By Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Increasing cattle longevity and fertility in low-input systems
Kelli Boylen for Progressive Cattleman Published on 16 February 2016
Progressive Cattleman Online
It appears there is a way for beef producers to improve the feed efficiency of their herd while at least maintaining, if not improving, fertility and longevity.
Dr. Patrick J. Gunn, Iowa State beef cow-calf extension specialist, recently presented his evidence at the Driftless Region Beef Conference held in February in Dubuque, Iowa.
Gunn and other researchers are using residual feed intake (RFI) as a main indicator of feed efficiency. RFI has gained traction among researchers, centralized bull test operators and seedstock producers as the primary benchmark for feed efficiency.
Gunn said, “RFI is defined as the difference between actual feed intake and the feed intake predicted on the basis of the animal’s gain and maintenance requirements for its bodyweight. RADG (residual average daily gain) is defined as the difference between actual weight gain and the gain predicted on the basis of dry matter intake, maintenance of bodyweight and fat cover."
"Both RFI and RADG are calculated using an equation formed from actual gains, feed intakes, average weights on test and fat cover of an animal’s herdmates.”
Although it is well proven that selection for RFI can improve feed efficiency in a herd, questions exist on how RFI may interact with fertility and longevity. Since the animals eat less than expected, research is needed to see if cows will eat enough to maintain body condition and lactation – and still have acceptable reproductive rates.
Gunn said, “There is little doubt that both volatile input costs and cattle prices will continue to place an emphasis on more efficient cattle. Therefore, the use of RFI as part of a selection program is likely here to stay."
"The question now shifts from whether or not RFI is good or bad, but rather how to utilize RFI as part of a larger selection process.”
The traditional thinking of many producers is that smaller cows are more efficient, but data show this is not always the case. Gunn said there is a wide variability of feed efficiency between animals, and he cited a study which showed ranges of raw feed-to-gain ratios ranging from 10-to-1 to 4-to-1 in a group of animals where no selection for feed efficiency has been practiced.
“This variability makes selection with favorable outcomes possible over a relatively short amount of time,” Gunn said.
“Some research in the U.S. is being aimed at proving or disproving that selection for RFI in the cow herd is a good thing. However, almost all current U.S. data would suggest that RFI does not impact fertility and longevity in the cow herd,” he said.
“When we circle back around to the data that is created from a feed efficiency test, all measurements and calculated efficiency indicators are correlated to each other with the exception of ADG (average daily gain) and RFI,” Gunn said.
“If we can select for cattle that eat less than expected (desirable RFI) while also having above-average ADG, we would like to suggest that we are selecting for cattle that can do more with less, perhaps even in a more extensive environment. If this is the case, we might expect that such females would have improved longevity within the herd.”
Although intense selection for a single trait in a breeding program is generally frowned upon because negative impacts are typically noted in other production parameters, Gunn said, “An astute cattleman will blend new selection opportunities with other traits that help them meet their production and marketing goals.”
Although RFI has been shown to be a moderately heritable trait, at this time no phenotypic indicators of RFI have been discovered.
Gunn and assistant scientist Dr. Garland Dahlke of the Iowa Beef Center – Iowa State University have been researching and observing the herd at the Werner Family Angus in Diagonal, Iowa, on a pilot project. (They hope to work with other herds in the future.)
Data collected over the last seven years on more than 500 heifers on Werner Family Angus support the idea that concurrent selection for RFI and ADG increases longevity.
The Werners have developed their grazing herd with the goal of delivering little or no supplemental feed to the herd. All heifers go through their feed efficiency system. (GrowSafe System Ltd., Calan Broadbent Feeding System and IDology Gain are some of the more commonly used systems.)
About 25 percent test for desirable RFI and above-average ADG, and Gunn said the Werners found those females that meet this criteria to have better yearling pregnancy rates, and a greater proportion of them make it past 3 years old. This is of particular interest to the Werner family as getting first-calf females to rebreed in this low-input system has been one of their largest production quandaries.
“When we select for desirable RFI/high ADG females, this data indicate that those females are not any different in size at birth, weaning or as a yearling and do not differ in their milk or genetic indices,” Gunn said. “While this selection theory needs to be tested on a larger scale and more locations, we believe that using RFI as part of a multi-trait selection process does have the opportunity to improve feed efficiency of the herd while at least maintaining, if not improving, fertility and longevity.”
The need for efficiently produced, sustainable food is not only needed with a growing world population, but consumers are also demanding it. The feed efficiency of beef cattle (6 pounds of feed to 1 pound of gain) is the lowest of commonly consumed meat proteins compared to pork (3 to 1), chicken (2 to 1) and fish (1 to 1).
Cattle, however, have the ability to convert less digestible grain byproducts and forage into protein, keeping beef a competitive product for consumers.
Since feed costs have historically been 50 percent or more of the cost of raising beef, Gunn said it is logical that improvements in feed efficiency would result in not only overall production efficiency and profitability, but also improve global food security as the world population continues to grow at a rapid rate.
Kelli Boylen is a freelance writer based in Iowa.
Progressive Cattleman Online
It appears there is a way for beef producers to improve the feed efficiency of their herd while at least maintaining, if not improving, fertility and longevity.
Dr. Patrick J. Gunn, Iowa State beef cow-calf extension specialist, recently presented his evidence at the Driftless Region Beef Conference held in February in Dubuque, Iowa.
Gunn and other researchers are using residual feed intake (RFI) as a main indicator of feed efficiency. RFI has gained traction among researchers, centralized bull test operators and seedstock producers as the primary benchmark for feed efficiency.
Gunn said, “RFI is defined as the difference between actual feed intake and the feed intake predicted on the basis of the animal’s gain and maintenance requirements for its bodyweight. RADG (residual average daily gain) is defined as the difference between actual weight gain and the gain predicted on the basis of dry matter intake, maintenance of bodyweight and fat cover."
"Both RFI and RADG are calculated using an equation formed from actual gains, feed intakes, average weights on test and fat cover of an animal’s herdmates.”
Although it is well proven that selection for RFI can improve feed efficiency in a herd, questions exist on how RFI may interact with fertility and longevity. Since the animals eat less than expected, research is needed to see if cows will eat enough to maintain body condition and lactation – and still have acceptable reproductive rates.
Gunn said, “There is little doubt that both volatile input costs and cattle prices will continue to place an emphasis on more efficient cattle. Therefore, the use of RFI as part of a selection program is likely here to stay."
"The question now shifts from whether or not RFI is good or bad, but rather how to utilize RFI as part of a larger selection process.”
The traditional thinking of many producers is that smaller cows are more efficient, but data show this is not always the case. Gunn said there is a wide variability of feed efficiency between animals, and he cited a study which showed ranges of raw feed-to-gain ratios ranging from 10-to-1 to 4-to-1 in a group of animals where no selection for feed efficiency has been practiced.
“This variability makes selection with favorable outcomes possible over a relatively short amount of time,” Gunn said.
“Some research in the U.S. is being aimed at proving or disproving that selection for RFI in the cow herd is a good thing. However, almost all current U.S. data would suggest that RFI does not impact fertility and longevity in the cow herd,” he said.
“When we circle back around to the data that is created from a feed efficiency test, all measurements and calculated efficiency indicators are correlated to each other with the exception of ADG (average daily gain) and RFI,” Gunn said.
“If we can select for cattle that eat less than expected (desirable RFI) while also having above-average ADG, we would like to suggest that we are selecting for cattle that can do more with less, perhaps even in a more extensive environment. If this is the case, we might expect that such females would have improved longevity within the herd.”
Although intense selection for a single trait in a breeding program is generally frowned upon because negative impacts are typically noted in other production parameters, Gunn said, “An astute cattleman will blend new selection opportunities with other traits that help them meet their production and marketing goals.”
Although RFI has been shown to be a moderately heritable trait, at this time no phenotypic indicators of RFI have been discovered.
Gunn and assistant scientist Dr. Garland Dahlke of the Iowa Beef Center – Iowa State University have been researching and observing the herd at the Werner Family Angus in Diagonal, Iowa, on a pilot project. (They hope to work with other herds in the future.)
Data collected over the last seven years on more than 500 heifers on Werner Family Angus support the idea that concurrent selection for RFI and ADG increases longevity.
The Werners have developed their grazing herd with the goal of delivering little or no supplemental feed to the herd. All heifers go through their feed efficiency system. (GrowSafe System Ltd., Calan Broadbent Feeding System and IDology Gain are some of the more commonly used systems.)
About 25 percent test for desirable RFI and above-average ADG, and Gunn said the Werners found those females that meet this criteria to have better yearling pregnancy rates, and a greater proportion of them make it past 3 years old. This is of particular interest to the Werner family as getting first-calf females to rebreed in this low-input system has been one of their largest production quandaries.
“When we select for desirable RFI/high ADG females, this data indicate that those females are not any different in size at birth, weaning or as a yearling and do not differ in their milk or genetic indices,” Gunn said. “While this selection theory needs to be tested on a larger scale and more locations, we believe that using RFI as part of a multi-trait selection process does have the opportunity to improve feed efficiency of the herd while at least maintaining, if not improving, fertility and longevity.”
The need for efficiently produced, sustainable food is not only needed with a growing world population, but consumers are also demanding it. The feed efficiency of beef cattle (6 pounds of feed to 1 pound of gain) is the lowest of commonly consumed meat proteins compared to pork (3 to 1), chicken (2 to 1) and fish (1 to 1).
Cattle, however, have the ability to convert less digestible grain byproducts and forage into protein, keeping beef a competitive product for consumers.
Since feed costs have historically been 50 percent or more of the cost of raising beef, Gunn said it is logical that improvements in feed efficiency would result in not only overall production efficiency and profitability, but also improve global food security as the world population continues to grow at a rapid rate.
Kelli Boylen is a freelance writer based in Iowa.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Is the cattle cycle back?
by Harlan Hughes in Market Advisor RSS
BEEF online
BEEF online
The biology of the cow controls the speed of the expansion phase, while the magnitude of decreasing cattle prices controls the speed of the contraction phase.
From 1987 through 2006, I wrote and talked a lot about cattle cycles. My central theme was understanding cattle cycles and suggesting how cattle producers could make the cattle cycle work to their advantage.
Then, in 2006, ethanol production took off and pasture after pasture was plowed under and planted to corn. Add in the drought, and herd after herd was reduced or dispersed. Since then, the cattle cycle has, for all practical purposes, been broken. Beef cow numbers went lower every year and finally reached a several-decade low in 2014.
Today’s record beef cattle prices, coupled with rains in the Southern Plains, have triggered a renewed interest in expanding the national beef herd. Could this mean that the cattle cycle is alive again?
Let’s review a little cattle cycle history by studying a 2007 CattleFax chart (Figure 1) that I used over and over in past producer presentations. Figure 1 covers average cow-calf returns from CattleFax members from 1980 through 2007. The red bars represent the average of all participating member herds. I want you to particularly note the cyclical nature of cow-calf returns over this 27-year period by focusing on the red bars.
The yellow line represents high-return producers and the blue line represents low-return producers. Let’s first focus on the high-return producers — the yellow line. The cow-calf returns to these high-return producers followed the same cyclical patterns as the red bars — only just at a higher earned return level each year. Particularity note that for virtually all the years, the yellow line was above zero. Yes, the high-return producers tended to make a profit each year, both up the cycle and down the cycle.
Now note the blue line that represents the low-return cow-calf producers. The blue line also presents the same cyclical pattern, but with one major difference: For most of the years from 1980 through 2007, these low-return producers were below the zero line.
My conclusions from Figure 1 are:
We had a cattle cycle in the ’30s, the ’40s and the ’50s. We sort of had a cycle in the ’60s, and then we had a cycle in the ’70s. We peaked at 132 million head of cattle in the mid-1970s.
Some observations from Figure 2 are:
We can summarize a typical cattle cycle by noting that we build beef cow numbers for approximately five years, and then we decrease beef cow numbers for approximately five years. The biology of the cow controls the speed of the expansion phase, while the magnitude of decreasing cattle prices controls the speed of the contraction phase. It is important to note that we can reduce cattle numbers faster than we can build cattle numbers.
So guess what? Now that prices are record-high, almost everyone wants to expand — at least that is what my phone calls suggest.
The Food and Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri publishes an annual agricultural outlook study listing its long-run projections for production agriculture. Figure 4 presents FAPRI’s March 2015 projected beef cow numbers through the next expansion into the year 2024. It is interesting to note that it has the next five years with a beef cow herd expansion, and years six through 10 with beef cow contraction. It is also interesting to note that it does not have beef cow numbers in the next cycle peaking above the 2010 level. Could it be that today’s 1,400-pound-plus slaughter animals have something to do with this? I suspect so.
The problem with the projected cattle cycles is that “cattle cycles cause beef price cycles.” It is the roller coaster effect of beef price cycles that ranchers find hard to contend with. Let’s take a look at historical beef price cycles.
Figure 5 illustrates a typical beef price cycle for Northern Plains cattle, from 1985 through 1996. The red line represents 500- to 600-pound steer calf prices, the blue line represents 700- to 800-pound feeder steer prices, and the green line represents slaughter steer prices. Notice how much more calf prices and 700- to 800-pound feeder cattle prices rose and fell compared with slaughter cattle prices.
The distance between the lines represents the buy-sell margins for feeder cattle and slaughter cattle at any one time. The larger the buy-sell margin, the harder it is make a profit with retained ownership of calves.
Naturally, beef cow profits tend to follow the cyclical calf prices. Space, however, does not allow me to review the history of beef cow profits at this time.
Now you know what a typical cattle cycle looks like and something about the related beef price cycle. If the cattle cycle is indeed back as I am suggesting, what do you think beef cow profits will be during the rest of this decade? As you contemplate this, remember the biology of the cow limits how fast we can expand the herd.
FAPRI projects U.S. beef cow numbers up 7.5% by 2018 to around 31.2 million, from 29 million head in 2014. In turn, FAPRI projects 600- to 650-pound feeder steer prices will be 27% lower by 2018, compared with 2014. Next month’s Market Adviser will present my long-run price projections, heavily influenced by this historical review of cattle cycles. Stay tuned.
Harlan Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, Idaho. Reach him at 701-238-9607 or harlan.hughes@gte.net.
Then, in 2006, ethanol production took off and pasture after pasture was plowed under and planted to corn. Add in the drought, and herd after herd was reduced or dispersed. Since then, the cattle cycle has, for all practical purposes, been broken. Beef cow numbers went lower every year and finally reached a several-decade low in 2014.
Today’s record beef cattle prices, coupled with rains in the Southern Plains, have triggered a renewed interest in expanding the national beef herd. Could this mean that the cattle cycle is alive again?
Let’s review a little cattle cycle history by studying a 2007 CattleFax chart (Figure 1) that I used over and over in past producer presentations. Figure 1 covers average cow-calf returns from CattleFax members from 1980 through 2007. The red bars represent the average of all participating member herds. I want you to particularly note the cyclical nature of cow-calf returns over this 27-year period by focusing on the red bars.
The yellow line represents high-return producers and the blue line represents low-return producers. Let’s first focus on the high-return producers — the yellow line. The cow-calf returns to these high-return producers followed the same cyclical patterns as the red bars — only just at a higher earned return level each year. Particularity note that for virtually all the years, the yellow line was above zero. Yes, the high-return producers tended to make a profit each year, both up the cycle and down the cycle.
Now note the blue line that represents the low-return cow-calf producers. The blue line also presents the same cyclical pattern, but with one major difference: For most of the years from 1980 through 2007, these low-return producers were below the zero line.
My conclusions from Figure 1 are:
• Cow-calf returns tend to be cyclical in nature.
• Every year through the good and bad years, there is a wide variation from one ranch to another.
• In the 2003 through 2007 time period, all three producer groups — average return, high return and low return — participated in the good times. We are in similar good times right now.
• Something is causing the cyclical nature of cow-calf returns.
Let’s turn to Figure 2 to get a partial answer as to why cow-calf returns are cyclical. Figure 2 presents the long-run USDA All Cattle Inventory Numbers for 1930 through 2004. Each big arrow on the chart signifies a cattle cycle.We had a cattle cycle in the ’30s, the ’40s and the ’50s. We sort of had a cycle in the ’60s, and then we had a cycle in the ’70s. We peaked at 132 million head of cattle in the mid-1970s.
Some observations from Figure 2 are:
• Each cattle cycle peaked at a level higher than the previous cycle.
• A typical cattle cycle lasted from nine to 11 years.
• Cattle numbers started out each decade low, rose through the middle of the decade, and then turned downward.
• The downward trend went to the end of the decade, only to start the next decade’s cattle cycle.
We had another cattle cycle in the ’80s and again in the ’90s, but something was different. Cattle numbers did not peak above the previous decade’s cyclical top. The trend in cattle numbers after 1995 was downward and ended around 2004 — the longest cycle on record. After a slight increase in cattle numbers during 2005 and 2006, ethanol expansion and the 2006 drought together caused cattle numbers to continue downward through 2013 into 2014 — the longest decrease in cattle numbers in history. Starting in 2006, the cattle cycle was clearly broken.We can summarize a typical cattle cycle by noting that we build beef cow numbers for approximately five years, and then we decrease beef cow numbers for approximately five years. The biology of the cow controls the speed of the expansion phase, while the magnitude of decreasing cattle prices controls the speed of the contraction phase. It is important to note that we can reduce cattle numbers faster than we can build cattle numbers.
So guess what? Now that prices are record-high, almost everyone wants to expand — at least that is what my phone calls suggest.
The Food and Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri publishes an annual agricultural outlook study listing its long-run projections for production agriculture. Figure 4 presents FAPRI’s March 2015 projected beef cow numbers through the next expansion into the year 2024. It is interesting to note that it has the next five years with a beef cow herd expansion, and years six through 10 with beef cow contraction. It is also interesting to note that it does not have beef cow numbers in the next cycle peaking above the 2010 level. Could it be that today’s 1,400-pound-plus slaughter animals have something to do with this? I suspect so.
The problem with the projected cattle cycles is that “cattle cycles cause beef price cycles.” It is the roller coaster effect of beef price cycles that ranchers find hard to contend with. Let’s take a look at historical beef price cycles.
Figure 5 illustrates a typical beef price cycle for Northern Plains cattle, from 1985 through 1996. The red line represents 500- to 600-pound steer calf prices, the blue line represents 700- to 800-pound feeder steer prices, and the green line represents slaughter steer prices. Notice how much more calf prices and 700- to 800-pound feeder cattle prices rose and fell compared with slaughter cattle prices.
The distance between the lines represents the buy-sell margins for feeder cattle and slaughter cattle at any one time. The larger the buy-sell margin, the harder it is make a profit with retained ownership of calves.
Naturally, beef cow profits tend to follow the cyclical calf prices. Space, however, does not allow me to review the history of beef cow profits at this time.
Now you know what a typical cattle cycle looks like and something about the related beef price cycle. If the cattle cycle is indeed back as I am suggesting, what do you think beef cow profits will be during the rest of this decade? As you contemplate this, remember the biology of the cow limits how fast we can expand the herd.
FAPRI projects U.S. beef cow numbers up 7.5% by 2018 to around 31.2 million, from 29 million head in 2014. In turn, FAPRI projects 600- to 650-pound feeder steer prices will be 27% lower by 2018, compared with 2014. Next month’s Market Adviser will present my long-run price projections, heavily influenced by this historical review of cattle cycles. Stay tuned.
Harlan Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, Idaho. Reach him at 701-238-9607 or harlan.hughes@gte.net.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Bringing home the bacon – I’m a cancer survivor with meat on the menu
Great article!
Drover's Cattle Network
By Dr. Jude Capper
Editor's note: The following commentary was written by Dr. Jude Capper and originally published on her blog. It has been republished with permission.
This week, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified processed meat as being carcinogenic to humans and red meat as a probable carcinogen. Bacon has become the darling of the foodie world over the past couple of years, with bacon-flavored popcorn, milkshakes and lollipops on the market, so does this new labeling mean that a package of bacon will be slapped with a warning sticker, and every hotdog will come with a side of medical advice?
Although the overall risk of developing colorectal cancer is small, headlines citing an 18% increase in colorectal cancer risk from consuming one 50 g serving of processed meat per day (approximately one hotdog) have led to consumer concern – including the (incorrect) assumption that eating 5 portions of processed meat would therefore lead to a 90% certainty of developing colorectal cancer.
Drover's Cattle Network
By Dr. Jude Capper
Editor's note: The following commentary was written by Dr. Jude Capper and originally published on her blog. It has been republished with permission.
This week, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified processed meat as being carcinogenic to humans and red meat as a probable carcinogen. Bacon has become the darling of the foodie world over the past couple of years, with bacon-flavored popcorn, milkshakes and lollipops on the market, so does this new labeling mean that a package of bacon will be slapped with a warning sticker, and every hotdog will come with a side of medical advice?
Although the overall risk of developing colorectal cancer is small, headlines citing an 18% increase in colorectal cancer risk from consuming one 50 g serving of processed meat per day (approximately one hotdog) have led to consumer concern – including the (incorrect) assumption that eating 5 portions of processed meat would therefore lead to a 90% certainty of developing colorectal cancer.
Let’s examine the real risk. The average person’s risk of developing colorectal cancer is approximately 5%. If the WHO data suggesting an 18% increase in risk is correct, a daily 50 g serving of processed meat increases that risk to 5.9 % (an increase slightly less than 1 people per 100), of which between 0.65 – 5.4 people will survive for 5 years or more (depending on cancer stage at diagnosis). Despite the increase in meat consumption over the past century (and therefore assumed increase in processed meat consumption due to changes in dining habits and food availability), the death rate from colorectal cancer has dropped over the past 20 years. Moreover, in media articles discussing the WHO announcement, there is no mention of mitigating factors such as fruit and vegetable consumption. What happens if I eat 50 g of bacon within a huge salad with a side of oat bread, a meal high in dietary fibre, which is cited as having a protective effect against colorectal cancer? Or if I eat bacon after running five miles, given the role of exercise in preventing cancer? As with so many other health risks, it’s almost impossible to assess the impact of meat consumption in isolation.
Both alcohol and cigarettes are already listed as carcinogens by the WHO, yet how many people have actually forgone a glass of wine or pint of beer based upon the fear of cancer? By contrast, how many have cheerfully raised a glass to headlines stating that red wine may have beneficial health effects? Rather than health benefits, this announcement may reduce meat consumption by people who are most vulnerable to health complications from nutrient deficiencies (e.g. growing children, pregnant women and elderly people); not to mention the undoubted glee of anti-animal agriculture groups who will welcome the gift of further ammunition against meat consumption.
As a cancer survivor, I am the last person to downplay the importance of minimising cancer risk. However, ultimately we will all die and almost everything we do, from driving a car to choosing salad ingredients, carries some risk to health. Rather than the continuing mass of conflicting evidence, where every week a new article warns us about the latest cancer-causing drug/chemical/food; we need a balanced assessment of all cancer risks in order to make the best choices. I don’t smoke and I have had less than 10 alcoholic drinks in the past 2.5 years, but bacon remains on my dinner menu tonight.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
How to let your cattle pump their own water
Beef Online Magazine
Cold weather can present challenges for watering cattle, especially in areas with no electricity. Jim Anderson, Rimbey, Alberta, Canada, solved this problem more than 15 years ago by creating an innovative water system where cattle pump water for themselves from shallow wells, ponds or pressure systems — water that never freezes, even at 40 degrees F below zero.
Anderson’s innovation is a piston pump, like the old-fashioned hand pump where you work the handle up and down to lift water. “We modified this so cattle could push a lever with their nose. This operates the piston pump by raising and lowering the piston in the cylinder, the same as a handle did,” he explains.
By capturing geothermal heat from the ground, the water basins remain frost-free — even in subzero weather.
The waterer is a small enclosed basin on the top end of a vertical culvert, with a lever at the back of the basin that cattle push. The water pipe that attaches to the lever is down inside the culvert. The culvert sticks up about 2 feet above the ground and goes down to whatever depth is required to make use of groundwater, or water from the bottom of a pond or dugout.
Water from a pond flows through a horizontal underground pipe to the bottom of the culvert, where it then rises to the same level as the pond surface — but it won’t freeze. A buried collection tank from a spring also works. A regular well can be used, as long as the water level comes up to within 50 feet (and preferably 30 feet or less) from the surface.
“Some ranchers use large pipes, but the typical installation is a road culvert at least 24 inches in diameter, set in the ground 20 feet or more. The two factors that determine how much geothermal heat you’ll gain are how deep you go, and how big a diameter pipe [culvert] you take to that depth. The bigger the pipe [culvert], the more opportunity for heat to rise, to keep the water pipe in the center warm enough,” explains Anderson.
Riparian protection
Kip Panter works for the USDA Agricultural Research Service Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory in northern Utah and has a small ranch at Richmond, Utah. He has been using nose pumps for eight years. A creek runs through his place, and he responded to a Natural Resources Conservation Service cost-share offer to fence off riparian areas. “They were willing to do a 75%-25% split, and had information on nose pumps. They asked if I would be a test case,” says Panter.
“I put in the pumps, following Anderson’s instructions, since I enjoy installing things myself. The NRCS paid 75%, and my labor to install it was my 25% of the deal,” he says. This watering system is a good way to provide an alternate source of clean water for cattle away from riparian areas.
“Our winter temperature gets down to 25 below zero sometimes, but the nose pumps never freeze up — and work great. The only downside is that small calves have a little trouble pumping, so in hot weather these pumps may not be adequate as the only water source for a cow-calf herd. There’s a second setting that is not as hard to pump, however, that works for calves in summer,” says Panter.
While ponds and creeks can be good water sources for cattle, protecting riparian areas is important.
“These pumps are maintenance-free, but I check mine every few days or once a week in winter, just to make sure it’s working — but it always is. Since the water coming in is always clean, and the pan is empty except when cattle are actively using it, the pan stays clean. You never have moss or algae in summer, and no water is left in it to freeze in winter,” he says.
“The structure is very strong and robust. I built my own lids out of steel and bolted them on. I’ve had bulls using them, and they’ve rubbed on them and never hurt them,” Panter says. The pumps are foolproof, he says. However, if bulls are going to use the pumps, he would reinforce the corners to protect the pump.
He put a 20-by-20-foot concrete pad around his pumps, so cattle are never standing in mud. “The pad is 4 inches thick, and I put a 3-inch insulated Styrofoam piece underneath it, on top of a gravel base. This insulates the ground around the pump, though I probably overdid it and wouldn’t need that much insulation for cold weather,” he says.
Panter’s pumps are located near a creek. “Groundwater is fairly near the surface. I had a backhoe dig a hole about 18 feet deep — as far as the backhoe would dig — and put a perforated culvert down the hole and filled the hole around it with gravel, within 10 to 12 feet of the surface [then backfilled the remainder with dirt]. Groundwater seeps in through the gravel and perforated culvert, even though the creek almost dries up in late summer,” he says. The creek sometimes freezes over in winter, but water in the pump culvert never freezes.
“I’ve had as many as 40 cattle on a pump. Some ranchers have 80 or more on one pump and do fine. Mine is a single-basin, but you can make it double so more cattle can drink at once. I have two pumps, set up in different paddocks,” says Panter.
These pumps are ideal for summer as well as winter, especially to keep cattle away from riparian areas. “This is a sensitive issue with government regulators. My animals were watering in a creek. I was being faced with having to get them out of the creek, so this solution was ideal. I fenced the creek and moved the cattle away from it. One of my pumps is 60 feet away from the creek,” he says.
Year-round water
Lowell Thorson, Edinburg, N.D., has been using two nose pumps for nine years. “I use one nose pump exclusively in the winter. The other I use year-round with cow-calf pairs and a bull in that pasture during summer,” he says.
“When weather is cold, there’s sometimes ice buildup because of the water flying around as they are pumping it, so I check it now and then to knock ice off — so it won’t build up so much it stops the lever action. It sometimes gets stuck in the back position, and I just have to break it loose. Other than that, there’s never been a problem having it provide adequate water for the animals,” he says.
He rents a pasture that has a water hole, and the farmer who owned it used to let his cows drink there. “They often got stuck in the water hole. I put a fence around it to keep them out. It’s much safer to have them drink from the nose pump than go into the pond, and it’s always nice clean, cool water.”
Thorson runs pairs there after they calve. “The only problem I ever had with that pump was because I had the foot valve set too low in the well, and the screen over it plugged with mud. I took it out and got it cleaned out, and then it worked fine,” he says.
“It’s a neat invention, not having to depend on electricity. It’s never had any mechanical problems. The fewer moving parts, the better, and nose pumps don’t have very many moving parts! There is very little that can go wrong,” he says.
“This type of water system won’t fit every location or need, but it’s a wonderful option for many situations, and cows enjoy it. Anywhere there’s water close enough to the surface for the cows to pump their own water, this is very handy. Cows have the muscle and enthusiasm to do the work to water themselves,” Thorson says.
Editor's Note--the name of the company that makes the nose pumps is Frostfree Nosepumps, Ltd.
Heather Smith Thomas is a rancher and freelance writer based in Salmon, Idaho.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
A Lesson from Cow Number 301
By Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork
Amongst numerous vehicle reviews, a breakdown of which toilet paper is going to give you the most bang for your buck, pros and cons of switching to solar power, and an enlightening article on what type of light bulb to purchase, was a cover story for the October Consumer Reports that aimed to put a big black eye on the beef industry.
“WANTED: SAFE BEEF Bacteria-tainted ground beef remains a major source of serious illness in the U.S. We know how to make the system better. What’s holding us back?”
Flipping through the eight-page spread (in publishing, eight pages is a huge deal), I sharpened my knives to skin through the, “How Safe is Your Beef?” report and write a rebuttal. But as I began to read through the piece a second time around with a yellow highlighter, something stopped me dead in my tracks.
Page 26, opening photo caption, “A MODEL EXAMPLE Cows at Georgia’s Fort Creek Farm are raised on grass and not fed antibiotics.” This was featured with a full page photo of a red baldy cow with a runny left eye. Her number: 301.
While the article itself was focused primarily on food safety and the dangers of E.coli 0157 in beef, we need to focus on Cow Number 301.
Every operation is different and there is no one-stop-shop for consumers hungry for beef, making the featured producer’s business valuable to the diverse beef market – the problem is not with them. The problem is with how Consumer Reports consistently carried a message throughout the article that unfairly weighed conventionally raised beef in comparison to grass-fed, and organic beef – with a close up shot of a cow in physical discomfort as the lead in photo to an article that preaches antibiotic free practices as king for the animal’s welfare and for the consumer’s burger.
Ironic much? To anyone who has ever doctored sick cattle, seen a slightly agitated eye quickly progress into a bad case of pinkeye and diligently worked alongside their veterinarian to make a health program for the welfare of their herd, the answer is, "Yes."
Flipping to page 28, Consumer Reports defines sustainably raised beef as, “At minimum, sustainably produced beef was raised without antibiotics. Even better are organic and grass-fed methods.” This is then followed up by a quote on page 30 by a rancher who produces grass-fed beef, “Conventional cattle reach 1,200-plus pounds in 16 to 18 months. On our farm, it takes 20 to 22 months to raise an 1,100-pound animal, which is what we consider slaughter weight.”
What happened to, “producing more with less,” as a main key point to sustainability?
And unfortunately, beef consumers are now caught in the crosshairs. Strike that, all consumers are now caught in the crosshairs because the same story with different characters is being played out in all of agriculture. Pork, dairy, poultry, produce, crops – no one is immune.
This stretches further than Consumer Reports. Google, “antibiotics in meat.” What shows up? A recent report card by Friends of the Earth called, “Chain Reaction: How top restaurants rate on reducing use of antibiotics in their meat supply.” And it’s complete with a take action center at the bottom incase inspired readers want to call Subway and give a call center rep an earful about the use of antibiotics in meat.
When high caliber, trusted organizations like Consumer Reports and national news sources are picking up and turning out shaky information, it’s a problem.
Consumers have to be confused. But where are they going to get answers to their questions?
This is where you come in.
If you own livestock or somehow make your living off of the livestock industry, you have an obligation to be a messenger of clear information to the people making it possible for you to do what you do every day.
You don’t have to be a blogger or active on social media to be a spokesperson for agriculture – this day of age, the power of personal conversation is immense in a world glued to digital screens. Step out of your comfort zone and talk the shopper at the meat counter while you’re getting groceries, make small talk with the stranger next to you on the airplane, volunteer to be a guest speaker at local club meetings or schools – just talk to people, put a face to the industry. Be sincere and thoughtful about what you say. Equally as important, engage and listen to their story.
At the end of the day, no one is going to know about the orphan calf you saved by grafting it onto a different cow, the ice you chopped every day in the dead of winter to water your livestock, the scientifically proven protocols you followed, and how you worked with veterinarians to provide your livestock health protocols for their welfare – without compromising consumer’s safety.
That way when another Cow Number 301 comes around, consumer's will have a firm understanding that it is safe for her to receive humane treatment and still remain in the food supply.
“WANTED: SAFE BEEF Bacteria-tainted ground beef remains a major source of serious illness in the U.S. We know how to make the system better. What’s holding us back?”
Flipping through the eight-page spread (in publishing, eight pages is a huge deal), I sharpened my knives to skin through the, “How Safe is Your Beef?” report and write a rebuttal. But as I began to read through the piece a second time around with a yellow highlighter, something stopped me dead in my tracks.
Page 26, opening photo caption, “A MODEL EXAMPLE Cows at Georgia’s Fort Creek Farm are raised on grass and not fed antibiotics.” This was featured with a full page photo of a red baldy cow with a runny left eye. Her number: 301.
While the article itself was focused primarily on food safety and the dangers of E.coli 0157 in beef, we need to focus on Cow Number 301.
Every operation is different and there is no one-stop-shop for consumers hungry for beef, making the featured producer’s business valuable to the diverse beef market – the problem is not with them. The problem is with how Consumer Reports consistently carried a message throughout the article that unfairly weighed conventionally raised beef in comparison to grass-fed, and organic beef – with a close up shot of a cow in physical discomfort as the lead in photo to an article that preaches antibiotic free practices as king for the animal’s welfare and for the consumer’s burger.
Ironic much? To anyone who has ever doctored sick cattle, seen a slightly agitated eye quickly progress into a bad case of pinkeye and diligently worked alongside their veterinarian to make a health program for the welfare of their herd, the answer is, "Yes."
Flipping to page 28, Consumer Reports defines sustainably raised beef as, “At minimum, sustainably produced beef was raised without antibiotics. Even better are organic and grass-fed methods.” This is then followed up by a quote on page 30 by a rancher who produces grass-fed beef, “Conventional cattle reach 1,200-plus pounds in 16 to 18 months. On our farm, it takes 20 to 22 months to raise an 1,100-pound animal, which is what we consider slaughter weight.”
What happened to, “producing more with less,” as a main key point to sustainability?
And unfortunately, beef consumers are now caught in the crosshairs. Strike that, all consumers are now caught in the crosshairs because the same story with different characters is being played out in all of agriculture. Pork, dairy, poultry, produce, crops – no one is immune.
This stretches further than Consumer Reports. Google, “antibiotics in meat.” What shows up? A recent report card by Friends of the Earth called, “Chain Reaction: How top restaurants rate on reducing use of antibiotics in their meat supply.” And it’s complete with a take action center at the bottom incase inspired readers want to call Subway and give a call center rep an earful about the use of antibiotics in meat.
When high caliber, trusted organizations like Consumer Reports and national news sources are picking up and turning out shaky information, it’s a problem.
Consumers have to be confused. But where are they going to get answers to their questions?
This is where you come in.
If you own livestock or somehow make your living off of the livestock industry, you have an obligation to be a messenger of clear information to the people making it possible for you to do what you do every day.
You don’t have to be a blogger or active on social media to be a spokesperson for agriculture – this day of age, the power of personal conversation is immense in a world glued to digital screens. Step out of your comfort zone and talk the shopper at the meat counter while you’re getting groceries, make small talk with the stranger next to you on the airplane, volunteer to be a guest speaker at local club meetings or schools – just talk to people, put a face to the industry. Be sincere and thoughtful about what you say. Equally as important, engage and listen to their story.
At the end of the day, no one is going to know about the orphan calf you saved by grafting it onto a different cow, the ice you chopped every day in the dead of winter to water your livestock, the scientifically proven protocols you followed, and how you worked with veterinarians to provide your livestock health protocols for their welfare – without compromising consumer’s safety.
That way when another Cow Number 301 comes around, consumer's will have a firm understanding that it is safe for her to receive humane treatment and still remain in the food supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)