You may catch the flu from your sick hunting buddy, but there’s no
evidence that you will catch it from domestic or wild hogs, according to
the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC). There is no evidence that
the new strain of H1N1 influenza is in domestic or wild hogs. This
disease is being spread from person to person.
“We are prepared to test hogs, if a human/animal disease link is
identified. To date, there has been no indication that swine are
involved,” said Dr. Bob Hillman, Texas state veterinarian and head of
the TAHC, the state’s livestock and poultry health regulatory agency.
“We are participating on all calls with health and emergency
officials, are monitoring the situation, and are consulting with local
officials, but so far, there is no indication of animal-to-human disease
spread.”
“Several hunters have asked about the safety of hunting wild hogs,” said
Dr. Hillman. “To repeat, there is no evidence that wild hogs are
involved in this flu outbreak. Always, however, we advise wild hog
hunters to protect themselves against potential exposure to swine
brucellosis, a totally different disease that is not related in any way
to the flu. We know from test results that about 10 percent of wild hogs
carry swine brucellosis, a bacterial disease.”
“When processing or butchering a wild hog, hunters should protect
themselves against the blood and bodily fluids of wild hogs,” he said.
“When the wild hog meat is cooked, any swine brucellosis bacteria is
destroyed by the heat.”
Trappers who catch wild hogs and owners of domestic swine also should
practice good biosecurity to prevent spreading the flu to pigs. “Don’t
get around swine if you become ill, and avoid having visitors near your
pigs,” said Dr. Hillman. “Have someone else feed the animals if you
become ill with flu-like symptoms. Notify your health department or the
TAHC so your pigs can be monitored for disease. Also, as a basic
biosecurity measure, you should always wash your hands after handling
animals.”
Dr. Hillman said wild hog trappers and domestic swine owners should call
their veterinarian if their swine develop a sudden onset of respiratory
illness. The nearest TAHC area office or TAHC headquarters also should
be notified so testing can be conducted according to the flu response
protocol. The TAHC headquarters may be reached at 800-550-8242. You
can find this and past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.com
for your reference. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of
socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national
origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperatings
serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex,
religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University
System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners
Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Mycountrytractor.com is the destination for those looking for community info. Mycountrytractor is involved with county events and child involvement to help support local 4-H and FFA events. We have wonderful Agriculture information for our visitors for all your farming and ranching needs
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Chute "N" The Bull
With the tight profit margins agricultural producers face, the need to
control input costs is greater than ever. As input costs rise, we
naturally try to reduce these costs whenever we can. One cost-cutting
approach producers often ask about is reducing herbicide rates,
sometimes to below the minimum listed on the label. It is an option, but
consider these pros and cons before taking this approach to cutting
costs.
Pros:
• There is the potential for saving up to 50 percent of the herbicide
cost per acre depending on the species of weeds present and their
herbicide susceptibility. For low rates to be effective, the weeds must
be a highly susceptible species and be treated when they are very small.
• Low rates may reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts.
Cons:
• Because low rate applications must be made early when the weeds are
small, the potential for later weed flushes that would require a second
application increases.
• Careful scouting is required to identify the weed species and estimate
their density before they get too large. Producers must invest the time
to get out and walk their fields and pastures to see the small weeds.
• The application window is very short to treat the weeds while they are
small and susceptible. Any delays caused by wind, rain or other
conflicts can allow the weeds to get too large to be controlled by a low
rate.
• Small weeds are more susceptible to herbicides, but since the target
crop is smaller, it may also be more susceptible to herbicide injury.
• The cost savings are only for the herbicide. The application cost
remains the same regardless of herbicide rate.
• The potential for a control failure is higher with below-label rates.
Chemical manufacturers conduct tests over a wide range of environments
and select rates they believe will provide the most consistent
performance. If a below-labeled rate is used and a failure occurs, the
producer assumes all of the liability.
• In cases where a failure occurs, the surviving weeds can go to seed
and recharge the seedbank to become future weed problems.
• Only highly susceptible weed species will be controlled at low rates.
Less susceptible species listed on the label may not be controlled and
will continue to pose problems.
An additional concern is the potential development of herbicide
resistance. In some cases, the use of low herbicide rates has selected
for individual weeds within a species with some herbicide resistance.
Those surviving plants then reproduce and their resulting progeny have
an increased level of resistance. In one experiment using several rates
of a known herbicide on susceptible ryegrass, there were plants that
survived the low rate application. These plants were then allowed to
reproduce, and, within four generations, a completely
herbicide-resistant population developed. If you suspect herbicide
resistance, switch to a herbicide with a completely different mode of
action that is labeled for the weed and use the full, labeled rate.
Another issue is the legality of using below-label rates. The rates
listed on herbicide labels are approved by the EPA and any application
above those rates is illegal. However, some state officials say that a
user can legally choose a rate lower than listed on the label unless the
label specifically prohibits lower rates. It is best to check with your
state department of agriculture to find out if they consider below-label
rate applications a violation.
Use of low rates is an option to consider in certain situations, but it
carries significant risks that the producer must be willing to accept.
The producer must decide if the potential cost savings is worth
accepting the associated risks. You can find this and past articles on
the web at www.mycountrytractor.com for your reference. Extension
programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race,
color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M
University System, U.S. Department of AgriculturCommissioners Courts of Texas Cooperatings serve of all ages regardless
of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or
national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
control input costs is greater than ever. As input costs rise, we
naturally try to reduce these costs whenever we can. One cost-cutting
approach producers often ask about is reducing herbicide rates,
sometimes to below the minimum listed on the label. It is an option, but
consider these pros and cons before taking this approach to cutting
costs.
Pros:
• There is the potential for saving up to 50 percent of the herbicide
cost per acre depending on the species of weeds present and their
herbicide susceptibility. For low rates to be effective, the weeds must
be a highly susceptible species and be treated when they are very small.
• Low rates may reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts.
Cons:
• Because low rate applications must be made early when the weeds are
small, the potential for later weed flushes that would require a second
application increases.
• Careful scouting is required to identify the weed species and estimate
their density before they get too large. Producers must invest the time
to get out and walk their fields and pastures to see the small weeds.
• The application window is very short to treat the weeds while they are
small and susceptible. Any delays caused by wind, rain or other
conflicts can allow the weeds to get too large to be controlled by a low
rate.
• Small weeds are more susceptible to herbicides, but since the target
crop is smaller, it may also be more susceptible to herbicide injury.
• The cost savings are only for the herbicide. The application cost
remains the same regardless of herbicide rate.
• The potential for a control failure is higher with below-label rates.
Chemical manufacturers conduct tests over a wide range of environments
and select rates they believe will provide the most consistent
performance. If a below-labeled rate is used and a failure occurs, the
producer assumes all of the liability.
• In cases where a failure occurs, the surviving weeds can go to seed
and recharge the seedbank to become future weed problems.
• Only highly susceptible weed species will be controlled at low rates.
Less susceptible species listed on the label may not be controlled and
will continue to pose problems.
An additional concern is the potential development of herbicide
resistance. In some cases, the use of low herbicide rates has selected
for individual weeds within a species with some herbicide resistance.
Those surviving plants then reproduce and their resulting progeny have
an increased level of resistance. In one experiment using several rates
of a known herbicide on susceptible ryegrass, there were plants that
survived the low rate application. These plants were then allowed to
reproduce, and, within four generations, a completely
herbicide-resistant population developed. If you suspect herbicide
resistance, switch to a herbicide with a completely different mode of
action that is labeled for the weed and use the full, labeled rate.
Another issue is the legality of using below-label rates. The rates
listed on herbicide labels are approved by the EPA and any application
above those rates is illegal. However, some state officials say that a
user can legally choose a rate lower than listed on the label unless the
label specifically prohibits lower rates. It is best to check with your
state department of agriculture to find out if they consider below-label
rate applications a violation.
Use of low rates is an option to consider in certain situations, but it
carries significant risks that the producer must be willing to accept.
The producer must decide if the potential cost savings is worth
accepting the associated risks. You can find this and past articles on
the web at www.mycountrytractor.com for your reference. Extension
programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race,
color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M
University System, U.S. Department of AgriculturCommissioners Courts of Texas Cooperatings serve of all ages regardless
of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or
national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Chute N The Bull
A trait exhibited by a cow herd or individuals within a herd that saves time and money is referred to as a "convenience trait." Examples are polledness, parasite resistance, heat tolerance and calving ease. Docility is another good example. Think about all the time and money flighty, aggressive animals cost us at gathering, working, sorting, calving, etc. You know the ones - they keep things stirred up in the pen; they are inclined to jump out or tear out, hurt themselves, other animals or you! There are at least three factors that can contribute to a cow's bad attitude.
First, she learns flighty or aggressive behavior from her dam and other animals in the herd. How often have you heard, "Yeah, and her mother was just as crazy as she is!" In turn, she will teach poor behavior to her calves and other animals in the herd. Poor disposition is learned and taught, and passed down from generation to generation.
Second, it's in her genes. Disposition has moderately high heritability. Roughly 40 percent of an animal's craziness is explained by its genetics. This heritability estimate means that one can make fairly rapid progress toward a more docile herd through selection and culling. When choosing females and bulls, docility should be equal to any other criteria you may use.
Third, there is the human factor. In their guidelines, the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) has suggested a six point scoring system to describe an animal's disposition with number one being docile and number six being very aggressive. Further, BIF suggests scoring animals at weaning or as yearlings to minimize the effects of prior handling experiences. That's because an animal's disposition can be strongly influenced by its human handlers, including any companion animals that may be used to help gather or work the cattle. A wise cowman once told me, "Gentle handling makes for gentle cattle. Aggressive handling begets crazy, wild-eyed, high-headed wenches." The impact of poor handling is significant and can create disposition problems where there otherwise would have been none.
The disadvantages of a poor disposition aren't limited to cows. Order buyers will discount flighty and aggressive cattle at the sale barn. Besides the likelihood that these calves will always cause management and handling problems, research shows that they will have higher morbidity and mortality, gain slower and less efficiently, and produce tougher and lower quality carcasses.
Disposition should be a primary selection/culling criterion in any herd. Where the line is drawn will vary some from ranch to ranch. For me, it's between a score of three and four. In my experience, animals scoring three or less are usually manageable. Their disposition can improve with proper handling. Also in my experience, though, the disposition of an animal scoring four rarely improves; he or she should probably be removed. I've never known a five or a six to be anything but trouble. Don't let them back out in the pasture!
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
First, she learns flighty or aggressive behavior from her dam and other animals in the herd. How often have you heard, "Yeah, and her mother was just as crazy as she is!" In turn, she will teach poor behavior to her calves and other animals in the herd. Poor disposition is learned and taught, and passed down from generation to generation.
Second, it's in her genes. Disposition has moderately high heritability. Roughly 40 percent of an animal's craziness is explained by its genetics. This heritability estimate means that one can make fairly rapid progress toward a more docile herd through selection and culling. When choosing females and bulls, docility should be equal to any other criteria you may use.
Third, there is the human factor. In their guidelines, the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) has suggested a six point scoring system to describe an animal's disposition with number one being docile and number six being very aggressive. Further, BIF suggests scoring animals at weaning or as yearlings to minimize the effects of prior handling experiences. That's because an animal's disposition can be strongly influenced by its human handlers, including any companion animals that may be used to help gather or work the cattle. A wise cowman once told me, "Gentle handling makes for gentle cattle. Aggressive handling begets crazy, wild-eyed, high-headed wenches." The impact of poor handling is significant and can create disposition problems where there otherwise would have been none.
The disadvantages of a poor disposition aren't limited to cows. Order buyers will discount flighty and aggressive cattle at the sale barn. Besides the likelihood that these calves will always cause management and handling problems, research shows that they will have higher morbidity and mortality, gain slower and less efficiently, and produce tougher and lower quality carcasses.
Disposition should be a primary selection/culling criterion in any herd. Where the line is drawn will vary some from ranch to ranch. For me, it's between a score of three and four. In my experience, animals scoring three or less are usually manageable. Their disposition can improve with proper handling. Also in my experience, though, the disposition of an animal scoring four rarely improves; he or she should probably be removed. I've never known a five or a six to be anything but trouble. Don't let them back out in the pasture!
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Chute N The Bull
It is well understood that marketing a uniform group of steers or heifers that have a well-characterized health management history has the potential to increase the animals' value and producer profitability. However, many of the producers in the southern High Plains do not have sufficient animal numbers to meet the requirements for single truckloads that ensure maximum pricing. Thus, commingling of animals from divergent rearing environments is often used as a marketing tool through sale barn auctions. Unfortunately, this usually results in decreased animal performance due to disease and stress. To help minimize these risks and increase small producer profitability, the Noble Foundation investigated the use of a strategic animal health commingling protocol to increase the value of sale calves.
The animal health protocol employed was intended to minimize the risk of disease and stress. Between Oct. 14 and 24, 2008, 420 medium- to large-frame calves (239 heifers; 181 steers) were received from 11 producers. All calves were vaccinated twice (14-day interval) for BRSV, PI3, BVD and Blackleg, and dewormed, castrated and dehorned prior to delivery to the Noble Foundation's Oswalt Research and Demonstration Farm located near Marietta, Okla. Upon arrival, calves were branded, weighed, individually identified and commingled by sex and weight. During the feeding period (backgrounding), calves were maintained in 6-acre grass traps with free-choice access to rye hay while receiving 4 pounds of a 14 percent CP protein supplement.
The results from this initial commingling marketing strategy evaluation revealed important information about adding value to the product of small-scale beef producers. Average receiving weight for all calves was 580 lbs., and calves gained 1.2 lbs. per day for an average total of 34 lbs. Traditionally, a 34 percent to 40 percent morbidity rate is expected for commingled calves with an average 2.5 percent death loss industry-wide. Utilizing the Noble Foundation's commingling strategy, we decreased morbidity to 1.4 percent (six animals) with BRD and pinkeye being identified as the primary illnesses. In addition, no animals died during the feeding period. Overall, we found the cost of gain to be $2.30/lb., but would expect this to significantly decrease with experience and larger groups of more uniform calves. This would require increased participation and coordination among producers.
These animals were marketed at the OKC West sale on Dec. 3, 2008, and, due to the known health management history, we received a $5.82 per hundredweight premium as compared to similar lots that did not have a known health management history. More importantly, the commingling protocol enabled us to market larger lots of uniform calves resulting in a $2.82 per hundredweight premium as compared to similarly backgrounded lots of calves.
Our first attempt at developing a practical marketing strategy for a well-characterized uniform set of commingled calves from small-scale beef producers showed great promise and revealed several areas that need to be addressed to increase the success of this type of program. While evaluating the cost of the program, we found that feed accounted for the greatest portion (70 percent) of expenses. In addition, our analysis revealed that overall costs of the program are significantly reduced if animals are held for less than 30 days prior to marketing. This means that, in addition to proper health management, producers must coordinate breed type and weaning weight requirements to increase uniformity and decrease the number of feeding days.
Overall, we are very pleased with this year's results and are grateful to all of the producers that participated in this test. We know that the evaluation of this marketing strategy could not have occurred without the generous participation of our cooperators. It is our hope that the benefits of this type of program are apparent and that small-scale beef producers will cooperate to develop similar marketing strategies.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
The animal health protocol employed was intended to minimize the risk of disease and stress. Between Oct. 14 and 24, 2008, 420 medium- to large-frame calves (239 heifers; 181 steers) were received from 11 producers. All calves were vaccinated twice (14-day interval) for BRSV, PI3, BVD and Blackleg, and dewormed, castrated and dehorned prior to delivery to the Noble Foundation's Oswalt Research and Demonstration Farm located near Marietta, Okla. Upon arrival, calves were branded, weighed, individually identified and commingled by sex and weight. During the feeding period (backgrounding), calves were maintained in 6-acre grass traps with free-choice access to rye hay while receiving 4 pounds of a 14 percent CP protein supplement.
The results from this initial commingling marketing strategy evaluation revealed important information about adding value to the product of small-scale beef producers. Average receiving weight for all calves was 580 lbs., and calves gained 1.2 lbs. per day for an average total of 34 lbs. Traditionally, a 34 percent to 40 percent morbidity rate is expected for commingled calves with an average 2.5 percent death loss industry-wide. Utilizing the Noble Foundation's commingling strategy, we decreased morbidity to 1.4 percent (six animals) with BRD and pinkeye being identified as the primary illnesses. In addition, no animals died during the feeding period. Overall, we found the cost of gain to be $2.30/lb., but would expect this to significantly decrease with experience and larger groups of more uniform calves. This would require increased participation and coordination among producers.
These animals were marketed at the OKC West sale on Dec. 3, 2008, and, due to the known health management history, we received a $5.82 per hundredweight premium as compared to similar lots that did not have a known health management history. More importantly, the commingling protocol enabled us to market larger lots of uniform calves resulting in a $2.82 per hundredweight premium as compared to similarly backgrounded lots of calves.
Our first attempt at developing a practical marketing strategy for a well-characterized uniform set of commingled calves from small-scale beef producers showed great promise and revealed several areas that need to be addressed to increase the success of this type of program. While evaluating the cost of the program, we found that feed accounted for the greatest portion (70 percent) of expenses. In addition, our analysis revealed that overall costs of the program are significantly reduced if animals are held for less than 30 days prior to marketing. This means that, in addition to proper health management, producers must coordinate breed type and weaning weight requirements to increase uniformity and decrease the number of feeding days.
Overall, we are very pleased with this year's results and are grateful to all of the producers that participated in this test. We know that the evaluation of this marketing strategy could not have occurred without the generous participation of our cooperators. It is our hope that the benefits of this type of program are apparent and that small-scale beef producers will cooperate to develop similar marketing strategies.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Monday, March 23, 2009
Chute N the Bull
Chute N The Bull 3/19/09
What does it take to determine if a ranch or farm is making money? Each
farm or ranch has its own set of specific circumstances and reasons for
being in the business. It could be for quality of life, for investment
purposes or for making a profit.
Whatever the purpose for being in the business, each operation should
have monetary goals for the business. Quality of life goals may include
minimizing dollars spent on the operation. Investment goals could state
a desired return on investment or, in today's economic conditions,
minimizing the declining value of assets.
To determine if these goals are being accomplished, each farm or ranch
must have some type of financial and production information system. This
information will help measure the success of the operation. Please
remember, the information gathered by any system only has value if it is
used to make management decisions.
The basic components of any financial and production information system
should include a cash accounting system with depreciation schedule,
financial statements, cattle and feed inventories, and production
records to measure production performance.
In most operations, a cash accounting system can be handled adequately
by computer programs such as Quicken®. This program and others can
provide the information to meet tax needs and the basic data for
preparing financial statements. However, information prepared for tax
purposes does not measure the profitability of a business or its
financial position. According to the Farm Financial Standards
Guidelines, the minimum statements needed to document financial position
and performance are:
• a balance sheet, with both cost and market valuation;
• an accrual adjusted income statement;
• a statement of cash flow; and
• statements of owner equity.
Another segment of the information system should be an inventory system.
An accurate cattle and feed inventory is essential in measuring
production performance and completing financial statements. A complete
inventory by category of cattle (cows, bulls, heifers, stockers, etc.)
should be done at least twice a year. If only done twice, the inventory
should be taken at the beginning of the fiscal year and at the beginning
of the breeding season. This inventory should include a record of all
deaths, purchases, sales and movements among pastures.
These basic areas of information should be addressed in each operation.
Too many operations only use tax-based information from which to make
decisions or, worse, no information at all. Remember - management
decisions cannot be made from tax information. If help is needed in the
preparation of this information, give us a call. You can find this and
past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.com for your reference.
Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level,
race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas
A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County
Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
What does it take to determine if a ranch or farm is making money? Each
farm or ranch has its own set of specific circumstances and reasons for
being in the business. It could be for quality of life, for investment
purposes or for making a profit.
Whatever the purpose for being in the business, each operation should
have monetary goals for the business. Quality of life goals may include
minimizing dollars spent on the operation. Investment goals could state
a desired return on investment or, in today's economic conditions,
minimizing the declining value of assets.
To determine if these goals are being accomplished, each farm or ranch
must have some type of financial and production information system. This
information will help measure the success of the operation. Please
remember, the information gathered by any system only has value if it is
used to make management decisions.
The basic components of any financial and production information system
should include a cash accounting system with depreciation schedule,
financial statements, cattle and feed inventories, and production
records to measure production performance.
In most operations, a cash accounting system can be handled adequately
by computer programs such as Quicken®. This program and others can
provide the information to meet tax needs and the basic data for
preparing financial statements. However, information prepared for tax
purposes does not measure the profitability of a business or its
financial position. According to the Farm Financial Standards
Guidelines, the minimum statements needed to document financial position
and performance are:
• a balance sheet, with both cost and market valuation;
• an accrual adjusted income statement;
• a statement of cash flow; and
• statements of owner equity.
Another segment of the information system should be an inventory system.
An accurate cattle and feed inventory is essential in measuring
production performance and completing financial statements. A complete
inventory by category of cattle (cows, bulls, heifers, stockers, etc.)
should be done at least twice a year. If only done twice, the inventory
should be taken at the beginning of the fiscal year and at the beginning
of the breeding season. This inventory should include a record of all
deaths, purchases, sales and movements among pastures.
These basic areas of information should be addressed in each operation.
Too many operations only use tax-based information from which to make
decisions or, worse, no information at all. Remember - management
decisions cannot be made from tax information. If help is needed in the
preparation of this information, give us a call. You can find this and
past articles on the web at www.mycountrytractor.com for your reference.
Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level,
race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas
A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County
Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Special Notice Lamb and Goat Tags
All Leon County 4-H and FFA Members wishing to show lamb and goat projects at the State Fair of Texas in 2009 need to order tags by contacting the Texas Agrilife Extension Service at 903.536.2531 by April 15, 2009. Each tag will cost $10.00 and the tags will not be ordered until payment is received. Members may order by mail by sending payment to the Leon County 4-H P.O. Box 188 Centerville, Texas 75833. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Special Notice
All Leon County 4-H and FFA Members wishing to show steer projects at the Major Shows in Texas in 2010 need to order tags by contacting the Texas Agrilife Extension Service at 903.536.2531 by April 15, 2009. Each tag will cost $10.00 and the tags will not be ordered until payment is received. Members may order by mail by sending payment to the Leon County 4-H P.O. Box 188 Centerville, Texas 75833. Extension programs serve of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability, or national origin. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Tommy Neyland, CEA-Ag
Texas Agrilife Extension Service
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)