The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
Beef Production Practil
That Pay- South and
James Simpson, William Kunkle,
Robert Sand and Gene Cope
Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences / University of Florida / John T. Woeste, Dean
This bulletin presents an economic analysis of four beef cattle management practices: heavy culling,
parasite control, a vaccination program and implanting calves with growth stimulants. An analysis of the
impact from being a good, average or low producer is also provided. The figures are relevant for most south
and central Florida operations, but conditions vary considerably between areas and management situations.
Thus, even though the estimates are based on as much information as possible, few published studies were
available to draw on so individuals may want to make estimates for their own units. For this reason, the
assumptions and calculations used, although sometimes cumbersome, are provided.
The computations provided in Parts II and III indicate that parasite control and vaccination have such a
high net return that all producers should carry out these programs. It is strongly advised that each producer
develop a plan with his or her local veterinarian as some practices, such as fluke control, may not be neces-
sary in particular situations, while others may be recommended.
The prices used reflect conditions prevailing in the fall of 1983. Note that even with these relatively low
prices, both parasite control and vaccination still provide high returns. In general, net benefits will increase
in direct relationship with cattle price increases. For example, if prices increased 25 percent, net benefits
from parasite control and vaccination would also increase 25 percent. Over time, costs would also increase
somewhat as well.
Implanting calves with growth stimulants provides almost as much return as parasite control and vacc;na-
tions: S5 or $6 for each dollar invested in just 70 days (using fall, 1983 prices). Again, the return would
increase proportionally with calf price increases: if the prices increased 25 percent, net benefits would, too.
The benefits described from implants are averages and will fluctuate given different situations. Differences
between non-implanted calves may be difficult to detect visually, so producers beginning this practice may
want to work with their county agent to set up experiments, and also to obtain information about correct
procedures used in implanting.
The impact of producing at a high, average or low level or, alternatively, in adoption of recommended
practices, is given in Part V. Space is provided for individuals to assign their own weights to the various
factors and prices. From these simple calculations, relatively accurate estimates can be made of the impact
from a variety of management practices. Producers are urged to utilize the Florida Beef Production Hand-
book (Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 1983) as a guide.
*Professor of Livestock Marketing Development, Food and Resource Economics Department; Assistant Professor and
Extension Beef Specialist, Animal Science Department, Associate Professor and Extension Beef Specialist, Animal Science
Department; and Associate Professor and Extension Veterinarian, College of Veterinary Medicine, respectively, IFAS,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW ........................................... ............. Inside Cover
LIST OF TABLES ............................ ................. .. 4
PART I ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CULLING STRATEGIES ............. 7
PART II ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CONTROLLING PARASITES .......... 19
PART III ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF VACCINATION PROGRAMS .......... 29
PART IV ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IMPLANTS ....................... 39
PART V PROJECTED PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS, INPUT
COSTS AND RETURNS FOR THE GOOD, AVERAGE
AND LOW BEEF PRODUCER ................................. 47
REFERENCES ................................... ... ................ 54
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Cattle inventory, South or Central Florida 100 cow
operation ..... *........... .......................... ... 8
1.2 Estimated costs and returns for a 100 cow South or
Central Florida cow-calf operation, usual versus
heavy culling, 1983 ................. ..... ...... ....... 10
1.3 Impact of increasing cattle prices on usual versus heavy
culling profitability....................... ....... ..... 15
2.1 Length of consequences from cattle parasites in South
and Central Florida .............. ... .. ........... .... 2G
2.2 Cattle parasite treatment determination, recommended
treatments, cost per treatment and annual cost per
cow unit, South and Central Florida, 1983 ............... 21
2.3 Estimated net benefits from recommended parasite control
procedures in percentage and weight terms, South and
Central Florida, 1983 ....... .. .... ........ ............. 23
2.4 Estimated financial benefits from parasite control
procedures in South and Central Florida, 1983 ........... 25
2.5 Benefit risk-cost ratios per cow unit for various
parasite treatments, South and Central Florida, 1983 .... 27
3.1 Short-term and long-term benefits from vaccinating
cattle in South and Central Florida ..................... 32
3.2 Estimated cost per head for vaccinating against six
major diseases in South and Central Florida, 1983 ....... 33
3.3 Estimated physical losses from diseases in South and
Central Florida cattle herds ........................... 34
3.4 Estimated income lost per cow unit from diseases in
South and Central Florida cattle herds, 1983 ............ 35
3.5 Benefit risk-cost ratios per cow unit from six beef
cattle diseases, South and Central Florida, 1983 ........ 36
4.1 Growth promoting implants for beef cattle ............... 40
4.2 Classes of cattle for which implants have been approved 40
4.3 Effect of Ralgro implants on daily gains of
suckling calves in Florida .............................. 42
4.4 Results of three trials comparing Compudose and Ralgro
implants in suckling calves in Florida, 1983 ............ 43
4.5 Effects of Ralgro implants on daily gains of
yearling steers in Florida ............................. 44
4.6 Effect of Synovex implants on gains of yearling cattle
grazing Bermuda and Bahia pastures In Florida .......... 44
4.7 Economic benefits from implanting suckling calves,
South and Central Florida, 1983 ........................ 45
5.1 Production practices and projected levels of production
for South and Central Florida beef producers ............ 48
5.2 Projected cash production costs and returns for South
and Central Florida ranches at three levels of
performance, 1983 ........................................ 50
5.3 Impact of increasing cattle prices on being a Good,
Average or Low producer ................................. 52
PART I. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CULLING STRATEGIES
Heavy culling of open and low producing cows is an often discussed,
but seldom analyzed cattle production strategy for improving a calf crop
and expanding current cash flow. The purpose of this section is to show
a method by which producers can evaluate the costs and benefits from
this practice. Naturally, every operation is different so space is
provided in the budget for comparisons on your ranch. However, the
data, while synthesized for a typical rather than actual ranch, are
realistic for Central and South Florida in 1983 and do provide guide-
lines about the feasibility of heavy culling.
This section is based on a 100 cow enterprise budget that is di-
vided into two parts. The first depicts an operation, called the usual
practice, in which 9 cows, 3 heifers and 1 bull are culled each year,
and a 75 percent calf crop is attained. The second operation is one in
which heavy culling of cows is practiced and there is greater retention
of sound heifers. Heavy culling is practiced at weaning, and cows are
pregnancy tested with the result that an 85 percent calf crop is
achieved. In both the usual and heavy culling alternatives it is as-
sumed that heifers are bred at two to calve at three years of age. The
operation has 100 acres of fertilized Bahia grass. There is 400 acres
of native range, but none of this is fertilized. The cattle inventory
for both the usual and heavy culling alternatives is summarized in Table
Table 1.1. Cattle inventory, South or Central Florida 100 cow
Usual Practice Improved Practice
Type Animal animal Animal animal
animal Number units units Number units units
Mature cows 100 1.0 100 100 1.0 100
Bulls 5 1.5 8 5 1.5 8
Yearling heifers 13 0.7 9 26 0.7 18
Two year heifers 10 1.0 10 20 1.0 20
Total 128 127 151 146
in inventory 18 15
In the usual operation no hay is fed to cows as they are assumed to
graze native range when Bahia grass is not available. But, hay is fed
to the yearling and 2 year old heifers. A molasses-based supplement is
fed to all cows for 90 days from about January 1 to about March 31, and
to heifers for 135 days.
Total basic production costs are $12,409 (Table 1.2). When income
from sale of 9 cows (culling rate is 10 percent but one cow is assumed
to die), one bull and 3 cull yearling replacement heifers are subtract-
ed, net basic production costs are $7,781. This calculation is needed
so that cost per pound of calf can be estimated.
The next step is to calculate other costs, some of which, like
taxes, are actual cash expenses while others such as depreciation are
non-cash expenses. Labor could be either a cash or non-cash cost depen-
ding on whether it is hired or if a wage is paid to the ranch owner. A
charge is also made for management. A charge for land is based on a
rental value of $40 per cow unit.
Income from sale of 62 calves weighing a total of 25,550 pounds,
and using fall 1983 prices, is $13,735. Net income above net basic
production costs is $5,954 while a loss of $7,621 is experienced when
all costs are included. The impact of different prices is presented
Breakeven price, or alternatively the cost of production, on calves
is $0.30 per pound if only the net basic production costs are considered
($7,781 25,550 lbs.), and $0.84 when all costs are taken into account.
The actual cost of production on cash expenses will lie between these
Table 1.2. Estimated costs and returns for a 100 cow South or Central Florida cow-calf operation, usual versus heavy culling, 1983
Usual culling, 10 percent of cowsa Heavy culling, 20 percent of cowsb
cost or Your cost or Your
Item Quantity Price income operation Quantity income operation
Basic production costs
250 lbs/ac., 100 ac.
Nitrogen, 40 Ibs/ac.,
Lime 1/5 ton/ac., 100 ac.
12.5 tons 132/ton 1,650
Yearling heifers, 10 13 heif. =
lbs/day, 100 days 6.5 tons
Two year heifers, 10 10 heif. =
lbs/day, 100 days 5.0 tons
Liquid supplement (molasses)
(16 % protein)
Cows and bulls, 105 animals =
6 lbs/day, 90 days 56,700/lbs
Yearling and 2 year 23 heifers =
heifers, 3 lbs/day, 9,315 lbs.
Salt and mineral,
Vet and medicine,
Maintenance, fuel, repairs
300 lbs/ac = 15.0 tons
60 lbs/ac. = 6,000 lbs.
1/5 ton = 20/tons
423 10 lbs/day 26 heif.=
10 lbs/day 20 heif. -
105 animals = 56,700/lbs
46 heifers = 18,630 lbs
Table 1.2. (Continued)
Usual culling, 10 percent of cowsa leavy culling, 20 percent of cowsb
cost or Your cost or Your
Item Quantity Price income operation Quantity income operation
Less sale of culls
Cows, 950 lbs 9 head=8,550 lbed
Bulls, 1,500 lbs 1 head=l,500 lbs
Yearling heifers, 3 head=2,400 lbs
TOTAL, net basic production
Interest or opportunity
costs on basic production
costs (equiv. 8 mos)
Overhead/depr. int. on inv.,
Labor, 5 hr/cow at $4.00/hr
Management, 1/7 time,
Land charge, $40 per cow unit
TOTAL, all net costs
19 head=18,050 lbsd 6,318
1 head=1,500 lbs 675
6 head=4,800 lbs 1,920
Increase 10 percent 2,200
Table 1.2. (Continued)
Usual culling, 10 percent of cowsa Heavy culling, 20 percent of cowsb
cost or Your cost or Your
Item Quantity Price income operation Item Quantity income operation
----Dollars- -- Dollars--
Steers from cows 34 at 435 lbs ea. 14,790 lbs 0.57 8,430 34 14,790 lbs 8,430
Steers from heifers 4 at 390 Ibs ea. 1,560 Ibs 0.57 889 8 3,120 lbs 1,778
Heifers from cows 20 at 390 lbs ea. 7,800 lbs 0.48 3,744 13 5,070 lbs 2,434
Heifers from heifers 4 at 350 lbs ea. 1,400 lbs 0.48 672 4 1,400 Ibs 672
TOTAL 62 25,550 Ibs 13,735 59 24,380 lbs 13,314
Above net basic pro- 5,954 7,172
Above all cost -7,621 -6,833
Breakeven price of calves
or production cost
Above net basic pro- 0.30 0.25
Above all costs 0.84 0.83
aUsual practice assumes 75 percent calf crop.
bHeavy culling assumes 85 percent calf crop.
cIncludes $3.00/cow unit for pregnancy testing and $1.00/cow unit for costs of additional heifers.
dDeath loss is 1 percent.
cost divided by pounds sold.
two extremes depending on the amount of money borrowed, labor hired,
etc. It also depends on the extent to which opportunity costs are taken
The heavy culling alternative requires a substantial increase in
inputs since it is assumed that no additional land is available, yet
inventory must increase 15 percent from keeping additional heifers as
shown in Table 1.1. The first assumption is that an additional 50
pounds of fertilizer is used per acre. Also, a 50 percent increase in
nitrogen (to 60 lbs. per acre) is budgeted. Also more hay, liquid
supplement, and salt and minerals are needed for those heifers. The vet
charge is increased by $4.00 per cow unit to account for pregnancy
testing and additional costs of the heifers.
Total basic production costs under the heavy culling alternative
increases about 21 percent, to $15,055. But, since there are 19 cows
culled annually rather than 9, and 6 yearling heifers are sold rather
than 3, income from sale of culls nearly doubles. As a result, net
basic production costs under the heavy culling alternative actually
decline 21 percent to $6,142 from the usual practice.
Other costs such as interest, depreciation and management increase
only slightly when heavy culling is practiced, to $14,005. Total net
costs under the heavy culling alternative are $20,147, or $1,209 less
than the usual practice. However, income from calves is reduced under
the heavy culling alternative to $13,314 since only 59 rather than 62
calves are sold due to the greater need for replacement heifers.
The Bottom Line at 1983 Prices
The reduced income from sale of calves is more than compensated for
by increased sale of cull animals. As a result, net income above basic
production costs increases $1,218, or 20 percent, from $5,954 under the
usual practice, to $7,172 when heavy culling takes place. On a total
cost basis, the loss of $7,621 suffered in the usual practice is reduced
to $6,833 with heavy culling, an 11 percent reduction.
The product of dividing net basic production costs by pounds of
calves sold yields a basic production cost of $0.30 per pound for the
usual practice and $0.25 per pound when heavy culling takes place. The
breakeven price which has to be received to cover all costs is $0.84 and
$0.83 for the two alternatives.
Effects of Price Changes
The relatively low prices used in the analysis are for fall 1983.
An analysis is now carried out to determine the extent to which the
relationships change with higher pices. A review of price differentials
(Simpson and Alderman, 1983) indicates that if 400-500 lb. steer calves
were to sell at $0.80 per pound, then prices for the other related
classes of cattle would be:
385 lb. heifers $0.64
Yearling heifers $0.55
Cull cows $0.48
Cull bulls $0.57
The results, presented in Table 1.3 show that the heavy culling
alternative provides an additional $2,762 of net income over the usual
system (a 22 percent increase) when net basic production costs only are
taken into account. When the analysis is made based on all costs, the
Impact of increasing cattle prices on usual versus heavy
culling profitability, South and Central Floridaa
Item Usual Heavy
Basic production costs
Less sale of culls
Net basic production costs
Total other costs
Total, all net costs
Steers from cows
Steers from heifers
Heifers from cows
Heifers from heifers
Above net basic production costs
Above all costs
aAs an example of the way income for the heavy culling alternative is
determined, income of cows is the product of selling 18,052 lbs. (Table
1.2) times $0.48 (see text).
difference is $2,305 in favor of culling. In effect, when steer prices
go up from the $0.57 per pound recorded in 1983 to $0.80, net income
above basic production costs about doubles and a similar expansion of
benefits is realized for all costs. The results show, then, that the
practice is advantageous when cattle prices are low, and becomes
increasingly profitable as cattle prices increase.
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages of Heavy Culling
1) Cows are eliminated that would not have a calf the following
2) A younger cow herd with more production potential is developed.
3) A more productive cow herd is developed; one that produces a
higher percent calf crop and more pounds of calf to sell.
4) Tax advantages are possible since breeding cattle which are
raised on the operation, are over 24 months of age and then
sold, are taxed as capital gain income (i.e. 40 percent is
taxed as real income) rather than as 100 percent real income.
5) Opportunities for expanded use of other production practices
are opened up.
Disadvantages of Heavy Culling
1) A higher level of nutrition is required for developing heifers.
This means more supplemental feed.
2) There will be a greater percentage of first calf heifers which
may have lower conception rates, especially if nutrition levels
are too low.
3) First calf heifers and younger cows generally wean lighter
calves, offsetting some of the genetic advantages if better
bulls are used.
4) A higher level of management is required.
The heavy culling alternative carries with it the implication that
culling must include criteria besides just age and/or injury. This
means production data have to be taken into account and that bulls with
greater genetic potential than the cows must be used. It is recommended
that producers considering a heavy culling alternative work through
their county agents and livestock specialists to develop a complete
PART II. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CONTROLLING PARASITES
Parasite control is a production practice in which it is difficult
to estimate benefits. This section presents a guide which South and
Central Florida producers can use in arriving at their own costs and
benefits and, as well, provides estimates for a "typical" operation.
Cattle parasites are divided into two classifications, internal and
external. The major internal parasites in South and Central Florida are
liver flukes, intestinal worms and grubs (Meyerholz and Bradley, 1977).
The principal external ones, at least those which have potential for
being economically controlled, are horn flies and lice.
Liver flukes, intestinal worms and horn flies have both short (one
year or less) and long-term (more than one year) debilitating effects on
cattle (Table 2.1). Grubs and lice, on the other hand, have mainly
Estimation of Treatment Costs
A summary of the way in which treatments are determined is provided
in Table 2.2. Liver flukes, for example, should only be treated in
areas known to have flukes (Meyerholz and Bradley, 1977). Grubs, on the
other hand, are found and should be treated all over Florida.
Table 2.1. Length of consequences from cattle
parasites in South and
Type of Short-Terma Long-Termb
Parasite Mature Replacement Calves Mature Replacement
Liver flukes X X -- X X
Intestinal Worms X X X X X
Grubs X X -- X X
Horn files X X X X X
Lice X X X X X
aShort = One year or less.
bLong = One year or more.
Table 2.2. Cattle parasite treatment determination, recommended treatments, cost per treatment and annual cost per cow unit, South and Central Florida,
Type of Recommended treatments Cost per treatment Annual Cost
parasite Treatment determination Mature Replacement Calves Mature Replacement Calves Mature Replacement Calves
Dollars per Head
Liver flukes Fluke-only areas 1/yr 1/yr 2.50 1.80 2.50 1.80
High nutrition 0/yr 1/yr 0 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.80
Medium nutrition 1/yr 2/yr 0 2.50 1.80 2.50 3.60 -
Low nutrition 2/yr 2/yr 1 2.50 1.80 1.20 5.00 3.60 1.20
Grubs All Florida 1/yr 1/yr 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.50 -
Sprayc 50 or more flies/animal 6/yr 6/yr 0.29 0.29 1.74 1.74 -
Dust bagsd 50 or more flies/animal 8 mo/yr 8 mo/yr 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 -
Ear tags 50 or more flies/animal 2/an/yr 2/an/yr 1.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 -
Licee Presence of lice 2/yr 2/yr 0.32 0.32 0.64 0.64 -
aFluke treatments also control most intestinal worms. No additional labor charge assumed.
bOther methods such as pour-on's or back rubbers are also used.
CSprayer costs $500 and lasts 5 years = $100 year and, with 1,000 cows, = $0.10 cow/year = $0.02 per treatment. Labor cost is $250 for 1,000 cows per
treatment and 4 treatments in addition to 2 regular workings = $1,000 for 1,000 cows = $1.00 per cow per year = $0.17 per treatment. Materials cost is
$0.10 per cow per treatment.
dDust bags. One pound of dust per head per season. The kits cost $26.50 and have 12.5 lbs. of dust. Additional dust costs $17.00 for 50 pounds. The
cost of the kit and dust is $1.04 per head. Also, cost of $0.20 per cow per year for fence and all associated labor.
eHas no labor charge as cattle can be sprayed along with other activities.
Multiplication of the cost per treatment times the recommended
number of treatments for each type of parasite yields the annual cost
for each of the three classes of cattle analyzed; mature cows and bulls,
replacement heifers, and calves. Recommended treatments and associated
costs for intestinal worms vary with animals on a high, medium and low
plane of nutrition. Three control methods for horn flies are eval-
uated. Costs include a charge for additional labor, when applicable, as
well as materials and equipment.
Estimation of Net Benefits
Benefits from parasite control are very difficult to quantify due
to a multitude of physiological interactions, numerous combinations of
associated disease or health conditions, and various geographical/cli-
matic conditions. Consequently, well documented data and the benefits
from control of the various parasites simply are not available. Given
this, estimates used in this bulletin were based on an informal survey
of several production and veterinary specialists. The estimates were
divided into two levels, low and high, with the expectation being that
the actual benefits will fall within those limits. In all cases, an
effort was made to be conservative in the estimation procedure.
Potential benefits are derived from a reduction in death loss, a
reduction in weight loss, increased calf crop, or a combination of
them. It was estimated, for example, that mature cow death loss in
areas infested with liver flukes can be reduced by 2 to 4 percent with
the recommended treatments (Table 2.3). Another way of saying this is
that liver flukes account for about 2-4 percent death loss in mature
cows and treatment is assumed to stop these losses. Flukes are also
Table 2.3. Estimated net benefits from recommended parasite control
procedures in percentage and weight terms, South and
Central Florida, 1983
----Net Reduction Death Loss, Percent----
-----------Weight Loss, Pounds------------
100 40 100
--Reproductive Loss, Calf Crop, Percent--
Horn flies 8 4 8 4 -- -
Lice 5 2 5 2 -
Source: Compiled from estimates by several production and veterinary
specialists, University of Florida.
estimated to cause cows to lose about 40-100 pounds, a loss that is
realized when they are sold as culls. In addition, mature cows in liver
fluke areas have at least a 6-12 percent reduction in calf crop if they
are not treated.
An economic benefit, in dollars per cow unit, is calculated for
each of the three benefit categories by multiplying the various produc-
tion loss estimates by the appropriate values. For example, multiplying
the high level in death loss from flukes for mature cows of four percent
times the projected value of $333.00 per cow ( a 950 pound cow at $0.35
per pound) gives $13.32 as the annual loss (Table 2.4). Weight loss is
calculated by multiplying the weight loss times value per pound times
culling rate which is assumed to be 10 percent for cows and 3 percent
for heifers. For example, the high estimation of weight loss per cow of
100 pounds times $0.35 per pound = $35.00 per cow. That, times 10
percent is $3.50.
Reproductive loss is calculated by multiplying the average value
per calf of $235.00 (412 pound calf at $0.57 per pound) times the repro-
ductive loss in percent, adjusted for a herd composition of 90 percent
for mature cows and 10 percent replacements. As an example, the high
estimate of losses from flukes in mature cows is 12 percent times
$235.00 = $28.20. That coefficient times 0.90 = $25.38.
Benefit/Risk Cost Ratios
Analyses of net benefits from production practices typically have
the annual cost subtracted from the annual benefits to calculate the net
benefit per unit. However, because the benefits, although reasonable
and defensible, are somewhat speculative, this approach is not taken.
Table 2.4. Estimated financial benefits from parasite control
procedures in South and Central Florida, 1983
Type of Maturesa Replacementsb Calvesc
parasite High Low High Low High Low
---------------Dollars per cow unit---------------
a950 lb. cows at $0.35 per pound = $333.00
b800 lbs. at $0.45 per pound = $360.00
c412 lbs. at $.057 per pound = $235.00
d$360.00 times percent loss times fraction of herd. For example,
$360.00 times 0.04 times 0.23 = $3.31. Assumes 0.23 replacement
heifers, 0.75 calves and 0.05 bull per cow unit.
e10 percent cows culled and 3 percent heifers culled. Also for calves
assume 0.6 calves sold per cow.
Average value per calf ($235.00) times reproductive loss in percent,
times 90 percent for matures and 10 percent for replacement heifers (to
account for ratio of cows to heifers).
Rather, the benefits are considered as potential losses in income. In
other words, the calculated benefits can be thought of as opportunity
losses, or potential income that is foregone from not carrying out the
The various dollar benefits for the three categories; mature
animals, heifers, and calves for each of the three areas of potential
loss are summed in Table 2.5 to arrive at an annual potential income
loss. This is done for both the high and low levels. Then, the sum of
the potential income loss is divided by the cost to arrive at a benefit
risk-cost ratio. High ratios Indicate more potential benefit or, alter-
natively, the potential risk if the practice is not followed.
The term benefit risk-cost ratio is used because a more common
term, benefit-cost ratio, cannot be properly applied here since it is
used in project analysis and carries with it the connotation that dis-
counted (long-term) net benefits are divided by discounted costs. In
addition standard use assumes some initial major capital investment is
The high, or largest probable ratio for controlling flukes in
mature cows and heifers in fluke areas is 16.4 to 1, while the low side
is 8.0 to 1. This means that even the most conservative estimate in
this analysis places risk at 8 times more than costs. Thus, considering
the high incidence of fluke infestation, this practice will usually
return much more than the costs. Alternatively, the benefits are high
relative to cost.
The results of treating cows and heifers for intestinal worms
definitively shows that the poorer the nutrition level, the more benefit
from treating for worms. Thus, in years when feed is short, special
Table 2.5. Benefit risk-cost ratios per cow unit for various parasite
treatments, South and Central Florida, 1983
;r---- ------1-**-- -- ------*-l,1 ----r. ---
Annual potential Benefit
Type of Annual income loss risk-cost ratio
parasite costa High Low High Low
-------------Dollars per cow unit----------------
Liver Flukes 3.04 49.68 24.36 16.4:1 8.0:1
High nutrition 0.41 4.39 0.00 10.7:1
Medium nutrition 4.36 30.86 11.21 7.1:1 2.6:1
Low nutrition 6.98 72.53 32.43 10.4:1 4.6:1
Flukes and wormsc
High nutrition 6.08 54.07 24.36 8.9:1 4.0:1
Medium nutrition 6.08 80.54 35.57 13.2:1 5.9:1
Low nutrition 6.08 112.21 56.79 20.1:1 9.3:1
Grubs 0.75 5.67 0.48 7.6:1 0.6:1
Spray 2.23 31.49 13.79 14.1:1 6.2:1
Dust bags 1.59 31.49 13.79 19.8:1 8.7:1
Ear tags 3.84 31.49 13.79 8.2:1 3.6:1
Lice 0.82 20.06 8.60 24.5:1 10.5:1
aAll costs are in $/cow unit.
A cow unit is 1.05 mature animals (to
account for bulls), 0.23 replacement heifers (1 and 2 year heifers) and
0.75 calves. For example, taking data from Table 2.2, liver flukes only
are $2.50 times 1.05 = $2.63 plus $1.80 times 0.23 = $0.41 totaling
bBenefits are from Table 2.4 by summing death, weight and reproductive
loss for matures, replacements and calves. For example, $13.32 + $3.31
+ $3.50 + $1.35 + 25.38 + $2.82 = $49.68 as the high annual potential
income loss from liver flukes.
cControl of worms as well as flukes is obtained when Albendazol is used.
care should be taken to carry out a good worming program. Likewise,
cattle on poor quality pasture should be systematically wormed to obtain
the highest possible benefits.
Cattle in fluke areas can be treated with Albendazol (and various
other products will soon appear on the market) and intestinal worms can
be controlled with the same treatment. Consequently, in fluke areas,
the net benefits are the product of summing the ones for flukes along
with those for worms. The ratio for cattle on a low level of nutrition
is estimated to fall between 10.4:1 and 4.6:1. Similar ratios are found
for other parasites.
The calculations clearly demonstrate the substantial benefits to be
derived from parasite control. Individual ranchers will feel that some
of the costs and benefits should be modified to fit their own situation,
but it is unlikely that the general conclusions and relative magnitude
of the benefit/risk cost ratios will change.
No attempt has been made to sum the annual costs and potential
benefits due to the wide range of situations. However, the results show
that net benefits are quite large. For example, if cattle on a low
plane of nutrition just have intestinal worms, horn flies, and lice
controlled, the potential net benefits range from $45.43 to $114.69 per
cow unit. On a 100 cow operation this would mean an additional $4,543-
$11,469 of income--and this could be the difference between surviving in
the cattle business during the 1980s and being forced out of business.
PART III ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF VACCINATION PROGRAMS
The net benefits of vaccination programs are difficult to calcu-
late, especially since many of the losses from diseases are not diag-
nosed. For example, most producers have a calf or cow die occasionally,
but never discover the cause. Also, a few cows are open each year in
all herds, but the extent to which this is due to diseases is difficult
or impossible to determine. There is reason to believe that vaccination
for diseases should be viewed as an insurance program as it is unlikely
that all diseases will occur in a year or a lifetime, but the economic
losses from an outbreak may be so large that they should be accounted
for through some annual "premium."
A summary of the benefits, costs and potential losses from several
common diseases are summarized in this section. Considerable judgment
is required to determine reasonable losses from disease as published
data are not available. The estimates are based on input from veteri-
narians, livestock specialists and many conversations with cattlemen
over the past few years. The prevalence of disease varies in different
areas of Florida, and consequently each rancher is encouraged to consult
his or her veterinarian to develop a health program.
Six Major Diseases
There are six major diseases in Florida for which effective vac-
cines are available; leptospirosis, vibriosis, redwater, brucellosis,
clostridia, and IBR.
Leptospirosis is widespread in Florida. For example, a recent
study of cull cows at a Florida packing plant showed approximately one-
third had the disease (White, Sulzer and Engel, 1982). The main losses
are abortions in the cows during the last trimester of pregnancy (White
and Sulzer, 1982). In addition, it will acutely infect calves causing a
reduction in weight, and also cause a few deaths (White and Meyerholz,
Vibriosis is responsible for termination of pregnancy in the first
1-3 months (Meyerholz and White, 1974). A Florida survey showed that 15
percent of the state's cow herd was infected with the disease. Cows
will rebreed after resorption of the fetus if bulls are still with them
but there is, nevertheless, a lower pregnancy rate and also lower calf
weights due to later calving dates.
Redwater is usually manifested in cows infected with flukes. It
mainly manifests itself through short-term effects (Meyerholz, 1971).
Brucellosis infection causes abortions, but cows will usually
reproduce normally thereafter. If not controlled, it can infect 50
percent of a herd causing the loss of one calf during the life of the
cow (Cope, Meyerholz, Nicoletti, 1981).
Clostridial diseases including blackleg, malignant edema, and over-
eating disease (Types C and D) can result in calf and replacement heifer
deaths (Meyerholz, 1976).
IBR can cause respiratory disease in calves and, while it is not a
widespread problem under range conditions, can lead to abortion in
heifers and cows.
Cost and Benefit Calculation
The benefits from vaccinating cattle in South and Central Florida
can be divided into two parts, short and long-term (Table 3.1). Short-
term is defined as up to one year while long-term is more than one year.
The estimated annual cost per head for vaccinating against the six
major diseases given in Table 3.2, varies according to the type animal.
The costs for leptospirosis and vibriosis are shown separately; however,
several combination vaccines are available for less than $0.85 per head.
The estimated losses from each disease are categorized as death
loss, weight loss, and reduced calf crop (Table 3.3). An estimate of
reasonable losses for each disease was made at two levels, called high
and low. These represent a composite from several sources of the normal
range of loss expected from each disease in South Florida.
The economic losses on a per cow unit basis are calculated in Table
3.4 again under the categories death loss, weight loss and reduced calf
crop. Each entry is the product of multiplying the various physical
losses given in Table 3.3 by the various cattle prices in the footnotes.
The Bottom Line
A summary of annual vaccination cost, income loss and risk-cost
ratios is shown in Table 3.5. All values are calculated on a cow unit
basis. Total annual cost for all vaccinations is $3.14/cow unit exclud-
ing labor and handling facilities costs.
The average benefit risk-cost ratio when all diseases are consider-
ed together is estimated to fall between 15 and 34. This means that the
risk a producer runs for not investing in the annual vaccination program
Short-term and long-term benefits
in South and Central Florida
from vaccinating cattle
Vaccine Mature Replacements Calves Mature Replacements
Leptospirosisa X X X
Vibriosis X X
Redwater X X -
Brucellosis X X
Clostridiab X X
IBR X X X
aIncludes all 5 serotypes of leptospirosis
bIncludes blackleg (Clostridium chauvoei), malignant edema (Septicum),
overeating disease (perfringens), novyi, and sordelli.
Table 3.2 Estimated cost per head for vaccinating against six major diseases in South and Central Florida, 1983
Condition of Recommended treatment Cost/treatmenta Annual cost
Disease vaccination Mature Heifers Calves Mature Heifers Calves Mature Heifers Calves
Leptospirosis All cows & 1/yr 1/yr 1/yr .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50
Vibriosis All cows & 1/yr 1/yr .35 .35 .35 .35
Redwater Fluke areas 2/yr 2/yr .15 .15 .30 .30
Brucellosis All heifers 1/yr N.C.b N.C.b
Clostridia All calves 1/yr 1/yr .60 .60 .60 .60
IBR Heifers and 1/yr 1/yr .70 .70 .70 .70
aCost for drugs only, assumes
bBrucellosis program will pay
cattle handled for other purposes
for calfhood vaccination
Table 3.3 Estimated physical losses from diseases in South and South
Central Florida cattle herdsa
Mature Replacements Calves
Disease High Low High Low High Low
Death Loss, percent
Leptospirosis 0 0 0 0 2 0
Vibriosis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwater 4 2 6 3 0 0
Brucellosis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clostridia 0 0 3 1 5 2
IBR 0 0 0 0 2 0
Weight Loss, per head, Ibs
Leptospirosis 0 0 0 0 10 5
Vibriosis 0 0 0 0 20 10
Redwater 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brucellosis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clostridia 0 0 0 0 0 0
IBRb 0 0 0 0 10 5
Reduced Calf Crop, percent
Leptospirosis 6 3 6 3 -
Vibriosis 10 5 10 5 -
Redwater 0 0 0 0 -
Brucellosis 4 2 20 10 -
Clostridia 0 0 0 0 -
IBR 2 0 4 0 -
aThe losses from each disease were estimated at high and low levels from
consultation with several veterinarians, livestock specialists and
ranchers. Actual losses will probably fall between high and low
levels. The estimates are on a herd basis.
bBased on 20 percent of calves in a herd being infected. Thus, one
infected calf would lose between 25 and 50 pounds.
Estimated income lost per cow unit from diseases in South
and Central Florida cattle herds, 1983a
Matureb Replacementsc Calvesd
Disease High Low High Low High Low
Reduced Calf Cropg
aCalculated from losses shown in Table 3.3.
b950 Ib cows at $0.35/lb = $333.
c800 lb replacements at $0.45/lb = $360.
d412 Ib calves at $0.57/lb = $235.
eAssumes 0.23 replacements and 0.75 calves for each cow unit.
fIncome lost at sale of animals, 0.1 cows culled and 0.03 heifers culled
and 0.6 calves sold/cow unit each year.
gAverage value/calf of $235 times reproductive loss in percent. Assumes
90 percent of calves weaned from mature cows and 10 percent from
Benefit risk-cost ratios per cow unit from six beef cattle
diseases, South and Central Florida, 1983a
Annual Estimated lossc Benefit
vaccination of income risk-cost ratio
Disease cost High Low High Low
----------- Dollars ------------
Leptospirosis 1.02 21.04 8.77 21 8
Vibriosis .45 30.34 15.18 67 34
Redwater .38 18.29 9.14 48 24
Brucellosis .00 13.16 6.58 -
Clostridia .60 11.29 4.35 18 7
IBR .69 14.39 2.85 21 4
Total 3.14 108.51 46.87 34 15
aSummarized from Tables 3.2 and 3.4.
bAll costs are $/cow unit, where a cow unit is 1.05 mature animals, 0.23
replacement heifers (1 year and 2 year old heifers) and 0.75 calves.
cTotal income loss for deaths, weight loss and lower calf crop in the
mature cows and bulls, replacement heifers and calves is added
dLoss of income divided by cost of vaccination.
is between $15 and $34 of benefits for each $1 of input. However, since
all diseases will not likely be experienced simultaneously, benefits in
any one year will be less, but still positive and on the order of $5-10
for each $1 invested.
The probability of contracting all diseases in any one year is very
low. But, considering the prevalence of these diseases, the probability
of having an outbreak or continuing problems of 1 or 2 of the diseases
each year, is quite high. The annual vaccination cost is less than the
low estimate of income loss for any of the diseases. But, most impor-
tant, vaccination provides insurance against major disease outbreaks.
Furthermore, this is one of the few insurance programs in which the
premium is repaid with interest each year in at least a 5-10 fold re-
PART IV. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IMPLANTS
The use of growth stimulating implants in beef cattle has been a
recommended practice for many years since they are relatively inexpen-
sive, easy to use, and generally yield a high return on investment.
But, despite wide publicity in farm and beef cattle oriented newspapers
and magazines, surveys indicate that only 15 to 35 percent of cattlemen
in the cow/calf business take advantage of the improvement in production
efficiency they offer. Further study of survey data suggests that the
small herd owner (less than 50 head) is in the group which most neglects
utilization of this technology.
Use of Implants
All of the products currently on the market for the primary purpose
of promoting growth are designed to be implanted under the skin, either
on the back of the ear, or at the base of the ear. The intracellular
fluids circulating in this area pick up the active ingredient as it is
released from the implant and distribute it throughout the circulatory
system. Care must be taken to read instructions on the label to insure
that the proper site is chosen.
At present, there are four basic types of implants available (Table
4.1) which vary according to the classes of cattle for which they are
approved by the FDA (Table 4.2). Growth promoting implants were on the
market during the 1960s, with most emphasis on using them in feedlot
Table 4.1. Growth promoting implants for beef cattle
Trade name(s) Active ingredient withdrawal time lifespan
Compudose Estradiol 17B None 200
Synovex S Progesterone +
Steer-oid Estradiol None 100(60-150)
Synovex H Estradiol None 100(60-150)
Ralgro Zeranol 65 days 100(60-150)
Table 4.2 Classes of cattle for which implants have been approved
Class Ralgro Synovex or Steroid Compudose
Suckling calves Yes No Yesh
Growing cattle Yes Yesa Yesb
Feedlot steers Yes Yes Yes
Feedlot heifers Yes Yes No
Breeding stock No No No
a400 lb. or larger steers or heifers.
cattle. In the mid 1970s attention shifted to the benefits of using
them in suckling calves, as well as in cattle being grown-out on pasture
prior to being placed in the feedlot. The results of several on-ranch
demonstrations conducted in Florida are summarized in Table 4.3 4.7.
The Bottom Line
Table 4.8 contains an economic analysis of implanting. An estimate
of 20 extra pounds marketed from the use of one implant, and 40 pounds
from implanting twice, have been used. The use of the averages in Table
4.3 would be 27 and 41 pounds for one and two implants, respectively.
Although there are several implants available, it appears that the
one chosen is not the critical decision as long as it has been approved
for the age, sex and weight animal on which it is to be used. Rather,
the most important decision is to implant. There are very few oppor-
tunities when a cattleman can invest $1-$3 and get a $5 or $6 return per
dollar invested in just 70 to 200 days.
A few demonstrations have indicated that implanting was not benefi-
cial, but this was due to a wide variety of nutritional and other condi-
tions. Thus, individuals considering adoption of the technique may want
to work with county agents to set up suitable trials for their own
Table 4.3. Effects of Ralgro implants on daily gains of suckling calves in Florida
Total Average daily gain by Additional gain by
Length number number of times implanted number of implants
County of study calves Control One Two One Two
Polk 168 64 Steers 1.80 1.85 1.97 8 29
Levy 111 19 Steers 1.14 1.24 11 -
Okaloosa 92 10 Steers 1.92 2.23 -29
Okaloosa 92 10 Heifers 1.66 1.84 17 -
Okeechobee 157 36 Steers 1.44 2.04 2.14 94 110
Hendry (#4) 1977 209 68 Steers 1.99 2.03 2.11 8 25
Hendry (#5) 1977 210 44 Steers 1.98 2.14 34
Hendry (4) 1978 213 44 Steers 2.01 2.10 2.11 19 21
Hendry (5) 1978 216 55 Steers 2.00 2.14 2.13 30 28
Average 163 39 Steers 1.77 1.98 2.10 27 41
bCounty in which cooperating ranch was located.
Results of three trials comparing Compudose and Ralgro implants in suckling calves in
calves per Length of Average daily gain Additional gain per calf
County treatment Study Control Compudose Ralgro Compudose Ralgro
Brevard 16 135 2.11 2.21 2.30 14 26
Polk 29 147 1.94 2.10 2.03a 23 14
Average 23 141 2.03 2.16 2.17 19 20
aReimplanted midway through the trial.
Table 4.5 Effect of Ralgro implants on daily gains of yearling steers in Florida
Total Additional gain by
Type trial Length number Average daily gain number of implants
and location of study calves Control One Twob One Two
Polk (pasture) 117 152 1.57 1.79 26.0 -
Suwannee (pasture) 190 52 1.10 1.30 38.0
Suwannee (feedlot) 190 47 1.60 1.79 1.90 36.0 57.0
Average 167 84 1.42 1.79 1.60 31.0 48.0
a36 mg implant
bReimplanted at 90 to 100 days.
Table 4.6 Effect of Synovexa implants on gains of yearling cattle grazing Bermuda and Bahia
pastures in Florida
Length Total number Average Daily Gain by Treatment Additional
Sex of study of calves Control Implant gain
Steers 89 72 0.76 0.93 15
Heifers 89 16 1.16 1.43 24
aSynovex S = 200 mg. progesterone + 20 mg. estradiol.
Synovex H = 200 mg. testosterone + 20 mg. estradiol.
Table 4.7 Economic benefits from implanting suckling calves, South and
Central Florida, 1983
Item Return per calf
20 lbs. per calf @ $0.55t 11.00
1 implant @ $1.25 each -1.25
1/30 of 1/10 implant gun @ $19 -.06
1/60 labor @ $4./hr. -.07
Net return to management $9.62
40 Ibs. per calf (400 lbs.) @ $0.55 22.00
2 implants @ $1.25 each -2.50
Implant gun @ $19 -.12
2/60 labor @ $4./hr. -.14
Return to capitol, management land 19.24
PART V. PROJECTED PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS, INPUT COSTS
AND RETURNS FOR THE GOOD, AVERAGE AND LOW BEEF PRODUCER
Several production practices including heavy culling, a parasite
control program, a vaccination program, and implanting have been out-
lined in previous parts. The costs and benefits have been summarized
and several management practices have shown high potential returns.
However, the task remains to analyze these and a few other practices
together and estimate the increases in production and net income from
them as a whole.
Practices that Increase Calf Crop, Weaning Weight and Sale Price
Three levels of production that represent a range in production
practices found on Florida beef cattle ranches are shown in Table 5.1.
A producer with a high level of performance, one which is termed "Good,"
should be able to wean an 88 percent calf crop, and have an average sale
weight of 475 pounds for the calves sold each year. This level of
production is attainable and exceeded by the better Florida producers.
The "Average" performance level is similar to the calf crop percent and
sale weight found in a survey of producers in the Central Florida
area. The "Low" performance level is representative of the beef pro-
ducer that is only using limited inputs, and few of the practices out-
lined in the earlier parts.
The effect of each practice on calf crop and weaning weight is
shown separately. It can be noted that the 6 percent improvement in
Table 5.1. Production practices and projected levels of production for South
and Central Florida beef producers
Items Good Average Low Yours
Calf crop weaned, percent 88 74 55
Weaning weights, Ibs 475 410 330
Weaning weight/cow, lbs 418 303 182
Income/cow, $/hd 238 161 98
Production Practices Increasing Calf Crop Percent
Base level 55% 55% 55%
Vaccinations +6 +3 +0
Parasite control +6 +5 +0
Pregnancy testing +9 +5 +0
Supplemental feed +6 +3 +0
Crossbreeding +4 +2 +0
Bull breeding soundness +2 +1 +0
Total 88% 74% 55%
Production Practices Increasing Weaning Weight
Base level 330 lbs 330 Ibs 330 lbs
Vaccinations +10 +0 +0
Parasite control +40 +25 +0
Supplemental feed +20 +10 +0
Crossbreedingc +35 +25 +0
Implantingc +40 +20 +0
Total 475 Ibs 410 lbs 330 lbs
Production Practices Increasing Sale Price
Base price $0.50/lb $0.50/lb $0.54/lb
Castration and dehorning +2 +1 +0
Group marketing +2 +1 +0
Medium frame, no hump +3 +1 +0
Sale price $0.57/lb $0.53/lb $0.54/lb
aThese are estimated contributions of several production practices at different
levels of production for a beef cattle operation utilizing native range and im-
pregnancy testing may reduce the response to vaccinations, parasite control,
and supplemental feed since the cows that were open due to disease, parasites
or nutrition will be eliminated from the herd by pregnancy testing.
CThe benefits from implanting and crossbreeding will not be fully realized
unless the nutrition level is good, and the cattle are not severely
calf crop shown for both the parasite control and vaccination programs
is lower than the total for percent calf crop lost if all parasites or
diseases are totaled from the practices outlined in sections II and
III. This is because a herd of cattle is unlikely to experience all
problems simultaneously and, even if several diseases or parasites were
present together, if one cow were open because of one, two or three
different diseases or parasites, that cow would still only be open once
in any given year. The practice of pregnancy testing also tends to
eliminate cows that would have been open due to disease, parasites, poor
The net contribution of each practice is estimated for percent calf
crop and weaning weight. However, it should be recognized these are
only projections and the relative importance of each practice will vary
from ranch to ranch. Also, practices such as crossbreeding and implant-
ing are dependent on a situation where cattle are receiving adequate
nutrition to allow the calves to grow faster. Under conditions of very
low nutrition or heavy parasitism, the benefits from crossbreeding and
implanting will be much lower. Base price for the "Good" and "Average"
producer is lower than for the "Low" producer because heavier weight
calves were selling in fall, 1983 for less per pound even if they were
Economic benefits and costs are provided in Table 5.2. The income
per cow is calculated by multiplying weaning weight times calf crop to
obtain weaning weight per cow (475 lbs x 0.88 = 418 Ibs per cow). This
number, times average sale price, provides the income per cow (418 x
Table 5.2 Projected cash production costs and returns for South and
Central Florida ranches at three levels of performance, 1983a
Item Goodb Average Low
Lime and fertilizer
Salt and mineral
Maintenance, fuel and repairs
Bull breeding soundness evaluation
Corral facilities and hired labor
Total cash cost
Income (see Table 5.1)
Net above cash costs
38.00 30.00 25.00
15.00 7.50 -
45.00 40.00 20.00
7.00 6.00 6.00
10.00 10.00 8.00
3.00 1.00 -
3.00 1.50 -
12.00 6.00 3.00
6.00 3.00 -
155.00 110.00 62.00
aSee Part I for further details on system and assumed input costs.
bCulling of open cows requires more heifer replacements and additional
fertilizer, hay and liquid supplement.
cCrossbreeding requires extra fencing and added labor to maintain breed
dExcludes the added income generated from higher value of culled females
over value of the feeder calf, a benefit which would cover part of the
extra feed and fertilizer costs.
$0.57 = $238 per cow). Income increases from $98 per cow for the low
producer to $238 per cow for the good producer. However, this $140
increase in income requires a $93 increase in inputs.
The added cost of vaccines, parasite control, pregnancy testing,
breeding soundness evaluation, implants and added corral facilities and
labor cost amount to $31 of the increased costs. The largest portion of
the increased costs is due to fertilizer, hay and molasses-based supple-
ment required to develop the extra heifers needed to replace open cows
that were culled. A portion of the additional costs of developing the
replacements is recovered from the extra value of the culled cows ($15-
20 per cow unit). It may be a better economic alternative on some
ranches to reduce stocking rate by retaining fewer mature cows to pro-
vide forage for the extra heifers and avoid the added costs of the extra
The Bottom Line
Net return over cash costs increases from $36 per cow unit for the
low producer, to $83 per cow unit for the good producer, a net benefit
which would be increased by an additional $15-20 if the value of culled
females was also considered.
An important point is that even though cattle producers will espec-
ially want to give close attention to the net benefits from improved
higher level management practices just to survive when cattle prices are
low, a greater payoff is obtained when cattle prices improve. If a
price of $0.80 per pound for 400-500 lb steer calves is assumed, then
benefits from being a Good producer are even higher as shown in Table
5.3. At that price level net income is $217, 154 and 102 for the three
Table 5.3 Impact of increasing cattle prices on being a Good, Average
or Low producer
Item Good Average Low Yours
--------Cents per pound--------
Base price 80 82 90
Castration and dehorning +2 +1 0
Group marketing +3 +2 0
Medium frame, no hump +4 +2 0
Sale price 89 87 90
Weaning weight 418 303 182
----------Dollars per cow-unit---------
Income 372 264 164
Costs 155 110 62
Net income 217 154 102
levels respectively. The general rule is: The higher cattle prices,
the more net benefit from added use of purchased inputs and manage-
ment. This is because there are more total pounds of beef sold each
It must be noted that the data used in this bulletin, and this last
part in particular, are for illustrative purposes. Each operator should
make his or her own estimates of both costs and benefits--and amount of
added management required.
Cope, G. E., Myerholz, G. W., and P. Nicoletti. Bovine Brucellosis
Vaccination VI-30, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 1981.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service. The Florida Beef Production
Handbook. University of Florida, Gainesville, 1983.
Myerholz, G. W. Redwater Disease of Cattle Fact Sheet 14, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, 1971.
._ Blackleg and Malignant Edema of Cattle VM 9, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, 1976.
Myerholz, G. W. and R. E. Bradley, Sr. Liver Flukes in Cattle VM-31,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 1977.
_. Internal Parasitism of Cattle VM-9, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, 1977.
Myerholz, G. W. and F. White. Vibriosis in Cattle VM-16, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, 1974.
Sand, Robert. "New Implants and Update on Fly Control." Proceedings,
32nd Annual Beef Cattle Short Course. Gainesville, Florida, May 4-
Simpson, James R. and Rom Alderman. "Project Your Cattle Prices Using
Differentials." The Florida Cattleman Vol. 47, No. 11, August
1983, pp. 40-41.
White, F., and G. W. Myerholz. Leptospirosis in Cattle and Swine VM-24,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 1975.
White, F. H., K. R. Sulzer, and R. W. Engel. "Isolations of Leptospira
interrogans serovars hardjo balcancia, and pomona from cattle at
slaughter." American Journal of Veterinary Research 43(1982):1172-
White, F. and K. R. Sulzer. "Hebdomadis Serogroup Leptospirosis in
Florida Cattle." Proceedings, 86th Meeting of the United States
Animal Health Association, 1982, pp. 209-215.
This publication was promulgated at a cost of $1977, or 66 cents per copy, to inform Florida cattlemen about
the economics of selected production practices for central and south Florida. 5-3M-84
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, K. R. Tefertiller, director, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, publishes this infor-
mation to further the purpose of the May 8 and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and is authorized to provide research, educa-
tional information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex or
national origin. Single copies of Extension publications (excluding 4-H and Youth publications) are available free to Florida
residents from County Extension Offices. Information on bulk rates or copies for out-of-state purchasers is available from
C. M. Hinton, Publications Distribution Center, IFAS Building 664, University of Florida, Galnesville, Florida 32611. Before publicizing this
publication, editors should contact this address to determine availability.