Categories
PinUp

Pinup ile Pokerde Kasa Yönetimi: Hangi anlarda Hepsini yatırmak Yapmalı?

Pin-up adı, yalnızca pinup casino online tecrübesiyle değil, aynı zamanda planlama odaklı aktivite hayranları için de önemli bir merkez haline gelmiştir. Özellikle poker gibi zihinsel yoğunluğu yüksek oyunlarda, doğru banka kontrolü hayati önem taşır. Bu içerikte, poker oynarken doğru tam riskli hamle zamanlamasını anlamanızı sağlayacak stratejilere, güncel pinup erişimi imkanlarına ve oyuncuların yaptığı pinup değerlendirme gözlemlerine yer vereceğiz.

İçindekiler

Bölüm Detay
1 Fon yönetimi açıklaması
2 All-in Stratejileri
3 Risk Analizi ve Oyuncu Profili
4 Platform imkanları ile Strateji Uygulaması

Fon kontrolü nasıl yapılır

Deneyimli masa oyuncuları için kasa idaresi, sadece el becerisi değil aynı zamanda eldeki istatistiklerin iyi kullanılmasıyla ilgilidir. Pin up gibi sitelerde oynarken, mevcut fonunuzu nasıl kullandığınız, istikrarlı pin-up casino giriş kazanma şansınızı belirler. Pinup erişim yapan birçok katılımcı, bankroll’ünü kategorilere ayırarak kaybetme ihtimallerini belirlemektedir. Her elde tüm sermayenizi riske atmak yerine, sadece belirli bir oranını kullanmak, hem mental gerilimi azaltır hem de daha stratejik hamleler almanıza yardımcı olur.

All-in Stratejileri

All-in hamlesi, doğru yapıldığında karı çoğaltabilir; yanlış yapıldığında ise tüm bankroll’unuzu sıfırlayabilir. Pinup casino online katılımcıları arasında yaygın bir yaklaşım, pozisyon ve masa kalabalığı gibi unsurları değerlendirdikten sonra all-in yapmaktır. Özellikle pinup slot gibi rastlantıya bağlı oyunlardan farklı olarak poker oynarken, all-in hamlesini verirken olasılık hesapları ve önceki ellerdeki tecrübeler önemlidir. Elinizde AA ya da çift Kral varsa ve karşıdakiler riskli oynuyorsa, erken all-in mantıklıdır. Fakat zayıf eller ile yetersiz risk almak, sizi lüzumsuz şekilde oyundan elendirebilir.

Risk Analizi ve Oyuncu Profili

Her katılımcının kendine ait bir tehlike algısı vardır. Pinup güncel giriş yapan kullanıcıların davranışları analiz edildiğinde, atak oynayanların daha sık tam riskli hamle yaptığı ve zararlarının da yüksek olduğu görülmektedir. Pinup güvenilir mi sorusu genellikle bu noktada gündeme gelir çünkü katılımcılar, oyun içi dürüstlük ve altyapı netliğini sorgular. Ancak platform, oyunların dürüst ve yasal olmasını sağladığı için risk, daha çok kullanıcının kendi yaklaşımına bağlıdır. Doğru olasılık hesabı yaparak, daha dikkatli oynamak mümkündür.

Platform imkanları ile Planlama süreci

Güncel pinup tasarımı ve yarışma sistemleri sayesinde, fon yöntemlerini test etmek daha kolay hale gelmiştir. Örneğin, düşük girişli turnuvalarda daha fazla el görmek ve farklı stratejileri uygulamak mümkündür. Oyuncular, pin-up yorum forumlarında bu özelliği sıkça takdir ediyor. Ayrıca bağlılık sistemleri sayesinde, daha fazla katılım sağlayıp strateji geliştirmek için bonus hakları da sunuluyor. Pinup güvenilir mi? sorusunu merak eden oyuncular, bu avantajları kullanarak stratejik olarak başarı sağlayabilirler.

Categories
News

5 Major Threats to Cattlefeeders Part 1

 

We will cover in this 5 part series the major threats facing all cattle feeders, how they impact our operations and some solutions we are implementing in each area.  Please feel free to comment on each segment as we go.  The order in which we discuss these threats does not necessarily rank them as

each operation is different in how these threats apply to them, but each has an impact nonetheless.

Regulation

There are many types of regulation that can affect a business but we will focus here on environmental regulations of the EPA as it pertains to livestock operations under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

Some background, in 2012 the EPA is operating with a $10 billion dollar budget.  According to the justification for their 2012 budget allocation, they have 17,000 FTE employees and in the past 18 months have hired 200 “Special Enforcement Agents”.  In recent days, they have to date successfully defended their practice of using flyovers as a method of enforcement.   Earlier this spring an EPA regional director resigned under scrutiny of a comment he made regarding EPA enforcement tactics, “…We operate like the Romans used to…crucify the first 5 in any town and the rest become easier to manage”.     Again in the justification for the 2012 budget, the top three water quality issues the EPA is targeting; 1. Raw sewage in water (I would agree).  2. Reduction of Urban runoff (here, here).  3. Livestock manure management (and we part ways).  In specific, any NPDES permit holders, which would be any permitted livestock operation.

The EPA considers it’s work in the Chesapeake Bay to be successful and a model for other waterways.  This is all fine and good until we start asking questions about the basis for determining what is good, what base level are we starting from?   What is the natural state of the Chesapeake Bay waters?  How do we determine between domestic animal wastes and wild animal wastes in terms of fecal coliforms and nutrient loads?  Does this take into account the population of squirrels, bears, geese, deer, ducks and every other multitude of wild creature?

The Clean Water Act determines waters that fall under the federal umbrella to be “navigable” as defined below:

“Based on the agencies’ interpretation of the statute, implementing regulations and relevant caselaw, the following waters are protected by the Clean Water Act:

  • Traditional navigable waters;
  • Interstate waters;
  • Wetlands adjacent to either traditional navigable waters or interstate waters;
  • Non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they contain water at least seasonally; and
  • Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent waters”.

 

This by no means is meant to be comprehensive the long and short of it is that the EPA continues to fight for more jurisdiction over what can be determined as “waters of the State”.    Note that, currently groups that do not think the EPA is doing enough to protect water resources sue the agency 3 times more than those being regulated.

On the front of air quality,  the EPA has stated as its number 2 target is “particulate matter” which is a fancy way of saying dust.  This should not only be of concern to those in the livestock industry but all of rural America.  Dust a fact of life in rural areas.  Gravel roads or most any field operation creates dust.  Creating regulation about the control of dust will most definitely create unnecessary hardship for the vast majority of this great nation.

This information brings about the certainty that the rules that affect how we do business in the future will not become more lenient but more stringent.  As we plan and prepare our operations for the future, we must consider not only the regulation as they stand today but the spirit of the law and the mentality of the regulatory agencies we are dealing with.  Do not trade one pollution for another ie runoff control for odor.  Does what I am doing to satisfy the regulatory agency improve the profitability of my operation or just meet requirements?  We will discuss this aspect more in weeks to come.

Don’t Track it in the House….We Got Ya Covered.

Categories
News

Implications of Improved Feed Efficiency

Many industry articles of late in the wake of the criminal misinformation on Lean Finely Textured Beef, LFTB, have focused on the efficiency of the beef industry. This focus has largely been on making the most of what we produce and how the capturing LFTB helps keep beef affordable for all demographics.
In these articles it talks about the efficiency of the United States Beef producer. Amazing facts really like though the US is home to only 7% of the world’s cattle yet we account for 20% of the world’s beef production. The fact that since 1977 we have reduced the amount of feed to produce a pound of beef by 20% and land used for beef production has been reduced by 30%.
As Hoop Beef System customers we are doing our part in taking the next step in improving the efficiency of beef production in the United States. We harvest about 34.4 million head of cattle annually in the US. It takes 129 billion pounds of dry feed with and average feed efficiency 7.5 lbs of feed per one pound of gain. Steak on the Grill! A 15% improvement in feed efficiency would save 19 billion pounds of dry feed annually in our industry! That is enough feed to finish another 6 million head of cattle. Improving the hot carcass yield by 1.5% will yield another 619 million pounds of beef annually. Given the average consumption of 59 pounds of beef per capita in the US,together that would feed another 92.5 million people annually.
As the demand for high quality protein increases worldwide we will need to continue to implement the best technology and designs available to increase the volume of beef we produce with limited resources and do it in the most efficient means possible. Thank you for what you do in feeding the world!
We Got Ya Covered….Don’t track it in the house.

Categories
Cattle Management

Success in Starting Calves

All producers whether a feedlot operator or a grain farmer, have a common nemesis, inclement weather, courtesy of Mother Nature.   We cannot control it, and in most cases have to scramble to even begin to prepare for an upcoming weather event.  The starting of beef calves on feed is no exception.   As cattle feeders we have many weather wise tidbits that are passed on by each generation.  ‘Wean by the moon’, ‘Cold weather drives calves to the bunk’, ‘a wet calf is a sick calf’, ‘Heat will kill more calves than cold’.   We could fill a short book with these tidbits of advice as it relates to cattle management and the weather.

Let’s take a look at weather factors and their impacts on health and performance in the first 30 days on feed for an unweaned calf entering the feed yard.  This analysis needs to start with what does and ideal situation in an outside pen look like.

  1. Dry but not so dry we have dust issues.
  2. Moderate temperatures without major temperature swings (less than 30 degree swings between daytime highs and nighttime lows).
  3. No rain, No snow and minimal winds.

These demands do not seem too drastic and SHOULD be relatively easy to achieve.  When you figure out how to accurately predict the weather 30 days in advance let me know and we will become millionaires together.

One of the major factors affecting early feedlot performance is intakes.  Getting calves to eat consistently in the first 7 days has a huge impact on overall performance and health of any group of calves.  This is even more pronounced when dealing with light calves (3-400 lbs.) due to the physical size of the rumen.

Any issue that reduces intakes or increases the maintenance requirement of the calf will put the calf in a negative energy balance (NEB).  In a NEB situation the animal’s body begins to scramble to find all available resources and direct it toward energy production.  The first place the body robs energy is in from the immune system as proteins used for antibody production are easily redirected with slight increases in cortisol (the bodies stress hormone).   This is important for whether the stressor is weaning (pacing, walking, bawling and heightened nervousness caused by unfamiliar surroundings) or weather related, the body reacts similarly.

Fall calves in February

Weather stresses have a huge impact on this calf at this extremely vulnerable time in the production cycle.   Intakes in the first several weeks are barely at a level to support the maintenance requirement of the calf.   A mild weather stress (rain at 50°F) will increase the calves’ maintenance requirement by as much as 20% and for every additional 10°F drop in temperature it will increase by another 20%.   This is not taking into account the additional stressor of the mud in the yard that this calf is dealing with.  Not only will these calves not be gaining any weight but with a suppressed immune system just one or two days under these conditions will cause a severe outbreak of disease.

It is widely accepted that treating a calf just once in the first month will impact significantly the performance of the entire feeding period.  Our records at Grand Meadow Feeders show a 100lb/hd advantage on calves that have never been treated as compared to calves treated just once in the first 90 days.  The numbers grow from there for calves that need to be treated 2 and 3 times.  Groups of calves with high morbidity tend to have higher mortality at closeout even if death rates in the first month of the feeding period are similar.  This is a true performance advantage and does not take into account the additional labor to pull and treat an animal.

According to Kansas State University’s Beef Stocker Unit Director Dale Blasi, “One thing we can’t do much about is the weather, and that is a major factor in the wellness of stressed cattle,” he continues, “ If the weather is favorable a set of calves might almost be bullet-proof; but those weather swings can seriously exacerbate sickness.”

Whether your business is starting and finishing calves or you are strictly a backgrounder, don’t let Mother Nature dictate to you the profitability on any set of calves.  Take the weather out of the equation with the Hoop Beef System and let your cattle perform to their genetic potential.

We Got Ya Covered….Don’t Track it in the House.

Categories
Design and layout

Hoop Beef System vs. Open lots 5000 head

Open lots vs. Hoop Beef System

It is always interesting the types of questions I am asked in regards to the Hoop Beef System.  For the non ag folks, they always seem a bit confused as to the need for cattle housing.  I explain to them how it is important not only for my customers but also on a global standpoint to produce quality, nutritious beef utilizing the least amount of inputs as possible.   They can relate to the need for housing when it is put in terms they can understand.  Ironically enough some of the most “professional” cattle people have a hard time grasping that there is a better way to feed cattle than fencing off a 50,000 sq. ft. pen per 200 head of cattle and hoping for good weather.

In a recent conversation with a prospect, I walked through this analysis comparing the costs of constructing a new outside feedlot to the Hoop Beef System for 5000 head capacity.   We agreed that in both situations we have bunks and waters and fencing to move cattle from their pens to a working facility and load out.  The question really becomes can I build the Hoop Beef System  building for amount of the additional land costs and cost of a lagoon assuming an equal cost of operation.  The Hoop Beef System footprint is 16.3 acres versus 52.6 acres on an outside feedlot.    At $10,000.00 per acre there is a $363,000 difference in land cost between the two layouts. 

In the land needs assessment 6 acres was allotted for the lagoon.   We will assume that this will cost approximately $1.5 million to construct to today’s requirements. With the additional land cost and lagoon totaling $1.863 million difference it means there is $372 dollars per head to build a Hoop Beef System and end with the same cost per head of capacity.   It will most take an additional $100 per head of capacity to build the Hoop Beef System.    This difference can be paid off in one turn of cattle with the same over $100 per head advantage over the lifetime of the facility when you achieve the 14% improvement in Average Daily Gain and 17% improvement in feed efficiency that we see at our feedlot vs. closeouts in outside yards using a national database.

Contact us and we will do the comparison for your Feedlot.  We look forward to hearing from you.

 

We Got Ya Covered…Don’t Track it in the House.