Tag: Calves

End Targeted Persecution of Maude Family

Posted on by Twin Rivers Media

End Targeted Persecution of Maude Family

WASHINGTON (April 28, 2025) – Today, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC) commended U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for ending the overzealous criminal prosecution of family ranchers Charles and Heather Maude.

Secretary Rollins’ announcement today is welcome news both for the Maude family who have endured arduous court appearances, legal fees, and the threat of prison time, as well as for family ranchers across the West who feared heavy-handed legal pressure from the last administration. This announcement is a fitting culmination to the last year of work NCBA and PLC have done in Washington to find a reasonable end to this unnecessary situation. The support of grassroots cattle industry leaders from around the country was also crucial to achieving this victory.

“No family farmer or rancher should have to go through what the Maude family did,” said NCBA President Buck Wehrbein, a Nebraska cattleman. “The targeted prosecution of the Maude family was way out of line for the U.S. Forest Service, and this was a clear example of government overreach that had direct, catastrophic impacts for a hardworking fifth-generation ranching family.”

Under the Biden Administration, Charles and Heather Maude were indicted on federal charges of “theft of federal property,” as the result of a disputed fence line with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and a small parcel in the family’s pasture that had been managed the same way since the early 1900s. Despite the Maudes engaging in good faith with USFS to address the boundary dispute, USFS diverted from normal protocol. Armed federal agents served the Maudes with federal summons where Charles and Heather were charged separately, requiring them to each retain their own attorney and subjecting each to penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000.

“Charles and Heather Maude are public lands ranchers who for decades held a federal grazing permit and were permittees in good standing,” said PLC President and Colorado rancher Tim Canterbury, a federal grazing permittee. “As permittees, we are required to work collaboratively with the government, but when federal agencies view ranchers as the enemy, it threatens the trust that every single rancher has in their federal partners. The public outcry we saw on behalf of the Maudes goes to show that public lands ranchers everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief that the USDA under Secretary Rollins is no longer trying to slap handcuffs on hardworking farmers and ranchers.”

NCBA, PLC, and our state affiliates have been involved in supporting the Maudes since they first faced legal charges. Last August, NCBA and PLC leaders brought media attention to their case and urged then-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and then-Chief of the Forest Service Randy Moore to work with the Department of Justice to change course. Since that time, NCBA and PLC staff have participated in numerous meetings with Forest Service and USDA leadership to reel in rogue federal agents and a siloed, activist Department of Justice. After the election in November, NCBA and PLC immediately brought the Maude’s case to the attention of the Trump Administration, urged the White House to intervene, and have demanded accountability from USFS law enforcement leaders.

“This case was an unfortunate example of the imbalance of power between family ranchers and a formidable federal government. Put simply, the Maude family was expected to bear the burden of an inefficient and unfair Forest Service process, and their story had a chilling effect on ranchers’ trust in federal land management agencies they interact with daily,” said Executive Director of PLC and NCBA Natural Resources Kaitlynn Glover. “Both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council are pleased that our months-long campaign to find a good solution for Charles, Heather, and their kids has finally become a reality.”

American Cattlemen 2025

End Targeted Persecution of Maude Family.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has represented America’s cattle producers since 1898, preserving the heritage and strength of the industry through education and public policy.  As the largest association of cattle producers, NCBA works to create new markets and increase demand for beef.  Efforts are made possible through membership contributions. To join, contact NCBA at 1-866-BEEF-USA or membership@beef.org.

The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents 22,000 cattle and sheep producers who operate with federal grazing permits in the West. The PLC advocates for these western ranchers who preserve our nation’s natural resources while providing vital food and fiber to the nation and the world. Learn more at www.publiclandscouncil.org.

CONTACT:
Hunter Ihrman, hihrman@beef.org
Steve Johnson, srjohnson@beef.org

Cows Need Winter Supplements

Posted on by Amy Wold

Cows Need Winter Supplements.  In the article “Nutrient Synchrony: Protein and Energy Working Together,” we discussed how protein and energy act synergistically in the rumen to booster animal performance: Each requires the other for peak function. We also mentioned how winter supplementation often consists of a protein supplement, but that protein is not always the limiting nutrient. In this article, we will talk about both protein and energy supplementation and how to know which is the limiting nutrient and when to feed it.

Nutritional Needs for Spring-vs. Fall-Calving Cows

In a spring-calving system in the southern Great Plains, if warm-sea-son forages are managed for grazing through the early part of the dormant season (stockpiling), cow maintenance requirements after weaning can be met going into December. Keep in mind forage type and maturity typically affect forage quality.

In fall-calving cows, protein and energy requirements for lactation and maintenance are typically not met by warm-season stockpiled for-ages as they transition into dormancy. At this point, lactating cows will start to lose body condition. It’s not unusual to hear someone talk about how their cows look a little “hard” after coming through winter, even though they fed a supplement. Nine times out of 10, this is because they were protein-forward in supplementation all the way through winter.

Myth: Cows only need protein to maintain condition through the winter.

“Let’s look at nutrient requirements during the fall/winter for both calving systems.

If you’re on a spring-calving schedule with a February to April calving window (Figure 1 and 2, green line), you can expect a cow’s nutrient requirements to be the lowest for both crude protein (CP) and energy (total digestible nutrients, TDN) close to and following weaning around September/October.

If you’re on a fall-calving schedule with a September to November calving window (Figure 1 and 2, yellow line), you can expect a cow’s nutrient requirements to be the highest for both CP and energy during the same time.

Example Scenario

For example, CP and energy requirements of a spring-calving cow close to and following weaning drop to approximately 6% (CP) and 46%(TDN) of total dry matter intake (DMI) around September/October (see Figure 1 and 2). In a fall-calving cow, CP and TDN requirements during the first two months of lactation (September/October) are as high as10-12% CP and 60-65% TDN of total DMI (Figure 1 and 2). This range in nutrient requirements in a fall-calving cow during lactation is dependent on cow size, cow age, peak lactation potential and DMI.

For a spring-calving system going into the fall, this gives many producers a sense of relief. They met high nutrient requirements during the growing season, were successful in meeting nutrient needs throughout the summer, weaned a healthy calf and now the cows can be self-sufficient until spring again. For a fall-calving system going into the fall, the relief just ended.

Energy (TDN) Drops In For-age When Cow Needs It Most

As fall transitions into winter, the nutrients available in most forages begin to decline, particularly energy. Good quality native pasture will usually hold CP fairly well during the dormant season and can meet much of a dry cow’s CP requirements throughfall and maybe early winter. Even well-managed bermudagrass can hold CP levels through December, de-pending on how wet the winter is.

However, it’s important to remember that the dry cow is also the gestating cow and approximately 67% of fetal weight occurs during the last three months of gestation. This requires a significant amount of nutrients, specifically energy. Not only is the cow requirement now steadily increasing starting around December (again, considering calving season begins in February), but the fetus is starting to impose on rumen capacity as it grows, reducing her dry matter intake.

Therein lies the conundrum: she is eating less but needs more. And while she may be lacking in protein, the initiation of that latter trimester initiates a switch in the limiting nutrient — energy, which is now a priority.

Know Cattle Size and Forage Quality

There is no graph or chart that can be made to point you to the perfect supplement for the winter months. It all relies heavily on two things: cow type (size, age, stage of production and lactation potential) and forage (both quality and availability). It is critical to know the size of your cattle rather than just guessing and to test your forage in order to meet requirements without overspending and underfeeding one nutrient or both. Cows Need Winter Supplements.

In December:

A 1,400-pound cow with 20-poundpeak lactation and a February calving date requires 1.5 pounds more TDN per day (14.2 pounds vs. 12.6 pounds) and 0.15 pounds more CP per day (2.1 pounds vs. 1.86 pounds) than a1,200-pound cow with the same lactation potential.

A 1,200-pound non-lactating cow that is seven months pregnant with a February calving date requires 4.5pounds less TDN per day (11.8 pounds versus 16.3 pounds) and 1.2 pounds less CP per day (1.6 pounds versus2.8 pounds) than a 1,200-pound lactating cow three months after calving.

Which Nutrient Is Needed?

In order to know what nutrient is limiting. You need to have a good understanding of the nutrients that you have available.  And how much you have available through the winter period. Then based on animal type and stage of production, you can identify which nutrient is limiting and how much. At that point, you can shop for supplements that provide the right nutrients at a reasonable price.

For example: If you are a producer whose property and resources favor feeding range cubes and who is on a spring-calving schedule. It usually is most financially sound to feed a high-protein cube (30-38%) up until December.  Then switch to a less protein-dense cube (20-25%) up until calving. This way you can increase pounds of supplement to meet energy requirements without overfeeding protein and overpowering your feed budget.

If you are feeding a commodity ration, your nutritionist may be more forward with a higher protein base (cottonseed meal or soybean meal) early in the winter and incorporate more energy (corn or corn byproducts) closer to calving.

Cows Need Winter Supplements

Most cows in most production systems are going to require some form of supplementation during winter. To support and promote fetal development, as well as to meet her own maintenance requirements. Every producer benefits from becoming more informed about the nutrients available to cows in the pasture.  As well as what the cow requires throughout the year relative to her size, production state and production potential.

Knowing when to invest in protein, energy, or to meet cow requirements as they fluctuate.  Is sure to yield a healthier, more productive herd and to increase the effectiveness of dollars invested in the cow herd.

Cows Need Winter Supplements.

American Cattlemen

Choosing Modified-Live or Killed Vaccines For Calves

Posted on by Twin Rivers Media

Choosing Modified-Live or Killed Vaccines For Calves

By Heather Smith Thomas

There are many commercial vaccines available to protect cattle against infectious agents. Some are modified-live vaccines and others are killed products. It’s not always easy to decide which are best when vaccinating calves.

Dr. Donal O’Toole, a pathologist at Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, University of Wyoming, says producers use many different products but his preference, at least for viral agents, is to use a modified-live vaccine—when it is safe to use modified-live products.

“If you give a vaccine by a natural route, such as an intranasal vaccine for respiratory viruses, the modified-live product has advantages. With a killed product, the amount of antigen an animal receives is basically just what is in the injection. When using an attenuated modified-live vaccine the antigen will expand in the animal’s body, and also moves to some of that agent’s target sites, such as the lungs. It essentially gives animals a mild and generally subclinical infection,” he says. This triggers more response within the body, and stronger immunity.

“Another advantage, especially when using intranasal viral respiratory agents, is that it by-passes the effect of maternal antibodies,” says O’Toole. In young calves, many vaccines do not stimulate a strong immune response because they still have passive immunity from the dam (antibodies in colostrum). Those antibodies in the calf neutralize most or all of the antigens in the vaccine, so the calf’s immune responses are minimal.

Most vaccines are ineffective in calves until colostral antibodies (passive transfer) wanes, but the intranasal modified-live vaccines can be given at a younger age, with good results. If a producer is having respiratory disease in young calves, this would be the best option, to try to prevent problems.

“In terms of using modified-live vaccines, the only ones I have reservations about are the IBR products against bovine herpes virus one (which causes ‘red nose’) just because we have seen abortions caused by this virus. It may be shed by vaccinated calves and the vaccine virus gets back to pregnant cows if those calves are still nursing their mothers. Most of these abortions occur at 30 days with some strung out as late as four months after exposure. This makes it harder to figure out an association between the vaccine and the abortion, unless we ask if the producer used modified-live IBR vaccine,” says O’Toole.

“If there is a chance that the pregnant cow does not have robust immunity to IBR, it’s a questionable practice to give nursing calves modified-live IBR vaccines. “We published several papers on this. I don’t have a good feel for how or why we see bovine herpes virus one abortions associated with vaccine strains on such a sporadic basis. There must be additional factor(s) that we don’t understand. Abortions due to vaccine IBR strains are relatively rare, but at our laboratory we see one or two each year,” he says.

Killed vaccines are safer, but need more booster shots to be fully protective. “When producers use killed products, they give a primary shot followed by a booster two or three weeks later. This involves handling the cattle again.” If producers know they won’t be able to give a booster, it’s probably best to use a modified-live vaccine. They should talk with their veterinarian when making a plan for a vaccination program.

Vaccinations given to calves during the first months of life often serve as a priming vaccine. Vaccinations given at weaning then act as a booster to further stimulate the immune system to ensure adequate protection.

“On cow-calf operations pneumonia in young calves is common. Most respiratory diseases are due to viral agents. These are BRSV, PI-3, IBR (bovine herpes virus one) and BVDV. Some producers vaccinate against these. There is variability among producers in whether they also use bacterins for bacterial agents such as Mannheimia and Pasteurella multocida. Personally I prefer that people vaccinate for those as well as viral agents, since bacterial agents complicate most cases of calf pneumonia and are often the actual cause of death,” says O’Toole.

Most modified-live vaccines against respiratory agents are for viruses, but there are a few modified-live bacterial vaccines. Your veterinarian can guide you on these choices, and whether to use the killed or modified-live products.

Trying to select a “best” vaccine is difficult because so many products are available. “Veterinarians can advise you, but their experience varies, and they will differ in their advice to clients. If a veterinarian has a wreck with a certain product, especially if it happens more than once, he or she generally won’t touch that product again. I teach a course to veterinary students, and they often ask which products to use. They want me to tell them which vaccines are the most reliable ones on the market, but given the large number of licensed products for individual agents, it’s not that simple,” says O’Toole.

“There are probably 90 products available for IBR, and another 150 for BVD. There is no way I can recommend a specific product. Each veterinarian has to try to keep up with what is going on with biological products and use his or her best judgment. I think it’s wise to consult with a veterinarian who knows which diseases circulate in his/her practice area and ask which products give the best results over time. It would be nice if we only had to choose between five or 10 products, with different strains of the pathogens, and formulations, but that’s not the case. It’s hard for producers to make these choices. It’s hard enough for clinicians to try to figure it out. My suggestion is to ask a veterinarian with a few gray hairs, who has seen many things, for that advice.”

Dr. Russ Daly, Extension Veterinarian/ Professor, Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Science, South Dakota State University says there are some vaccines that have to be modified live (not killed) such as the intranasal vaccines. “You don’t have a choice there, because there are no killed intranasal vaccines. And if you are giving toxoids like seven-way or eight-way clostridial vaccines (or C. perfringens C and D toxoid) these are only killed vaccines,” he says.

“Where we do have a choice for calves is with the viral diseases like IBR, BVD, BRSV or PI-3. There are some killed and some modified-live vaccines for those. When talking about bacterial pneumonia, and pathogens like Mannheimia and Pasteurella there are some live versions of those vaccines as well as killed,” says Daly.

Any time a vaccine is approved for sale and use in the U.S. it has to go through a testing and approval process. The manufacturer must be able to show that the vaccine actually has some benefit and is safe. “The vaccine has to stimulate the immune system. For some vaccines, a good deal of research exists to show that this stimulation results in disease reduction in vaccinated animals. For other vaccines, the research may simply show that vaccinated animals have a higher antibody titer than the unvaccinated animals and this is enough to get USDA approval,” he explains.

“Any vaccine should be expected to stimulate the immune system of the calf, if administered appropriately as per label directions. There are several different things to consider however, when trying to decide between modified-live and killed vaccines.

First, we want to look at efficacy, and what we expect that vaccine to do in the calf. Modified-life vaccines tend to stimulate the immune system in a different way than killed vaccines do. The immune system responds to modified-live vaccines similar to the way it responds to the actual viral infection. The immune response is directed more toward cell-mediated immunity, which is very important in protection against viral infections. From an efficacy standpoint, it makes sense to consider using modified-live vaccines when trying to prevent a viral infection,” says Daly.

“This does not mean that killed vaccine can’t do the same thing in terms of prevention and stimulating the immune system, but the body’s response to killed vaccines is weighted more towards antibody production in the animal. Antibodies focus more on the pathogens outside the body’s cells, such as bacterial infections or early viral infections. This difference can help us understand a little more in terms of which choices we should make, from a standpoint of effectiveness,” he says.

“The next thing to consider would be convenience. Because modified-live vaccines often don’t have a strict requirement for boosters, you can use them in some situations where a killed vaccine might be difficult to implement.” If you only have one opportunity to vaccinate calves and won’t be able to run them through again later for a booster, or might be delayed on getting them in again (during the proper time frame) for their next shot, it might be wise to use a modified-live vaccine.

“If killed vaccines were used pre-weaning, a booster is critical to provide for a good immune response. If modified-live vaccine were given, the need for (and timing of) that booster is not as important,” Daly explains. Thus the modified-live vaccines tend to give a little more flexibility.

Another factor related to flexibility in vaccine choice has to do with handling and storage requirements of modified-live vaccines, which are less forgiving than killed vaccines. While both types must be kept at refrigerator temperatures up to the time of administration, modified-live vaccines must be used promptly after being mixed.

“The next thing we worry about is safety. Killed vaccines, by their nature, can never cause the disease we are trying to prevent. With live vaccines, though they have been attenuated, there is a chance that the virus can replicate in the animal’s body and cause the disease we are trying to prevent. Approved modified-live vaccines have been tested to assure that, in normal calves, this won’t be a concern. The vaccine company tests the vaccine by administering it to calves at a dose that is several times higher than label dose, to make sure it can’t revert to the disease form. This safety factor means that in most cases we don’t have to be concerned about modified-live vaccines causing the illness they are trying to prevent,” Daly says. This level of comfort may not be present, however, when modified-live vaccines are given to animals that are stressed or have a compromised immune system for some other reason.

“The final thing to consider is cost. The modified-live vaccines tend to be less expensive than the killed vaccines. Each producer must look at all the pros and cons to determine which vaccine best fits his own situation. A conversation with their veterinarian can guide them the best way possible. There are choices, and it’s not a situation where one is always better than the other. Either type of vaccine should be expected to be helpful in stimulating the calves’ immune systems.”

Skip to content