Knife Cutting vsBanding with...

Knife Cutting vs Banding

with Metaphylaxis Treatment

Faculty: Chris Richards, Clint Krehbiel, D.L. Step

Graduate Students: Casey Maxwell, Blake Wilson, Dana Christensen, Joe Wagner, Blaine Johnson

Frequency of Bulls vs. Steers?

• Smith et al., 1999

– 27% of male calves were bulls

• McDaniel et al., 2003• McDaniel et al., 2003

– 27% of producers do not castrate males calves

Percent of operations that castrated male calves born in 1996

before sale by region

WestNorth-Central Central

South-Central Southeast

Adapted from NAPHIS Cow-Calf ‘97

West Central Southeast89.2% 95.8% 82.8% 63.6% 65.0%

25.5% Calves not castrated

Average Daily Gain of animals arriving at a preconditioning facility as intact males compared

to steers during a 44-d receiving period

5.0Bulls

SteersDays

ADG (lb)Difference

0-15 0.93

Day 0-15 Day 16-30 Day 31-44

2.46 vs 3.38P=0.003

3.87 vs 4.46P=0.02

2.42 vs 2.72P=0.17

16-30 0.60

31-44 0.30

0-44 0.59

Health Assessment

1020304050

P<0.0001 P=0.0005

P<0.0001

Morbidity Mortality Case FatalityRate

Bulls 42.3 23.4 10.81Steers 11.3 3.9 3.92

BRD Treatments

bP<0.001

One Treatment > 1 TreatmentBulls 55.3 44.7Steers 91.3 8.7

Treatment Cost

Bulls Steers

12.302.65

Bulls vs. Steers: Body Wt Gain

620640660680700

BullsP=0.21

P=0.57

P=0.49

500520540560580600

Day 0 Day 15 Day 30 Day 44

SteersP=0.01

P=0.21

Conclusions

• Castration at arrival results in:

– Decreased performance - ~ $35

– Increased health costs - $12

– Purchase steer = $678– Purchase steer = $678

– Purchase bull = $464

– 31% discount

Conclusions

• Castration at arrival results in:

– 27 lb less gain in 44 days

– ~10 increase in treatment cost

Common Questions

• How much should they be discounted?

• Is banding better?

• If they are likely to get sick, should we provide

metaphylaxis treatment?metaphylaxis treatment?

Knife Cutting vs. Banding

Pull-N-Treat vs. Metaphylactic Treatment Pull-N-Treat vs. Metaphylactic Treatment

Management

• Crossbred steers (269 hd) and bulls (356 hd) were purchased from livestock markets in Oklahoma and Arkansas between January and March 2011

• Calves experienced a 2.5% shrink to Stillwater (avg = 100 mi; initial BW = 584 lb ) from a pay weight of 598 lb

• After arrival weighing and tagging, calves were allowed to rest for 24 to 72 h with ad libitum access to prairie hay and waterlibitum access to prairie hay and water

• clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; IV/SP), IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVDtype I and II (Express 5; BI), and internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial).

• Bulls castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicrate bander loops

• Half calves received metaphylatic animtimicrobial (Draxxin; Pfizer, 1.1 ml/cwt)

• Penned by castration status and metaphylaxis

• Visual evaluation 2/1 times daily - treatment administered if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F

Feeding• Cattle received in small

groups (12-96 hd ), pens were filled one set at a time (20-26 hd/pen)

• averaged 6 d to fill each pen

• d 0 = full pen

• Cattle were fed a common 65%

Item, % (DM Basis)

Ingredient

Dry rolled corn 33.5

Corn DDGS 11.0

Sorghum WDGS 15.0

Prairie hay 34.5

Dry supplement1 6.0

Nutrient composition• Cattle were fed a common 65% concentrate ration 2x for free choice intake

• 2 lb/hd/d prairie hay fed until d 4

• Calves were weighed on d 28 and 42 with a 2% pencil shrink applied

Nutrient composition

DM, % 70.46

CP, % 14.04

ADF, % 21.90

NDF, % 34.28

Ca, % 0.78

P, % 0.351Pelleted supplement contained the following (DM basis): 49.85% ground corn, 18.70% wheat

middlings, 24.64% limestone, 4.83% urea, 3.94% salt, 1.51% magnesium oxide, 0.03% manganous oxide,

4.53% potassium chloride, 0.23% zinc sulfate, 0.07% vitamin A (30,000 IU/g), 0.04% vitamin E (50%),

0.34% Rumensin 80 (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN), and 0.21% Tylan 40 (Elanco Animal

Health).

Anti-microbial Treatment Protocol

Mass Med Pull-N-Treat

Drug Post Trt

Interval

Drug Post Trt

Interval

Metaphylaxis Draxxin 10 d - -

1st Treatment Resflor 5 d Draxxin 10 d

2nd Treatment Excede 7 d Resflor 5 d

3rd Treatment Baytril - Excede 7 d

4th Treatment - - Baytril -

Weights

Knife Band Steer

Item, MM# NP MM NP MM NPSignificant

effects*

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 -

Initial BW, lb 590 601 605 591 604 598 -

Day 28 BW, lb 652 661 666 645 693 682 SBDay 28 BW, lb 652 661 666 645 693 682 SB

Day 42 BW, lb 698 701 705 677 732 724 SB

#MM= metaphlaxis; NP = Pull-n-trt;

*SB = Steer vs. Bull

Feedlot performance

Knife Band Steer

effects*

Day 0-42 – deads & realizers out

ADG, lb/d 2.35 2.18 2.18 1.87 2.85 2.82 SB

DMI, lb/d 13.76 13.52 14.52 13.51 15.67 14.92 SB, MM

F:G, lb/lb 5.88 6.25 6.66 7.69 5.55 5.26 SB, KB

#MM= metaphylaxis; NP = Pull-n-trt;

*SB = Steer vs. Bull; MM = Metaphylaxis vs. Pull-n-Trt; KB = Knife vs.

Steers vs. Bulls

DMI – 11% increase

2.152.5

ADG – 0.69 lb or 32%

increase

Steer Bull

MM vs. Pull-N-Treat

DMI – 4% increase

2.462.29

ADG – 7% increase,

but not significant

Health – 42 d

Knife Band Steer

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSignificant

effects*

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 -

Treated once,

% pen112.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 16.60 SB, KB, MM

Total treatments,

% pen112.50 51.14 6.82 34.09 0 20.93 SB, KB, MM

Resp. Mortality, % pen2 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 -

1 Morbidity data reflect only respiratory disease. Treated once represents first treatments, and total treatments

represent first treatments and all subsequent retreatments.2 Mortality data reflect death only from respiratory disease. A post-mortem examination was conducted on all dead

cattle to determine cause of death.#MM= mass med; NP = Pull-n-trt;

*SB = Steer vs. Bull; KB = Knife vs. Band; MM = Mass med vs. Pull-n-Trt

Economics

• Analysis was reflective of deads-out

performance

• Processing costs and medicine costs are

reflective of current market values, feed cost

was $199.51/ton DMwas $199.51/ton DM

• Purchase price was assumed to be

$125.54/cwt

Economics - EstimatesKnife Band Steer

effects*

Processing cost,

$/hd230.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 MM

Medicine cost,

$/hd1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 MM

Feed cost,

$/hd66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 SB, MM

Total cost,

$/hd104.90 103.5 98.28 97.50 99.77 78.98 SB, MM

Breakeven w/o

purchase price

spread, $/lb3

1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 SB

#MM= metaphylaxis, NP = Pull-n-trt;

*SB = Steer vs. Bull, MM = Mass med vs. Pull-n-Trt2 Includes a methaphylaxis cost of $21.84/hd for all MM treatments and a $3.35/hd fee for castration of all bulls.

Conclusions

• Bulls resulted in $0.07 increase in breakevens after 42 days if purchased at the same price as steers ~6% decrease in purchase price

• Banding reduced morbidity compared to Knife

• MM reduced:• MM reduced:– treatments in bulls and steers

– Reduce mortality in bulls

– Numerically reduced breakevens ($.02 to .03/cwt) in bulls

• Was 44 days long enough?

• With winter calves, castration method may be more an issue of producer preference

May we appreciate all we produce!

Thank YouThank You

The End

Effects of castration method and antibiotic

administration protocol on feedlot health,

performance and economics of high-risk calves• Materials and Methods

– 610 hd crossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, 2011- March 2, 2011

– Initial weight 592 lbs.– Initial weight 592 lbs.

– At arrival • Weighed, received individual identification

• Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing

Experimental Design

• 3 × 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] ×metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP])

• Pen was experimental unit• Pen was experimental unit

• Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival)

• Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX

Materials and Methods

• Processing 24-72 h post-arrival– Vaccination against:

• Clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE)

• IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer—Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO)

• Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA)

• Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation • Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicratebander loops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization

• Calves randomized to receive metaphylactic treatment were administered tulathromycin (1.1 mL/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)

Table 1: Treatment Protocol

• Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice

daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter

• Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home

pen, and treatment was administered according to

Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals

(PTI) if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F

Drug PTI Drug PTI

Results

The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deads and removals excluded1

Knife Band Steer P-value

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4Steer vs.

Bull5Knife vs.

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -

Initial BW, lb 588 598 609 593 598 603 7.49 0.59 0.27 0.95

Day 28 BW, lb2 660 657 681 645 680 683 11.13 < 0.01 0.64 0.26

Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40

Day 0-28

ADG, lb/d 2.30 1.82 2.28 1.63 2.66 2.61 0.25 < 0.01 0.70 0.08

DMI, lb/d 12.04 11.69 12.86 11.49 13.15 12.18 0.45 0.03 0.44 0.01

G:F, lb/lb 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.02 < 0.01 0.45 0.25

Day 0-42

ADG, lb/d 2.44 2.11 2.33 1.95 2.77 2.75 0.21 < 0.01 0.49 0.18

DMI, lb/d 14.01 13.70 14.61 13.31 15.53 14.70 0.51 < 0.01 0.79 0.04

G:F, lb/lb 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.03 < 0.01 0.33 0.47

DMI, lb/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

2.21 2.76

ADG, lb/d

Steers

24.89 %

P < 0.01

0.1525

G:F, lb/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

21.31 %

The effects of treatment on feedlot health

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSteer vs.

Bull5Knife vs.

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - -

Day 0-28

First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

Total treatments, % of pen 12.50 51.14 6.82 34.09 0 20.93 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

Deads, % of pen 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.66 0.22

Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18

Day 0-42

First treatments, % of pen 12.5 44.32 6.8 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

Deads, % of pen 1.14 3.40 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.43 0.15

Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18

Total treatments, % of pen

Steers

P < 0.01

18.22 %

P = 0.02

13.07 %

P < 0.01

24.00 %

The effects of treatment on feedlot economics

Knife Band SteerP-value

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -

Processing cost, $/hd 30.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 0.15 0.42 0.95 <0.01

Medicine cost, $/hd 1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 1.92 0.06 0.68 <0.01

Feed cost, $/hd 66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 2.85 <0.01 0.23 0.06

Total cost, $/hd 104.90 103.50 98.28 97.50 99.78 78.98 6.72 0.05 0.41 0.08

Cost of gain, $/lb 1.03 1.23 1.06 1.53 0.77 0.60 0.22 <0.01 0.55 0.47

Breakeven, $/lb 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.02 <0.01 0.54 0.96

Cost of gain, $/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

175 %1.05

Bulls Steers

Breakeven, $/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

6.03 % 1.22

Bulls Steers

Conclusions

• Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens

• MM did not effect breakevens and cost of gain of steers

• No difference in feedlot performance or • No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods

• MM improved breakevens and cost of gain in bulls

• 600 lb bulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today’s market

Retreatment %

Bull vs. Steer (P < 0.01)

Band vs. Knife (P = 0.06)

Steer Band Knife

ADG – 42 day

1.541.63

Bull vs. Steer (P < 0.01)

Band vs. Knife (P = 0.48)

Steer Band Knife

Effects of castration method and antibiotic

administration protocol on feedlot health, performance

and economics of high-risk calves

• Materials and Methods

– 610 hd crossbred calves (58% Bulls) purchased at livestock auctions in Oklahoma January 12, 2011- March 2, 2011

– Initial weight 592 lbs.– Initial weight 592 lbs.

– At arrival • Weighed, received individual identification

• Allowed ad libitum access to hay and water until processing

Experimental Design

• 3 × 2 factorial (elastration [Band] vs. surgical emasculation [Knife] vs. Steer [Steer] ×metaphylaxis [MM] vs. pull and treat protocol [NP])

• Pen was experimental unit• Pen was experimental unit

• Cattle were blocked by time period (January and March arrival)

• Performance and economic data analyzed using PROC GLM, and health data was analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX

Materials and Methods

• Processing 24-72 h post-arrival– Vaccination against:

• Clostridial toxins including Clostridium tetani (Covexin 8; Intervet/Schering-Plough, Millsboro, DE)

• IBR, PI3, BRSV, and BVD type I and II (Express 5; Boehringer—Ingelheim, St. Joseph, MO)

• Internal and external parasites (Ivomec Plus, Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA)

• Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation • Bulls were either castrated by surgical emasculation using a Newberry knife or elastration using Callicratebander loops (Ross Manufacturing, St. Francis, KS) according to randomization

• Calves randomized to receive metaphylactic treatment were administered tulathromycin (1.1 mL/cwt) (Draxxin; Pfizer Animal Health, New York City, NY)

• Cattle were visually appraised for signs of BRD twice

daily for the first 14 d and once/d thereafter

• Cattle needing evaluation were pulled from home

pen, and treatment was administered according to

Table 1 with corresponding post-treatment intervals

(PTI) if rectal temperature> 104.0 °F

Drug PTI Drug PTI

Results

The effects of treatment on feedlot performance with deads and removals excluded1

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4Steer vs.

Bull5Knife vs.

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -

Initial BW, lb 588 598 609 593 598 603 7.49 0.59 0.27 0.95

Day 28 BW, lb2 660 657 681 645 680 683 11.13 < 0.01 0.64 0.26

Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40Final BW, lb2 699 695 716 683 722 727 12.54 < 0.01 0.83 0.40

Day 0-28

ADG, lb/d 2.30 1.82 2.28 1.63 2.66 2.61 0.25 < 0.01 0.70 0.08

DMI, lb/d 12.04 11.69 12.86 11.49 13.15 12.18 0.45 0.03 0.44 0.01

G:F, lb/lb 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.02 < 0.01 0.45 0.25

Day 0-42

ADG, lb/d 2.44 2.11 2.33 1.95 2.77 2.75 0.21 < 0.01 0.49 0.18

DMI, lb/d 14.01 13.70 14.61 13.31 15.53 14.70 0.51 < 0.01 0.79 0.04

G:F, lb/lb 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.03 < 0.01 0.33 0.47

DMI, lb/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

2.21 2.76

ADG, lb/d

Steers

24.89 %

P < 0.01

0.1525

G:F, lb/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

21.31 %

The effects of treatment on feedlot health

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NPSteer vs.

Bull5Knife vs.

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - -

Day 0-28

First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01First treatments, % of pen 12.50 44.32 6.82 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

Deads, % of pen 1.14 2.27 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.66 0.22

Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18

Day 0-42

First treatments, % of pen 12.5 44.32 6.8 29.55 0 18.60 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

Deads, % of pen 1.14 3.40 0 2.27 0 0 0.98 0.43 0.15

Off-trials, % of pen 2.27 5.68 0 1.13 0 0 0.98 0.09 0.18

Steers

P < 0.01

18.22 %

P = 0.02

13.07 %

P < 0.01

24.00 %

The effects of treatment on feedlot economics

Knife Band SteerP-value

Item, MM NP MM NP MM NP SE4

MM vs.

Pens 4 4 4 4 6 6 - - - -

Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -Total head 88 88 88 88 129 129 - - - -

Processing cost, $/hd 30.22 7.98 29.55 7.91 26.22 4.38 0.15 0.42 0.95 <0.01

Medicine cost, $/hd 1.65 11.21 0.96 9.19 0 4.31 1.92 0.06 0.68 <0.01

Feed cost, $/hd 66.99 62.49 69.94 65.71 75.39 71.73 2.85 <0.01 0.23 0.06

Total cost, $/hd 104.90 103.50 98.28 97.50 99.78 78.98 6.72 0.05 0.41 0.08

Cost of gain, $/lb 1.03 1.23 1.06 1.53 0.77 0.60 0.22 <0.01 0.55 0.47

Breakeven, $/lb 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.14 0.02 <0.01 0.54 0.96

Cost of gain, $/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

175 %1.05

Bulls Steers

Breakeven, $/lb

Steers

P < 0.01

6.03 % 1.22

Bulls Steers

Conclusions

• Steers had improved feedlot performance, and lower morbidity resulting in lower breakevens

• MM did not improve breakevens and cost of gain of steers

• No difference in feedlot performance or • No difference in feedlot performance or economics due to castration methods

• MM improved breakevens and cost of gain in bulls

• 600 lb bulls should be purchased about 6% back from steers ~ $8-$10 in today’s market

Castration trials

• Method

– Banding vs. knife cut

– No difference in technique, prefer knife cut

• Timing

– Arrival - best

– Delayed 2 weeks – too many in hospital

– Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy

Effects of intact males on arrival

• Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers

• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers

• Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers

Renfro et al., 2004

It’s gonna be a wreck when…..

Effects of intact males on arrival

• Bulls have 140% higher morbidity rates than steers

• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers• Bulls have 142% higher mortality rates than steers

• Bulls have 163% higher railer rates than steers

Renfro et al., 2004

Castration trials

• Method

– Banding vs. knife cut

– Prefer knife cut

– Lidocaine vs. no lidocaine– Lidocaine vs. no lidocaine

• Timing

– Arrival - best

– Delayed 2 weeks – too many in hospital

– Delayed to 1st reimplant - staggy

Treatments

1. CONTROL (CNT)

2. BAND (BND)

3. BAND W/ LIDOCAINE (BNDL)

4. SURGERY (SURG)

5. SURGERY W/ LIDOCAINE (SURGL)

DMI vs Method use, Method*Week Interaction

P=0.4747 P=0.5226

P=0.0550

INTERACTION BETWEEN WEEKS---DMI BND VS SURG

1 2 3 4

P=0.0360

BND VS SURG � LENGTH OF STUDY P=0.8884

LIDO VS NO LIDO � LENGTH OF STUDY P=0.2289

ADG Band vs. Surgery

2.3607c2.8709c

1.8938b

4.5184a

INTERACTION ADG � BND VS SURG

1.4884b1.8938b

CNT BND BNDL SURG SURGL

BND VS SURG � P=0.0016

LIDO VS NO LIDO � P=0.1011

CNT VS CASTRATED � P=.0001

Effect of cattle sex at arrival on

health and performance of high risk

calves during a 44-day receiving

period

L. O. Burciaga, Ph.D. Student

Performance of bulls and steers during a 44-d receiving period

Weight (kg)

Bulls Steers LSM P-value

d 0 249.0 238.0 4.34 0.008

d 15 266.8 261.9 3.97 0.21

d 30 293.4 291.0 4.07 0.57

d 44 307.1 310.0 4.15 0.49

ADG (kg)

d 0-15 1.12 1.54 0.14 0.003

d 16-30 1.76 2.03 0.08 0.002

d 31-44 1.10 1.24 .10 0.17

d 0-44 1.35 1.62 .06 <0.0001

Health of bulls and steers during a 44 d receiving period

Bulls Steers P-value

Morbidity, % 42.3 11.3 <0.0001

Mortality, % 23.4 3.9 0.0005Mortality, % 23.4 3.9 0.0005

Only one treatment, % 55.3 91.3 <0.0001

Two or more treatmentsa, %

44.7 8.7 <0.0001

Medicine cost ($) 12.30+1.63 2.65+1.63 <0.0001

Summary

• Bulls castrated on arrival have been associated with decreased performance and increased health risk compared with cattle that arrive as steers.

• Because many cow/calf producers do not castrate their calves before sale, more research is needed to address different management needed to address different management procedures that might have a positive impact on the health and performance of calves arriving as bulls.

• This is especially important because of the documented (Renfro et al., 2004) negative impact that cattle arriving as bulls has on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics, resulting in decreased hot carcass weight, yield grade, and quality grade.

Knife Cutting vsBanding with...

Documents

MAP3147NC/NP MAP3735NC/NP MAP3367NC/NP DISK … · c141-e166-02en map3147nc/np map3735nc/np map3367nc/np disk drives product/maintenance manual

FOR WHOLE HEADS OF LEAFY VEGETABLES · 2019. 9. 18. · FOR WHOLE HEADS OF LEAFY VEGETABLES SLICES Slice thickness: up to 1" (25.4 mm) DICES A slicing knife, circular knife spindle,

Chef knife Damascus steel Santoku knife Damascus steel€¦ · Chef knife Damascus steel Santoku knife Damascus steel Item No. Item No. 200 mm 128780 180 mm 128781 Size Size. Gemüsemesser

Voorstelling Presentation Aufmachung 75 W 15 W Presentación …docdif.fr.grpleg.com/general/MEDIAGRP/NP-FT-GT/0064AA907.pdf · 2019. 8. 28. · 32 x 20 mm 3bis 4bis 19 mm 22 mm 90°

Supplemental Information Supplemental Experimental Procedures · high-salt buffer (20 mM HEPES-KOH [pH 7.4], 500 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% NP-40), and once with 20 mM HEPES-KOH, pH

NP BhU SEM 2 MM 2nd Internal Portions 23May11

peeling knife paring knife - Central Restaurant

C.H.I.C. & NP SUPRA - schlegelgiesse.com€¦ · NP SUPRA – Asia line 03963FFF C.H.I.C. 100 kg C.H.I.C. – Side-Hung hinges Kit (right) 043540001 L > 300 mm 1 C.H.I.C. – Side-Hung

FA Cyclone - General info - NP 12-05-14dokumente.winkel-group.de/produkte/filteranlagen/zyklon_abscheider/... · 3 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm FA‐020 230 100 ø 225 ø 399

Contents · bayonet 339201 339202 Draf round knife, 19 cm length, 1.5 mm diameter, straight 1.5 mm diameter, bayonet 339301 339302 2 mm diameter, straight 2 mm diameter, bayonet Draf

Knife Preparation 08-2014 · 2020. 7. 21. · Knife preparation includes: knife block cleaning, dismantling and knife mounting, knife straightening, grinding, routing and fine sharpening

RKS - II ROTARY KNIFE SHARPENER · RKS - II ROTARY KNIFE SHARPENER The SIMMONS RKS-II ROTARY KNIFE SHARPENER is specially designed for circular blades up to 18” (460 mm) in diameter

DATA STRUCTURES & ALGORITHMSgk/courses/NP completeness.pdf · NP-Completeness CS/SE2C03. NP-Completeness CS/SE2C03. co-NP (a) NP n co-NP (c) co-NP co-NP co-NP (b) NP n co-NP (d) (a)

RL3-MM-NP - Ampire

TOOLS...Pocket Knife Carbon Steel 2-5/8’’ (67 mm) Sheepfoot Slitting Blade 1550-4 KLEIN TOOLS CORP 1 78015525KLEIN Cable/Linemans Skinning Knife Hook Blade, Notch & Ring, 8”

The DariTech Air Knife system reduces the water required ...Air Knife Blower Air Knife Blower Filter Air Knife Split Air Knife • (360)354-6900 Part # Description U516 3” Air Knife

P vs. NP vs. NP-Hard vs. NP-completeP vs. NP vs. NP-Hard ...oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/~razvan/courses/cs4040/lecture24.pdf · P vs. NP vs. NP-Hard vs. NP-completeP vs. NP vs. NP-Hard vs

NP- -Xyl NP- -GlcNP- -Gal NP- -ManNP- -Xyl NP- -Glc NP- -Gal NP- -Man NP- -Xyl NP- -GlcNP- -Gal NP- -ManNP- -Xyl NP- -Glc NP-

K745-F57 Rebuilding · 5｜kroneskrones AutocolBeispieltext CC-1-4--R CONTIROLL－K745F57 CONTIROLL labelling station cutter drum diam. 180 mm, 1 knife vacuum cylinder diam. 360 mm,

Kaposi’s Sarcoma-associated Herpesvirus-encoded v-Cyclin ... · NaPO4 (pH 7.4), 1% NP-40, 250 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 5 mM DTT, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 2 mg/ml leupeptin,