybean
Specialty Agriculture
Swine
Wheat

Links
Newsletters

Business & Communities

Families & Consumers

Health & Nutrition

Home & Garden

Natural Resources

4-H Youth Development

Public Policy Center

For Faculty & Staff

Giving

Dale Bumpers College
of Agricultural, Food &
Life Sciences


Division Home


Agricultural Experiment
      Station Home


Cooperative Extension
      Service Home

 

Arkansas Agriculture Newsletters
Beef CHAMPS
August 2009

Printer Friendly Version

Preconditioning, Still a Good Option? Fly Control Has Been Challenging This Year

Preconditioning, Still a Good Option?
Brett Barham, Ph.D

In times of increasing costs and decreasing revenue, does spending more money to produce a calf really make sense? The answer is yes, if that increase in cost is more than offset by increased revenue. Preconditioning calves is not some new trend that is going to fade away. In reality, it is now more the norm than the exception. Study after study has shown the financial advantage to preconditioning calves.

A study from Colorado State that looked at 10 years of sales data from Superior Livestock Auctions video sales shows an average premium of $4.37 per hundredweight for calves that were vaccinated and weaned for 45 days. Others show similar results; even data from the 2005 Arkansas Sale Barn survey shows a $4.01 premium (Figure 1). That’s $22 extra for a 500pound calf using the $4.37 premium.

Bar chart of Figure 1. Price premiums at various markets for pre-conditioned calves.

The hidden profit from preconditioning comes from post-weaning weight gain. If weaned calves gain 2 pounds per day during the 45day preconditioning period, that’s 90 extra pounds of calf that you have to sell.

For the last two years, the price discount associated with increasing weight has been very small compared to historical data. It was once common to see a $10 per hundredweight price drop when moving from a 500to a 600pound calf. For the week ending on July 24, 2009, this discount was less than $3. This should be encouraging producers to put more weight on their calves prior to selling them. So let’s put some calculations to this and see how it comes out.


Study after study has shown the financial
advantage to preconditioning calves.
 

We will use a 500-pound weaned calf. The average selling price for that nonpre-conditioned calf was $100.82 per hundredweight for the week ending July 24, making this calf worth $504.10. If we preconditioned him for 45 days and he gained 90 pounds during this time, he now would weigh 590 pounds. The average selling price for a 600pound steer was $98.80 per hundredweight, making our example calf worth $582.92 or $78.82 more than before. If we add a modest $3 premium for his being preconditioned, that brings his market price to $101.82 or $600.62. This preconditioned calf is worth $96.52 more than the freshly weaned calf.

There are expenses to preconditioning, so all this is not pure profit. I typically tell people that the premium alone should pay for the costs; the profit comes from the increased weight. In these times, it is important to explore every opportunity to increase revenue. Additionally, it is important to follow an established preconditioning program. Buyers are looking for these calves, but are not as willing to pay any premium for cattle that do not have any documentation on what has been done to them. It would also be beneficial to work with your normal market, and place your cattle in a special preconditioned sale as these tend to draw the greatest number of buyers who are looking for preconditioned cattle. Preconditioning your calves should strongly be considered for all beef producers. For more information on preconditioning, please contact your local county extension office.


Fly Control Has Been Challenging This Year
Jeremy Powell, DVM, and Dr. C.A. Tucker, Livestock Entomologist

Fly problems started early this year for cattle producers and have continued to be a challenge. Heavy fly infestations can cause stress to your cattle, leading to poor weight gains and decreased milk production. Flies can also spread disease-causing pathogens, leading to pinkeye or mastitis in cattle. Estimated losses from horn flies cost U.S. cattle producers nearly $900 million each year. A USDA report indicated that heavy fly infestations in cows resulted in one-half pound of weight loss per day and a 20 percent drop in milk production. On-the-farm demonstrations conducted in Arkansas showed that beef cows treated with fly tags increased their calf weaning weights between 12 and 60 pounds per head compared to the non-tagged control groups. Cow-calf producers in Arkansas deal primarily with two different species of flies, horn flies and face flies.

Horn flies are the most important external parasite of pastured cattle. Both male and female horn flies are active blood feeders and can feed up to 20 times per day. They are generally found on the back and torso of infested cattle. Horn flies remain on cattle during the warmer months of the year, periodically biting their hosts and sucking blood. Infestations surpassing 2,000 flies per animal can be achieved when left unchecked. Their typical life cycle ranges from 9 to 12 days. The females deposit eggs into fresh manure piles. Three larval stages and a pupae stage are completed in the manure pat. Adult flies emerge from the fecal pat and seek new hosts.

Picture of

Horn flies on host.


Producers should rotate from one chemical class to another each year, decreasing the likelihood of resistance development.
 

Face flies are non-blood sucking flies that feed on secretions of the eyes, nose and mouth. Face flies are known to transmit pinkeye bacteria (Moraxella bovis) to cattle. Their life cycle is approximately 12 to 20 days. Females lay approximately 20 eggs per batch in manure. Three larval stages are competed in the manure. The final larval stage will migrate from the manure and develop into characteristic white pupae. Adult emergence follows. Face fly control by itself is probably most effective using dust bags or cattle rubs.

Currently, there are many chemical classes of insecticides available for use against external parasites. They include synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, endectocides, insect growth regulators, chlorinated hydrocarbons and carbamates. There are a number of useful application methods for these products such as sprays, pourons, spotons, dust bags, back rubbers, boluses, ear tags dips and injectables.

Horn flies can develop resistance to insecticide chemicals. Resistance may occur more readily when ear tags are used as the primary control method. This occurs due to the constant exposure of an ear tag chemical to flies throughout several months during the summer. Research has shown that resistance will occur when the same chemical class of insecticide is repeatedly used for two to three years on the same farm. Therefore, producers should rotate from one chemical class of insecticide to another each year, decreasing the likelihood of resistance development. Refer to the chart on below to identify the products that you routinely use in your operation. Using this chart, you can select products from different chemical classes that would allow you to rotate to different classes each year.

There are a number of methods that can be utilized by Arkansas cattle producers to help delay the development of insecticide resistance and thereby prolong the effectiveness of chemical insecticide control. These include:

  • Rotate chemical classes of insecticide on an annual basis, and utilize a different application method from year to year.
     
  • Delay applications of insecticide until an economic threshold of flies has been reached (200 flies/animal).
     
  • Immediately discontinue use of a chemical insecticide when it fails to work, regardless of time of year. Then, utilize a different class of compound.
     
  • If insecticide ear tags are used, remove them in early September and use an alternative class of insecticide and application method for the remainder of the fly season.
     
  • Discontinue use of all insecticide at the end of the fly season.

For more information about this fly control for cattle, contact your county Extension office.

 

Chemistry

Active Ingredient

Brand Name

Dustbag Insecticides

OP

coumaphos

CoRal Dust

OP

tetrachlorvinphos

Rabon Dust

SP

zetacypermethrin + piperonyl butoxide

Python Dust

Note: Several different dusts can be handsprinkled on cattle. Do not use these in dust bags unless the label indicates you can do so.

Back Rubber Insecticides

OP

coumaphos

CoRal Fly and Tick Spray

OP

tetrachlorvinphos

Ravap EC

SP

permethrin

Permectrin II, Durvet Permethrin, Brute, Prozap X, Permethrin 10, Ectiban

Insecticide Ear Tags

SP

permethrin

Atroban, Apollo, Ectiban, Ectrin, Ear Force, Expar Extra, GardStar Plus, New Z Permethrin, Permectrin

SP

cyfluthrin

Cutter Gold

SP

betacyfluthrin

CyLence Ultra

SP

zetacypermethrin

Python, ZetaGard

SP

zetacypermethrin + synergist

Python Magnum

SP

lambdacyhalothrin

Saber Extra, Excalibur

OP

ethion

Commando

OP

coumaphos + diazinon

CoRal Plus

OP

fenthion

Cutter Blue

OP

pirimiphos methyl

Cominator, Rotator, Tomahawk

OP

diazinon (20%)

Optimizer, BovaGard, XTerminator

OP

diazinon (40%)

Patriot, Cutter

OP

diazinon + chlorpyrifos

Warrior, Diaphos Rx

SP + OP

lambdacyhalothrin + pirimiphos methyl

Double Barrel

SP + OP

permethrin + chlorpyrifos + synergist

Ear Force Ranger

SP + OP

permethrin + chlorpyrifos

PermaTect II

OC

endosulfan

Avenger

AV

abamectin

XP820

Animal Spray Insecticide

OP

coumaphos

CoRal

OP

tetrachlorvinphos

Rabon

OP

tetrachlorvinphos + dichlorvos

Ravap EC

SP

permethrin

Atroban, Expar, Permectrin II, Ectiban, GardStar, many others

Insecticide PourOns

SP

permethrin

Atroban, Expar, Permectrin II, Ectiban, GardStar, Brute, Ultra Boss, many others

SP

lambdacyhalothrin

Saber

AV*

endectocides

Ivomec, Cydectin, Dectomax

Oral Larvicides (Feed Additives)

IGR

diflubenzuron

Clarifly Larvicide

IGR

methoprene

Altosid IGR

OP

tetrachlorvinphos

Rabon Oral Larvicide

Bolus Insecticides

IGR

diflubenzuron

Vigilante

 


Jeremy Powell, DVM Assistant Professor - Veterinarian

Brett Barham, Ph.D. Assistant Professor - Breeding and Genetics


The information given herein is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service is implied.

Printed by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Printing Services.

 

Back to Beef CHAMPS

 


© 2006
University of Arkansas
Division of Agriculture
All rights reserved.
Last Date Modified 01/15/2010
Webmaster

University of Arkansas • Division of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service
2301 South University Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 • USA
Phone (501) 671-2000 • Fax (501) 671-2209
 

MissionDisclaimerEEO
PrivacyFOI