Browsing by Author "Currin, John F."

Now showing 1 - 20 of 51
  • Thumbnail Image
    2021 Field Crops PMG
    Balota, Maria; Besancon, Thierry E.; Cahoon, Charles W.; Chandra, Rakesh; Currin, John F.; Day, Eric R.; Flessner, Michael; Frame, William Hunter, 1985-; Frank, Daniel; Hines, Tommy; Herbert, D. Ames Jr.; Johnson, Charles S.; Johnson, Quintin; Jordan, David; Koehler, Alyssa; Langston, David B.; Lamb, Curt; Lingenfelter, Dwight; McCoy, Tim; Singh, Vijay; Taylor, Sally V.; VanGessel, Mark; Vollmer, Kurt; Wallace, John M.; Wilson, James (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2021-02-12)
    The Virginia Pest Management Guide (PMG) series lists options for management of major pests: diseases, insects, nematodes, and weeds. These guides are produced by Virginia Cooperative Extension and each guide is revised annually. PMG recommendations are based on research conducted by the Research and Extension Division of Virginia Tech, in cooperation with other land-grant universities, the USDA, and the pest management industry. Commercial products are named in this publication for informational purposes only. Virginia Cooperative Extension does not endorse these products and does not intend discrimination against other products that also may be suitable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    2021 Field Crops PMG - Livestock
    Day, Eric R.; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2021-02-12)
    This is a chapter of the 2021 Field Crops PMG. The Virginia Pest Management Guide (PMG) series lists options for management of major pests: diseases, insects, nematodes, and weeds. These guides are produced by Virginia Cooperative Extension and each guide is revised annually. PMG recommendations are based on research conducted by the Research and Extension Division of Virginia Tech, in cooperation with other land-grant universities, the USDA, and the pest management industry. Commercial products are named in this publication for informational purposes only. Virginia Cooperative Extension does not endorse these products and does not intend discrimination against other products that also may be suitable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    2021 Home Grounds and Animals PMG - Index
    Balota, Maria; Besancon, Thierry E.; Cahoon, Charles W.; Chandran, Rakesh; Currin, John F.; Day, Eric R.; Flessner, Michael; Frame, William Hunter; Frank, Daniel; Hines, Tommy; Herbert, Ames Jr.; Johnson, Charles S.; Johnson, Quintin; Jordan, David; Koehler, Alyssa; Langston, David B.; Laub, Curt; Lingenfelter, Dwight; McCoy, Tim; Singh, Vijay; Taylor, Sally V.; VanGessel, Mark; Vollmer, Kurt; Wallace, John M.; Wilson, James (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2021-02-12)
    This is a chapter of the 2021 Field Crops PMG. The Virginia Pest Management Guide (PMG) series lists options for management of major pests: diseases, insects, nematodes, and weeds. These guides are produced by Virginia Cooperative Extension and each guide is revised annually. PMG recommendations are based on research conducted by the Research and Extension Division of Virginia Tech, in cooperation with other land-grant universities, the USDA, and the pest management industry. Commercial products are named in this publication for informational purposes only. Virginia Cooperative Extension does not endorse these products and does not intend discrimination against other products that also may be suitable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Anaplasmosis in Beef Cattle
    Whittier, W. Dee; Currin, Nancy; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2005-09-01)
    Anaplasmosis is an infectious disease of cattle caused by several species of the blood parasite Anaplasma. A. marginale is the most common pathogen of cattle.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Beef cow/calf herd health program and calendar
    Whittier, W. Dee; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Beef Cow/Calf Herd Health Program and Calendar
    Whittier, W. Dee; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2005-09-01)
    Losses caused by disease represent a major obstacle to the profitability of many cow/calf beef operations. It is widely agreed that prevention rather than treatment is the most economical approach to keeping disease losses low.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Biosecurity for Master Cattleman's Course
    Overbay, Andrew E.; Currin, John F.; Blevins, Philip (2016-10-20)
    Prevention piece of beef herd health discussion during Master Cattleman course
  • Thumbnail Image
    Calving Emergencies in Beef Cattle: Identification and Prevention
    Whittier, W. Dee; Currin, Nancy; Currin, John F.; Hall, John B. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2005-09-01)
    Calving difficulty, technically called dystocia, is a major cause of death loss in cow-calf herds. Studies indicate that dystocia is responsible for 33 percent of all calf losses and 15.4 percent of beef cattle breeding losses.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Comparison of reproductive performance of AI- and natural service-sired beef females under commercial management
    Marrella, Mackenzie A.; White, Robin R.; Dias, Nicholas W.; Timlin, Claire; Pancini, Stefania; Currin, John F.; Clark, Sherrie G.; Stewart, Jamie L.; Mercadante, Vitor R. G.; Bradford, Heather L. (Oxford University Press, 2021-07)
    The objective of this study was to assess differences in reproductive performance of natural service and artificial insemination (AI) sired beef females based on pregnancy outcomes, age at first calving, and calving interval. Data were sourced from 8,938 cows sired by AI bulls and 3,320 cows sired by natural service bulls between 2010 and 2017. All cows were in a commercial Angus herd with 17 management units located throughout Virginia and represented spring and fall calving seasons. All calves were born to dams managed with estrus synchronization. Pregnancy was analyzed with generalized linear mixed models and other reproductive measures with linear mixed models in R. Six models were evaluated with the dependent variables of pregnancy status at the first diagnosis, pregnancy status at the second diagnosis, pregnancy type (AI or natural service) at the first diagnosis, pregnancy type at the second diagnosis, calving interval, and age at first calving. Independent variables differed by model but included sire type of the female (AI or natural service), prebreeding measures of age, weight, and body condition score, postpartum interval, sex of the calf nursing the cow, and management group. No differences were observed between AI- and natural service-sired females based on pregnancy status at first and second pregnancy diagnosis (P > 0.05). Sire type was only found to be significant for age at first calving (P < 0.05) with AI-sired females being 26.6 ± 1.6 d older at their first calving, which was expected because AI-sired females were born early in the calving season making them older at breeding. Surprisingly, age and body condition score were not significant predictors of pregnancy (P > 0.05). Body weight at breeding was not significant for pregnancy (P > 0.05) but was significant for age at first calving (P < 0.05). These data suggested that lighter heifers calved earlier which contradicts our original hypothesis. Overall, commercial Angus females sired by AI or natural service bulls had similar reproductive performance. Factors that were commonly associated with reproductive success were not significant in this commercial Angus herd managed with estrus synchronization. Given the size of these data, the importance of body condition, age, and weight should be reassessed in modern genetics and management practices.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Current strategies in parasite control in Virginia beef cattle
    Currin, John F.; Whittier, W. Dee (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Current Strategies in Parasite Control in Virginia Beef Cattle
    Whittier, W. Dee; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2005-09-01)
    Many advances have been made in the field of livestock parasite control over the past few years. Because parasites decrease production, control of parasites can have a direct economic impact on beef cattle operations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline, October 2018
    Daubert, Jeremy; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2018-09-28)
    This issue has two articles. The first discusses barn blindness, or a subjective and sometimes incorrect evaluation of cattle and other livestock. The second focuses on fluid therapy for cattle.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. July 2009
    Cox, Beverly Gwen; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2009-06-17)
    Discusses performance of various cooling systems on dairy farms, and appropriate level of milk production to dry off or cull a cow.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. July/August 2015
    James, Robert E.; Petersson-Wolfe, Christina S.; Cox, Beverly Gwen; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2015-06-26)
    Discusses how to prevent mastitis in cattle, how to deal negative impacts of hot weather, and ways to improve cooling of milk.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. June 2010
    Currin, John F.; Cassell, Bennet G. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2010-06-01)
    Discusses management and prevention of metritis and correctly identifying sires of cows in Virginia.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. March 2011
    Machado, Kayla L., 1987-; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2011-03-01)
    Discusses preparing calves' milk to minimize bacteria, and dewormers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. November/December 2009
    Cox, Beverly Gwen; Welsh, John; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2009-11-05)
    Discusses ways to preserve winter teat condition, herd shares as an alternative milk marketing option, and proper injection of meds to cull dairy cows that may become beef cows.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Dairy Pipeline. September 2013
    Martel, Cynthia; Currin, John F. (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2013-09-05)
    Discusses silo maintenance and silage density.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Developing a Qualitative Needs Assessment Tool to be Used by the Cooperative Extension Professional Working with Beef Producers
    Wesner, Courtney G. (Virginia Tech, 2022-12-10)
    Cooperative Extension professionals have long relied heavily on a needs assessment approach to lay the foundation for the creation of educational opportunities that are both applicable and pertinent in meeting the historically assumed goals of increased profitability and sustainability in agriculture production. Utilization of a formalized needs assessment approach has the proven potential to be utilized by the Extension agent in the development of understanding with clientele; along with ultimately serving to assist in the identification of needs that are specific to the individual communities in which agents serve. Educational programming and resource allocation plans can then be developed, post needs assessment, with mind to the specific needs identified as a result of the process. Traditional needs assessments can be carried out through a multitude of mediums; to include surveying, interviews, advisory committees, focus groups, community forums, the use of existing data, and any multitude of mixing and matching of the aforementioned. Regardless of the chosen medium, the true value of needs assessment for Extension programming relies on its ability to successfully identify stakeholder needs, and to be empowered with the necessary information to design programs, products, and services to ultimately meet those needs (Garst & McCawley, 2015). Through the identification of agricultural producers’ goals and production limitations, the Extension agent is armed and empowered with information that is necessary in the creation of successful agriculture education program design and the further development of services provided within their communities. It remains important for Extension agents to be able to “meet clients where they are at.” Feelings, goals, and production limitations have significant potential to stand as limiting factors to educational uptake, if not addressed, in programming that has been historically centered around increased profitability and sustainability. Without identifying producer goals, motivation, and addressing limiting factors to production within education, the Extension professional may face challenges in terms of programmatic impact and buy-in. An educator must exhibit considerable objectivity in working with public and they sometimes tend to assume they know what is best for their clientele (Boone et al., 2002). Increased profitability and sustainability seem to be the low-hanging, easily identifiable need of agriculture education; however, this historical belief may not be the case for the majority of contemporary program participants. If nothing else, this assumption is worth investigation by the contemporary Extension professional who has the ultimate goal of meeting current needs within a contemporary clientele base. The ever-changing agricultural climate and an aging agriculture producer pool make it all the more important for contemporary Extension professionals to be proficient at identifying the current needs of agriculture producers in the geographic area that they serve. The purpose of this project is to create a replicable, easily applied methodology that can be used to assess the educational needs of beef producers throughout Central Virginia. Locality based needs will primarily be determined by the identification of producer identified operational goals and the limitations that producers face in meeting those personal operational goals via interview. The information collected during the producer centered interviews will then be evaluated for key, repeatable themes and eventually have the capability to be applied by local Extension professionals to determine educational focus; ultimately determining and affecting local, available Extension resource application. This project successfully identified both beef producer goals and the specific production limitations faced within a set locality and programmatic focus of Extension service. The project also served to produce a roadmap of determined importance for addressing both goals and limitations within educational programming, based upon the frequency of response within the saturated sample of project participants. The interview protocol and needs assessment approach developed through this specific project shows the potential to benefit both beginning career Extension agents, as well as long term career agents, in the tasks of identification and prioritization of addressed educational topics, resource allocation, and relationship building within a community. The project shed light on the importance of providing specialized educational resources and how Extension can better serve a contemporary clientele base moving forward.
  • Thumbnail Image
    The Effects of Low Stress Cattle Handling and Weaning Training on Post-Weaning Weight Gain and Calf Activity
    Ligon, Jennifer Marie (Virginia Tech, 2015-02-04)
    The objective of this study was to assess the effect of low stress (LS) handling of beef calves on weight gain and calf activity associated with the weaning process. Cattle were of Angus and Angus cross breeding from two separate herds in Virginia. Handlers for the LS groups went through a short training session. Handlers for the Control (C) groups did not have any special training and handled their group as they would have with no adjustments. Handling and calf activity were monitored each time (6 times) the cows were worked from calving through one month post-weaning. Weights were taken from birth to one month post-weaning. During the week post-weaning the C calves averaged a gain of 4.38 lbs. and the LS calves averaged a gain of 16.94 lbs. One month post-weaning the C calves averaged a gain of 49.01 lbs., while the LS calves averaged a gain of 68.6 lbs. This showed a difference (p < 0.0001) between handling method for weight gain in calves for one week and one month post-weaning. Pedometers were used to assess calf activity post-weaning. Steps per hour (SPH) for the week post-weaning was numerically higher for those calves handled conventionally and not trained for weaning. The C calves averaged 1048 to 1629 SPH for the first three days, where the LS calves averaged 443 to 644 SPH for the first three days. Additionally, the artificial insemination conception rates (AICR) were calculated in each herd and treatment groups compared, however results were equivocal. This study demonstrated that handling cattle using low stress techniques can make significant improvements with regard to weaning weights and has potential to increase other areas of production in beef cattle.