Preventing Caught In/Under/Between Injuries in AFF

Monthly Safety Blast                  Produced by the Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention and Education   April 2014

Preventing Caught In/Under/Between Injuries in AFF The caught in/under/between category of injuries has consistently ranked highest among occupational injuries in agriculture, forestry and commercial fishing (AFF).  Most machines found in AFF have moving parts that can cause injury.  In addition to machinery, harvested timber and livestock also pose a danger.  The most common caught in/under/between incidents involve workers being caught in machinery or being pinned between equipment and another solid object such as livestock, trees or timber. Caught in/under/between incidents can occur due to incorrect hitching practices, not being visible to the equipment operator, inadequate safety guards on equipment or improper lighting in livestock handling situations.  What are some of the things you can do to prevent caught in/under/between incidents? Become familiar with equipment; know where the pinch, shear, wrap, cut and cushion points are located. Know where pull-in areas on equipment are located. Always shut down machinery before attempting repairs or inspection. Make sure all equipment guards are in place and properly secured. When hitching or unhitching equipment, stand to the side so that you are clearly visible to the equipment operator. Leave an escape route around machinery, logs, trees or livestock to prevent being pinned between objects. Never enter an enclosed area with livestock unless it is equipped with a man-gate. Always avoid the kicking region when approaching livestock. Resources: Caught in-between injuries in logging industry http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/InjuryFS/PDFs/LoggingCaughtin.pdf Secondary Injury Prevention: Caught-in, Caught-between, or Struck by Objects http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/pdf/AEX_981_2_10.pdf Dairy Farm Workers-Caught in, Under or Between Injuries http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/InjuryFS/PDFs/DairyFarmsCaught%20in.pdf Orchard Workers – Caught in/under between injuries http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/InjuryFS/PDFs/OrchardsCaughtin.pdf Monthly Blast written by Vanessa Casanova, PhD, Applied Research Manager for the SW Ag Center.

Beef Cattle Browsing - April 2014

Beef Cattle Browsing – April 2014

Editor: Dr. Stephen Hammack, Professor & Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Emeritus
Beef Cattle Browsing

• Archives

Beef Cattle Browsing is an electronic newsletter published by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University. This newsletter is a free service and is available to anyone interested in beef cattle.
THE  bST  SCARE  -  20 YEARS  AND  STILL  GOING

Early research established the recombinant bovine somatotropin, commonly called bST, increased milk production in dairy cows and it was approved for commercial use in the U. S. From the start, some consumer groups expressed fears about supposed effects of bST on human health. In 1993 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Joint Committee on Food Safety found no evidence of adverse health effects even at exaggerated dose levels. This was re-affirmed in 1998. Even so, some countries, including Canada and the European Union, do not allow use of bST.
After 20 years of commercial use in the U. S. on over 35 million cows, additional research and field observations have shown use of bST 1) has not increased human exposure to milk antibiotic residues, 2) has not affected expression of retroviruses in cattle, 3) and does not increase risk of Type I and Type II diabetes in children and adults consuming dairy products. However, many consumers still avoid milk products produced with bST and the UNFAO/WHO committee plans to reevaluate bST. It seems there is sometimes never enough science, or practical experience, to counteract human emotion.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1800; Univ. of Arizona, Cornell Univ.)
A  GENETIC  SILVER  BULLET  FOR  REPRODUCTION ?
Prior research had identified a possible genetic source of variation in reproduction. In short, the effect was a specific genetic deletion on a particular chromosome. Researchers evaluated two populations of cattle for evidence of this deletion: 1) Bos taurus of various breed background in central Nebraska and 2) Bos taurus-Bos indicus cattle in central Florida. No evidence of the deletion was found in the Bos taurus samples. In cows open two successive years in the Bos taurus-Bos indicus group, frequency of the deletion was 7%. The researchers concluded that, in cattle of some Bos indicus influence, the particular genetic location may provide opportunity to be used for selection of cattle for improved female fertility.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1378; USDA-ARS Clay Center, NB, Colorado St. Univ.)
EFFECT  OF  SIZE  ON  HEIFER  GROWTH  AND  REPRODUCTION
Size can be stated as either body weight or skeletal dimension. A commonly used system of skeletal dimension is frame score, determined by height at the hooks. Two spring-calving cow herds were available for study. One herd historically averaged 1220 lb mature weight; the other averaged 1470 lb mature weight. Heifers in this study from those herds averaged frame score 3.50 and 5.56 respectively. (Based on the historical mature weights, a frame score equaled about 120 lb per frame score, similar to that found in other research.) Heifers were grazed on dormant range from mid-October to mid-May, on growing pasture to early July, and placed in drylot to late September. Heifers were bred during the last 50 days of the drylot period.
Small-frame heifers gained more during the first period, and large-frame gained more during the second and third periods. Overall, large-frame gained 40 lb more (18%). At the start of breeding, small-frame averaged 705 lb (58% of mature weight) and large-frame 841 lb (57% of mature weight). Overall conception rate was 86% for small-frame and 84% for large frame, not statistically different. In drylot, small-frame consumed 20% less feed and development cost was 16% lower. Feed efficiency and cost/lb gain did not differ. Large-frame cost a total of $21.94 more feed in drylot (16% more). The authors noted that, as in some previous research, acceptable breeding performance can be realized by developing heifers to 55-60% of projected mature weight, as opposed to 60-65% previously recommended, with accompanying reduced cost.
NOTE: Based on projected mature weights in this study, for every 100 small-frame cows only 87 large-frame cows could be maintained on the same nutritional resource.
(2012 N. Dakota St. Univ. Beef Report, p.9)
SHOULD  GREATER  MATURITY  REQUIRE  MORE  MARBLING ?
For purposes of grading for quality, the USDA standards include evaluation of maturity. Maturity is based on visual evaluation of bone, cartilage, and muscle characteristics, so it is an estimate of physiological rather than chronological maturity. A-maturity carcasses are thought to be from animals 9-30 months of age, B-maturity from 30-42 months, C-maturity 42-72 months, D-maturity 72-96 months, and E-maturity >96 months. For some purposes, including eligibility for export to some countries, maturity is evaluated by dental characteristics. In most of those applications, 30 months of age is the maximum allowed for export (in an effort to eliminate possibility of BSE, which is rarely found in younger animals). Select grade carcasses must be A-maturity. Choice and Prime grade carcasses can be B-maturity but only with a higher degree of marbling.
A study was conducted to compare maturity with beef desirability. Carcasses were included only from cattle evaluated by dentition before slaughter as being < 30 months of age. A group of 300 carcasses meeting that pre-slaughter requirement was then classified by traditional carcass maturity factors as being either A or B-C; equal numbers in both maturity categories had Slight, Small, or Modest marbling (Select, Low Choice, and Mid-Choice for A-maturity). Strip loin steaks were aged 14 days and then evaluated.
There were no statistically significant differences between the A and B-C groups in mechanical tenderness or taste-panel tenderness, juiciness, or flavor. As marbling increased, quality measurements increased. The authors concluded that “when applied to grain-finished cattle whose dental ages are less than 30 months, USDA quality grades would be no less effective in identifying eating quality differences if the A and B-C maturity groups were combined and quality grades assigned using only marbling”. That is, in grain-fed cattle sorted by dentition, higher marbling should not be required for a given grade. But any such change would require revision of the USDA standards.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1792; Colorado St. Univ.)
INCREASING  CONSUMPTION  OF  BEEF
A survey funded by Beef Checkoff of over 3000 consumers examined possible ways to increase beef consumption. For all of the following, 23% to 31% of consumers indicated they would “definitely increase” buying and 34% to 45% would “probably increase” buying if they knew:

• 4 oz of beef has the same cholesterol as 4 oz of skinned chicken breast,
• beef is an excellent or good source of 10 essential nutrients,
• lean beef helps maintain healthy weight, builds muscle, and fuels physical activity,
• lean beef fits as well as chicken or fish for heart health,
• most popular steaks have <10% fat after being cooked and trimmed,
• U. S. testing prevents beef being sold that has added hormones remaining,
• most beef cattle spend most of their life grazing on pastures on farms and ranches, and if they saw:
• greater availability of large-quantity packs with lower price per pound,
• greater availability of trimmed 4-5 oz. steaks with < 200 calories in large packs,
• greater availability of trimmed, economically priced 4-5 oz. steaks in restaurants.

(National Cattlemen’s Beef Association)
GENETIC  RELATIONSHIP  OF PERFORMANCE  TRAITS  AND  REPRODUCTION
Records from 156,506 Bos taurus, mostly crossbred females were used to assess genetics of reproduction and its relationship to performance. Reproductive traits studied were age at first calving, calving within first 42 days, interval between consecutive calvings, and survival to next lactation. Performance traits studied were dystocia, linear type traits (describing skeletal, muscular, and functional characteristics of an animal), live weight and price, carcass traits, and subjectively scored weaning quality and docility.
Heritability of age at first calving was 0.31, but was only 0.01 to 0.06 for the other reproductive traits.  Genetic correlations between reproductive traits indicated:

• heifers younger at first calving calve later, but thereafter as cows calve earlier,
• females younger at first calving have shorter lifetime calving intervals but also leave the herd earlier (have lower survival),
• heifers calving earlier continue calving earlier as cows and have shorter calving intervals, but with little effect on survival,
• cows calving earlier have shorter calving intervals and longer survival,
• females with longer calving intervals have shorter survival in the herd.

Reproduction was generally lowly correlated with performance traits, except that heavier, more muscular cows had reduced performance for some reproductive traits. The authors concluded that “breeding goals for muscularity and live weight or growth rate should be cognizant of indirect response to selection that may cause any deterioration in reproductive performance”.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1412; Animal & Grassland Research Center at Cork, Ireland and Irish Cattle Breeding Federation at Cork, Ireland)
WHAT  IS  THE  OPTIMAL  YIELD  GRADE ?
Carcasses with superior (numerically lower) Yield Grade have higher value when sold on a carcass value grid. But Yield Grade is only one of the factors determining carcass value. A recent report analyzed carcass data collected in calendar year 2013 by a major high-quality beef company. Carcasses from a natural program or that had received zilpaterol were excluded. Averages were calculated for the five Yield Grades:

• carcass weight increased from 830 lb for YG1 to 935 lb for YG2,
• fat cover increased from 0.26 in for YG1 to 0.98 in for YG5,
• ribeye area decreased from 16.2 sq in for YG1 to 11.8 sq in for YG5,
• carcasses discounted for excess weight increased from 3% for YG1 to 23% for YG5,
• Quality Grade increased from high Select for YG1 to mid-Choice for YG5,
• Choice-Prime combined increased from 34% for YG1 to 95% for YG5,
• Prime increased from 0.2% for YG1 to 15% for YG5,

Carcass price/cwt and total $/carcass were:

• YG1 $193.75 and $1609,
• YG2 $197.94 and $1684,
• YG3 $201.04 and $1762,
• YG4 $196.98 and $1783,
• YG5 $189.45 and $1770.

The report concluded that YG3 was optimum.  NOTE: While YG4 and YG5 had slightly higher total $ return, these cattle were fatter so they would probably have been less feed efficient late in the finishing period and/or fed longer, thus increasing cost and reducing their net return.)
(U. S. Premium Beef, LLC; from USPB News 16:1, 1/17/14)
ANIMAL  FEED  VS.  HUMAN  FOOD
The debate continues as to whether feed for livestock competes for human food, and is inefficient and wasteful. A recent report found that

• global animal agriculture provides a wide array of safe, affordable, and nutrient-dense food products and useful by-products,
• livestock are important not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, where draft power from livestock is important,
• much of the earth’s land surface is not capable of producing crops for human food but can be effectively and sustainably used by livestock,
• livestock can effectively and economically use by-products from production of human food and fiber that would otherwise not be well utilized,
• improved communication is needed between producers and consumers for a better understanding of the economic, environmental, nutritional, and social benefits from animal agriculture.

(Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Issue Paper No. 53, Sept, 2013)

Can beer make grilled meats healthier? John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 03/27/2014

Savvy cooks often use beer in cooking, and the right brew served on the side can compliment many a fine dish. But now, researchers report that marinating meat in beer prior to grilling could reduce the formation of substances suspected to be harmful.
Grilling meats at high temperatures creates substances known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which in some studies have been associated with increased risk for colorectal cancer.
Researchers from Portugal and Spain conducted experiments using beer as a marinade and measuring PAHs after grilling. Results of their tests are published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
The researchers marinated pork for four hours in Pilsner beer, non-alcoholic Pilsner beer or black beer, and then grilled the samples to well-done on a charcoal grill.
According to the research report, black beer showed the highest inhibitory effect, reducing the formation of PAH by 53 percent, followed by non-alcoholic Pilsner beer at 25 percent reduction (finally, a use for non-alcoholic beer). Regular Pilsner beer provided a reduction of 13 percent. The researchers concluded that using beer marinades, particular dark beer, could provide a suitable mitigation strategy for PAHs in grilled meats.
Read more from the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Beef Cattle Browsing - March 2014

Beef Cattle Browsing – March 2014

Editor: Dr. Stephen Hammack, Professor & Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Emeritus
Beef Cattle Browsing

• Archives

Beef Cattle Browsing is an electronic newsletter published by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University. This newsletter is a free service and is available to anyone interested in beef cattle. 

WHAT  IS  IMPORTANT  TO  CONSUMERS ?
A survey was conducted of a sample of 1,950 consumers representative of the U.S. population. Respondents were asked to indicate relative value of 11 attributes of ground beef, beef steak, milk, and chicken breast. Freshness and safety ranked highest. Health, price, taste, and nutrition were in a medium grouping. Lowest in importance were environmental impact, hormone free/antibiotic free, animal welfare, origin/traceability, and convenience. There was generally little difference in results across the four food products.
http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/BeefDemand/default.asp
EFFECT  OF  HORN  FLIES  ON  MILK  PRODUCTION
A study was conducted on 53 spring-calving Brangus-crossbred cows. Horn fly counts and milk production estimates were recorded monthly from May through October on individual cows. Fly counts were lowest in May and highest in August.  Higher fly counts were associated with lower milk yield and lower percent milk fat. Milk yield was affected more by fly count in May-June (when cows were in early lactation and milking at highest levels) than in August-October. Higher fly counts decreased milk yield most in higher-milking cows. These results are perhaps another indication that adverse factors in the production environment, including horn flies, have greatest effect on higher-producing individuals.
(J. Animal Sci. 92:1208; Univ. of Arkansas, USDA-ARS at El Reno, Ok.)
RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  INSTRUMENT-EVALUATED  MARBLING  AND PALATABILITY
Since 2006, instrument grading of beef carcasses has been approved by USDA. A study was conducted to assess how marbling estimated by instrument is related to eating characteristics. From four major packers located in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, 718 steer and heifer carcasses were selected for evaluation. All carcasses were A Maturity, which comprises the vast majority of carcasses submitted nationwide for USDA grading. Only about 1% each was of visibly apparent dairy type or Bos indicus influence. Approximately equal numbers of carcasses were included with the 7 degrees of marbling ranging from Traces (the level for USDA Standard) to Moderately Abundant (the level for mid-Prime). About 70% of the carcasses were “A-stamp”, that is, identified at slaughter as ≥ 51% black hide, and therefore potentially qualified for Certified Angus Beef if carcass factors are acceptable.
From marbling degrees of Traces through Modest (mid-Choice) there was little difference in distribution of heifers and steers. However, from Moderate (high-Choice) to Moderately Abundant (mid-Prime), 60-70% of the carcasses were heifers. About 50% of the carcasses with Traces marbling were A-stamp, but over 90% of carcasses with Moderately Abundant marbling were A-stamp. As level of marbling increased, fat cover tended to increase and rib-eye area decrease, therefore numerical Yield Grade increased (lean:fat ratio decreased). Carcass weight was not significantly different, except that carcasses with Traces were lighter.
Strip loin steaks were evaluated. As level of marbling increased, there was also increase in mechanically-evaluated tenderness and taste panel evaluation of juiciness, meaty/brothy flavor, and buttery/beef flavor. As marbling increased, bloody/scummy flavor, livery/organy flavor, and grassy flavor decreased. Almost all (98-99%) of carcasses with marbling qualifying for Prime received positive ratings for overall sensory experience; others were upper 2/3 Choice = 80-90%, low Choice = 62%, Select = 29%, Standard = 15%.   Overall, the authors concluded that instrument evaluation of marbling “effectively identifies subsequent differences in eating quality”, of broiled strip steak.
(J. Animal Sci. 91:1024; Colorado St. Univ.)
COW  TEMPERAMENT  VS.  CALF  GROWTH
A total of 380 cows in two herds were evaluated before calving for chute behavior and chute flight speed, and behavior when isolated. Shortly after calving, cows were scored for defensiveness when calves were ear tagged and when a cow-calf pair was isolated; calves were given a subjective vigor score. Calf ADG was measured to 7 months of age.
In one herd, temperament and defensiveness were unrelated; in the other, cows more nervous in the chute were more defensive. Across both herds, temperament and defensiveness were unrelated to calving ease or maternal behavior shown to the calf. In one herd, cows more nervous in the chute had calves lighter at birth and calves from cows more agitated when isolated before calving had lower ADG. Defensiveness was not related to either calf ADG or vigor; pre-calving temperament was not related to calf vigor. The authors concluded that “pre-calving temperament and post-calving defensiveness appear to be independent traits” but “fearful cows may produce calves with decreased birth weight and ADG”.
(J. Animal Sci. 91:4417; Anim and Vet. Sci. Group, SRUC, Scotland)
DOES  SITE  OF PROSTAGLANDIN  INJECTION  AFFECT  ESTROUS  SYNCHRONIZATION ?  
Industry efforts have significantly reduced injection-site lesions in valuable beef cuts. This has been accomplished by making injections in the neck region, as outlined in Beef Quality Assurance programs. A group of 308 Angus multiparous crossbred cows in two herds were injected in either the neck or rump with prostaglandin, as part of either a standard or modified estrous synchronization program. Site of injection did not significantly affect conception rate. Conception rate did not vary whether insemination was immediately after synchronization or 21 days later. The authors concluded that “location of injection did not change breeding or pregnancy rates” so “producers should follow BQA guidelines” when using estrous synchronization.
(J. Animal Sci. 92 E-Supple 2:20; No. Carolina St. Univ., Ohio St. Univ., Pennsylvania St. Univ.)
GENETIC – ENVIRONMENTAL  INTERACTION
If cattle do not perform the same in different environments, then genetic evaluations in one environment may not be universally useful. An analysis was conducted on records of birth and weaning weights (n = 74,681), postweaning gain (n = 39,104), and stayability (n = 28,895) from the American Red Angus Association. Records were assigned to nine geographical regions of the U.S. (Corn Belt, Desert, Gulf Coast, Lower Plains, Mountains, Northeast, Pacific Northwest, South, and Upper Plains). Records were included only from sires with at least 50 calves and at least two regions.
Regional interactions were not important for birth weight, weaning weight, or postweaning gain. However, some notable interaction was found for stayability (probability of a female still being in the herd at 6 years of age). In general, interactions were lower for adjoining regions. The authors noted there was little interaction for growth traits, but “care should be taken when selecting sires to produce replacement heifers”. NOTE: lack of genetic – environmental interaction means ranking of sires’ genetic potential for a trait should be similar across regions. It does not mean actual level of performance in different regions would necessarily be the same (and often would not be) because performance includes both genetic and environmental influences.
(J. Animal Sci. 92 E-Supple. 1:9; Univ. of Missouri, Kansas St. Univ, Univ. of Zagreb, Croatia)
VALUE  OF  CERTIFIED  PRE-CONDITIONED  CALVES
The Oklahoma Quality Beef Network is a program designed to increase value of calves through improved health, general management, and marketing. Full details on requirements are available at http://oqbn.okstate.edu/ . Data were collected on 11,927 calves at eight sales in the fall of 2013. Prices were compared for OBQN-certified calves and non-certified calves.
Average premium for certified calves was $8.65/cwt. Over the previous four years the yearly average ranged from $6.54 to $9.23. Premiums were generally, but not always, higher for lighter calves. Combining the higher price and additional weight gain, and subtracting cost of preconditioning, estimated additional return per head for certified calves was approximately $54 for 2013. The authors of the report noted that any other variables possibly affecting price such as lot size, weight, breed, hide color, sex, fleshiness, and muscling were not considered in the analysis.
(Oklahoma St. Univ. Cow/Calf Corner Newsletter, 3/03/14)