Story stops reveal common thread

We’ve been lucky enough to find some great young talent over the years to serve as Industry Information interns, and this year is no exception. Meet Meg Drake a Kansas farm/ranch gal who will be a senior ag communications major at K-State this fall. She’s heavily involved in livestock judging and along with Collegiate CattleWomen and agricultural advocacy group Food For Thought.

Our interns typically rate their on-location feature story stops as the best part of their internships. Meg shares a little bit about two of her recent visits:

What does ABC’s hit 1990’s TV show Full House and the ranches I’ve visited as a CAB intern have in common?

How could an extended family living under the same San Franciscan roof possibly have any similarities to a family raising cattle in the rural Midwest?

For those who have never tuned in to the show, the correlation may be hard to guess. But viewers, like my sister and I who watched reruns every weekday, can see that the bond of family is portrayed in every episode, much like the bonds I’ve witnessed on many of my story visits.

Take for example Henke Farms in Salisbury, Mo., they’ve been farming and ranching now for five, going on six, generations. To patriarch Ron Henke watching his son and business partner Charles raise his grandson Colin has been a beautiful sight to behold.

After sitting down and chatting with the family over a delicious hamburger lunch I quickly saw how involved the women are as well.

It was fun listening to Charles and wife Robyn reminisce about a time that she, despite being very pregnant, took the four-wheeler out to check for late spring-born calves. “My husband is highly allergic to fescue, of all things,” says Robyn. “So to save him from having an uncomfortable reaction I volunteered to check for calves.”

Another trip took me to Larson Angus outside of Tribune, Kan.. Like the Henkes, they believe caring for 550 cows requires a family effort. Dan, a 3^rd generation rancher, along with wife Becky and four sons, manage their own family feedyard. “We take care of all the in between too,” says Becky. “We truly are a ‘from pasture-to-plate’ kind of operation.”

And so goes the saying “it takes a whole village to raise a child.” To Danny Tanner from Full House this means recruiting extended family to help raise his three daughters, but to rural Midwestern families it means banding together to help past and future generations successfully run the ranch.

~Meg

Hot, dry, early

Those three words seem to go together.

It’s been hot. I saw 109° yesterday. It’s been dry. I can hardly keep up with watering my garden, so I can only imagine what the irrigated farmers feel like around here.

We’ve only had 1.47 inches of rain since May 1. (We’d normally have around 8 in. during that timeframe). Here’s the “percent of normal” graph from the National Weather Service for the month of May:

This handy graphic from Weather.com illustrates the month of June pretty well (although it’s measured about 20 miles east of here where they caught some extra moisture this month).

: This graphic from Weather.com is a little tough for this “glass is half full” gal to make rosey!

And the worst of it is that there are probably people reading this and saying, “That’s more than what we’ve gotten!”

When I went out on a story trip a month ago, I thought it looked like August then.

Normally the end of May would=green grass in Western Nebraska. Not this year!

So, what’s a cow-calf producer to do? I’ve heard several folks on ag radio talking about early weaning. Just this morning Aaron Berger from the University of Nebraksa-Lincoln told listeners to “get creative” when it comes to meeting cows nutritional requirements and I just saw this article, “Early calf weaning may prove beneficial this year,” on Drover’s CattleNetwork last week.

It’s a popular, proven strategy to mitigate the effects of drought, but did you know early weaning could also improve carcass quality? Not exactly a rain cloud, but it is a silver lining!

In 2009, I interviewed a bunch of experts for my three-part series on early weaning. One of them started out, “It’s too good to be true. That’s what many producers think when they’re told they can sell heavier, higher-quality calves while reducing cow costs with one simple management strategy.”

To read the what, how and whys of early weaning check out those articles that include information from the likes of Nebraska’s Ivan Rush, K.C. Olson of K-State and Steve Loerch in Ohio.

Think Early <–This tells all the potential advantages.
When sooner is better <–This talks about the systems it might work best for.
Early weaning pays <–Walks you through the economics (of course, this is based on ’09 numbers, so keep that in mind)

In 2010, we did a series of articles with tips and tricks of the trade, from those who have successfully implemented early weaning. Read those stories to hear about things like revamping bunks and adjusting diets for smaller rumens.

Wean early without working overtime <–Marketing and facilities ideas for early weaning
Food for Thought <–Nutritional considerations
Calf health at half the age <–Pretty self-explanatory, but it talks about health plans for these younger animals

Being forced to switch up management is not fun or easy, and it probably doesn’t help to know that you’re not the only one in this hard place. But hopefully those articles give you a few things to think about.

In the meantime, I’ll be praying for rain….

May your bottom line be filled with black ink,

Miranda

PS—If you need some resources to help as you “sharpen your pencil,” Berger mentioned UNL’s drought site and as I clicked around it looked like there were some pretty helpful articles and tech bulletins. You might want to check it out.

Lung adhesions rob profit

Cattle may show no obvious sign of illness

by Miranda Reiman

Sick cattle are expensive cattle. Treatment is costly in itself, but the side effects of illness keep robbing through lower performance and carcass quality.

An analysis of more than 62,000 calves in Iowa’s Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity (TCSCF) found the presence of lung adhesions from 2002 to 2011 was negatively correlated with those measures.

“When you add it all up, lung adhesions are pretty costly to the industry,” says Darrell Busby, TCSCF manager.

The 2012 report includes TCSCF retained ownership records from cattle fed in 18 cooperating yards that used common nutrition, health and management strategies. Individual packing plant records were matched with live and harvest data, then sorted into four data groups: cattle without lung adhesions and never treated in the feedyard, no adhesions but treated, adhesions but not treated, and cattle with lung adhesions that were treated.

Overall, 5% of the calves had lung adhesions, but only one-third (1,042 head) were treated in the feedyard.

“We ask that all cattle put into the futurity be preconditioned and have two rounds of modified-live vaccines,” Busby says. “I’m not sure our cattle are completely representative of the entire industry.”

Visual observations in the packing plant, where the problem slows the processing chain speed, may indicate a higher incidence nationwide.

“There are several monetary costs to this,” Busby says. “They gain less and they eat less.”

Cattle that were never visibly sick and had no adhesions were heavier at harvest (1,185 lb. compared to 1,138 lb. for those treated cattle with lung adhesions) and took fewer days to get there (165 vs. 179).

The non-treated, healthy cattle reached 68.4% USDA Choice and above, compared to 53.8% for the cattle that had adhesions and received treatment. Even more dramatic was the drop in Certified Angus Beef^® brand acceptance from 17.8% to 7.6%.

“That’s a big, big reduction in percent Choice,” Busby says. “You also cut Prime down to just a third of a percent. Sure, you improve your yield grades, but those premiums aren’t great enough to offset the quality grade discounts.”

In nearly every category significant to final value, the cattle free of lung adhesions won out: final live and carcass weight, days on feed, average daily gain (ADG), cost of gain, dressing percentage and quality grade.

All of this was reflected in final profit per head, where that group earned $67.55 while those with adhesions and treated lost $5.32.

Nobody wants sick calves, but this study punctuates the need to employ prevention strategies diligently.

“When we report this study to producers, most of them say, ‘What happened? My calf has lung adhesions but he was never treated in the feedlot,” Busby says.

Lung adhesions indicate an animal had health challenges at some point in its life–but not when–so the calf could have been sick earlier, or missed in the feedlot.

“After one of the worst feeding winters, we found lung adhesions were three times normal, indicating environmental factors as well,” Busby reports.

“Based on other work, we know that the younger, lighter calves are the biggest problems,” he says. “So I’d suggest good nutrition at late gestation and early lactation, calves vaccinated and weaned 30 to 45 days–those are proven [on-ranch] methods to reduce health problems in the feedlot.” After placement on feed, the manager can only invest the time to identify sick calves and treat them with effective drugs.

He looks to the future with high hopes for additional tools to combat the problem.

“In our data, the estimated heritability of being susceptible to bovine respiratory disease was .18. I hope someday DNA technology will help us identify sires and select for that,” Busby says.

To learn more about the analysis, visit www.cabcattle.com.

What’s hiding?

Several factors influence USDA’s black-hided numbers

By Miranda Reiman

Black-hided. It’s the initial requirement for more than 80 beef brands certified by USDA.

That also means it’s the first limiting factor for supply of programs like the largest and longest-running of those: the Certified Angus Beef^® brand.

Total federally inspected fed-cattle harvest is the first number CAB packing director Clint Walenciak looks at. “The matrix of what drives total CAB pounds starts with that, and then it would be the percent that’s black-hided,” he says. “Then we apply our 10 carcass specifications to narrow that down even further, so that we’re running right at 24% today.”

That’s why the company has tracked black-hided numbers since 2004, and USDA now reports a percentage of “A-stamp” carcasses in the harvest mix.

“The fragmented nature of our industry means the only place we can truly capture how many cattle in the U.S. beef cattle supply are black-hided, or Angus-influenced to some degree, is at the packing plant level,” says Lance Zimmerman, CattleFax analyst.

That number has trended upward since 200 to level off and settle back to 62.9% last year, an obvious majority. Yet many are surprised the percentage isn’t higher.

“When you look at different surveys that estimate bull turnout in the population, they typically runabout 70% Angus, and Angus bull sales continue to be strong, so some of those numbers are counter to what we’re seeing,” Walenciak says.

Indeed, the 2011 Western Livestock Journal Bull Turnout Survey had the Angus breed leading all others with 71.5%, and that was down a bit from the 2009 mark.

So is it a case of bad math?

Walenciak and Zimmerman say no. It’s a matter of looking at the number of native black-hided cattle compared to outside factors like Mexican and Canadian feeder cattle imports, Canadian finished cattle imports and fed dairy cattle.

Those four categories can have a “dilution effect,” says Walenciak. “As we see the U.S. fed [harvest] decrease the past year-and-a-half, those numbers become a higher percentage of the total.”

They made up 16.1% of the total harvest mix in 2004 compared to 18.4% in 2011.

Walenciak and his team put a value on the sway each has on the A-stamped percentage. For example, Canada lags the U.S. in black Angus influence, so they applied a 40% black factor to total imported Canadian fed cattle for each year. They estimated Mexican feeder cattle at 20% black.

“That’s based generally on what we understand Angus genetics to be there,” Walenciak says. Such adjustments arrived at a native black-hided percentage 12 points higher than the all-inclusive USDA number. It rose from 61.5% to its peak of 74.9% in 2010, and stood at 74.2% last year.

“The upward trends command a greater portion of my attention than the steady to slightly softer year that may have showed up in 2011,” says Zimmerman.

Judgments based on just one year are “dangerous,” he adds, especially considering a smaller cowherd and drought effects. Still, many are intently watching that dip in numbers.

“We have our best guesses on why that’s occurring, like slight heifer retention and those being a very high percentage black,” Walenciak says.

Although there’s no way to track that, Zimmerman agrees it makes sense.

“If we were just putting black animals into the fed cattle mix [without retaining heifers], eventually we’d have seen those numbers drop off, but we’re clearly producing more black cattle. Most likely that is not only from Angus bull purchases, but from retaining those offspring in the herd as well.”

It’s easier to put numbers to other variables.

Zimmerman notes the wide year-to-year swings in some of those subset populations, like last year’s Mexican feeder cattle imports at a record high for the 2004-2011 timeframe, at 1.4 million.

“A large part of that influence was just like our friends in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, further south that drought continued,” he says. “The Mexican producers were no different in that they needed to liquidate cattle, wean early and send to market. That contributed to a much larger number of Mexican cattle than we’ve seen before.

But in 2008, Mexican feeder imports were as low as 702,873. Last year’s 1.4 million represents a much larger influx of a much more diverse cattle population.

Exchange rates and policies have added to the variability in Canadian imports, both feeder and fed cattle, from very little in 2004 to peaks in 2007 and 2008.

“They have been going through their own cowherd reduction the last few years,” Zimmerman says. “So those give-and-takes can have a significant influence on this hidden calculation of the black-hided number.”

Despite all that “noise” in the data, there are two messages this black trend reveals.

“If you look at the ’90s and early 2000s, it was very common for a producer to market his cattle as ‘good, reputation blacks,’” Zimmerman says. “This shows that those good reputation blacks are pretty common in the marketplace. It’s really important for a producer to take advantage of any extra detail and data he can get his hands on to show his Angus cattle are worth more than just average black-hided cattle.”

Walenciak hopes ranchers will make more of those top-level animals, because just being black-hided isn’t enough.

“As we grow the demand for high-quality beef, it’s very important for us to keep that consistent supply so retailers and restaurateurs can have confidence in the reliability of that supply,” he says.

Market development, selection tools boon for Canadian beef

by Steve Suther

Cow-calf ranchers can’t control weather and markets, but price signals guide something that can be controlled: herd genetics.

Larry Corah, Certified Angus Beef^® brand vice president, told a group of Saskatchewan producers in May about the history of markets signaling with more dollars for higher quality beef. He said selection and management can help any producer get in on those dollars.

“Premiums are the first benefit of quality cattle,” he said, noting that U.S. data shows a $35 to $50 per-head advantage in value for cattle that qualify for CAB vs. those lower Choice (AAA in Canada) that do not meet CAB quality specifications. Select, or AA grade cattle give up $50 to $80 per head compared CAB qualifiers, but cattle making CAB Prime are worth as much as $200 per head more than lower AAA.

Years of focused marketing has trained thousands of brand partners and developed increasing demand around the world. Marketing is the key to bringing those higher values back to the ranch, Corah said. “Producers, feedlots, packers, retail, restaurants–we’re all part of the production chain. We have to build networks and work together to pull in these extra dollars at every level.”

It is easy to see the value of quality in premiums, but higher quality cattle are often more efficient, too. An analysis of data on more than 440,000 steers across feedlots in several U.S. states showed pens of high-quality cattle have greater average daily gains and total gains on a finishing ration than pens of low-and middle-quality cattle. Bottom line, the high-quality steers earned $11 to $17 per head more profit than the other two quality levels.

“We sell everything based on dollars per pound, so for many producers, pounds reign supreme,” Corah said. “But the point is, you can have quality and pounds. The two go hand in hand.”

Unlike premiums and feed costs, customer satisfaction does not directly translate into dollars and cents, but ultimately, it underwrites cattle prices.

Because beef is a more expensive protein, consumers have to want it and believe it is worth more or they will switch to a cheaper alternative. “Right now consumers are driving the demand to get an extremely high-quality beef eating experience, and they are willing to pay for it,” Corah said.

This demand has created a ready-made market opportunity. Last year CAB brand grocers and restaurants sold 32 million pounds of the beef in Canada, but only half of it originated there.

Producers can take advantage of this opportunity by using selection tools, data and communication, Corah said. Expected progeny differences (EPDs) can help in selecting bulls to create cattle that satisfy the high-quality demand, and feedyards can share performance data back to the ranch. At every level, those registered with the new BIXS program (www.bixs.cattle.ca) can find individual carcass values as well, he noted.

Earlier this year, CAB added another tool to the box for anyone who wants to know more about potential for gain and grade. Marbling (intramuscular fat) is the key factor in high-grading beef, and it’s also a highly heritable trait, Corah said. GeneMax™ (GMX) is a new DNA test for high-percentage Angus cattle to rank genomic marbling and post-weaning growth potential.

At $17 per head, it may be the most affordable option for such testing, available through http://www.cabpartners.com/genemax/index.php. In less than four weeks, producers can have results that take much of the guesswork out of marketing options. Moreover, applying the technology to heifer selection can make for faster genetic improvement in a beef-cow herd.

“There is a market out here for a higher quality product for anyone who can deliver it; the challenge is to focus on the right genetics to get that done,” Corah said. “With the cattle you have now and the genetic tools available to improve, Canadian cattlemen are in a prime position to fill the demand.”

Hard to define, easy to taste

Pleasing consumers key to premium beef, audit says

by Laura Nelson

Eating satisfaction rules when it comes to making beef lovers happy.

That was clear in early results from the 2011 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA), but defining that satisfaction seemed harder to pinpoint.

“If producers get the right signal, and they are pretty good managers, they can hit the target,” said Keith Belk, Colorado State University meat scientist. “But they have to have the right signal.”

One constant beacon comes from the Q-word in that audit, which has run every five years since 1991: people at every link in the beef chain want quality. A call for more Prime and premium Choice beef rang out, with the target-consumer consensus suggesting 5% and 31%, respectively. Actual production levels for all beef in those categories during 2011 was 2% and 20%, 14 points short of expectations.

Science has proven marbling at those levels brings increased eating satisfaction, so it’s no surprise that the NBQA showed consumers want more of that beef.

The audit format asks customers who buy feeder calves, fed cattle, beef carcasses, subprimals and variety meats to define seven quality attributes. Those included food safety, eating satisfaction, cattle genetics, visual characteristics, how and where cattle were raised, lean, fat, weight and size. Once ranked, the survey burrowed deeper into the meaning and value of each.

On the production end, feeders, packers and allied industry ranked “tenderness” as the top definition for eating satisfaction, followed by “good beef flavor.” Respondents in the food service and retail industries had it just the other way around.

“We need to continue striving toward improving eating satisfaction, and there will be an emphasis on flavor there,” Belk said. “Flavor has pulled to the top; once you have satisfactory tenderness, then flavor is all of a sudden elevated in its relative importance.”

In foodservice, 63% of respondents favored flavor as their definition, while 52% said tenderness and 29% called it customer satisfaction.

“This was the first year that we saw flavor mentioned more importantly than tenderness,” said Deb VanOverbeke, Oklahoma State University animal scientist. “Flavor really was emphasized by the end users, but it is still defined differently among those who are buying live cattle.”

All NBQA respondents were purchasers of live animals or beef product, and VanOverbeke said that divide reflects their views on the resale value of each quality term. In this era of branded beef programs that reward higher quality and consumer-based targets, performance further down the chain has become more valuable.

“They are looking at where to filter the product in once it is in their system,” she said, “trying to determine how to best spend and best capture each dollar.”

The terms by which eating satisfaction was defined may have differed among the segments, but their pursuit of that dollar never wavered. A new aspect of the study brought to light beef buyers’ willingness to pay for the traits they found most important.

While only 2% of those who purchase live cattle said that eating satisfaction was a requirement they must have in order to buy, nearly half of them said they’d pay a premium of 11.4% to guarantee that quality. That premium level ranked No. 1 in the amount packers and feeders said they would pay above base price to guarantee any quality attribute.

VanOverbeke said readiness to pay that premium on the live-animal side may correlate to another term the NBQA worked to define: cattle genetics. Packers, feeders, retailers and foodservice professionals defined “cattle genetics” for quality as a predominantly black hide. Four out of five listed “genetic potential for marbling” as their second-ranked term.

Those definitions likely pertained to feeders who are supplying branded beef programs, she explained: “If they know what those genetics are going to get them, they might pay a premium for those cattle because of how they typically perform.”

More than 20% of respondents closest to end users said “eating satisfaction” was an absolute requirement for purchasing. That quality had the highest share (47%) of respondents willing to pay extra as well – about 11% more – to guarantee it.

Belk said taking a whole-industry perspective from the survey illuminates a clear path the success: “If you align a supply chain that addresses a specific consumer target and has specific process control all the way up and down the chain to address that target, then the whole system is more profitable.”

VanOverbeke agreed the bottom line comes down to tying all those surveyed industry segments together: “If you know who your customer is and you know what they are looking for, you are more likely to target some premiums that you might be able to earn by doing a few things differently.”

Solving the mystery of DNA – Part II

If you missed yesterday’s post, I’m back today with more CSI-style intel. Er, Cattle Sampling Information that is.

There are some DNA testing fundamentals that are consistent with all types of testing. Labeling each collection card for animal ID and keeping a clean work area are general. If our tips for blood collection aren’t universal enough for your operation, here are a few reminders specific to hair collection for DNA purposes.

Location, location, location
As tempting and accessible as the tail head is, DNA samples really should come from the tail switch. Pull up and away from the tail for best results.

Scissors won’t cut it
Running isn’t the only activity you should leave your scissors at home for. In hair sampling, the only part of the hair that is actually sampled is the root ball on the very end of the hair follicle. Samples must be pulled out by the root. Whatever you do, don’t collect hair clippings.

Go for quality AND quantity
Make sure you have enough hairs with in-tact root bulbs on the card. Twenty hairs is usually a good magic number to shoot for.

Cleanliness still matters
When it comes to manure, the same rules apply as blood collection. Tail switch hairs should be free from mud and feces to ensure that the tests are accurate.

Don’t leave loose ends
The root bulb end of the hair should be placed in between the films on the collection card. That is where the lab takes samples. Use the scissors that we outlawed for collection and put them to good use in trimming excess hair so that there is nothing hanging off the edge of the card.

For more step by step directions on hair collection, check out this flyer.

With all these tips on DNA sampling, I’m curious how you plan to implement today’s technology. Let us know how you use information from DNA testing to add more black ink to your bottom line!

– Kara

Solving the Mystery of DNA Collection – Part I

The Black Ink team has been talking about DNA technology quite a bit lately and how it relates to cattlemen. But let’s face it, anytime you implement a new tool in your herd, the mechanics can be a bit intimidating.

What kind of DNA sample is required to get the information I really want on my cattle?

On crime-solving television, DNA convicts criminals from just one strand of hair, a finger nail clipping, or some dried up blood off the back of a car bumper. Just like everything else in Hollywood, there’s a lot more that goes into DNA collection in the real world.

DNA samples need to be high-quality in order to get good lab results. If samples aren’t good enough, all you wind up with is a day of working cattle and a report that likely shows a high percentage of failed tests. Some of these “how to’s” could save you that heartache:

Basics for Better Blood Samples

• Hello, my name is ______. Yes, it’s basic, but so important. Always start by labeling your collection cards with an identifying number for each animal. Generally a tag or tattoo number, you’ll need a sure way to match your test results back to the individual animals.

• ABC: Adequate Blood Collection– When samples go to the lab, they take a hole punch out of the saturated area. Sometimes multiple punches are needed to get the best results. Make sure you have enough blood on the card, but not so much that pooling occurs.

• Manure is the enemy. Although fecal matter is used in other types of bovine tests, DNA sampling is not the place for it. Blood cards contaminated with manure are extremely difficult to get test results from. To decrease your fertilizer frustrations, consider taking blood samples from the ear instead of the tail. You may also want to make sure the ranch hand delegated to tailing isn’t also handling your DNA cards.

Samples like this one would fail a DNA test due to the manure.

• Keep it clean. Beyond manure, try to keep your collection cards away from dust or other contamination. I know what you’re thinking – how does one avoid dirt while working cattle? It’s not easy, but it’s worth the extra effort to ensure sample quality. If you’re bleeding from the ear, keep a rag on hand to wipe out ear wax or dirt before collection.

• This is not poker – don’t stack the deck. It’s very important to allow blood cards to dry thoroughly (24 hours, out of sunlight) before being stacked. Also, don’t mail samples in a sealed plastic bag. If blood coagulates on the card, sample quality may be compromised.

The GeneMax™ test kit is only $0.50 and includes your blood collection card and a sterile lancet.

*To order one of the above kits, visit http://www.cabpartners.com/genemax/order.php.

If blood collection isn’t the best fit for your operation, stay tuned tomorrow for part two for alternative DNA collection methods.

Check out this video or this flyer for more step by step directions on collecting a blood sample.

~Kara

Natural, organic – What’s the diff?

All natural. Certified organic. Non-hormone treated cattle.

I take for granted that I generally know what all of those terms mean because of the business I’m in. But if they still confuse you, then this is the post for you. (And you’re not alone. Our team is always fielding producer and consumer questions about them.)

Myth: In beef production, the terms “natural” and “organic” are interchangeable.

Fact: They’re not the same. Natural is a marketing claim, which can vary by brand or company, while organic is more rigorous and is certified by USDA.

To be honest I can’t keep all the natural programs and requirements straight. They vary a lot. But I can tell you that Certified Angus Beef(R) brand Natural is what we call a “never, ever” program—cattle never receive antibiotics or added hormones. They’re also fed a 100% vegetarian diet and are minimally processed, without added ingredients. (Information on producing cattle for CAB’s natural program is just a click away.)

Here’s how the government defines natural: “As required by USDA, meat, poultry, and egg products labeled as ‘natural’ must be minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients. However, the natural label does not include any standards regarding farm practices and only applies to processing of meat and egg products.”

That leaves it pretty wide open, huh?

Organic, however, has a pretty specific definition. Cattle must meet those “never, ever” standards I mention above, plus receive certified organic feed. They must follow specific production protocols, which are too numerous to list here, but can be accessed via the USDA website.

Then that brings us to Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC), which are just what they sound like: cattle that have never received implants. Beef from those cattle is primarily destined for export to the European Union.

I could write on and on about different nuances and things to consider when discussing natural vs. organic, but Tom Troxel, University of Arkansas, does a good job of plowing that ground in his piece: Natural and Organic Beef.

Reading that will do you much more good than me trying to reinvent the wording.

If you still have questions after that, please post them. Maybe I know the answer. Or maybe I don’t, but I bet I can find it for you.

May your bottom line be filled with black ink,

Miranda

Story stops reveal common thread

You may also like

Hot, dry, early

You may also like

Lung adhesions rob profit

by Miranda Reiman

You may also like

What’s hiding?

By Miranda Reiman

You may also like

Market development, selection tools boon for Canadian beef

by Steve Suther

You may also like

Hard to define, easy to taste

by Laura Nelson

You may also like

Solving the mystery of DNA – Part II

You may also like

Solving the Mystery of DNA Collection – Part I

You may also like

Natural, organic – What’s the diff?

You may also like